ࡱ> [ ʅbjbj Sjj] lp^P   888&;; Cz<<<<<???????5@@A$E GA&?>@???A}?<<B}?}?}??"R<<?}???}?Z}??"?<< I} \,89?"??B0C?_H[?"_H?}? V0Judahite Governmental Outpost and Fortress: Tell el-Hesi in the 10th through 8th Centuries B.C.E. by Jeffrey A. Blakely, Fred L. Horton, Jr., and Ralph W. Doermann Introduction At some point after excavation, the excavators of an archaeological site are called upon to write a Afinal report@ describing and interpreting what they found during excavation.  As part of this Afinal report@ they are expected to place their site into an its an accepted historical context and interpret how it functioned. In most cases an important aspect of such a discussion is the description of the cultural or political entity of which the site was a part. Usually such a discussion is not problematic and the background is generally accepted. If the site in question is located on or near a border and no accepted biblical name is attached to a site, then that background may be debatable. As we are preparing the final report for the work of the Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tell el-Hesi and as we seek to discuss the historical context of Tell el-Hesi in the Iron Age, however, this is precisely the situation into which we have fallen. If a site=s cultural milieu is debatable, as we believe is the case with Tell el-Hesi, we believe that this context must be discussed and established apart from the final report and that the cultural background to which the project will ascribe must be derived using materials that are not the primary excavated remains of the project being published. Clearly it is impossible to divorce oneself entirely from that which one has excavated, but we believe that in most cases a reasonable historical context should be obtainable from other, previously existing, resources. This gets all the more complicated when one is publishing an excavation that began 30 years ago. Recently Blakely and Horton (forthcoming) examined how a scholarly paradigm (in the broadest sense of Kuhn, 1962) provides both the basis for interpretation and the questions asked in scholarly research. Blakely and Horton examined how, over the past 160 years, various scholars have attempted to identify the ABiblical@ name of Tell el-Hesi (Tel Hasi) (fig. 1). They described how the bases of site identification changed over time as the scholarly paradigms of the disciplines of Historical Geography and Biblical Studies themselves have changed. There can be no doubt that when the Joint Expedition began its excavation of Tell el-Hesi in 1970 that it was operating in a world dominated by the Biblical Theology movement and that today, as we seek to publish the site, the Biblical Theology movement is long since dead, replaced by paradigms that search for realia both in archaeology and in biblical scholarship. During the excavation of Tell el-Hesi the site was most commonly identified as Eglon, based on Albright=s identification of 1924 (1924, 1925). This identification was accepted by most biblical atlases (e.g., May 1962) and in interpretive studies of the site (e.g., Wright 1971). Since Joshua had conquered Eglon and allotted it to Judah (Joshua 10:3, 34; 15:39), scholars readily accepted the proposition that Tell el-Hesi was both historically and culturally Judahite and that the site was located within the southwestern borders of Judah. By the mid-1970s, however, Tell el-Hesi=s identification as biblical Eglon came into serious question, and ultimately a scholarly consensus denied this identification altogether. As to the location of Eglon. Rainey (1976; 1981; 1982; 1983) has held strongly for Khirbet =Aitun (Tel >Eton) and James Barr has suggested (1990) that the city name may be a literary invention. Recently, Blakely and Horton have prepared a variety of studies in which potential biblical identifications of Tell el-Hesi are evaluated and ultimately rejected, including that of Eglon (Blakely and Horton 1995, forthcoming; Horton and Blakely 2000). Even while many scholars still believed that Hesi was biblical Eglon (Rose 1976), it is certainly fair to say that most staff members of the Joint Expedition to Tell el-Hesi in the 1970s and early 1980s doubted the site=s AEglon@ identification and found the biblical identification, whatever it might have been, of little consequence. Nonetheless and at the same time, we remained confident that we were digging a Judahite site (e.g., Blakely 1981). The consequences of identifying Eglon with Khirbet =Aitun or of totally removing Eglon from the map, would have profound consequences for the study of the historical geography of Palestine. Once Rainey removed the Eglon identification from Tell el-Hesi, there was no textual need for the borders of monarchical Judah, known primarily from Joshua 15, to extend any great distance west from Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir, Tel Lachish). No longer did Eglon pull the putative border out of the Shephelah down onto the loessal plains in the vicinity of Tell el-Hesi. Recently, based on various types of material cultural remains, some researchers have claimed that lay Tell el-Hesi outside the borders of Judah. (See Kletter 1999 and Yezerski 1999). Therefore, today most scholars place the border of southwestern Judah at the geomorphological interface of the hills of Judah with the coastal plain, just west of Lachish, some 6-8 km east of Tell el-Hesi (e.g., Rainey 1981; 1983). According to the recent reconstruction of Finkelstein and Silberman (2001), Lachish lay well outside the Amarna-era region controlled by Abdi-Heba of Urusalim (239; 156 Fig 19), but by the late eighth century BCE it had slipped under the fence to function on western border of Judah as a Amajor administrative center@ (245; 258 Fig 27). Hesi, some 8 km southwest of Lachish, however, does not figure into their reconstruction. For them as for so many others, Hesi was never Judahite. Stripped of its Philistine associations as Eglon, Iron II Tell el-Hesi has indeed became devoid of a cultural or political affiliation in recent archaeological and geographical-historical scholarship This cultural and geographical agnosticism about Hesi=s affiliations may serve the interests of academic caution, but it is not an acceptable stopping point. As we hope to demonstrate here, there are indicators in the archaeological record that allow us to make a reasonable reconstruction of the site=s ethnic and political allegiances during the Iron Age. I. The Archaeological Evidence In the following pages we will examine the archaeological record of Tell el-Hesi for the 10th through 8th centuries B.C.E. based primarily on the published works of Petrie and Bliss (with some clarifications based on our own work) and compare that record with other contemporary sites. To set a base line we will examine the Pilaster Building of Bliss=s City IV (our Stratum X), and then move to a study the tripartite pillared buildings of Bliss=s City V (our Stratum IX). We will then examine the construction of Petrie=s Along range of chambers@ and his AManasseh Wall@ that were part of a massive fortress (our Stratum VIIId) and compare this construction with contemporary sites in order to determine how the site was used in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.E. To us, each of these examinations yields the conclusion that the site was a part of the political and cultural activities of the hill country of Judah, and, therefore, Hesi was politically and culturally Judahite. Having drawn this conclusion, how does one reconcile our archaeological results with the accepted interpretations of biblical scholars regarding the boundary and territorial lists for the region that seemingly exclude Hesi from being part of Judah? The final two sections of this paper examine both the archaeological and the textual and historical issues and attempt to reconcile these records with the archaeological record of Tell el-Hesi. A. Tell el-Hesi: Overview of the Archaeological Record Tell el-Hesi has been the subject of two major archaeological projects. The first extended from 1890 through 1892 when the Palestine Exploration Fund excavated at the site in a series of five excavation seasons, the first directed by William Matthew Flinders Petrie and the final four by Frederick Jones Bliss. Final reports, which largely supercede the various preliminary reports, were prepared that describe the entirety of this work (Petrie 1891; Bliss 1894). The second project, the Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tell el-Hesi, excavated at the site in a series of eight field seasons extending from 1970 through 1983. Analysis of the excavated materials from this project still continues, and this article is a component of that research. To date, five final reports have appeared (Blakely and Toombs 1980; Toombs 1985; Bennett and Blakely 1989; Dahlberg and O=Connell 1989; Eakins 1993) as well as a series of preliminary reports that describe aspects of the stratigraphic matrix that have not yet appeared in final reports (e.g., Toombs 1974; Rose and Toombs 1976; O=Connell, Rose, and Toombs 1978; O=Connell and Rose 1980; Toombs 1983; Doermann and Fargo 1985).Table 1 summarizes the known stratigraphic matrix of Tell el-Hesi as it is currently understood by the archaeological staff of the Joint Expedition. This version has been updated and corrected since it last appeared as Appendix 10 in Eakins (1993: 125-126). ____________________________________________________________________________________ Table 1: TELL EL-HESI: STRATIGRAPHIC SUMMARY Period Date Characteristics Stratum Modern 1948-1956 Israeli military trenching, originating in 1948 Stratum I Ottoman ca. 1600- Muslim cemetery in Fields I, V, VI, and IX. Burials of Stratum II 1800 CE both children and adults in a prepared cemetery area Hellenistic- ca. 300 BCE - Pits, hearths, loessal surfaces, and fragmentary walls, Stratum III Ottoman 1600 CE probably associated with agriculture Late Persian- ca. 400-300 Large scale pitting with few recoverable structures, Stratum IVa Early Hellenistic BCE Field I only Stone building with some pits; Field I only. Probably Stratum IVb Bliss City VIII Brick building on a partial stone foundation; stone built Stratum IVc drain; Field I only Early Persian ca. 525-400 Continued use of building plans of Stratum Vb but with Stratum Va BCE many brick lined storage pits; structural evidence in Field I only Extension and rebuilding of Stratum Vc with a widespread Stratum Vb use of cobbled surfaces; structural evidence in Field I only. Probable continued use of Field III cemetery Building in S of Field I. Fragmentary walls elsewhere in Stratum Vc Field I. Probable continued use of Field III cemetery. Probably part of Bliss City VII Casemate building in SE quadrant of Field I. Open-air Stratum Vd Surface and fragmentary walls in N of Field I. Probable start of use of Field III cemetery. Probably part of Bliss City VII Iron II/ ca. 7th-6th Isolated Pit 11.314/324 Stratum VI Babylonian cents. BCE Iron II late 8th cent./ Building on bricky platform in Field I, Areas 41 and 51; Stratum VII early 7th cent. Field I only BCE  Iron II late 8th cent. Ash layer and destruction debris; Field I only Ash layer BCE  Iron II 8th cent. BCE House with long rooms in Field I, Areas 41 and 51; Stratum VIIIa Probable continued use of Field III wall system; Fields I and III only Iron II 9th/8th cents. Brick-built structure with pits in Field I, Areas 41 and 51; Stratum VIIIb BCE Probable continued use of Field III wall system; Fields I and III only 9th cent. BCE Brick courtyard building in Field I, Areas 22 and 32; Stratum VIIIc Brick structure in Field I, Areas 41 and 51; Initial use of Field III wall system; Bliss City VI 9th cent. BCE Massive constructional phase for Stratum VIIIc city; Stratum VIIId Field III wall system, Petrie=s AManasseh Wall@, glacis, and pier/fill system all constructed; Fields I and III only Iron I/ 10th/early 9th Structural evidence lacking in Field I; ceramics abundant Stratum IX Iron II cents. BCE in fills of Fields I and III only; Bliss City V, which includes three tripartite pillared structures Iron IA 1st half 12th Petrie=s APilaster Building@ and associated remains in Stratum X cent. BCE Field I, Area 41; Field I only; Bliss City IV LB II Ceramics abundant in fills of Fields I, III, and V; limited stratigraphic evidence in Field I, Areas 61, 71, 81, and 91; Bliss Cities II and III LB I Limited quantities of ceramics in fills of Fields I and III EB IV and A scant few sherds in fills of Fields I and III MB EB III 28th-24th cents. Fields I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX; Several BCE occupational phases; Fortification wall in Fields V, VI, VIII, and IX; Abandoned near end of EB III; Bliss City I EB I-II A scant few sherds in fills of Fields I and III Chalcolithic/ ca. 3500 BCE? Circular structures in Field III, Areas 3 and 5 EB I Pottery Neolithic Sherds and lithics in fills of Fields I and III and Chalcolithic Paleolithic, Epi- Few lithics in fills of Fields I and III Paleolithic, and Pre-Pottery Neolithic ____________________________________________________________________________________________ B. Petrie=s Pilaster Building (Bliss=s City IV, Joint Expedition=s Stratum X) and Abandonment Recently, Blakely (2000) published a comprehensive review and analysis of Petrie=s excavation and interpretation of the Pilaster Building in which Blakely incorporated certain discoveries made by the Joint Expedition in 1983 when they reached this structure in one spot. The 1983 excavations allowed Blakely to enlarge the structure=s plan (fig. 2) and to augment the ceramics that Petrie recovered. Blakely=s (2000) analysis confirmed the long held belief that this structure was occupied in the first half of the 12th century B.C.E. and met a fiery destruction around the middle of that century (e.g., Oren 1992; Matthers 1989 and references there) as opposed to the view that the structure and destruction dated to the 10th century B.C.E. (e.g., Netzer 1992; Amiran and Worrell 1976). These results suggest that Hesi was part of the renewed sphere of Egyptian rule of southern Palestine during the first part of the 12th century B.C.E., as first described by Oren (1984), and that Hesi met destruction along with the other Egyptian dominated sites in the middle of the 12th century B.C.E. Here, we wish to note that the destruction of Lachish VI (Ussishkin 1978; 1983; Zimhoni 1997) and Petrie=s Pilaster Building (Bliss=s City IV, Joint Expedition=s Stratum X) appear to be roughly contemporaneous. We also note that both sites were apparently abandoned at this time and that neither site evinces any APhilistine@ occupation. These are just a few pieces of evidence illustrating the demise of the socio-economic system that dominated southern Palestine in the Late Bronze Age. The abandonment around 1140 B.C.E. of such a key Late Bronze Age site as Lachish and a somewhat peripheral site like Tell el-Hesi suggests that a period of socio-economic transition occurred as a new system was developing that eventually would again incorporate both of these sites. C. The Tripartite Pillared Buildings (Bliss=s City V, Joint Expedition=s Stratum IX) During the excavations of November, 1891 (Bliss 1892), Bliss and his workmen discovered a most interesting structure. But only 4 feet under the base of the rooms of this latter city [ed. City VI] a man came on a large roughly- squared stone, and a few minutes after another stone was found 3 feet to the south, and soon another, 3 feet to the north. Here there was plainly a line of stones; but what was the meaning of the next one, found 8 feet to the west? Hardly had we uncovered that, when two more stones, respectively 3 feet to the north and south of it, showed their headsCanother line and parallel to the first. And so the fascinating structure of parallel walls and stones leisurely revealed itself, as if in no hurry to see the long lost light of day, until tape-measure and prismatic compass gave us the ground-plan of City V., only four feet under City VI., which for centuries had overlaid it. (Bliss 1894: 12). What was this kind of structure, (now generally called Aa tripartite pillared building@ fig. 3)? This was first such structure excavated in Palestine, and Bliss speculated that it might be a Abazaar with streets between the lines of chambers@ (Bliss 1892: 100; 1894: 95) or alternatively, as some unnamed person suggested to him, Abarracks for soldiers@ (Bliss 1892: 100; 1894: 96; Matthers 1989: 53). Clearly, the most famous examples of tripartite pillared buildings are those at Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 32-47), dubbed at the time, ASolomon=s Stables.@ As additional examples of this building type were discovered, this and other attributions became the focal point for a series of long and detailed debates regarding their exact dates and function(s) (e.g., Herr 1988; Herzog, 1973; 1992; Holladay 1986; Kochavi 1998a; 1999; Pritchard 1970; Yadin 1972). Are these buildings Solomonic? Are these buildings stables for the horses that pull chariots? Are these buildings governmental storehouses? Based on his discovery of a tripartite pillared building at Tel Hadar whose violent destruction (which Kokhavi dated to the end of the 11th century B.C.E.) left the building=s contents in situ, Kochavi (1998a) concluded that a tripartite pillared building was an entrept. Previously Herzog (1973: 29) had also ascribed the structural type that same function when he wrote regarding the examples at Tel Beer-Sheba. The variety of products and the presence of different vessels (bowls, jugs, juglets, cooking-pots and flasks) makes it clear that these buildings were in constant use. Products were brought in, measured, prepared, and then taken out according to the needs of the administrative unit (civilian or military) for which they were intended. Recently Kochavi enumerated all 35 examples of tripartite pillared buildings known at twelve sites in Palestine (1998a: 471). Then he presented a map (1998a: Fig 8) showing that these pillared buildings were located on major roads, suggesting to Kochavi that these structures were primarily economic in nature, foci of trade along trade routes. His finds and this distribution of locations certainly supports his arguments. However, we are not fully convinced of the trade-oriented nature of these structures given that the excavated ceramic remains of Stratum V at Tell el-Hesi are virtually identical in function and here one had to argue a military storehouse function (Bennett and Blakely 1989). This is a minor point, however. The major point gained is that these appear to be structures erected by a central government (whether large or small) along a road network. Tell el-Hesi was mentioned as part of Kochavi=s rationale (1998a: 471), but we believe that the true significance of Hesi=s tripartite pillared buildings Kokahvi overlooked or, at least, under-appreciated. He lumped Tell el-Hesi in with the tripartite pillared buildings of the 10th through 7th centuries B.C.E. In actuality, it is relatively easy to determine a more precise date than a three-century spread for these structures at Tell el-Hesi. Bliss excavated them as his City V, a city above his City IV and below his City VI. As Blakely has shown (2000), Bliss=s City IV (the Joint Expedition=s Stratum X) dates from about 1200 to 1140 B.C.E. Bliss=s City VI or Petrie=s Manasseh Wall, which directly overlay the tripartite pillared buildings of Bliss=s City V, is part of the massive constructional phase at Tell el-Hesi, the Joint Expedition=s Stratum VIIId, a construction dated on various grounds by the Joint Expedition to the mid-9th century B.C.E. (see following section). Bliss=s City V, therefore, the city of the tripartite pillared buildings, must date between about 1140 B.C.E. and the mid 9th century B.C.E. Although Bliss=s City V (Stratum IX) had been removed by the ancient builders of Tell el-Hesi in the areas where the Joint Expedition excavated, residual pottery in later fills strongly suggests a 10th century B.C.E. date for the construction of Bliss=s City V (Stratum IX). As our stratigraphic summary suggests, therefore, we believe that Bliss=s City V and its tripartite pillared buildings at Tell el-Hesi can be dated to the 10th and early 9th centuries B.C.E. We also believe that Kochavi (1998a: Fig. 8) has not precisely indicated the relationship of Tell el-Hesi to the region=s road system; Kochavi=s map indicates that Tell el-Hesi was on the Via Maris. We do not believe this was true. The Via Maris passed at least 19 km (12 miles) west of Hesi, probably at Beit Hanun. Rather, we believe that Tell el-Hesi was located on the main road from Gaza to Hebron and Jerusalem. Elsewhere Blakely and Horton (1995; 2000) have summarized how travelers and descriptions of the road system from Roman times until 1900 describe a major road leading from Gaza to near Beit Jibrin/Eleutheropolis and then on to Hebron. This road passed Tell el-Hesi (fig. 4). We see no reason why this road did not function in the same manner prior to Roman times. Therefore, we believe that Tell el-Hesi was the first major site known on the road from Gaza to Hebron/Jerusalem, located, according to Robinson (1841: 384-390), about a 5 hour and 40 minute ride ENE from Gaza. It was not located, as Kochavi suggested, on the Via Maris. To recapitulate, from sometime in the 10th century through the early 9th century B.C.E. at least three tripartite pillared buildings functioned at Tell el-Hesi; they functioned along the major national road connecting Gaza with Hebron and Jerusalem. These buildings may have been a commercial entrept or a similarly constructed governmental storehouse, but in any case they would appear to have been governmentally constructed. Next it is necessary to consider the stratigraphic record for Lachish for this same period. According to Ussishkin (1978; 1983; Zimhoni 1997), Late Bronze Age City VI at Lachish was destroyed about 1140 B.C.E. and the site does not appear to have been rebuilt until late in the 10th century B.C.E. as City V, a small unwalled settlement. It is unclear if the generally fragmentary remains of City V consisted of two phases or one, but it was later in this period that Podium A appears to have been constructed. Lachish City IV included the addition of Podium B, the wall system and the massive fills of the podium and Area S, and may well have been destroyed by an earthquake in the second quarter of the 8th century B.C.E. Ussishkin (1997: 319-20) places the construction of this phase to around 900 B.C.E. If this comparative archaeological history of Lachish and Tell el-Hesi is correct, then it appears that for most of the 10th century B.C.E. Tell el-Hesi was the more important Agovernmental@ site, and that it was only with the construction of Podium A, or maybe even the massive construction of City IV, that Lachish reassumed the position of greater significance as it had held in the Late Bronze Age. The staff of the Joint Expedition has long seen a close parallel in the construction style of Lachish IV and Hesi VIIId (e.g., Blakely 1981), and have long thought them to be essentially contemporary, with the fortifications of Lachish being constructed slightly earlier and Hesi=s Stratum VIIId being Lachish=s satellite (see following section). Here we suggest, however, that in the 10th century B.C.E. Tell el-Hesi was the dominant site. We suggest that for the 10th century B.C.E., Tell el-Hesi was a significant Agovernmental@ site with at least three tripartite pillared buildings, the first such site that one encountered on the road from Gaza to Hebron and Jerusalem. We note, based on the work of Kochavi (1998a, 1999b), that in the 10th century B.C.E. no other known site, with the possible exception of Megiddo, had as many as three such centrally placed structures. We emphasize, Tell el-Hesi was a significant governmental site in the 10th century B.C.E. With this scenario in mind, it is necessary to examine the stratigraphy of Bliss=s City V (the Joint Expedition=s Stratum IX) a bit more closely. Bliss (1892: 100; 1894: 97) noted that Rooms Q-R-S-T on his plan (fig. 2) were later that the remainder of the city. Henceforth we shall ignore them and suggest that they belonged to Bliss=s City VI. If one examines only the three tripartite pillared buildings, Bliss also noted (1892: 98; 1894: 92-93) that even walls O-P-N were later additions to the original structures; thus, we have two phases of their use (fig. 5). Figure 6 is a hypothetical reconstruction of the buildings= original plan. It is possible to suggest, therefore, that the three tripartite pillared buildings at Tell el-Hesi were used in their original configuration only in the 10th century B.C.E., and that only subsequently, later in the 10th century B.C.E. were they modified. Could this modification be linked to the original construction of Lachish Level V and/or the campaign of Pharaoh Shishak? Recently the nature of the campaign of Pharaoh Shishak in greater Palestine has been questioned by Na=aman (1992). Did Shishak attack any sites in Judah proper, or were his attacks confined to the coastal plain, Israel, and the Negev? If the heartland of Judah was avoided, is it possible that some Judahite border sites were attacked? These are very difficult questions to answer archaeologically, given that absolute chronological markers for this period are absent beyond destruction layers that seem to be associated with Shishak=s attack. At a theoretical level, Baillie (1991) has addressed what is likely to happen in such cases: all events that may possibly be related to a Shishak campaign of destruction get Asucked in@ as evidence for such a destruction even though they are not related, thereby greatly confounding the issue. As it happens, at Hesi it is doubtful that there is a destruction layer which might be correlated with this campaign. Bliss noted (1892: 99), AThe earth burying this [tripartite pillared] structure contained few stones, little burning, and was chiefly decayed brick and rubbish.@ No evidence of a destruction was preserved at Hesi. It is possible that the ancient city of Tell el-Hesi might have been one of the cities mentioned as a conquered city in Shishak=s list on the Bubastite Portal at Karnak (Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak 1954; Mazar 1957; Kitchen 1988, 1997), but if it is listed it is not recognizable. We doubt that the ancient city of Tell el-Hesi is listed and we doubt that Hesi was destroyed by Pharaoh Shishak about 925 B.C.E. Nonetheless, and even were Hesi destroyed, we speculate that the destructive impact of Shishak=s campaign was the ultimate reason for moving the functions served by the tripartite pillared buildings from Hesi to the far more defensible Lachish early in the 9th century B.C.E. We also speculate that this transfer of function to Lachish occurred when the Hesi buildings were remodeled into a variant form. We suggest that this shift occurred after 925 B.C.E., late in the 10th or early in the 9th centuries B.C.E., but still before the end of Bliss=s City V (Stratum IX) in the mid- to early 9th century B.C.E. To this point we have not suggested a political or cultural affiliation for Bliss=s City V at Tell el-Hesi. Three lines of reasoning suggest to us that Tell el-Hesi was Judahite. First, the map showing the location of 10th and 11th centuries B.C.E. tripartite pillared buildings shows them to be on major roads at the periphery of the hill country of Judah and Israel. This is not the place to suggest that a map of these structures for the 10th century B.C.E. might well describe the borders of a United Kingdom, but it does suggest that their placement along roads and along borders with Moab, Ammon, Damascus, and the Philistine Pentapolis means that these are structures belong to the political entity to the inside of the polygon and not the outside. For Tell el-Hesi this would mean Judah. Second, if we are correct and the function served by the tripartite pillared buildings moved from Hesi in the 10th century B.C.E. to Lachish in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.E., just as Kochavi (1998a: 476) has suggested that they moved from Tel Malhata (Khirbet el-Milh) in the 10th century B.C.E. to Tel Beer-Sheba soon thereafter, then, since we know that Lachish was Judahite, wouldn=t Hesi have to be Judahite? Third, Petrie and Bliss found no Philistine pottery at Hesi and, just for the record, the Joint Expedition found only a scant few fragments. This suggests that Hesi was not Philistine. Although this is an argument from silence, what political entity other than the government of Judah could have financed and built such a facility in the Hesi region in the 10th century B.C.E.? For these reasons we believe that Bliss=s City V (the Joint Expedition=s Stratum IX) was culturally and politically Judahite. Finally, we have suggested that the tripartite pillared buildings are governmental in nature, for us whether they are entrepts, governmental storehouses, or even Astables@ is irrelevant B they are governmental structures. Towards this end we note I Kings 9:17-19 which reads ;&1,2/% *93 -, ;!& :69!" 9"$/" 9/; ;! :0&;(; 09( ;*" ;! 9'# ;! %/-: 0"*& ;&1"- 8:( 9:! %/-: 8:( ;!& .*:95% *93 ;!& ",9% *93 ;!& %/-:- &*% 9:! :&;-:// 69! +,"& 0&1"-"& .-:&9*" And Solomon built Gezer and Lower Beth-Horon, Baalath, and Tamar in the wilderness (within the land) as well as all the store cities that Solomon had, and chariot cities and horse cities and every special thing that he desired to build in Jerusalem or in the Lebanon and in each land under his dominion. We ask, if this account might in fact reflect genuine 10th century B.C.E. constructional activities, could Bliss=s City V (our Stratum IX) at Tell el-Hesi represent such a store city or some aspect of a governmental activity in a town where chariots and horses were quartered? (See our further remarks on this passage below, 000) [N.B., in passing we need to note the ostracon that John is publishing. It is a 10th or 9th century B.C.E. ostracon written in Hebrew or Phoenician script. This also argues against a Philistine occupation. It was found in the constructional fill of VIIId so it must relate to Stratum IX] D. The Fortress (Petrie=s ALong Range of Chambers@ and his AManasseh Wall,@ Bliss=s City VI, and the Joint Expedition=s Stratum VIII) In the previous section we argued that for much of the 10th century B.C.E., and possibly into the early 9th century, Tell el-Hesi served as some sort of governmental center based on the presence of three tripartite pillared buildings. We noted that Hesi was located on the main road from Gaza to Hebron and Jerusalem and that late in this period this function, whatever it specifically was, seems to have been transferred to Lachish, either at the time of the construction of Podium/Palace A in later Lachish V or with the construction of Lachish IV. It is now time to examine the structure that was built atop Bliss=s City V (our Stratum IX), namely Bliss=s City VI (our Stratum VIII). Sitting atop the Pilaster Building and along the wadi face, Petrie found two mud-brick structures, the Along range of chambers@ and the AManasseh Wall.@ The Along range of chambers@ was a complex of interlocking walls that rose XX feet high and in no place was this structure associated with any floors (fig. 7). They seemed to be some sort of retaining wall holding up the center of the site. In the work of the Joint Expedition we rediscovered Petrie=s Along range of chambers@ and from that point we were able to extend his plan and illustrate the entire Achamber and fill@ structure (fig. 8). As Petrie found, we also found no floors, except above the structure, and we understood Petrie=s structure to be an artificial filling, maybe even a millo (XXXXXXX) Petrie had traced the AManasseh Wall@ around the site from where he found it on the wadi face and produced both plans and sections of this wall (fig. 7), which he dated to the 7th century B.C,E., and hence, King Manasseh.. Subsequently Bliss excavated part of the wall in his large northeastern excavation unit and he found that this wall sat directly atop the tripartite pillared buildings of his City V (fig. 9), and Bliss included this wall as the fortification wall of his City VI. Taken together the work of Petrie and Bliss suggest that these structural elements are part of an Iron Age fortification system in which the builders raised the mound over 5.5 meters. This is not the place to detail the work of the Joint Expedition, but since Petrie and Bliss first discovered this fortification system, we feel that it is valid to augment their structural knowledge of the system with our structural results that clarify the nature of the system. The southern region of the acropolis was raised over 5.5 meters through the construction of the chamber and fill system first described in part by Petrie (fig. 10). Next to the chamber and fill system there was a massive sloping fill layer that was capped and consolidated with a layer white lime plaster that then merged with the upper wall system, the Manasseh Wall. The AManasseh Wall@ was an upper fortification wall system, which served both as a retaining wall for the central fill and also as a defensive barrier around the acropolis (fig. 11). In addition a massive lower fortification wall was constructed around the site at the same time, creating a double wall fortification system, just like Lachish but on a far smaller scale. Petrie and Bliss did not find this lower wall, which reached 13 meters in width, but it is stratigraphically joined to the upper wall system by the sloping ramp that connects the upper fortification wall and the lower fortification wall of the Joint Expedition=s Field III. For a more detailed summary of the Joint Expedition=s work, see summaries in Blakely 1981; Doermann and Fargo 1985; or Toombs 1989). With the completion of the fortification system, a courtyard structure arose directly atop the chamber/fill system, but we recovered only scant remains for this structure (Stratum VIIIc). This work was a massive construction project which clearly was intended to fortify the acropolis of Tell el-Hesi, but it fortifies only about 0.50 acres!  Such a construction does not make sense as a fortification for a city or village; we believe that Hesi can only be understood as a fortress. Besides being an impressive fortification project, it raised the site over 5.5 meters and provided the site with a line of sight over some of its surrounding hills and, apparently, as far as Lachish from the top. As noted earlier, it also stands on the main road from Gaza to Hebron and Jerusalem. By the mid-9th century B.C.E. at the latest, Lachish was certainly the largest site in the region. Fortunately aspects of the fortification system of Lachish are known through the publications of Tufnell (1953) and Ussishkin (1978, 1983, 1997). As early as 1981 Blakely noted striking structural parallels between the Hesi construction and those evidenced in Area S of Lachish IV: a central chamber/fill system, sloping layers of fill consolidated with white lime plaster that merge with an upper wall system, and a lower wall system. The major difference is that at Lachish more of the walls have larger stone foundations, as opposed to at Tell el-Hesi where stones are rare, but even at stone-barren Hesi the foundations of the lower wall system are stone. To us this suggested that the systems are more or less contemporary and that they date to the early to mid-9th century, as suggested by Tufnell and Ussishkin. Given the close proximity of the two systems and their structural parallels but with such great disparity in scale, we also believe that they are constructions of the same central government; one a central site and one a peripheral site. Since Lachish is known to be Judahite in the 8th century B.C.E. we can assume it was Judahite in the 9th century B.C.E. This in turn suggests that Hesi was also Judahite in these periods and that the fortifications were built at the behest of the Kingdom of Judah. If this is true, what is the significance of these constructions? As G. Ernest Wright noted almost 30 years ago (1971), there is a series of conical or peculiarly tall but small tell sites that encompass the western and southwestern periphery of Lachish. These sites, Tell Bornat (Tel Burna), Tell Sheikh Ahmed el- =Areini (Tel =Erani), Tell el-Hesi, Khirbet el-Kaneiterah (Tel Qeshet), Tell Muleihah (Tel Milha), and possibly Tell Abu-esh-Shukf, (Tel Sheqef) form a more or less curving line to the west and south of Lachish that reaches its apex at Hesi on the road to Gaza. Wright suggested that these sites were part of the defensive perimeter of Lachish that extended down toward Tel Halif (see fig. 4) and that they might sites may well represent the border of Judah at some time period within the Iron II period, a period represented in the ceramic repertoire at all of these sites. Our studies of Hesi and Lachish suggest that similar construction techniques were used at these sites, one for fortifying a major city and the other to create a small, but sturdy, fortress. The distinctive constructional techniques employed at the small Hesi, which was raised by over 5.5 meters, created the unique conical appearance noted by Wright. Of Wright=s sites, the only other excavated site is Tell Sheik Ahmed el-=Areini (Yeivin 1961, 1975, 1993; Brandl 1997). The descriptions of Iron Age strata at this site are not thorough, but Yeivin noted that Stratum IX was used solely for leveling and preparing the site for a major construction (Yeivin 1975: ). Here a 1.2 m. deep fill was placed over most of the excavated area and this was then covered by a Awhite-washed mud plaster.@ (Yeivin 1961: 8). Immediately above this fill in Stratum VIII were two courtyard buildings (Yeivin 1975). In Stratum VII a stone defensive wall was built around the site and into the white-washed mud plaster (Yeivin 1961: 5-6), which we add is an apt description for the fortification system at Hesi where it was clear stratigraphically that the plaster and the fortification were contemporary constructions. Collectively this sounds remarkably like the stratigraphy of the glais and Manasseh Wall at Tell el-Hesi. We also note that it is not until the next stratum, Stratum VI, that the tell-tale lamelek jar handles appear, suggesting that Stratum VI dates to the late 8th century B.C.E. (See also Brandl 1997). Strata IX through VII therefore are earlier and they may be contemporary with the fortification phases at Lachish and Tell el-Hesi. The only other clue as to what may have been going on at one of Wright=s sites is at Tell Muleihah. It has not been excavated archaeologically, but a cut made for a railroad bed appears to suggest similar constructional activities. Collectively, therefore, there appears to be a reason that many of Wright=s sites may share their conical shapes, fortifications and constructional fills that may well date to the 9th century B.C.E. Wright=s reconstruction was that these tells marked the border between Judah and Philistia at some point in the Iron Age, and, given the archaeological record at Lachish and Hesi and even Tell Sheik Ahmed al-=Areini, one must suggest the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.E. When reading Wright=s article one is almost forced to imagine that these sites formed a AMaginot line@ on the SW periphery of Lachish that, ultimately, in the face of Assyrian military might failed. This view may not be doing Wright=s idea justice, but it would seem that Wright ignored the road system as it probably existed in the Iron Age. If one considers the roads, one sees that Tell Abu esh-Shukf, Tell el-Hesi, and Khirbet el-Kaneiterah are on the main road from Gaza to Hebron here following the Wadi el-Hesi (Nahal Shiqma) and then Wadi el-Kaneiterah (Nahal Adorayim) to a point where one is just a left turn away from Lachish. Tell Sheik Ahmed el-=Areini is on the road from Ashkelon to Lachish following the Wadi el-Mufurred and Wadi el-Ghufr (Nahal Lachish) route. Tell Bornat is on the Ashdod to Maresha to Lachish road following Wadi el-Museijid (Nahal Guvrin). Tell Muleihah is on the Gaza to Tel Halif and Hebron or Arad route passing along Wadi el-Muleihah (Nahal Shiqma). In other words, each of Wright=s conical mounds guards a thoroughfare, with Tell Abu esh-Shukf, Tell el-Hesi and Khirbet el-Kaneiterah guarding the most significant road. If one accepts the idea that these sites guarded thoroughfares into southwestern Judah in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.E., then Wright was correct when he called these sites a Judahite fortification system. The question then becomes, from whom was Judah defending itself? In the general direction WSW from Lachish the only major sites beyond this immediate perimeter separating Judah from Gaza and Ashkelon is Tell es-Shariah (Tel Sera, possibly Ziklag) to the south, a Philistine and later Assyrian site. Beyond that and to the west there are the southern cities of the Philistine Pentapolis, Gaza and Ashkelon, and, of course, Egypt, all potential enemies. Is this an early- to mid-9th century response to the effectiveness of the Egyptian raid of Pharaoh Shishak? Quite possibly. In summary, we have suggested that fortress Tell el-Hesi (Petrie=s ALong Range of Chambers@ and his AManasseh Wall,@ Bliss=s City VI, and the Joint Expedition=s Stratum VIII) was an early to mid-9th century B.C.E. construction designed to monitor the periphery of the Kingdom of Judah, west and southwest of Lachish. Tell el-Hesi, and other sites like Tell Abu-esh-Shukf, Khirbet Kaneiterah, Tell Muleihah, Tell Sheik Ahmed el-Areini, and Tell Bornat probably guarded the roads that entered Judah from region of Gaza and Ashkelon (fig. 4). Tell el-Hesi and its immediate environs, therefore, must be viewed as being part of Judah in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.E., just as they had been in the 10th century B.C.E. at the time of the tripartite pillared buildings. Integrate Gophna and Grintz E. Archaeological Evidence Against Tell el-Hesi Being in Judah In the last few years, two studies have appeared in which the authors use archaeological artifactual evidence in an attempt to define the borders of ancient Judah. In particular there are the studies of Kletter (1999) and Yezerski (1999). Kletter examined the findspots of a variety of Iron II artifacts that are typically identified as Judahite: Pillar figurines, inscribed weights, Rosette stamps, and Horse and Rider figurines. He dates the Pillar figurines and the Horse and Rider figurines to the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.E., the inscribed weights to the end of the 8th century through the beginning of the 6th century B.C.E., and the Rosette stamps to the late 7th and 6th centuries B.C.E. In each case, because of its lack of such artifacts, Tell el-Hesi appeared to fall outside of his cultural border for each Judahite artifact type. Kletter=s Figure 1 (1999) shows Tell el-Hesi as being unquestioningly outside of Judah. We find Kletter=s catalogues, presented here and elsewhere (Kletter 1991, 1996) invaluable tools for comparative research. Taken at face value, these absence of these characteristic artifacts could suggest that Tell el-Hesi was indeed outside of Iron II Judah. We note, however, that these artifact types date to the 8th through the early 6th centuries B.C.E., or more likely, from the later parts of the 8th century B.C.E. through the early 6th century B.C.E. We agree with Kletter=s thesis as it applies to the 7thB6th centuries since Hesi during this period lay outside of the heartland of Judah; Assyria had, we claim, detached the site from Judah toward the end of the 8th century B.C.E. (Blakely and Hardin, forthcoming). Since these artifact types are from the Assyrian era, we do not believe that we cannot see the relevance of their absence at Hesi for a determination of Hesi=s political and cultural relationships before 734 B. C. E. Yezerski, on the other hand, has approached the matter differently but with results similar to those of Kletter. Yezerski examined Judahite burial cave forms at the end of the Judahite monarchy from the end of the 8th century B.C.E. on, and in so doing she claims that A...the borders of the kingdom of Judah underwent only minor changes from the division of the kingdom to the Babylonian destruction.@ (Yezerski 1999: 266) Yezerski states that she chose to draw the borders east of the Hesi region since no Judahite burial caves have been found there (Yezerski 1999: 266). So Yezerski omits Hesi from the Judahite kingdom (1999: fig. 2) specifically from the late 8th century onward, but by implication, earlier as well. The region excluded by Yezerski,Aeast of these three sites@ (Tel Eraini, Tel Sheqef, and Tel Burna, specifically), is the larger Hesi region, and, also the one area where we suggest that 10th, 9th, and 8th centuries Judah descended out of the Shephelah into the loessal plains. It is this loess which covered limestone outcrops that makes the construction of cave tombs impossible. For Yezerski to base her Aprudent@ exclusion of this area from Judah on the absence of something the physical environment makes impossible is a method fraught with difficulties. We do not believe that the arguments of Kletter and Yezerski militate against the strong archaeological evidence that supports Hesi=s political and cultural relationship to Judah during the 10thB9th centuries and most of the 8th century. II Issues in Biblical Scholarship A. Specific Locale in Biblical History A specific locale may play one or more of several roles in the Bible. (1) It may be religiously charged because of the tradition of a shrine, as Martin Noth suggested (1960). Particular places like Bethel and Dan, Samaria, Gilgal, or Jerusalem, to name a few fall into this category. Their mere mention in the biblical text is enough to arouse cultic associations in the minds of hearers or readers. ACome to Bethel and transgress,@ Amos challenges, Ain Gilgal transgress all the more!@ (Amos 4:4) (2) It may be a place of great political or military importance. Megiddo comes immediately to mind as do Hazor. Aphek, and Beth-shan. The cities of the Pentopolis belong to this category as does Ziklag. (3) There are sites known only by relationship (sometimes etymological) to the text in which they occur such as Baal-perazim in 2 Samuel 5:20 or Beer-lahai-roi in Genesis 16:14. Perhaps AElkoshite@ in Nahum 1:1 belongs here too (Blakely and Horton, forthcoming). (4) The names of certain locales function to define large geographical areas. The texts treat these names as if the reader would know approximately where they lie. The examples of this are numerous with the famous formula Afrom Dan to Beersheba@ (discussed below) as one example. Sites that fall into categories (1) and (2) are often well known to modern scholars. Jerusalem has been under continuous occupation since the time of the Jebusites. Beth-shan=s towering Tell al-Husan is a clear marker of an important ancient city; and the Arabic name, Beisan, maintains the site=s ancient name. Overconfidence in such identifications can be dangerous, however, as Blakely and Horton (forthcoming) have recently argued. Surely, Lachish of the late 8th century would also fall into category (2). For many years, however, following the first identification of Petrie (1891), Tell el-Hesi and not Tell al-Duwayr was identified as the site of ancient Lachish. Once a famous ancient site has slipped into obscurity, it may take some very fortunate discovery, such as that of an inscription, as was the case, for instance, for Gezer and for Dan, to restore the location of the site to us. Sites that fall into category (3) are difficult to assess. The well of Beer-lahai-roi in Genesis 16:14 is otherwise unknown to us, and it is impossible to know whether the author invented the name to emphasize Hagar=s question about seeing God and living or took the name of an actual site to do the same thing. There is virtually no possibility of deciding such a question. The author locates the type (3) site in Genesis 16:14 by the use of two type (4) sites. The Kadesh of Genesis 16:14 is Kadesh-barnea in the Negev, the Kadesh of Deuteronomy 1:46, where Israel was supposed to have languished during the Exodus. As such, it would also belong under category (2), and as its name (Asanctuary@) suggests, perhaps also under (1). Is Bered, however, in the Negev too? Would we expect the ancient reader/hearer to know the location of this site other than, perhaps, as a place in the Negev in the vicinity of Kadesh? The intentionality of the text suggests that the reader/hearer might know or could know Bered as well as Kadesh. The fact that we can no longer place Bered on the map is unfortunate. Similarly, when we read that Solomon=s empire reached Afrom Tiphsah to Gaza @ in 1Kings 5:4, we have another good example of category (4). We know, and the ancient reader/hearer knew, where Gaza was. The text presupposes that the ancient reader/hearer also knew where Tiphsah was. We do not. Still, the use of the name in this manner suggests that this indeterminate locale was on the order of fame (if not physical magnitude) of Gaza. Except to note, however, that it should lie in Syria, likely on the west bank of the Euphrates, we can say little about the site. We cannot rule out the possibility that Hesi may find biblical mention in just such a way. In its 8th century incarnation, it would likely be a type (3) site, important for narration only if an author thought something important happened in its vicinity. Our hypothesis, however, also leaves room for the belief that Hesi could have been a type (2) site in the 10th century. As Blakely and Horton concluded recently (forthcoming) Hesi may, indeed, have a name in the Hebrew Bible. The question is whether we shall ever be able to determine it. B. Specific Locale in Biblical Scholarship One of the oddities of modern biblical scholarship lies in the attempts to identify a site that may not be a site at all, AElkosh@ as may be contained in the name AElkoshite@ in Nahum 1:1. Kevin Cathcart (1973: 38) rehearses the various ancient identifications of Elkosh from Jerome (Elcesi in the Galilee, Commentariorum in Naum prophetam, MSL 25, 1231) and Pseudo-Epiphanius (Beth-gabre, Liber de vitis prophetarum, MSG 43, 409). The local tradition that Nahum actually came from a site now called Al-Qush north of Mosul Cathcart dismisses as Aunlikely.@ One wonders, however, what makes Al-Qush in the region of Mosul more Aunlikely@ than a site in the Galilee or in the foothills of southern Palestine. We encounter a similar anomaly in the account of Roberts (1991:41). Roberts writes that the gentilic ending on the Hebrew word *:&8-! indicates that the prophet came Afrom the village or clan of Elkosh.@ He quickly sets aside the possibility that the ending might mean membership in a clan for undisclosed reasons and, returning to his geographical hypothesis, laments that Aits location remains uncertain.@ Elkosh must be a city for Roberts. He next agrees with Rudolf that neither the Galilee site for Elkosh nor the Turkish site Ahas much to commend it.@ He favors a location in Judah near the Edomite border because the element :&8 in *:&8-! may refer to the Edomite divinity Qaush with the place name meaning Qaush/Qosh-is-God. Somehow we miss in Roberts account why the clan alternative was not acceptable. Perhaps it is missing because Roberts knows the proposed etymology of *:&8-! is tenuous and certainly too speculative to inform our historical geography. Indeed, it could equally favor a fictional creation by an editor. The claim that Nahum does not provide sufficient information to determine the meaning of the word *:&8-! and the fact that the word never occurs in the biblical text or in relevant extra-biblical texts should mean that no identification is possible and no one site more likely than another. Cassuto=s (1915) proposal to locate Elkosh in the Hesi region fails on literary-historical grounds and so leaves us nothing to judge on the basis of the archaeological record. If ever there was an undecidable issue in biblical scholarship, the meaning of *:&8-! certainly qualifies. There is absolutely nothing in the word=s philological construction or its literary context to tell us whether the designation refers to a town, a clan, or some other grouping that could give rise to the gentilic ending. Yet for all of that, we find that Cathcart and Roberts can be very definite in deciding that the adjective must refer to a town named Elkosh and that this Elkosh must lie within the borders of the ancient Hebrew commonwealths, and, indeed, almost certainly has to lie within the southern kingdom. Something tells these commentators these things, and that something is a certain religious-ideological grid biblical scholars often superimpose on the map of Palestine or the ancient near east. Consider, for instance, the question of the location of Tekoa, home of the prophet Amos. Surely in this case the prophet=s domicile in Tekoa (Amos 1:1) and Tekoa=s location within the southern kingdom in the 8th century BCE are of importance for our understanding of this biblical book, a location the words of Amaziah in Amos 7:12 appear to underscore. We are to understand Amos= deliverances in Samaria are those of a southerner, with a southerner=s characteristic theological and political views, on northern soil; but it hardly affects this interpretation whether we locate biblical Tekoa at its traditional spot near Jebel Fureidis (the Herodium) or in some other southern locale. It is the fact that Amos is a southerner from Judah, understood as part of a geographical/theological grid, that is important because of Judah=s association in scholars= minds with the Davidic kingship ideology. This begs the question, though, as to what we expect by way of kingship ideology from a resident of Judah. Did all southerners hold such an ideology? Since Amos is not a court prophet, it is by no means clear that he would have a responsibility to reflect the ideology of the court prophets. Further, the location of his ministry in Israel and not in his native Judah may well reflect any number of motivations, from economic to religious. The theological grid that leads us to expect Davidic kingship ideology from any resident of the south produces the question in our minds as to how much Davidic ideology actually exists in the prophecy of Amos. Tell el-Hesi=s various identifications (Lachish, Gath, Ziklag, Eglon) have engaged the weight of modern interpreters= ideological grids. In the case of Amos, the location of Tekoa appears to be theological and religious in importance for contemporary exegetes. The ideology, however, does not have to be theological, however. It can as easily be historical. We can see this historical ideology in Cassuto=s unhappy conclusion (1915) that Hesi cannot really be Elkosh because it must be Lachish. Since Lachish was a southern fortress town well identified in scripture if not in historical geography, it would have been preferable to have Hesi, lying, as it were, on Judah=s border with Philistia, as the prophet=s home. Why? Cassuto does not say, but subsequent exegesis shows us that interpreting Nahum principally as the words of a late 7th century Hebrew prophet have a certain interpretative convenience. Whatever literary work a later editor may have expended on the text of Nahum, the interpreter does best to interpret the prophet realistically out of a late 7th century context. This means giving Nahum real existence as a real person from a real part of Judah, an otherwise unknown and completely unattested AElkosh@ somewhere in Judah. The place we assign Nahum to the historical-exegetical grid of Palestine is as much a result of theological and methodological assumptions as was the location of Amos= Tekoa. Neither specific locale has to be in any actual geographical location. Indeed, Elkosh does not even have to be a specific locale. Rather Tekoa and Elkosh exist on a very different, modern, and ideological map of Palestine. And Beer-lahai-roi in Genesis 16:14? Clearly, it too exists for us mainly on an ideological tableau, one that in the work of the form critics associates tradition with locale. Although the textual tendency favors the reader/hearer knowing Kadesh and Bered, modern interpreters of this school find their interest on a line between these two locales at or around a well called Beer-lahai-roi. The fact that the site is likely never to be known makes no difference. Its valence is determined by the tradition that Genesis now associates with Hagar=s expulsion. C. Toward a New Historical Positivism One of the advantages of the current interest in history as a literary genre in biblical scholarship (e. g. Van Seters 1992, 1997, 2000) is the opportunity to rethink the function of specific locale in biblical history. Although archaeology has played the handmaiden to biblical studies throughout most of the twentieth century by providing backdrop, coloration, and even validation for historical claims, its role is now changing to that of equal, inviting discussion with colleagues of many disciplines, including biblical studies. This allows us to think of locale first in terms of its meaning for the historical text without fearing that our investigation will somehow negate that of archaeology. Volkmar Fritz= recent study (2000) of the biblical and post-biblical descriptions of the borders of ancient Israel is an interesting expression of that new freedom. His article discusses the formulas Afrom Dan to Beersheba@ (1 Kings 5:5), Afrom the River ... to the border of Egypt@ (1 Kings 5:1), and, finally, the description of the boundaries in Numbers 34:3B12. Fritz concludes (2000 32B33) that none of these descriptions represents Israel=s actual borders under David and Solomon. The first description (Afrom Dan to Beersheba@) is a pre-deuteronomistic formulation meant to describe the area of actual and potential settlement without regard to existing Canaanite city-states. The second, based perhaps on the tradition of a Davidic campaign to the Euphrates, suggested in 2 Samuel 8:3b, is a deuteronomistic idealization or, indeed, political wish. The third description from the priestly source reveals itself as post-exilic by use of specifically Persian-period nomenclature and exclusion of the Transjordan as belonging to the Land of Israel. All three formulations, together with their variants in the tradition, express religious and/or political idealism appropriate to the time of their composition. The function of history in Fritz= understanding is problematical and, indeed, symptomatic of some currents of recent scholarship. In reference to Numbers 34: 3B12, Fritz wants, correctly, to inform us that the passage does not describe Israel=s actual borders with its neighbors at any time during its existence (2000 24). This is not, however, what he writes. Instead, we read, ADie Grenzbeschreibung von Num 34,3B12 ist somit eine Zusammenstellung, die nicht einem historischen Zustand der Geschichte Israels entspricht.@ In fact it does correspond exactly to the historical Zustand of the Priestly author. It is the historical reality the author presents. Fritz= formulation suggests the historical positivism that defined history as wie es eigentlich geschah rather than as a written composition. Fritz, however, does not stand alone in his positivistic understanding of history. Within the discipline of biblical studies this return to historical positivism probably signals an attempt to recover from the heavy burden of Ahistory@ as a primarily theological term. Lester L. Grabbe (2000 210) contends that the appearance of James Barr=s book Old and New in Interpretation (1966) had brought into question whether one may read the Hebrew Bible as history. That is a serious misreading of Barr who set his sights not on the historical writers of the Bible but on the neo-orthodox interpreters of the Bible who had raised Ahistory@ quite literally to a sacrosanct position. It was, ironically, Kittel=s Theologisches Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament, that was the focus of Barr=s attention, not the Hebrew Bible=s history. The application of Barr=s critique of Kittel to scholarship on the Hebrew Bible, however, was quite clear. Not only had the European neo-orthodox made history into a totem, so had the American biblical theology movement under the influence of G. Ernest Wright. Barr wanted to know exactly what these scholars on both sides of the Atlantic meant by Ahistory.@ In what ways could we say reasonably that God Aacts@ in history? Were claims for the uniquely Ahistorical@ shape of Judaism and Christianity based on real features of the text, and what role would archaeology play in such an admittedly theological enterprise? The time seemed right for the appearance of volume 2 of the English version of Gerhard von Rad=s Old Testament Theology (1967) that in conjunction with volume 1 (1960 CHECK) appeared to answer Barr=s critique by defining Ahistory@ as the Ahistory@ created within Israel=s confessional self-understanding. The Amighty acts of God in history@ were the traditional, liturgical memories of the people of Israel, available to us by a thorough-going form-critical methodology. History for von Rad is ethnic memory, not bruta facta from the past. Into this kind of historical research von Rad invited the form critic and the biblical theologian, but the record in the soil, which played scarcely any role in the Old Testament Theology, was of equivocal importance and, indeed, has yet to recover its pride of place in biblical scholarship. Far from coming to a new understanding of history, biblical scholars appear to have simply laid aside the tendencies Barr criticized. By default, the meaning of Ahistory@ appears to have resumed its positivistic connotations in biblical studies by becoming once more a quest for Awhat really happened.@ From the AJesus Seminar@ in New Testament studies to the maximalist-minimalist debate in Hebrew Bible, there is a revival of historicism. Niels Peter Lemche, for example, in his programmatic The Israelites in History and Tradition (1998) complains that much modern reconstruction of Israel=s history amounts to little more than paraphrase of the Deuteronomic history. There is some justification for that complaint. There are only two organized historical accounts of the history of Israel and Judah, one from the Deuteronomistic Historian and the other, the Chronicler, from a school that depended heavily upon the writings of the Deuteronomistic Historian. For Thompson (1992), neither of these accounts is history because they lack the kind of critical reconstruction of the past characteristic of ancient Hittite and Greek historiography (1992 207), and, indeed, of critical history of any age. The redactional techniques of both schools are antiquarian, not historiographical (1992 209). Essential to Thompson=s Agenre of historiography@ (209) is the careful and critical assessment of evidence to produce an account of the past. Van Seters= view of history-writing as a genre is, in Thompson=s view, a hopeless confusion, born of a slavish theoretical dependence on Huizinga=s nationalistic understanding of history and a failure to perceive clearly the difference in critical stance between the Greek historians and the biblical writers. Diana Edelman asks in response whether Thompson perhaps wants to limit history-writing to the work of modern historians (2000 249). Although Thompson begins his 1992 essay with an appreciation for Hittite and Greek history writers, Edelman is correct to perceive behind Thompson=s assessment a criterion of historical writing incapable of fulfillment in ancient literature. Thompson=s criterion of history writing is manifestly a rational and, one might say, modern quest to discover Awhat really happened.@ If, therefore, we cannot find evidence to support a claim from biblical history, there is a tendency now simply to dismiss the claim as Aunhistorical.@ As Finkelstein and Silberman (2001 145) see it, for instance, the Deuteronomic history is but a Atale@ that modern researchers must put up against Athe historical reality of the kingdom of David and Solomon.@ Evidently, we can derive this Ahistorical reality@ only from modern archaeology. We should remove the overblown claims of the biblical history for the scope and grandeur of the united monarchy. Yet does not the disparity between the written history and the archaeological reconstruction have some meaning for biblical interpreters beyond a mere negating of the written evidence? What archaeological research allows us to see, if we care to look, is an important disparity between one kind of historical record and another. This disparity corresponds exactly to what we might think of as a kind of charge or narrative valence present in the ancient documents with reference to certain people, events, and people. It is that charge or valence that Fritz discovered in his study of the border formulas. Despite the positivist language in which he framed his conclusions, Fritz was exactly right to show us that all three formulations represent idealizations. Nevertheless, they play important roles in the narratives in which they appear. As to the first, Dan and Beersheba are charged locales, not because of any intrinsic holiness or grandeur but because of their well known geographical locations. They designating the land vouchsafed to Israel. Residents of the united kingdom knew very well that they did not command and would likely never command all of the territory between these two ancient cities. But the formula explains many things to the reader. It explains, for instance (and perhaps ironically) the continuation of Philistine life. Israel may in God=s good pleasure dwell in safety anywhere in the land between Dan in the far north and Beersheba in the south. The Philistine attack on David in his new capital city as recounted in 2 Samuel 5:17B25 violates the promise of security and justifies for the reader David=s extension of his dominion as far west as Gezer (2 Samuel 5:25). If anything, however, one is struck by David=s restraint in sparing the cities of the Pentopolis. In the speech of Abner to Ish-bosheth in 2 Samuel 3:11 the promise of the land Afrom Dan to Beersheba@ becomes inextricably linked with the Davidic monarchy. Within those broad geographical limits David and his house will gain hegemony. The adventures of David in 2 Samuel 8, however, are of another kind altogether. Whether the capture of Metheg-ammah from the Philistines arguably might fit the ADan to Beersheba@ formula, none of the remaining exploits could possibly qualify. Although the LORD gave victories to David in the Transjordan (2 Samuel 8:14), these victories also brought glory to David=s public reputation (8:13). The formula has warns us that these victories might be fleeting and, indeed, ultimately dangerous. The author uses the old formula Afrom Dan to Beersheba@ within the context of his description of Solomon=s kingdom. Solomon had authority (-:/) over a territory that ran from Athe River@ (the Euphrates) to the Aborder of Egypt@ (1 Kings 5:1). If it is not the case that any Hebrew kingdom had complete dominion over Palestine from Dan to Beersheba, it is even more certain that no such kingdom ever controlled Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and all the Negev. Neither archaeological discoveries nor historiographical documents from the ancient Near East even remotely suggest such an extension of Israelite power. We now seem to have one historical impossibility built upon another. From a positivist standpoint, we may be involved in wishful historical fiction. Our perplexity may increase when we discover the two formulations in juxtaposition in verses 4B5: %*% .&-:& 9%1% 9"3 *,-/ -," %'3 $3& (25;/ 9%1% 9"3 -," %$9 !&% *, 0$/ &;1!; ;(; &151 ;(; :*! ()"- -!9:*& %$&%* ":*& ."*"2/ &*"93 &- .%/-: */* -, 3": 9!" $3& If the reader is to believe that Solomon controlled the territory from Tiphsah to Gaza, what is the relevance of the now somewhat restrictive formula Afrom Dan to Beersheba@ in the next verse? The clue is in the expression ()"-. The reader is put on notice in these verses that the aspirations of SolomonC whether of the Solomon who lived in the 9th century or the Solomon created by the Deuteronomic HistoryCwere fragile and dangerous. We may on the one hand admire the grandeur of Solomon=s empire and on the other hand be prepared to see Solomon=s successors retreat from empire into shrinking enclaves within the land Afrom Dan to Beersheba.@ Both formulations help us anticipate the course of the history we are about to read. They also help us temper our enthusiasm for foreign conquest and, indeed, even model a certain restraint within the narrowest borders, those Afrom Dan to Beersheba.@ It is in this smaller territory that Israel might expect to live ()"-, but not necessarily to the exclusion of others. Even there other peoples might live alongside of Israel without being molested. Whether Hesi might have stood at one time on the border of ancient Judah is an important archaeological question as well as an important question of modern historical geography. We believe it did. The question, however, is of no particular importance to the issue of the historical border of the land as described in the Bible because every such historical formulation we possess would include it. Indeed, even if we knew the ancient name of Hesi (Blakely and Horton, forthcoming), the situation would not be different. We raised above (000) the question as to whether 1 Kings 9:17B19 might not represent a reminiscence of the kind of governmental building activity we believe occurred in10th century Hesi. Although we cannot identify all of the sites mentioned in the list, the list certainly represents the kind of building activity that might have included the three tripartite buildings at Hesi. The sites are Type (4) sites, with Gezer also being a Type (2) site and Jerusalem Type (1). The formula Ain Jerusalem or in Lebanon@ is uneven. Do Gezer and Jerusalem define the southern boundary of this building activity with the Lebanon as a very loose designation for the northern extent of it? We should see, here, we believe an ideological listing. If Dtr believes the land of Israel extends Afrom Dan to Beersheba@ then Jerusalem, Lower Beth Horon, Gezer, Baalath, and Tamar in the wilderness (but also Ain the land@) are not just places under Solomon=s control but part of the land of Israel proper. On the other hand, the writer would remind us that Solomon=s grandeur was not limited to the land of Israel, so there is mention of unspecified building in the Lebanon. Verses 20B21 show Solomon=s dominion over peoples within the physical borders of the land of Israel by having Solomon impress them into service for his building projects. The historicity of the claims 1 Kings 9:17B19 make no particular difference to the meaning of the passage within its literary context. Historical positivists, faced with such a result, would immediately conclude that the passage is of no historical interest at all. Rather than telling the truth about Solomon=s building activities, the passage merely fleshes out the Deuteronomic Historian=s understanding of Solomon=s grand reign. Finkelstein and Silberman (2000 137B140) chastise Y. Yadin for his historical misuse of 1 Kings 9:17B19 in identifying ASolomonic@ structures at Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor. Strangely enough, the authors make a similar historical blunder in their conclusions about the Adynastic myth@ of the kingdoms of David and Solomon. AArchaeologically, we can say no more about David and Solomon except they existedCand that their legend endured.@ (2001 143) These are historical assertions, not archaeological assertions. Archaeology gives us no more evidence for such Alegends@ than it does for Solomonic six-chambered gates. The issue is a confusion of categories on all sides. Like all historical characters, David and Solomon come to us from literary sources, not archaeological excavations. Archaeology can supplement but it can very seldom prove or disprove historical assertions. In this case, the claims in 1 Kings 9:17B19 have a clear narrative and ideological function in the text. The text does not say that Solomon built six-chambered gates or that he followed the same building plans in these various cities. But the discovery of a 10th century entrept at Hesi makes it possible to imagine a governmental undertaking to facilitate trade along a major east-west route and to understand how such undertakings might be imperfectly reflected in ideological summaries. Summary and Conclusions In previous sections we have examined Tell el-Hesi and its environs as it is known from the excavations of Petrie and Bliss. For the tripartite pillared buildings of Bliss=s City V, and for Petrie=s ALong Range of Chambers@ and his AManasseh Wall,@ Bliss=s City VI, the occupational remains of Tell el-Hesi spanning most of the 10th, 9th, and 8th centuries B.C.E., we have concluded that they can only be interpreted as functioning as a part of a Judahite economic and military system. Throughout these centuries, Tell el-Hesi was probably the first Judahite site encountered as one traveled ENE on the road from Gaza to Hebron and Jerusalem (fig. 4). Tell el-Hesi was border station, almost certainly serving a variety of economic, governmental, and military functions. In the previous sections we have made some specific suggestions, but only further excavations, analysis, and publication of other archaeological sites may clarify those possibilities. At this time we can only conclude, Tell el-Hesi was Judahite. If ones looks at recent maps of the various administrative districts of Judah (e.g., Rainey 1983: fig. 1, where Tell el-Hesi is labeled AYurza?@), inevitably one sees that Tell el-Hesi is located west of Judah=s western boundaries. In other words, to historical geographers and biblical scholars who draw boundaries based on extant texts, Tell el-Hesi is not Judahite. How does one reconcile the texts with the archaeology of Tell el-Hesi? We find neither archaeological nor textual grounds for such from Judah=s borders in the 10th, 9th, and 8th centuries B.C.E. In the end, we conclude that all of the biblical boundary lists must post-date the 8th century destruction of Tell el-Hesi, the event that appears to have terminated Hesi=s political relationship with Judah. Such a conclusion allows us to redraw the 10th through 8th century borders of Judah based on the extant archaeological data. For those of us who are publishing the primary archaeological remains that we excavated at Tell el-Hesi, we remain convinced that they are best interpreted as being Judahite. Our Judahite attribution is based fully on the archaeological record of Tell el-Hesi when it is compared with the archaeological records of contemporary sites that are universally accepted as being Judahite, such at Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim (Tel Beit Mirsim), Tel Halif (Tell Khuweilfeh), Tel Beer-Sheba (Tell es-Seba), and Tell Arad (Tel Arad). In other words, we believe that Tell el-Hesi was both culturally and politically Judahite throughout the 10th and 9th centuries BCE and that the site only ceased to be politically Judahite with its destruction near the end of the 8th century BCE. This puts us in direct opposition to the now generally accepted interpretation, based on both historical geographical and archaeological argumentation, that Hesi never was Judahite. List of Tables Table 1: Tell el-Hesi: Stratigraphic Summary List of Figures Figure 1. Map of Palestine showing sites mentioned in the text. Figure 2. Plan of Petrie=s Pilaster Building as augmented by the Joint Expedition. Figure 3. Bliss=s Plan of City V. Figure 4. Revised Map of Hesi region showing roads, neighboring sites, and putative boundary of Judah. Figure 5. Revised Plan of Bliss=s City V, showing two phases of use. Figure 6. Hypothetical plan of the original construction of the tripartite pillared structures. Figure 7. Petrie Wadi Section Figure 8. Chamber/Fill plan. Figure 9. City VI over City V. Figure 10. Master Section of Stratum VIIId Figure 11. Master Site Plan. Bibliography Albright, William Foxwell 1924 Researches of the School in Western Judaea. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 15: 2-11. 1925 The Fall Trip of the School in Jerusalem: From Jerusalem to Gaza and Back. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 17: 4-9. Amiran, R., and J. E. Worrell 1976 Tel Hesi. Pp. 514-20 in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavation in the Holy Land, ed. M. Avi-Yonah. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baillie, M. G. L. 1991 Suck-in and Smear: Two Related Chronological Problems for the 1990's. Journal of Theoretical Archaeology 2: 12-16. Barr, James 1990 Mythical Monarch Unmasked? Mysterious Doings of Debir, King of Eglon. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 48: 55-68. Bennett, W. J., Jr., and Jeffrey A. Blakely 1989 Tell el-Hesi: The Persian Period (Stratum V). Excavation Reports of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Tell el-Hesi 3. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Blakely, Jeffrey A. 1981 Judahite Refortification of the Lachish Frontier. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University. 2000 Petrie=s Pilaster Building at Tell elHesi. In The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer, edited by Lawrence E. Stager, Joseph A. Greene, and Michael D. Coogan, pp. 66-80. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Blakely, Jeffrey A., and James W. Hardin Forth- Coming Blakely, Jeffrey A. and Fred L. Horton, Jr. 1995 Tell elHesi: What Is in a Name? In The Yahweh/Baal Confrontation and Other Studies in Biblical Literature and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Emmett Willard Hamrick, ed. by Fred L. Horton, Jr., and Julia M. O'Brien, pp. 94149. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. Forth- Coming Blakely, Jeffrey A., and Lawrence E. Toombs 1980 The Tell el-Hesi Field Manual. Excavation Reports of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Tell el-Hesi 1. Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research. Bliss, Frederick Jones 1892 Report of the Excavations at Tell el-Hesy, for the Autumn Season of the Year 1891. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 1892: 95-113. 1894 A Mound of Many Cities. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Brandl, Baruch 1997 >Erani, Tel. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. by Eric M. Meyers, vol. 2 pp. 256-258. New York: Oxford University Press. Cross, Frank M. and Wright G. Ernest. 1956 The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah. Journal of Biblcal Literature 75:202B226. Dahlberg, Bruce T., and Kevin G. O=Connell, S.J., eds. 1989 Tell el-Hesi: The Site and the Expedition. Excavation Reports of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Tell el-Hesi 4. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Doermann, Ralph W., and Valerie M. Fargo 1985 Tell el-Hesi, 1983. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 117: 1-24. Dorsey, David A. 1991 The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Eakins, J. Kenneth 1993 Tell el-Hesi: The Muslim Cemetery in Fields V and VI/IX (Stratum II). Excavation Reports of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Tell el-Hesi 5. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Fitz, Volkmar 2000 Die Grenzen des Landes Israels. In Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kollai, ed. By Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld, pp. 14B34. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol LXXXI. Leiden, E. J. Brill. Garsiel, Moshe 2000 David=s Warfare against the Philistines in the Vicinity of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5, 17B25; 1 Chron 14, 8B16. In Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kollai, ed. By Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld, pp. 150B164. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol LXXXI. Leiden, E. J. Brill. Gophna, R. 1981 The Boundary between Judah and the Kingdoms of Gaza and Ashkelon in the Light of the Archaeological Survey in Nahal Shiqma. In Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Proceedings, vol 2 pp. 49-52. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Grintz, Y. M. 1960 The South-Western Border of the Promised Land. In Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, ed. by Menehem Haran, pp. 7-19. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Herr, Lawrence G. 1988 Tripartite Pillared Buildings and the Marketplace in Iron Age Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 272: 47-67. Herzog, Ze=ev 1973 The Storehouses. In Beer-Sheba I, ed. by Yohanan Aharoni, pp. 23-30. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. 1992 Administrative Structures in the Iron Age. In The Architecture of Ancient Israel from Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, ed. by Aharon Kempinski and Ronny Reich, pp. 223-230. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Holladay, John S. 1986 The Stables of Ancient Israel. In The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies, ed. by Lawrence T. Gerraty and Larry G. Herr, pp. 103-165. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press. Horton, Fred L., Jr., and Jeffrey A. Blakely 2000 >Behold, Water!= Tell el-Hesi and the Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40). Revue biblique. 110 (1): 56-71. Kitchen, Kenneth A. 1988 Egypt and Israel during the First Millennium B.C. In Vetus Testamentum Supplement, vol. 40, pp. 107-123. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1997 A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and Deity *Dod as Dead as the Dodo? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 76: 30-44. Kletter, Raz 1991 The Inscribed Weights of the Kingdom of Judah. Tel Aviv 18: 121-63. 1996 The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. BAR International Series 636. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm. 1999 Pots and Politics: Material Remains of Late Iron Age Judah in Relation to Its Political Borders. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 314: 19-54. Kochavi, Moshe 1998a The Eleventh Century BCE Tripartite Pillar Building at Tel Hadar. In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, ed. by Seymour Gitin, Amihai Mazar, and Ephraim Stern, pp. 468-478. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1998b The Ancient Road from the Bashan to the Mediterranean. In From the Ancient Sites of Israel: Essays on Archaeology, History and Theology in Memory of Aapeli Saarisalo (1896-1986), ed. by Timo Eskola and Eero Junkkaala, pp. 25-48. Helsinki: Theological Institute of Finland. 1999 Divided Structures Divide Scholars. Biblical Archaeology Review 25 (3): 44-50. Kuhn, Thomas 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamon, Robert S.; and Geoffrey M. Shipton 1939 Megiddo I. Seasons of 1925-34. Strata I-V. Oriental Institute Publication, no. 42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Matthers, John M. 1989 Excavations by the Palestine Exploration Fund at Tell el-Hesi, 1890-1892. In Tell el-Hesi: The Site and the Expedition, ed by. Bruce T. Dahlberg and Kevin G. O=Connell, S.J., pp. 37-67. Excavation Reports of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Tell el-Hesi 4. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. May, Herbert Gordon, ed. 1962 The Oxford Bible Atlas. New York: Oxford University Press. Mazar, Benjamin 1957 The Campaign of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine. In Vetus Testamentum Supplement IV, pp. 57-66. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Meeks, Wayne A. 1993 The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version. San Francisco, New York, London: Harper Collins, Publishers. Na=aman, Nadav 1986 Borders & Districts in Biblical Historiography. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4. Jerusalem: Simor Ltd. 1992 Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19 (1): 71-93. Netzer, E. 1992 Domestic Architecture in the Iron Age. Pp. 192-201 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, eds. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. O=Connell, Kevin G., S.J.; and D. Glenn Rose 1980 Tell el-Hesi, 1979. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 112: 73-91. O=Connell, Kevin G., S. J.; D. Glenn Rose; and Lawrence E. Toombs 1978 Tell el-Hesi, 1977. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110: 75-90. Oren, Eliezer D. 1984 >Governor=s Residencies= in Canaan under the New Kingdom: A Case Study of Egyptian Administration. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14: 37-56.[also published in Eretz Israel 18: 183-99. (Hebrew)]. 1992 Palaces and Patrician Houses in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Pp. 105-20 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, eds. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Petrie, William Matthew Flinders 1890 Journal of Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 1890: 219-246. 1891 Tell el-Hesy (Lachish). London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Pritchard, James B. 1970 The Megiddo Stables: A Reassessment. In Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, ed. by James A. Sanders, pp. 268-276. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Rainey, Anson F. 1976 Eglon (City). 1. Tell >Aitun. In Interpreter=s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, p. 252, edited by K. Crim et al. Nashville: Abington Press. 1981 The Administrative Division of the Shephelah. Tel Aviv 7: 194-202. 1982 Eglon. In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol. 2, E-J, pp. 28-29. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdman=s 1983 The Biblical Shephelah of Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 251: 1-22. 1993 Sharhn/Sharuhen B The Problem of Identification. Eretz Israel 24: 178*-187*. (Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak) 1954 Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak. Vol. 3, The Bubastite Portal. Oriental Institute Publication 74. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Robinson, Edward 1841 Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petra, vol. 2. London: John Murray. Rose, D. Glenn; and Lawrence E. Toombs 1976 Tell el-Hesi, 1973 and 1975. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 108: 41-54. Singer-Avitz, Lily 1999 Beersheba B A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 26 (1): 3-74. Toombs, Lawrence E. 1974 Tell el-Hesi, 1970-71. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 106: 19-31. 1983 Tell el-Hesi, 1981. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 115: 25-46. 1985 Tell el-Hesi: Modern Military Trenching and Muslim Cemetery in Field I, Strata I-II. Excavation Reports of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Tell el-Hesi 2. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. 1989 The Changing Function of a Palestinian Site: Tell el-Hesi. Echos du Monde Classique/ Classical Views 8: 125-146. Tufnell, Olga 1953 Lachish III: The Iron Age. London: Oxford University Press. Ussishkin, David 1978 Excavations at Tel Lachish, 1973-1977: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 5: 1-97. 1983 Excavations at Tel Lachish, 1978-1983: Second Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 10: 97-175. 1997 Lachish. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. by Eric M. Meyers, vol. 3, pp. 317-323. New York: Oxford University Press. Wright, G. Ernest 1971 A Problem of Ancient Topography: Lachish and Eglon. Harvard Theological Review 64: 437-450. Yadin, Yigal 1972 The Stables of Megiddo. Eretz Israel 12: 57-62. (Hebrew). Yeivin, Shmuel, et al 1961 Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tel Gat (Tell esh Sheykh Ahmed el-Areyny): Seasons 1956-1958. Jerusalem: Mishlahat Gat. 1975 El->Areini, Tell esh-Sheik Ahmed (Tel >Erani). In Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 1, pp. 89-97. Jerusalem. 1993 >Erani, Tel. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 2 pp. 417-422. New York. Yezerski, Irit 1999 Burial Cave Distribution and the Borders of the Kingdom of Judah toward the End of the Iron Age. Tel Aviv 26 (2): 253-70. Zimhoni, Orna 1997 Lachish Levels V and IV: Comments on the Material Culture of Judah in the Iron Age II in the Light of the Lachish Pottery Repertoire. In Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological, Archaeological and Chronological Aspects, by Orna Zimhoni, pp. 57-178. Occasional Publication of Tel Aviv, no. 2. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Archeological Assessments, Inc., Nashville, AR 71852 Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109 Trinity Lutheran Seminary, Columbus, OH 43209 In this paper we will use the Arabic site names as preserved by the Survey of Western Palestine for all topographic features for which they exist, except when an excavated site is better known by a Hebrew toponym or in the case when a Biblical identification is certain, as in the case of Lachish (Arabic Tell ed-Duweir or Hebrew Tel Lachish). We notice, however, that this consensus has not made its way completely into popular publications. The Harper-Collins Bible (1993), for instance, labels the site of Tell el-Hesi as AEglon?@ on one map (page 335) and labels both Tell el-Hesi and Tell >Aitun as AEglon?@ on color map 18.  Nonetheless, we have included it in our stratigraphy as Stratum IX.  That Dorsey did not recognize the significance of this road leading him to describe it as a combination of his roads I15-J14/J16 (Dorsey 1991: 67, 195-196) is a result of his failure to utilize the sources of the Arabic periods.  This move from Tell el-Hesi to Lachish parallels the construction and of these structures first at Tel Masos (Khirbet el-Meshash) in the 11th century, Tel Malhata in the 10th century, and Beer-Sheba soon thereafter (Kochavi 1998a: 476). Reading with the ketiv: tamar as against the qere: tadmor. See 2 Chronicles 8:8, Ezekiel 47:19 and 48:28. Possibly `Ain el-`Arus below the Dead Sea. BDB 1071b, 1062. See also White 1992: 307 and Lott 1992: 315B316. It is difficult not to follow the LXX in its omission of 69!" here. As we shall see, however, this expression may be part of a formula that is important to the narration despite its syntactical inelegance.  For a possible economic motive, see Singer-Avitz (1999). See the review of the suggestions on the meaning of the name in Westermann (1985 248). Gerhard von Rad (1961 190) informs us that the narrativeCor is it the tradition behind the narrative?Ccomes to us from the southernmost part of Palestine. While Kadesh fits as a deeply southern locale, leading us to the possible conclusion that Bared was also southern, that does not necessarily mean that the tradition or the narrative have to come from the south. H. Gunkel (1964 28B29) sees the function of such etymology as being to explain a linguistic phenomenon. J. Simon (1959 217 '368) mentions a ebel umm el-b~red as possibly retaining the ancient name Bered but cannot locate that site. Beyond this half-hearted suggestion, commentators have agreed that the site is unknown to us. See, for instance, von Rad (1961 190), Westermann (1985 248), and Hamilton (1990 457). Although we agree that the site is unknown to us, the text reads as though the ancient reader/hearer would be expected to know it.  We are very grateful for the generous help on Nahum provided by Professor Julia O=Brien of Lancaster Theological Seminary, who is preparing a new commentary on Nahum. While she is in no way responsible for our conclusions, she provided us with very helpful bibliographical references and suggestions based on her current research. See Paul (1991: 35). The exact location of Tekoa, however, is important for H. W. Wolff (1977). The putative location of biblical Tekoa at modern Hirbet Teku means for Wolff that Amos must have practiced his trade of tending sycamoretrees in locations well removed from his home town where sycamores do not grow (Wolff 1977: 90). Wolff assures the reader that Tekoa is a likely location for a Asheep breeder,@ the other profession Amos follows (Wolff 1977: 123). As expected, Wolff (1977: 123n66) follows Hans Schmidt (1920)in dismissing the Rabbinic and medieval idea that Amos came from a town in the northern kingdom. Too much is at stake. If Amos were a citizen of the northern kingdom, then that fact would make the whole issue of the royal theology in the prophecy of Amos moot because his placement on the theological grid would then make it unlikely that the prophet would hold a typically southern kingship ideology. We have, of course, also raised the question as to whether even birth in the south would guarantee such a pristine kingship ideology. It would, of course, be difficult or even impossible to interpret Nahum out of a northern context because of the mention of the destruction of Thebes in Nahum 3:8, a reference, most likely, to the Assyrian conquest of the city in 663 B.C.E. Francisco O. GarcaTreto (1996 597) claims that the mention of Thebes in 3:8 is a clear terminus post quem, whereas the Fall of Nineveh in 612 is on the order of actual anticipatkion. He dates the book near the time of the city=s destruction and deals with the prophecy as stemming from a late 7th century Judean prophet. For him too AElkoshite@ must refer to a city in the southwest part of Judah (1996 599). His reasons for these two assumptions about AElkoshite@ are as obscure as they are in the work of Roberts and Cathcart. For a thorough discussion of this passage see Moshe Garsiel (2000).  The absolute date of the destruction of Hesi=s Stratum VIIIa is currently being reconsidered by Jeffrey A. Blakely and James W. Hardin. They are considering the possibility that Hesi, as well as some neighboring sites, was destroyed prior to 701 BCE, possibly by Tiglath-Pileser III or by Sargon II. PAGE 11 Could we vary the word excavate/excavator a bit? They don=t all have historical contexts, do they? Are we sure of this?? I assume this should read Athat of ...@ Why 1140? Is this just a date in the Amiddle of the 12th century?@ Should we use metric units here?   BDNPaceyz*+kl}~N O W X x y x~{ؾؾؾص j0JCJH*OJQJUaJj<CJOJQJUaJCJOJQJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJOJQJaJ j0JCJH*OJQJUaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJ56CJH*OJQJ\]aJ56CJOJQJ\]aJ2,bcfgx  C ""s($n1$$$n1$$n1$a$1$n1$$1$a$$1$a$ m…Ʌ!"'(:; gisukl01:;HI"""@&A&''2'3'((())))))$)&)/̿̿̿CJOJQJaJ5>*CJOJQJ\aJ5CJOJQJ\aJCJH*OJQJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJEs(t((((((%)&)s)t)) * * *k***+/+0+t++@ `@ `^`` `@ 1$^@ ` ``1$^``1$+++++C,,,,,-P-Q-----:.w....///{/1$@ 1$`@ `P^`P`@ `@ {///////000]00001K1d1e1111"2#2u22 `^`@ `@ `^``//000222222222333344#8%8.8/8I8J8e8f888899::::::[;];n;r;!<#<<</=0=6=7=Q=R=m=n=> >ɽɨɨɨɞɽɞɽɞɞɏɨɨɨɨj<CJOJQJUaJCJH*OJQJaJCJOJQJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJOJQJaJCJH*OJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJaJCJOJQJaJjCJUmHnHu8222O3333.4l4m44455V5W55555*6_6p6q66661$` ``^``@ `@ 677G7Z7[777777$8%8888;;??-@.@@CGfI @@n]@^@n `@ 1$^@ `1$ >>>>>???@@@@,@sBtBDD$D%DDDDDEE2E3EEEEEFFFFNHPHrHsH~HHRNSNNN>O@OJOLO^P_P~PPPPPPQQzQ{Q R RRRRR"S#S j0JCJH*OJQJUaJCJH*OJQJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJ6CJOJQJ]aJj<CJOJQJUaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJDfIgIJ%NfTXX:Zf]bffbklo)v>w?wxy^y`yz-|P}Q} PPn]P^P$n]^a$ d]^n#SZS\SSSSSDTFTRTTTTTTTxWyWXXXXS[U[\]]]^^#^$^s_w_``/`0`~````aaaaaabbcc5c6cVcddwxxxxxxx$x(x0x2xxDxFxJxNxXxZxúCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJH*OJQJaJj0JCJH*UaJ CJH*aJCJOJQJaJCJaJCJOJQJaJIZx`xbxhxjxnxpxvxxx|x~xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxy y yyyyy*y,y2y4yyLyNy\y`yyyzzzzz{{R{S{R|\|||||Q}CJOJQJaJ CJH*aJCJaJ j0JCJH*OJQJUaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJHQ}h}i}k}l}}}}}}}}}}}}}~~@~B~ABij &'=>OPRSijʂ˂@Aw|~8:Ɉʈ01rs޿޳5CJOJQJ\aJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJOJQJaJCJH*OJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJ6CJ]aJCQ}}()׎qY ܫݫƯ{TUyn PPn]P^PǓɓ"TU`gڠ۠)*op|} $%34:;^_ɳɳɳɳɳɳCJaJ j0JCJH*OJQJUaJCJOJQJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJH*OJQJaJCJOJQJaJj<CJOJQJUaJF_m?AGI{}۫ܫ \^ĮƮuvկ֯]_̱ͱln?@RT uv " IKLMOkmyCJOJQJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJ56>*CJOJQJ\]aJCJH*OJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJaJMyù 'w$&g_q23Uxn$na$¹TUst>?HIjkRS˿̿uwtustz{-M&'mnvwz45TUCJOJQJaJ j0JCJH*OJQJUaJCJH*OJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJKUefg \]_` !:;efgh:<wx6CJOJQJ]aJ j0JCJH*OJQJUaJCJH*OJQJaJ5OJQJ\j0J5H*OJQJU\CJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJA~9:OP`a./pqST%&=>t{-78?@ B^_!"&'QR\]VWYo6CJOJQJ]aJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJTU:B E l:! '!').B.A2y45599 Hn$vn]v^a$n-.KLRShist+RYcdfg~no)*   ;<wxWX j0JCJH*OJQJUaJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJOJQJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJJ@AVWHJ\^$&.068>@FHRT\^dflntv|~ CJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJZ "(*028fh56  "# :<-"."""####$$%%i%j%u%v%%%&&}&~&&&K'L'V(W(((((((6)7)I)J)S)T)))))**d*e****+CJH*OJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJV+++e,f,A-C-*.A.../// / /!/"/+/,/:/;/A/B/K///////22222233C4D4W4Y4\4^4e4g4x4y444#5$5v5x555B8D8J8L888889999::;:::5CJOJQJ\aJ j0JCJH*OJQJUaJCJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJH*OJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJH999999999999999 :!:u:v:::;;I;J;;;;;;n:#;$;Z<f<<<L====>=>Y>>>>*?T???@@@ APAA]BBCCDDDEGEHEXEEHFeFlFmFFFFFGGGHOHH@ICIIIIIIJJ/J0J{J|JJJJJK K$KGKKλλ6CJ]aJ56CJ\]aJCJaJ56CJOJQJ\]aJ5CJOJQJ\aJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJJ;; < <8<9<W<X<Y<Z<g<h<<<<===>>?>Q>>> `n1$$ ,xH X(h8"n1$^`$n1$a$n1$n>>`?a?b??7@8@L@@@AAAABB1BACBCLCWCXC `0n1$^`0$ ,xH X(h8"n1$^` `n1$XCC7D8DODDD.E/E0E?EEEFrFsFFQGRG{GG# ,xH X(h8"n^`$ ,xH X(h8"n1$^` `n1$GGG3H4HGHIIJ"JgKhKsKkLlLzLMM#M `0n^`0 `n# ,xH X(h8"n^`$ ,xH X(h8"n1$^`K0LlLLLrMMMMMMiNNQO|O"P#P1P2PxPPPPQQQR"R9RsRSOSSTT1UUUV(VVVjWWWWmXXXYYYYYZLZtZvZZZZZ8[[[[[[[[X\w\\\CJH*OJQJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJOJQJaJ56CJOJQJ\]aJCJOJQJaJCJaJ56CJ\]aJI#MMMM1N2NOO&OOOPPPP5Q6QQQQ/R0R1RRR `n# ,xH X(h8"n^`R\S]SlSuTvTUUUUUQVRV|VWWWKXLXeXXXX `0n^`0 `n# ,xH X(h8"n^`XX7Y8YHYYYYY?ZKZLZZZZ[[[[[;\\\\] `n1$ `n` `0n^`0 `n\\\\\\]>]\]h]]'^p^q^^^ ____W`X`c`n`o````aa>akavayaaaab7b8bZbfbbbbbLcccdLdMddddde>e]ereseeffffrgzgg޸޸ެ޸޸޸5CJOJQJ\aJ56CJOJQJ\]aJ6CJ]aJ56CJOJQJ\]aJCJOJQJaJ56CJ\]aJCJaJCJOJQJaJD]]p^q^^^__F_G_[_&`'`8```*a+aaa `0n1$^`0$ ,xH X(h8"n1$^` `n1$ `0n^`0 `nabbvbwbb2c3cDcccc%d&d'd:dddd e!eje `0n^`0 `n `n1$$ ,xH X(h8"n1$^`jekeMfNffffgg.ggggghhhhh i `0n1$^`0 `n1$ `0n^`0# ,xH X(h8"n^` `nggg2hhh+i7iniiiij j,jgjjjjjkk:ll m m m@mAmqmrmmmnnaouoooooooooppppp^p_p`papDqFqGqHqqqͻͻ͡͡͡CJH*OJQJaJOJQJCJOJQJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJj0JH*OJQJUCJaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJ56CJOJQJ\]aJ; iNiOiPifiiijjkkkkkk m m@mqmmnp_pFq5r`# ,xH X(h8"n^`qqq4r5r6rGrLrNrSrcrgrirorss sstt,u.u0uuuuavbvvvwwxx*x,xLxNxhxjxpxzzz{{|| |}}}}-.ҷҷҮҥҮҮҮҮҙƙҮCJOJQJaJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJ56CJOJQJ\]aJ6CJOJQJ]aJCJOJQJaJj0JH*OJQJUOJQJCJH*OJQJaJCJOJQJaJ85r s*u,uuxz|-2w2[ $$& #$a$d` PP]P^P PP]P^P`PP]P^P`GInoxy23wx23MNYZ[\…ÅŅƅɅ jZU B*ph B*phH*OJQJ jUCJaJmHnHuCJaJjCJUaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJj0JH*OJQJUCJOJQJaJCJH*OJQJaJCJOJQJaJ7[…ąŅDžȅɅʅ# ,xH X(h8"n^`#$d%d&d'dNOPQ ɅʅCJaJ+0P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!P"P#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%. 00P/ =!"#$%ZDd$Z0  # A2Y.6eX?j6NDy`!Y.6eX?j6Nc[0xxcdd``b  L b02ܓcAj~1A$ac #;2Rabcx/49~0y= TFS~m%qZDd$Z0  # A2Y.6eX?j6Ny`!Y.6eX?j6Nc[0xxcdd``b  L b02ܓcAj~1A$ac #;2Rabcx/49~0y= TFS~m%q iH`H Normal1$7$8$H$CJPJ_HaJmH sH tH <A@< Default Paragraph Font4&@4 Footnote Referenceyx "OxSj/tTtܽ q)s 6gU<+? F kp   <<+? kpp s horton Fred Hortonk/9:Zsflhflhflhflhflhflh2e|  &-4gETbsh(߽^!Ko&P,05=B_I7OTYs N -N ]N N N N O MO }O O O P =P mP P P P -Q ]Q Q Q Q R MR }R R R S =S mS S"zzzzzzzz z z z z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt% &-47gEsHTWbis~h(Σڳ߽B^!_Ko&**P,,0j25g8=?BF_IL7OSTXYs V2t2  p  0   s)*I% s$t$$$$$$%%&%s%t%% & & &k&&&'/'0't''''''C((((()P)Q))))):*w****+++{+++++++,,,],,,,-K-d-e----".#.u....O////.0l0m00011V1W11111*2_2p2q222233G3Z3[333333$4%444477;;-<.<<?CfEgEF%JfPTT:VfY^bbbglk)r>s?sssss!ulvwwxz}gh'(I[Ȳڳ۳Iö˷f޽߽ 8]^#e !;mpJKB   ( A "%n&o&**+*,*-*.*/*0*1*2*A*B*p*q*r*****++=+>+++++O,P,o,p,,,,,,,,,,, - -&---/.0.N....q/r/~/00020000t1u1i2j22222233333(444455555566677N7778g8h8y888899:: < <<======X>Y>g>>>???@@@\L\]]`aabcdddfhinqcqrrrrrsssss0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000/ >#SkZxQ}_U+:K\gqɅʅvy}s(+{/26fIQ}yU9;>XCG#MRX]aje i5r[ʅwz{|~Ʌxs !48@X(    <? #"    <? #"  B S  ?+,s|T*Zr|T*Zr]rrrs]rrrs]rrrs Fred HortonC:\Userdata\Hesi\judahite.doc@HP LaserJet 4 PlusLPT1:HPPCL5MSHP LaserJet 4 PlusHP LaserJet 4 Plus@w XX@MSUDHP LaserJet 4 Plus<d HP LaserJet 4 Plus@w XX@MSUDHP LaserJet 4 Plus<d UUo8UU?s?t??uu++    cdfgs@x@@@@,@8@@@t@x@Unknown G:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :ArialQBaskerville Old FaceSWP TypographicSymbolsGWP Hebrew DavidAGoudyOlSt BTWWP MultinationalA Roman; Batang" hc?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F@qData 1Table_HWordDocumentSSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPool@q@q  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entryj%W_Data 1Table ObjectPoolC%W_C%W_WordDocumentDocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPool@q@q       !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~G bjbjَ ]% ]~ ~ ~ v T @\L,t$ e@H H H RH H H H H , "h bt' SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Judahite Governmental Outpost and Fortress: Tell el-Hesi in the 10th through 8th Centuries B.C.E. by Jeffrey A. Blakely, Fred L. Horton, Jr., and Ralph W. Doermann Introduction At some point after excavation, the excavators of an archaeological site are called upon to write a  final report describing and interpreting what they found during excavation.  As part of this  final report they are expected to place their site into an its an accepted historical context and interpret how it functioned. In most cases an important aspect of such a discussion is the description of the cultural or political entity of which the site was a part. Usually such a discussion is not problematic and the background is generally accepted. If the site in question is located on or near a border and no accepted biblical name is attached to a site, then that background may be debatable. As we are preparing the final report for the work of the Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tell el-Hesi and as we seek to discuss the historical context of Tell el-Hesi in the Iron Age, however, this is precisely the situation into which we have fallen. If a site s cultural milieu is debatable, as we believe is the case with Tell el-Hesi, we believe that this context must be discussed and established apart from the final report and that the cultural background to which the project will ascribe must be derived using materials that are not the primary excavated remains of the project being published. Clearly it is impossible to divorce oneself entirely from that which one has excavated, but we believe that in most cases a reasonable historical context should be obtainable from other, previously existing, resources. This gets all the more complicated when one is publishing an excavation that began 30 years ago. Recently Blakely and Horton (forthcoming) examined how a scholarly paradigm (in the broadest sense of Kuhn, 1962) provides both the basis for interpretation and the questions asked in scholarly research. Blakely and Horton examined how, over the past 160 years, various scholars have attempted to identify the  Biblical name of Tell el-Hesi (Tel Hasi) (fig. 1). They described how the bases of site identification changed over time as the scholarly paradigms of the disciplines of Historical Geography and Biblical Studies themselves have changed. There can be no doubt that when the Joint Expedition began its excavation of Tell el-Hesi in 1970 that it was operating in a world dominated by the Biblical Theology movement and that today, as we seek to publish the site, the Biblical Theology movement is long since dead, replaced by paradigms that search for realia both in archaeology and in biblical scholarship. During the excavation of Tell el-Hesi the site was most commonly identified as Eglon, based on Albright s identification of 1924 (1924, 1925). This identification was accepted by most biblical atlases (e.g., May 1962) and in interpretive studies of the site (e.g., Wright 1971). Since Joshua had conquered Eglon and allotted it to Judah (Joshua 10:3, 34; 15:39), scholars readily accepted the proposition that Tell el-Hesi was both historically and culturally Judahite and that the site was located within the southwestern borders of Judah. By the mid-1970s, however, Tell el-Hesi s identification as biblical Eglon came into serious question, and ultimately a scholarly consensus denied this identification altogether. As to the location of Eglon. Rainey (1976; 1981; 1982; 1983) has held strongly for Khirbet  Aitun (Tel  Eton) and James Barr has suggested (1990) that the city name may be a literary invention. Recently, Blakely and Horton have prepared a variety of studies in which potential biblical identifications of Tell el-Hesi are evaluated and ultimately rejected, including that of Eglon (Blakely and Horton 1995, forthcoming; Horton and Blakely 2000). Even while many scholars still believed that Hesi was biblical Eglon (Rose 1976), it is certainly fair to say that most staff members of the Joint Expedition to Tell el-Hesi in the 1970s and early 1980s doubted the site s  Eglon identification and found the biblical identification, whatever it might have been, of little consequence. Nonetheless and at the same time, we remained confident that we were digging a Judahite site (e.g., Blakely 1981). Identifying Eglon with Khirbet  Aitun or totally removing Eglon from the map, would have profound consequences for the study of the historical geography of Palestine. Once Rainey removed the Eglon identification from Tell el-Hesi, there was no textual need for the borders of monarchical Judah, known primarily from Joshua 15, to extend any great distance west from Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir, Tel Lachish). No longer did Eglon pull the putative border out of the Shephelah down onto the loessal plains in the vicinity of Tell el-Hesi. Recently, based on various types of material cultural remains, some researchers have claimed that lay Tell el-Hesi outside the borders of Judah. (See Kletter 1999 and Yezerski 1999). Therefore, today most scholars place the border of southwestern Judah at the geomorphological interface of the hills of Judah with the coastal plain, just west of Lachish, some 6-8 km east of Tell el-Hesi (e.g., Rainey 1981; 1983). According to the recent reconstruction of Finkelstein and Silberman (2001), Lachish lay well outside the Amarna-era region controlled by Abdi-Heba of Urusalim (239; 156 Fig 19), but by the late eighth century BCE it had slipped under the fence to function on western border of Judah as a  major administrative center (245; 258 Fig 27). Hesi, some 8 km southwest of Lachish, however, does not figure into their reconstruction. For them as for so many others, Hesi was never Judahite. Stripped of its Philistine associations as Eglon, Iron II Tell el-Hesi has indeed became devoid of a cultural or political affiliation in recent archaeological and geographical-historical scholarship This cultural and geographical agnosticism about Hesi s affiliations may serve the interests of academic caution, but it is not an acceptable stopping point. As we hope to demonstrate here, there are indicators in the archaeological record that allow us to make a reasonable reconstruction of the site s ethnic and political allegiances during the Iron Age. I. The Archaeological Evidence In the following pages we will examine the archaeological record of Tell el-Hesi for the 10th through 8th centuries B.C.E. based primarily on the published works of Petrie and Bliss (with some clarifications based on our own work) and compare that record with other contemporary sites. To set a base line we will examine the Pilaster Building of Bliss s City IV (our Stratum X), and then move to a study the tripartite pillared buildings of Bliss s City V (our Stratum IX). We will then examine the construction of Petrie s  long range of chambers and his  Manasseh Wall that were part of a massive fortress (our Stratum VIIId) and compare this construction with contemporary sites in order to determine how the site was used in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.E. To us, each of these examinations yields the conclusion that the site was a part of the political and cultural activities of the hill country of Judah, and, therefore, Hesi was politically and culturally Judahite. Having drawn this conclusion, how does one reconcile our archaeological results with the accepted interpretations of biblical scholars regarding the boundary and territorial lists for the region that seemingly exclude Hesi from being part of Judah? The final two sections of this paper examine both the archaeological and the textual and historical issues and attempt to reconcile these records with the archaeological record of Tell el-Hesi. A. Tell el-Hesi: Overview of the Archaeological Record Tell el-Hesi has been the subject of two major archaeological projects. The first extended from 1890 through 1892 when the Palestine Exploration Fund excavated at the site in a series of five excavation seasons, the first directed by William Matthew Flinders Petrie and the final four by Frederick Jones Bliss. Final reports, which largely supercede the various preliminary reports, were prepared that describe the entirety of this work (Petrie 1891; Bliss 1894). The second project, the Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tell el-Hesi, excavated at the site in a series of eight field seasons extending from 1970 through 1983. Analysis of the excavated materials from this project still continues, and this article is a component of that research. To date, five final reports have appeared (Blakely and Toombs 1980; Toombs 1985; Bennett and Blakely 1989; Dahlberg and O Connell 1989; Eakins 1993) as well as a series of preliminary reports that describe aspects of the stratigraphic matrix that have not yet appeared in final reports (e.g., Toombs 1974; Rose and Toombs 1976; O Connell, Rose, and Toombs 1978; O Connell and Rose 1980; Toombs 1983; Doermann and Fargo 1985).Table 1 summarizes the known stratigraphic matrix of Tell el-Hesi as it is currently understood by the archaeological staff of the Joint Expedition. This version has been updated and corrected since it last appeared as Appendix 10 in Eakins (1993: 125-126). ____________________________________________________________________________________ Table 1: TELL EL-HESI: STRATIGRAPHIC SUMMARY Period Date Characteristics Stratum Modern 1948-1956 Israeli military trenching, originating in 1948 Stratum I Ottoman ca. 1600- Muslim cemetery in Fields I, V, VI, and IX. Burials of Stratum II 1800 CE both children and adults in a prepared cemetery area Hellenistic- ca. 300 BCE - Pits, hearths, loessal surfaces, and fragmentary walls, Stratum III Ottoman 1600 CE probably associated with agriculture Late Persian- ca. 400-300 Large scale pitting with few recoverable structures, Stratum IVa Early Hellenistic BCE Field I only Stone building with some pits; Field I only. Probably Stratum IVb Bliss City VIII Brick building on a partial stone foundation; stone built Stratum IVc drain; Field I only Early Persian ca. 525-400 Continued use of building plans of Stratum Vb but with Stratum Va BCE many brick lined storage pits; structural evidence in Field I only Extension and rebuilding of Stratum Vc with a widespread Stratum Vb use of cobbled surfaces; structural evidence in Field I only. Probable continued use of Field III cemetery Building in S of Field I. Fragmentary walls elsewhere in Stratum Vc Field I. Probable continued use of Field III cemetery. Probably part of Bliss City VII Casemate building in SE quadrant of Field I. Open-air Stratum Vd Surface and fragmentary walls in N of Field I. Probable start of use of Field III cemetery. Probably part of Bliss City VII Iron II/ ca. 7th-6th Isolated Pit 11.314/324 Stratum VI Babylonian cents. BCE Iron II late 8th cent./ Building on bricky platform in Field I, Areas 41 and 51; Stratum VII early 7th cent. Field I only BCE  Iron II late 8th cent. Ash layer and destruction debris; Field I only Ash layer BCE  Iron II 8th cent. BCE House with long rooms in Field I, Areas 41 and 51; Stratum VIIIa Probable continued use of Field III wall system; Fields I and III only Iron II 9th/8th cents. Brick-built structure with pits in Field I, Areas 41 and 51; Stratum VIIIb BCE Probable continued use of Field III wall system; Fields I and III only 9th cent. BCE Brick courtyard building in Field I, Areas 22 and 32; Stratum VIIIc Brick structure in Field I, Areas 41 and 51; Initial use of Field III wall system; Bliss City VI 9th cent. BCE Massive constructional phase for Stratum VIIIc city; Stratum VIIId Field III wall system, Petrie s  Manasseh Wall , glacis, and pier/fill system all constructed; Fields I and III only Iron I/ 10th/early 9th Structural evidence lacking in Field I; ceramics abundant Stratum IX Iron II cents. BCE in fills of Fields I and III only; Bliss City V, which includes three tripartite pillared structures Iron IA 1st half 12th Petrie s  Pilaster Building and associated remains in Stratum X cent. BCE Field I, Area 41; Field I only; Bliss City IV LB II Ceramics abundant in fills of Fields I, III, and V; limited stratigraphic evidence in Field I, Areas 61, 71, 81, and 91; Bliss Cities II and III LB I Limited quantities of ceramics in fills of Fields I and III EB IV and A scant few sherds in fills of Fields I and III MB EB III 28th-24th cents. Fields I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX; Several BCE occupational phases; Fortification wall in Fields V, VI, VIII, and IX; Abandoned near end of EB III; Bliss City I EB I-II A scant few sherds in fills of Fields I and III Chalcolithic/ ca. 3500 BCE? Circular structures in Field III, Areas 3 and 5 EB I Pottery Neolithic Sherds and lithics in fills of Fields I and III and Chalcolithic Paleolithic, Epi- Few lithics in fills of Fields I and III Paleolithic, and Pre-Pottery Neolithic ____________________________________________________________________________________________ B. Petrie s Pilaster Building (Bliss s City IV, Joint Expedition s Stratum X) and Abandonment Recently, Blakely (2000) published a comprehensive review and analysis of Petrie s excavation and interpretation of the Pilaster Building in which Blakely incorporated certain discoveries made by the Joint Expedition in 1983 when they reached this structure in one spot. The 1983 excavations allowed Blakely to enlarge the structure s plan (fig. 2) and to augment the ceramics that Petrie recovered. Blakely s (2000) analysis confirmed the long held belief that this structure was occupied in the first half of the 12th century B.C.E. and met a fiery destruction around the middle of that century (e.g., Oren 1992; Matthers 1989 and references there) as opposed to the view that the structure and destruction dated to the 10th century B.C.E. (e.g., Netzer 1992; Amiran and Worrell 1976). These results suggest that Hesi was part of the renewed sphere of Egyptian rule of southern Palestine during the first part of the 12th century B.C.E., as first described by Oren (1984), and that Hesi met destruction along with the other Egyptian dominated sites in the middle of the 12th century B.C.E. Here, we wish to note that the destruction of Lachish VI (Ussishkin 1978; 1983; Zimhoni 1997) and Petrie s Pilaster Building (Bliss s City IV, Joint Expedition s Stratum X) appear to be roughly contemporaneous. We also note that both sites were apparently abandoned at this time and that neither site evinces any  Philistine occupation. These are just a few pieces of evidence illustrating the demise of the socio-economic system that dominated southern Palestine in the Late Bronze Age. The abandonment around 1140 B.C.E. of such a key Late Bronze Age site as Lachish and a somewhat peripheral site like Tell el-Hesi suggests that a period of socio-economic transition occurred as a new system was developing that eventually would again incorporate both of these sites. C. The Tripartite Pillared Buildings (Bliss s City V, Joint Expedition s Stratum IX) During the excavations of November, 1891 (Bliss 1892), Bliss and his workmen discovered a most interesting structure. But only 4 feet under the base of the rooms of this latter city [ed. City VI] a man came on a large roughly- squared stone, and a few minutes after another stone was found 3 feet to the south, and soon another, 3 feet to the north. Here there was plainly a line of stones; but what was the meaning of the next one, found 8 feet to the west? Hardly had we uncovered that, when two more stones, respectively 3 feet to the north and south of it, showed their heads another line and parallel to the first. And so the fascinating structure of parallel walls and stones leisurely revealed itself, as if in no hurry to see the long lost light of day, until tape-measure and prismatic compass gave us the ground-plan of City V., only four feet under City VI., which for centuries had overlaid it. (Bliss 1894: 12). What was this kind of structure, (now generally called  a tripartite pillared building fig. 3)? This was first such structure excavated in Palestine, and Bliss speculated that it might be a  bazaar with streets between the lines of chambers (Bliss 1892: 100; 1894: 95) or alternatively, as some unnamed person suggested to him,  barracks for soldiers (Bliss 1892: 100; 1894: 96; Matthers 1989: 53). Clearly, the most famous examples of tripartite pillared buildings are those at Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 32-47), dubbed at the time,  Solomon s Stables. As additional examples of this building type were discovered, this and other attributions became the focal point for a series of long and detailed debates regarding their exact dates and function(s) (e.g., Herr 1988; Herzog, 1973; 1992; Holladay 1986; Kochavi 1998a; 1999; Pritchard 1970; Yadin 1972). Are these buildings Solomonic? Are these buildings stables for the horses that pull chariots? Are these buildings governmental storehouses? Based on his discovery of a tripartite pillared building at Tel Hadar whose violent destruction (which Kokhavi dated to the end of the 11th century B.C.E.) left the building s contents in situ, Kochavi (1998a) concluded that a tripartite pillared building was an entrept. Previously Herzog (1973: 29) had also ascribed the structural type that same function when he wrote regarding the examples at Tel Beer-Sheba. The variety of products and the presence of different vessels (bowls, jugs, juglets, cooking-pots and flasks) makes it clear that these buildings were in constant use. Products were brought in, measured, prepared, and then taken out according to the needs of the administrative unit (civilian or military) for which they were intended. Recently Kochavi enumerated all 35 examples of tripartite pillared buildings known at twelve sites in Palestine (1998a: 471). Then he presented a map (1998a: Fig 8) showing that these pillared buildings were located on major roads, suggesting to Kochavi that these structures were primarily economic in nature, foci of trade along trade routes. His finds and this distribution of locations certainly supports his arguments. However, we are not fully convinced of the trade-oriented nature of these structures given that the excavated ceramic remains of Stratum V at Tell el-Hesi are virtually identical in function and here one had to argue a military storehouse function (Bennett and Blakely 1989). This is a minor point, however. The major point gained is that these appear to be structures erected by a central government (whether large or small) along a road network. Tell el-Hesi was mentioned as part of Kochavi s rationale (1998a: 471), but we believe that the true significance of Hesi s tripartite pillared buildings Kokahvi overlooked or, at least, under-appreciated. He lumped Tell el-Hesi in with the tripartite pillared buildings of the 10th through 7th centuries B.C.E. In actuality, it is relatively easy to determine a more precise date than a three-century spread for these structures at Tell el-Hesi. Bliss excavated them as his City V, a city above his City IV and below his City VI. As Blakely has shown (2000), Bliss s City IV (the Joint Expedition s Stratum X) dates from about 1200 to 1140 B.C.E. Bliss s City VI or Petrie s Manasseh Wall, which directly overlay the tripartite pillared buildings of Bliss s City V, is part of the massive constructional phase at Tell el-Hesi, the Joint Expedition s Stratum VIIId, a construction dated on various grounds by the Joint Expedition to the mid-9th century B.C.E. (see following section). Bliss s City V, therefore, the city of the tripartite pillared buildings, must date between about 1140 B.C.E. and the mid 9th century B.C.E. Although Bliss s City V (Stratum IX) had been removed by the ancient builders of Tell el-Hesi in the areas where the Joint Expedition excavated, residual pottery in later fills strongly suggests a 10th century B.C.E. date for the construction of Bliss s City V (Stratum IX). As our stratigraphic summary suggests, therefore, we believe that Bliss s City V and its tripartite pillared buildings at Tell el-Hesi can be dated to the 10th and early 9th centuries B.C.E. We also believe that Kochavi (1998a: Fig. 8) has not precisely indicated the relationship of Tell el-Hesi to the region s road system; Kochavi s map indicates that Tell el-Hesi was on the Via Maris. We do not believe this was true. The Via Maris passed at least 19 km (12 miles) west of Hesi, probably at Beit Hanun. Rather, we believe that Tell el-Hesi was located on the main road from Gaza to Hebron and Jerusalem. Elsewhere Blakely and Horton (1995; 2000) have summarized how travelers and descriptions of the road system from Roman times until 1900 describe a major road leading from Gaza to near Beit Jibrin/Eleutheropolis and then on to Hebron. This road passed Tell el-Hesi (fig. 4). We see no reason why this road did not function in the same manner prior to Roman times. Therefore, we believe that Tell el-Hesi was the first major site known on the road from Gaza to Hebron/Jerusalem, located, according to Robinson (1841: 384-390), about a 5 hour and 40 minute ride ENE from Gaza. It was not located, as Kochavi suggested, on the Via Maris. To recapitulate, from sometime in the 10th century through the early 9th century B.C.E. at least three tripartite pillared buildings functioned at Tell el-Hesi; they functioned along the major national road connecting Gaza with Hebron and Jerusalem. These buildings may have been a commercial entrept or a similarly constructed governmental storehouse, but in any case they would appear to have been governmentally constructed. Next it is necessary to consider the stratigraphic record for Lachish for this same period. According to Ussishkin (1978; 1983; Zimhoni 1997), Late Bronze Age City VI at Lachish was destroyed about 1140 B.C.E. and the site does not appear to have been rebuilt until late in the 10th century B.C.E. as City V, a small unwalled settlement. It is unclear if the generally fragmentary remains of City V consisted of two phases or one, but it was later in this period that Podium A appears to have been constructed. Lachish City IV included the addition of Podium B, the wall system and the massive fills of the podium and Area S, and may well have been destroyed by an earthquake in the second quarter of the 8th century B.C.E. Ussishkin (1997: 319-20) places the construction of this phase to around 900 B.C.E. If this comparative archaeological history of Lachish and Tell el-Hesi is correct, then it appears that for most of the 10th century B.C.E. Tell el-Hesi was the more important  governmental site, and that it was only with the construction of Podium A, or maybe even the massive construction of City IV, that Lachish reassumed the position of greater significance as it had held in the Late Bronze Age. The staff of the Joint Expedition has long seen a close parallel in the construction style of Lachish IV and Hesi VIIId (e.g., Blakely 1981), and have long thought them to be essentially contemporary, with the fortifications of Lachish being constructed slightly earlier and Hesi s Stratum VIIId being Lachish s satellite (see following section). Here we suggest, however, that in the 10th century B.C.E. Tell el-Hesi was the dominant site. We suggest that for the 10th century B.C.E., Tell el-Hesi was a significant  governmental site with at least three tripartite pillared buildings, the first such site that one encountered on the road from Gaza to Hebron and Jerusalem. We note, based on the work of Kochavi (1998a, 1999b), that in the 10th century B.C.E. no other known site, with the possible exception of Megiddo, had as many as three such centrally placed structures. We emphasize, Tell el-Hesi was a significant governmental site in the 10th century B.C.E. With this scenario in mind, it is necessary to examine the stratigraphy of Bliss s City V (the Joint Expedition s Stratum IX) a bit more closely. Bliss (1892: 100; 1894: 97) noted that Rooms Q-R-S-T on his plan (fig. 2) were later than the remainder of the city. Henceforth we shall ignore them and suggest that they belonged to Bliss s City VI. If one examines only the three tripartite pillared buildings, Bliss also noted (1892: 98; 1894: 92-93) that even walls O-P-N were later additions to the original structures; thus, we have two phases of their use (fig. 5). Figure 6 is a hypothetical reconstruction of the buildings original plan. It is possible to suggest, therefore, that the three tripartite pillared buildings at Tell el-Hesi were used in their original configuration only in the 10th century B.C.E., and that only subsequently, later in the 10th century B.C.E. were they modified. Could this modification be linked to the original construction of Lachish Level V and/or the campaign of Pharaoh Shishak? Recently the nature of the campaign of Pharaoh Shishak in greater Palestine has been questioned by Na aman (1992). Did Shishak attack any sites in Judah proper, or were his attacks confined to the coastal plain, Israel, and the Negev? If the heartland of Judah was avoided, is it possible that some Judahite border sites were attacked? These are very difficult questions to answer archaeologically, given that absolute chronological markers for this period are absent beyond destruction layers that seem to be associated with Shishak s attack. At a theoretical level, Baillie (1991) has addressed what is likely to happen in such cases: all events that may possibly be related to a Shishak campaign of destruction get  sucked in as evidence for such a destruction even though they are not related, thereby greatly confounding the issue. As it happens, at Hesi it is doubtful that there is a destruction layer which might be correlated with this campaign. Bliss noted (1892: 99),  The earth burying this [tripartite pillared] structure contained few stones, little burning, and was chiefly decayed brick and rubbish. No evidence of a destruction was preserved at Hesi. It is possible that the ancient city of Tell el-Hesi might have been one of the cities mentioned as a conquered city in Shishak s list on the Bubastite Portal at Karnak (Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak 1954; Mazar 1957; Kitchen 1988, 1997), but if it is listed it is not recognizable. We doubt that the ancient city of Tell el-Hesi is listed and we doubt that Hesi was destroyed by Pharaoh Shishak about 925 B.C.E. Nonetheless, and even were Hesi destroyed, we speculate that the destructive impact of Shishak s campaign was the ultimate reason for moving the functions served by the tripartite pillared buildings from Hesi to the far more defensible Lachish early in the 9th century B.C.E. We also speculate that this transfer of function to Lachish occurred when the Hesi buildings were remodeled into a variant form. We suggest that this shift occurred after 925 B.C.E., late in the 10th or early in the 9th centuries B.C.E., but still before the end of Bliss s City V (Stratum IX) in the mid- to early 9th century B.C.E. To this point we have not suggested a political or cultural affiliation for Bliss s City V at Tell el-Hesi. Three lines of reasoning suggest to us that Tell el-Hesi was Judahite. First, the map showing the location of 10th and 11th centuries B.C.E. tripartite pillared buildings shows them to be on major roads at the periphery of the hill country of Judah and Israel. This is not the place to suggest that a map of these structures for the 10th century B.C.E. might well describe the borders of a United Kingdom, but it does suggest that their placement along roads and along borders with Moab, Ammon, Damascus, and the Philistine Pentapolis means that these are structures belong to the political entity to the inside of the polygon and not the outside. For Tell el-Hesi this would mean Judah. Second, if we are correct and the function served by the tripartite pillared buildings moved from Hesi in the 10th century B.C.E. to Lachish in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.E., just as Kochavi (1998a: 476) has suggested that they moved from Tel Malhata (Khirbet el-Milh) in the 10th century B.C.E. to Tel Beer-Sheba soon thereafter, then, since we know that Lachish was Judahite, wouldn t Hesi have to be Judahite? Third, Petrie and Bliss found no Philistine pottery at Hesi and, just for the record, the Joint Expedition found only a scant few fragments. This suggests that Hesi was not Philistine. Although this is an argument from silence, what political entity other than the government of Judah could have financed and built such a facility in the Hesi region in the 10th century B.C.E.? For these reasons we believe that Bliss s City V (the Joint Expedition s Stratum IX) was culturally and politically Judahite. Finally, we have suggested that the tripartite pillared buildings are governmental in nature, for us whether they are entrepts, governmental storehouses, or even  stables is irrelevant  they are governmental structures. Towards this end we note I Kings 9:17-19 which reads ;&1,2/% *93 -, ;!& :69!" 9"$/" 9/; ;! :0&;(; 09( ;*" ;! 9'# ;! %/-: 0"*& ;&1"- 8:( 9:! %/-: 8:( ;!& .*:95% *93 ;!& ",9% *93 ;!& %/-:- &*% 9:! :&;-:// 69! +,"& 0&1"-"& .-:&9*" And Solomon built Gezer and Lower Beth-Horon, Baalath, and Tamar in the wilderness (within the land) as well as all the store cities that Solomon had, and chariot cities and horse cities and every special thing that he desired to build in Jerusalem or in the Lebanon and in each land under his dominion. We ask, if this account might in fact reflect genuine 10th century B.C.E. constructional activities, could Bliss s City V (our Stratum IX) at Tell el-Hesi represent such a store city or some aspect of a governmental activity in a town where chariots and horses were quartered? (See our further remarks on this passage below, 000) [N.B., in passing we need to note the ostracon that John is publishing. It is a 10th or 9th century B.C.E. ostracon written in Hebrew or Phoenician script. This also argues against a Philistine occupation. It was found in the constructional fill of VIIId so it must relate to Stratum IX] D. The Fortress (Petrie s  Long Range of Chambers and his  Manasseh Wall, Bliss s City VI, and the Joint Expedition s Stratum VIII) In the previous section we argued that for much of the 10th century B.C.E., and possibly into the early 9th century, Tell el-Hesi served as some sort of governmental center based on the presence of three tripartite pillared buildings. We noted that Hesi was located on the main road from Gaza to Hebron and Jerusalem and that late in this period this function, whatever it specifically was, seems to have been transferred to Lachish, either at the time of the construction of Podium/Palace A in later Lachish V or with the construction of Lachish IV. It is now time to examine the structure that was built atop Bliss s City V (our Stratum IX), namely Bliss s City VI (our Stratum VIII). Sitting atop the Pilaster Building and along the wadi face, Petrie found two mud-brick structures, the  long range of chambers and the  Manasseh Wall. The  long range of chambers was a complex of interlocking walls that rose XX feet high and in no place was this structure associated with any floors (fig. 7). They seemed to be some sort of retaining wall holding up the center of the site. In the work of the Joint Expedition we rediscovered Petrie s  long range of chambers and from that point we were able to extend his plan and illustrate the entire  chamber and fill structure (fig. 8). As Petrie found, we also found no floors, except above the structure, and we understood Petrie s structure to be an artificial filling, maybe even a millo (XXXXXXX) Petrie had traced the  Manasseh Wall around the site from where he found it on the wadi face and produced both plans and sections of this wall (fig. 7), which he dated to the 7th century B.C,E., and hence, King Manasseh.. Subsequently Bliss excavated part of the wall in his large northeastern excavation unit and he found that this wall sat directly atop the tripartite pillared buildings of his City V (fig. 9), and Bliss included this wall as the fortification wall of his City VI. Taken together the work of Petrie and Bliss suggest that these structural elements are part of an Iron Age fortification system in which the builders raised the mound over 5.5 meters. This is not the place to detail the work of the Joint Expedition, but since Petrie and Bliss first discovered this fortification system, we feel that it is valid to augment their structural knowledge of the system with our structural results that clarify the nature of the system. The southern region of the acropolis was raised over 5.5 meters through the construction of the chamber and fill system first described in part by Petrie (fig. 10). Next to the chamber and fill system there was a massive sloping fill layer that was capped and consolidated with a layer white lime plaster that then merged with the upper wall system, the Manasseh Wall. The  Manasseh Wall was an upper fortification wall system, which served both as a retaining wall for the central fill and also as a defensive barrier around the acropolis (fig. 11). In addition a massive lower fortification wall was constructed around the site at the same time, creating a double wall fortification system, just like Lachish but on a far smaller scale. Petrie and Bliss did not find this lower wall, which reached 13 meters in width, but it is stratigraphically joined to the upper wall system by the sloping ramp that connects the upper fortification wall and the lower fortification wall of the Joint Expedition s Field III. For a more detailed summary of the Joint Expedition s work, see summaries in Blakely 1981; Doermann and Fargo 1985; or Toombs 1989). With the completion of the fortification system, a courtyard structure arose directly atop the chamber/fill system, but we recovered only scant remains for this structure (Stratum VIIIc). This work was a massive construction project which clearly was intended to fortify the acropolis of Tell el-Hesi, but it fortifies only about 0.50 acres!  Such a construction does not make sense as a fortification for a city or village; we believe that Hesi can only be understood as a fortress. Besides being an impressive fortification project, it raised the site over 5.5 meters and provided the site with a line of sight over some of its surrounding hills and, apparently, as far as Lachish from the top. As noted earlier, it also stands on the main road from Gaza to Hebron and Jerusalem. By the mid-9th century B.C.E. at the latest, Lachish was certainly the largest site in the region. Fortunately aspects of the fortification system of Lachish are known through the publications of Tufnell (1953) and Ussishkin (1978, 1983, 1997). As early as 1981 Blakely noted striking structural parallels between the Hesi construction and those evidenced in Area S of Lachish IV: a central chamber/fill system, sloping layers of fill consolidated with white lime plaster that merge with an upper wall system, and a lower wall system. The major difference is that at Lachish more of the walls have larger stone foundations, as opposed to at Tell el-Hesi where stones are rare, but even at stone-barren Hesi the foundations of the lower wall system are stone. To us this suggested that the systems are more or less contemporary and that they date to the early to mid-9th century, as suggested by Tufnell and Ussishkin. Given the close proximity of the two systems and their structural parallels but with such great disparity in scale, we also believe that they are constructions of the same central government; one a central site and one a peripheral site. Since Lachish is known to be Judahite in the 8th century B.C.E. we can assume it was Judahite in the 9th century B.C.E. This in turn suggests that Hesi was also Judahite in these periods and that the fortifications were built at the behest of the Kingdom of Judah. If this is true, what is the significance of these constructions? As G. Ernest Wright noted almost 30 years ago (1971), there is a series of conical or peculiarly tall but small tell sites that encompass the western and southwestern periphery of Lachish. These sites, Tell Bornat (Tel Burna), Tell Sheikh Ahmed el-  Areini (Tel  Erani), Tell el-Hesi, Khirbet el-Kaneiterah (Tel Qeshet), Tell Muleihah (Tel Milha), and possibly Tell Abu-esh-Shukf, (Tel Sheqef) form a more or less curving line to the west and south of Lachish that reaches its apex at Hesi on the road to Gaza. Wright suggested that these sites were part of the defensive perimeter of Lachish that extended down toward Tel Halif (see fig. 4) and that they might sites may well represent the border of Judah at some time period within the Iron II period, a period represented in the ceramic repertoire at all of these sites. Our studies of Hesi and Lachish suggest that similar construction techniques were used at these sites, one for fortifying a major city and the other to create a small, but sturdy, fortress. The distinctive constructional techniques employed at the small Hesi, which was raised by over 5.5 meters, created the unique conical appearance noted by Wright. Of Wright s sites, the only other excavated site is Tell Sheik Ahmed el- Areini (Yeivin 1961, 1975, 1993; Brandl 1997). The descriptions of Iron Age strata at this site are not thorough, but Yeivin noted that Stratum IX was used solely for leveling and preparing the site for a major construction (Yeivin 1975: ). Here a 1.2 m. deep fill was placed over most of the excavated area and this was then covered by a  white-washed mud plaster. (Yeivin 1961: 8). Immediately above this fill in Stratum VIII were two courtyard buildings (Yeivin 1975). In Stratum VII a stone defensive wall was built around the site and into the white-washed mud plaster (Yeivin 1961: 5-6), which we add is an apt description for the fortification system at Hesi where it was clear stratigraphically that the plaster and the fortification were contemporary constructions. Collectively this sounds remarkably like the stratigraphy of the glais and Manasseh Wall at Tell el-Hesi. We also note that it is not until the next stratum, Stratum VI, that the tell-tale lamelek jar handles appear, suggesting that Stratum VI dates to the late 8th century B.C.E. (See also Brandl 1997). Strata IX through VII therefore are earlier and they may be contemporary with the fortification phases at Lachish and Tell el-Hesi. The only other clue as to what may have been going on at one of Wright s sites is at Tell Muleihah. It has not been excavated archaeologically, but a cut made for a railroad bed appears to suggest similar constructional activities. Collectively, therefore, there appears to be a reason that many of Wright s sites may share their conical shapes, fortifications and constructional fills that may well date to the 9th century B.C.E. Wright s reconstruction was that these tells marked the border between Judah and Philistia at some point in the Iron Age, and, given the archaeological record at Lachish and Hesi and even Tell Sheik Ahmed al- Areini, one must suggest the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.E. When reading Wright s article one is almost forced to imagine that these sites formed a  Maginot line on the SW periphery of Lachish that, ultimately, in the face of Assyrian military might failed. This view may not be doing Wright s idea justice, but it would seem that Wright ignored the road system as it probably existed in the Iron Age. If one considers the roads, one sees that Tell Abu esh-Shukf, Tell el-Hesi, and Khirbet el-Kaneiterah are on the main road from Gaza to Hebron here following the Wadi el-Hesi (Nahal Shiqma) and then Wadi el-Kaneiterah (Nahal Adorayim) to a point where one is just a left turn away from Lachish. Tell Sheik Ahmed el- Areini is on the road from Ashkelon to Lachish following the Wadi el-Mufurred and Wadi el-Ghufr (Nahal Lachish) route. Tell Bornat is on the Ashdod to Maresha to Lachish road following Wadi el-Museijid (Nahal Guvrin). Tell Muleihah is on the Gaza to Tel Halif and Hebron or Arad route passing along Wadi el-Muleihah (Nahal Shiqma). In other words, each of Wright s conical mounds guards a thoroughfare, with Tell Abu esh-Shukf, Tell el-Hesi and Khirbet el-Kaneiterah guarding the most significant road. If one accepts the idea that these sites guarded thoroughfares into southwestern Judah in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.E., then Wright was correct when he called these sites a Judahite fortification system. The question then becomes, from whom was Judah defending itself? In the general direction WSW from Lachish the only major sites beyond this immediate perimeter separating Judah from Gaza and Ashkelon is Tell es-Shariah (Tel Sera, possibly Ziklag) to the south, a Philistine and later Assyrian site. Beyond that and to the west there are the southern cities of the Philistine Pentapolis, Gaza and Ashkelon, and, of course, Egypt, all potential enemies. Is this an early- to mid-9th century response to the effectiveness of the Egyptian raid of Pharaoh Shishak? Quite possibly. In summary, we have suggested that fortress Tell el-Hesi (Petrie s  Long Range of Chambers and his  Manasseh Wall, Bliss s City VI, and the Joint Expedition s Stratum VIII) was an early to mid-9th century B.C.E. construction designed to monitor the periphery of the Kingdom of Judah, west and southwest of Lachish. Tell el-Hesi, and other sites like Tell Abu-esh-Shukf, Khirbet Kaneiterah, Tell Muleihah, Tell Sheik Ahmed el-Areini, and Tell Bornat probably guarded the roads that entered Judah from region of Gaza and Ashkelon (fig. 4). Tell el-Hesi and its immediate environs, therefore, must be viewed as being part of Judah in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.E., just as they had been in the 10th century B.C.E. at the time of the tripartite pillared buildings. Integrate Gophna and Grintz E. Archaeological Evidence Against Tell el-Hesi Being in Judah In the last few years, two studies have appeared in which the authors use archaeological artifactual evidence in an attempt to define the borders of ancient Judah. In particular there are the studies of Kletter (1999) and Yezerski (1999). Kletter examined the findspots of a variety of Iron II artifacts that are typically identified as Judahite: Pillar figurines, inscribed weights, Rosette stamps, and Horse and Rider figurines. He dates the Pillar figurines and the Horse and Rider figurines to the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.E., the inscribed weights to the end of the 8th century through the beginning of the 6th century B.C.E., and the Rosette stamps to the late 7th and 6th centuries B.C.E. In each case, because of its lack of such artifacts, Tell el-Hesi appeared to fall outside of his cultural border for each Judahite artifact type. Kletter s Figure 1 (1999) shows Tell el-Hesi as being unquestioningly outside of Judah. We find Kletter s catalogues, presented here and elsewhere (Kletter 1991, 1996) invaluable tools for comparative research. Taken at face value, these absence of these characteristic artifacts could suggest that Tell el-Hesi was indeed outside of Iron II Judah. We note, however, that these artifact types date to the 8th through the early 6th centuries B.C.E., or more likely, from the later parts of the 8th century B.C.E. through the early 6th century B.C.E. We agree with Kletter s thesis as it applies to the 7th 6th centuries since Hesi during this period lay outside of the heartland of Judah; Assyria had, we claim, detached the site from Judah toward the end of the 8th century B.C.E. (Blakely and Hardin, forthcoming). Since these artifact types are from the Assyrian era, we do not believe that we cannot see the relevance of their absence at Hesi for a determination of Hesi s political and cultural relationships before 734 B. C. E. Yezerski, on the other hand, has approached the matter differently but with results similar to those of Kletter. Yezerski examined Judahite burial cave forms at the end of the Judahite monarchy from the end of the 8th century B.C.E. on, and in so doing she claims that  ...the borders of the kingdom of Judah underwent only minor changes from the division of the kingdom to the Babylonian destruction. (Yezerski 1999: 266) Yezerski states that she chose to draw the borders east of the Hesi region since no Judahite burial caves have been found there (Yezerski 1999: 266). So Yezerski omits Hesi from the Judahite kingdom (1999: fig. 2) specifically from the late 8th century onward, but by implication, earlier as well. The region excluded by Yezerski, east of these three sites (Tel Eraini, Tel Sheqef, and Tel Burna, specifically), is the larger Hesi region, and, also the one area where we suggest that 10th, 9th, and 8th centuries Judah descended out of the Shephelah into the loessal plains. It is this loess which covered limestone outcrops that makes the construction of cave tombs impossible. For Yezerski to base her  prudent exclusion of this area from Judah on the absence of something the physical environment makes impossible is a method fraught with difficulties. We do not believe that the arguments of Kletter and Yezerski militate against the strong archaeological evidence that supports Hesi s political and cultural relationship to Judah during the 10th 9th centuries and most of the 8th century. II Issues in Biblical Scholarship A. Specific Locale in Biblical History A specific locale may play one or more of several roles in the Bible. (1) It may be religiously charged because of the tradition of a shrine, as Martin Noth suggested (1960). Particular places like Bethel and Dan, Samaria, Gilgal, or Jerusalem, to name a few fall into this category. Their mere mention in the biblical text is enough to arouse cultic associations in the minds of hearers or readers.  Come to Bethel and transgress, Amos challenges,  in Gilgal transgress all the more! (Amos 4:4) (2) It may be a place of great political or military importance. Megiddo comes immediately to mind as do Hazor. Aphek, and Beth-shan. The cities of the Pentopolis belong to this category as does Ziklag. (3) There are sites known only by relationship (sometimes etymological) to the text in which they occur such as Baal-perazim in 2 Samuel 5:20 or Beer-lahai-roi in Genesis 16:14. Perhaps  Elkoshite in Nahum 1:1 belongs here too (Blakely and Horton, forthcoming). (4) The names of certain locales function to define large geographical areas. The texts treat these names as if the reader would know approximately where they lie. The examples of this are numerous with the famous formula  from Dan to Beersheba (discussed below) as one example. Sites that fall into categories (1) and (2) are often well known to modern scholars. Jerusalem has been under continuous occupation since the time of the Jebusites. Beth-shan s towering Tell al-Husan is a clear marker of an important ancient city; and the Arabic name, Beisan, maintains the site s ancient name. Overconfidence in such identifications can be dangerous, however, as Blakely and Horton (forthcoming) have recently argued. Surely, Lachish of the late 8th century would also fall into category (2). For many years, however, following the first identification of Petrie (1891), Tell el-Hesi and not Tell al-Duwayr was identified as the site of ancient Lachish. Once a famous ancient site has slipped into obscurity, it may take some very fortunate discovery, such as that of an inscription, as was the case, for instance, for Gezer and for Dan, to restore the location of the site to us. Sites that fall into category (3) are difficult to assess. The well of Beer-lahai-roi in Genesis 16:14 is otherwise unknown to us, and it is impossible to know whether the author invented the name to emphasize Hagar s question about seeing God and living or took the name of an actual site to do the same thing. There is virtually no possibility of deciding such a question. The author locates the type (3) site in Genesis 16:14 by the use of two type (4) sites. The Kadesh of Genesis 16:14 is Kadesh-barnea in the Negev, the Kadesh of Deuteronomy 1:46, where Israel was supposed to have languished during the Exodus. As such, it would also belong under category (2), and as its name ( sanctuary ) suggests, perhaps also under (1). Is Bered, however, in the Negev too? Would we expect the ancient reader/hearer to know the location of this site other than, perhaps, as a place in the Negev in the vicinity of Kadesh? The intentionality of the text suggests that the reader/hearer might know or could know Bered as well as Kadesh. The fact that we can no longer place Bered on the map is unfortunate. Similarly, when we read that Solomon s empire reached  from Tiphsah to Gaza  in 1Kings 5:4, we have another good example of category (4). We know, and the ancient reader/hearer knew, where Gaza was. The text presupposes that the ancient reader/hearer also knew where Tiphsah was. We do not. Still, the use of the name in this manner suggests that this indeterminate locale was on the order of fame (if not physical magnitude) of Gaza. Except to note, however, that it should lie in Syria, likely on the west bank of the Euphrates, we can say little about the site. We cannot rule out the possibility that Hesi may find biblical mention in just such a way. In its 8th century incarnation, it would likely be a type (3) site, important for narration only if an author thought something important happened in its vicinity. Our hypothesis, however, also leaves room for the belief that Hesi could have been a type (2) site in the 10th century. As Blakely and Horton concluded recently (forthcoming) Hesi may, indeed, have a name in the Hebrew Bible. The question is whether we shall ever be able to determine it. B. Specific Locale in Biblical Scholarship One of the oddities of modern biblical scholarship lies in the attempts to identify a site that may not be a site at all,  Elkosh as may be contained in the name  Elkoshite in Nahum 1:1. Kevin Cathcart (1973: 38) rehearses the various ancient identifications of Elkosh from Jerome (Elcesi in the Galilee, Commentariorum in Naum prophetam, MSL 25, 1231) and Pseudo-Epiphanius (Beth-gabre, Liber de vitis prophetarum, MSG 43, 409). The local tradition that Nahum actually came from a site now called Al-Qush north of Mosul Cathcart dismisses as  unlikely. One wonders, however, what makes Al-Qush in the region of Mosul more  unlikely than a site in the Galilee or in the foothills of southern Palestine. We encounter a similar anomaly in the account of Roberts (1991:41). Roberts writes that the gentilic ending on the Hebrew word *:&8-! indicates that the prophet came  from the village or clan of Elkosh. He quickly sets aside the possibility that the ending might mean membership in a clan for undisclosed reasons and, returning to his geographical hypothesis, laments that  its location remains uncertain. Elkosh must be a city for Roberts. He next agrees with Rudolf that neither the Galilee site for Elkosh nor the Turkish site  has much to commend it. He favors a location in Judah near the Edomite border because the element :&8 in *:&8-! may refer to the Edomite divinity Qaush with the place name meaning Qaush/Qosh-is-God. Somehow we miss in Roberts account why the clan alternative was not acceptable. Perhaps it is missing because Roberts knows the proposed etymology of *:&8-! is tenuous and certainly too speculative to inform our historical geography. Indeed, it could equally favor a fictional creation by an editor. The claim that Nahum does not provide sufficient information to determine the meaning of the word *:&8-! and the fact that the word never occurs in the biblical text or in relevant extra-biblical texts should mean that no identification is possible and no one site more likely than another. Cassuto s (1915) proposal to locate Elkosh in the Hesi region fails on literary-historical grounds and so leaves us nothing to judge on the basis of the archaeological record. If ever there was an undecidable issue in biblical scholarship, the meaning of *:&8-! certainly qualifies. There is absolutely nothing in the word s philological construction or its literary context to tell us whether the designation refers to a town, a clan, or some other grouping that could give rise to the gentilic ending. Yet for all of that, we find that Cathcart and Roberts can be very definite in deciding that the adjective must refer to a town named Elkosh and that this Elkosh must lie within the borders of the ancient Hebrew commonwealths, and, indeed, almost certainly has to lie within the southern kingdom. Something tells these commentators these things, and that something is a certain religious-ideological grid biblical scholars often superimpose on the map of Palestine or the ancient near east. Consider, for instance, the question of the location of Tekoa, home of the prophet Amos. Surely in this case the prophet s domicile in Tekoa (Amos 1:1) and Tekoa s location within the southern kingdom in the 8th century BCE are of importance for our understanding of this biblical book, a location the words of Amaziah in Amos 7:12 appear to underscore. We are to understand Amos deliverances in Samaria are those of a southerner, with a southerner s characteristic theological and political views, on northern soil; but it hardly affects this interpretation whether we locate biblical Tekoa at its traditional spot near Jebel Fureidis (the Herodium) or in some other southern locale. It is the fact that Amos is a southerner from Judah, understood as part of a geographical/theological grid, that is important because of Judah s association in scholars minds with the Davidic kingship ideology. This begs the question, though, as to what we expect by way of kingship ideology from a resident of Judah. Did all southerners hold such an ideology? Since Amos is not a court prophet, it is by no means clear that he would have a responsibility to reflect the ideology of the court prophets. Further, the location of his ministry in Israel and not in his native Judah may well reflect any number of motivations, from economic to religious. The theological grid that leads us to expect Davidic kingship ideology from any resident of the south produces the question in our minds as to how much Davidic ideology actually exists in the prophecy of Amos. Tell el-Hesi s various identifications (Lachish, Gath, Ziklag, Eglon) have engaged the weight of modern interpreters ideological grids. In the case of Amos, the location of Tekoa appears to be theological and religious in importance for contemporary exegetes. The ideology, however, does not have to be theological, however. It can as easily be historical. We can see this historical ideology in Cassuto s unhappy conclusion (1915) that Hesi cannot really be Elkosh because it must be Lachish. Since Lachish was a southern fortress town well identified in scripture if not in historical geography, it would have been preferable to have Hesi, lying, as it were, on Judah s border with Philistia, as the prophet s home. Why? Cassuto does not say, but subsequent exegesis shows us that interpreting Nahum principally as the words of a late 7th century Hebrew prophet have a certain interpretative convenience. Whatever literary work a later editor may have expended on the text of Nahum, the interpreter does best to interpret the prophet realistically out of a late 7th century context. This means giving Nahum real existence as a real person from a real part of Judah, an otherwise unknown and completely unattested  Elkosh somewhere in Judah. The place we assign Nahum to the historical-exegetical grid of Palestine is as much a result of theological and methodological assumptions as was the location of Amos Tekoa. Neither specific locale has to be in any actual geographical location. Indeed, Elkosh does not even have to be a specific locale. Rather Tekoa and Elkosh exist on a very different, modern, and ideological map of Palestine. And Beer-lahai-roi in Genesis 16:14? Clearly, it too exists for us mainly on an ideological tableau, one that in the work of the form critics associates tradition with locale. Although the textual tendency favors the reader/hearer knowing Kadesh and Bered, modern interpreters of this school find their interest on a line between these two locales at or around a well called Beer-lahai-roi. The fact that the site is likely never to be known makes no difference. Its valence is determined by the tradition that Genesis now associates with Hagar s expulsion. C. Toward a New Historical Positivism One of the advantages of the current interest in history as a literary genre in biblical scholarship (e. g. Van Seters 1992, 1997, 2000) is the opportunity to rethink the function of specific locale in biblical history. Although archaeology has played the handmaiden to biblical studies throughout most of the twentieth century by providing backdrop, coloration, and even validation for historical claims, its role is now changing to that of equal, inviting discussion with colleagues of many disciplines, including biblical studies. This allows us to think of locale first in terms of its meaning for the historical text without fearing that our investigation will somehow negate that of archaeology. Volkmar Fritz recent study (2000) of the biblical and post-biblical descriptions of the borders of ancient Israel is an interesting expression of that new freedom. His article discusses the formulas  from Dan to Beersheba (1 Kings 5:5),  from the River ... to the border of Egypt (1 Kings 5:1), and, finally, the description of the boundaries in Numbers 34:3 12. Fritz concludes (2000 32 33) that none of these descriptions represents Israel s actual borders under David and Solomon. The first description ( from Dan to Beersheba ) is a pre-deuteronomistic formulation meant to describe the area of actual and potential settlement without regard to existing Canaanite city-states. The second, based perhaps on the tradition of a Davidic campaign to the Euphrates, suggested in 2 Samuel 8:3b, is a deuteronomistic idealization or, indeed, political wish. The third description from the priestly source reveals itself as post-exilic by use of specifically Persian-period nomenclature and exclusion of the Transjordan as belonging to the Land of Israel. All three formulations, together with their variants in the tradition, express religious and/or political idealism appropriate to the time of their composition. The function of history in Fritz understanding is problematical and, indeed, symptomatic of some currents of recent scholarship. In reference to Numbers 34: 3 12, Fritz wants, correctly, to inform us that the passage does not describe Israel s actual borders with its neighbors at any time during its existence (2000 24). This is not, however, what he writes. Instead, we read,  Die Grenzbeschreibung von Num 34,3 12 ist somit eine Zusammenstellung, die nicht einem historischen Zustand der Geschichte Israels entspricht. In fact it does correspond exactly to the historical Zustand of the Priestly author. It is the historical reality the author presents. Fritz formulation suggests the historical positivism that defined history as wie es eigentlich geschah rather than as a written composition. Fritz, however, does not stand alone in his positivistic understanding of history. Within the discipline of biblical studies this return to historical positivism probably signals an attempt to recover from the heavy burden of  history as a primarily theological term. Lester L. Grabbe (2000 210) contends that the appearance of James Barr s book Old and New in Interpretation (1966) had brought into question whether one may read the Hebrew Bible as history. That is a serious misreading of Barr who set his sights not on the historical writers of the Bible but on the neo-orthodox interpreters of the Bible who had raised  history quite literally to a sacrosanct position. It was, ironically, Kittel s Theologisches Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament, that was the focus of Barr s attention, not the Hebrew Bible s history. The application of Barr s critique of Kittel to scholarship on the Hebrew Bible, however, was quite clear. Not only had the European neo-orthodox made history into a totem, so had the American biblical theology movement under the influence of G. Ernest Wright. Barr wanted to know exactly what these scholars on both sides of the Atlantic meant by  history. In what ways could we say reasonably that God  acts in history? Were claims for the uniquely  historical shape of Judaism and Christianity based on real features of the text, and what role would archaeology play in such an admittedly theological enterprise? The time seemed right for the appearance of volume 2 of the English version of Gerhard von Rad s Old Testament Theology (1967) that in conjunction with volume 1 (1960 CHECK) appeared to answer Barr s critique by defining  history as the  history created within Israel s confessional self-understanding. The  mighty acts of God in history were the traditional, liturgical memories of the people of Israel, available to us by a thorough-going form-critical methodology. History for von Rad is ethnic memory, not bruta facta from the past. Into this kind of historical research von Rad invited the form critic and the biblical theologian, but the record in the soil, which played scarcely any role in the Old Testament Theology, was of equivocal importance and, indeed, has yet to recover its pride of place in biblical scholarship. Far from coming to a new understanding of history, biblical scholars appear to have simply laid aside the tendencies Barr criticized. By default, the meaning of  history appears to have resumed its positivistic connotations in biblical studies by becoming once more a quest for  what really happened. From the  Jesus Seminar in New Testament studies to the maximalist-minimalist debate in Hebrew Bible, there is a revival of historicism. Niels Peter Lemche, for example, in his programmatic The Israelites in History and Tradition (1998) complains that much modern reconstruction of Israel s history amounts to little more than paraphrase of the Deuteronomic history. There is some justification for that complaint. There are only two organized historical accounts of the history of Israel and Judah, one from the Deuteronomistic Historian and the other, the Chronicler, from a school that depended heavily upon the writings of the Deuteronomistic Historian. For Thompson (1992), neither of these accounts is history because they lack the kind of critical reconstruction of the past characteristic of ancient Hittite and Greek historiography (1992 207), and, indeed, of critical history of any age. The redactional techniques of both schools are antiquarian, not historiographical (1992 209). Essential to Thompson s  genre of historiography (209) is the careful and critical assessment of evidence to produce an account of the past. Van Seters view of history-writing as a genre is, in Thompson s view, a hopeless confusion, born of a slavish theoretical dependence on Huizinga s nationalistic understanding of history and a failure to perceive clearly the difference in critical stance between the Greek historians and the biblical writers. Diana Edelman asks in response whether Thompson perhaps wants to limit history-writing to the work of modern historians (2000 249). Although Thompson begins his 1992 essay with an appreciation for Hittite and Greek history writers, Edelman is correct to perceive behind Thompson s assessment a criterion of historical writing incapable of fulfillment in ancient literature. Thompson s criterion of history writing is manifestly a rational and, one might say, modern quest to discover  what really happened. If, therefore, we cannot find evidence to support a claim from biblical history, there is a tendency now simply to dismiss the claim as  unhistorical. As Finkelstein and Silberman (2001 145) see it, for instance, the Deuteronomic history is but a  tale that modern researchers must put up against  the historical reality of the kingdom of David and Solomon. Evidently, we can derive this  historical reality only from modern archaeology. We should remove the overblown claims of the biblical history for the scope and grandeur of the united monarchy. Yet does not the disparity between the written history and the archaeological reconstruction have some meaning for biblical interpreters beyond a mere negating of the written evidence? What archaeological research allows us to see, if we care to look, is an important disparity between one kind of historical record and another. This disparity corresponds exactly to what we might think of as a kind of charge or narrative valence present in the ancient documents with reference to certain people, events, and people. It is that charge or valence that Fritz discovered in his study of the border formulas. Despite the positivist language in which he framed his conclusions, Fitz was exactly right to show us that all three formulations represent idealizations. Nevertheless, they play important roles in the narratives in which they appear. As to the first, Dan and Beersheba are charged locales, not because of any intrinsic holiness or grandeur but because of their well known geographical locations. They designate the land vouchsafed to Israel. Residents of the united kingdom knew very well that they did not command and would likely never command all of the territory between these two ancient cities. But the formula explains many things to the reader. It explains, for instance (and perhaps ironically) the continuation of Philistine life. Israel may in God s good pleasure dwell in safety anywhere in the land between Dan in the far north and Beersheba in the south. The Philistine attack on David in his new capital city as recounted in 2 Samuel 5:17 25 violates the promise of security and justifies for the reader David s extension of his dominion as far west as Gezer (2 Samuel 5:25). If anything, however, one is struck by David s restraint in sparing the cities of the Pentopolis. In the speech of Abner to Ish-bosheth in 2 Samuel 3:11 the promise of the land  from Dan to Beersheba becomes inextricably linked with the Davidic monarchy. Within those broad geographical limits David and his house will gain hegemony. The adventures of David in 2 Samuel 8, however, are of another kind altogether. Whether the capture of Metheg-ammah from the Philistines arguably might fit the  Dan to Beersheba formula, none of the remaining exploits could possibly qualify. Although the LORD gave victories to David in the Transjordan (2 Samuel 8:14), these victories also brought glory to David s public reputation (8:13). The formula warns us that these victories might be fleeting and, indeed, ultimately dangerous. The author uses the old formula  from Dan to Beersheba within the context of his description of Solomon s kingdom. Solomon had authority (-:/) over a territory that ran from  the River (the Euphrates) to the  border of Egypt (1 Kings 5:1). If it is not the case that any Hebrew kingdom had complete dominion over Palestine from Dan to Beersheba, it is even more certain that no such kingdom ever controlled Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and all the Negev. Neither archaeological discoveries nor historiographical documents from the ancient Near East even remotely suggest such an extension of Israelite power. We now seem to have one historical impossibility built upon another. From a positivist standpoint, we may be involved in wishful historical fiction. Our perplexity may increase when we discover the two formulations in juxtaposition in verses 4 5: %*% .&-:& 9%1% 9"3 *,-/ -," %'3 $3& (25;/ 9%1% 9"3 -," %$9 !&% *, 0$/ &;1!; ;(; &151 ;(; :*! ()"- -!9:*& %$&%* ":*& ."*"2/ &*"93 &- .%/-: */* -, 3": 9!" $3& If the reader is to believe that Solomon controlled the territory from Tiphsah to Gaza, what is the relevance of the now somewhat restrictive formula  from Dan to Beersheba in the next verse? The clue is in the expression ()"-. The reader is put on notice in these verses that the aspirations of Solomon whether of the Solomon who lived in the 10th century or the Solomon created by the Deuteronomic History were fragile and dangerous. We may on the one hand admire the grandeur of Solomon s empire and on the other hand be prepared to see Solomon s successors retreat from empire into shrinking enclaves within the land  from Dan to Beersheba. Both formulations help us anticipate the course of the history we are about to read. They also help us temper our enthusiasm for foreign conquest and, indeed, even model a certain restraint within the narrowest borders, those  from Dan to Beersheba. It is in this smaller territory that Israel might expect to live ()"-, but not necessarily to the exclusion of others. Even there other peoples might live alongside of Israel without being molested. D. Tribal Allotments and Administrative Divisions Whether Hesi might have stood at one time on the border of ancient Judah is an important archaeological question as well as an important question of modern historical geography. We believe it did. The question, however, is of no particular importance to the issue of the historical border of the land as described in the Bible because every such historical formulation we possess would include it. Indeed, even if we knew the ancient name of Hesi (Blakely and Horton, forthcoming), the situation would not be different. E. 1 Kings 9:17 19 Earlier in this study (000) we raised the question as to whether 1 Kings 9:17 19 might not represent a reminiscence of the kind of governmental building activity we believe occurred in10th century Hesi. Although we cannot identify all of the sites mentioned in the list, the list certainly represents the kind of building activity that might have included the three tripartite buildings at Hesi. The sites are Type (4) sites, with Gezer also being a Type (2) site and Jerusalem Type (1). The formula  in Jerusalem or in Lebanon is uneven. Do Gezer and Jerusalem define the southern boundary of this building activity with the Lebanon as a very loose designation for the northern extent of it? We should see, here, we believe an ideological listing. If Dtr believes the land of Israel extends  from Dan to Beersheba then Jerusalem, Lower Beth Horon, Gezer, Baalath, and Tamar in the wilderness (but also  in the land ) are not just places under Solomon s control but part of the land of Israel proper. On the other hand, the writer would remind us that Solomon s grandeur was not limited to the land of Israel, so there is mention of unspecified building in the Lebanon. Verses 20 21 show Solomon s dominion over peoples within the physical borders of the land of Israel by having Solomon impress them into service for his building projects. The historicity of the claims 1 Kings 9:17 19 make no particular difference to the meaning of the passage within its literary context. Historical positivists, faced with such a result, would immediately conclude that the passage is of no historical interest at all. Rather than telling the truth about Solomon s building activities, the passage merely fleshes out the Deuteronomic Historian s understanding of Solomon s grand reign. Finkelstein and Silberman (2000 137 140) chastise Y. Yadin for his historical misuse of 1 Kings 9:17 19 in identifying  Solomonic structures at Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor. Strangely enough, the authors make a similar historical blunder in their conclusions about the  dynastic myth of the kingdoms of David and Solomon.  Archaeologically, we can say no more about David and Solomon except they existed and that their legend endured. (2001 143) These are historical assertions, not archaeological assertions. Archaeology gives us no more evidence for such  legends than it does for Solomonic six-chambered gates. The issue is a confusion of categories on all sides. Like all historical characters, David and Solomon come to us from literary sources, not archaeological excavations. Archaeology can supplement but it can very seldom prove or disprove historical assertions. In this case, the claims in 1 Kings 9:17 19 have a clear narrative and ideological function in the text. The text does not say that Solomon built six-chambered gates or that he followed the same building plans in these various cities. But the discovery of a 10th century entrept at Hesi makes it possible to imagine a governmental undertaking to facilitate trade along a major east-west route and to understand how such undertakings might be imperfectly reflected in ideological summaries. Summary and Conclusions In previous sections we have examined Tell el-Hesi and its environs as it is known from the excavations of Petrie and Bliss. For the tripartite pillared buildings of Bliss s City V, and for Petrie s  Long Range of Chambers and his  Manasseh Wall, Bliss s City VI, the occupational remains of Tell el-Hesi spanning most of the 10th, 9th, and 8th centuries B.C.E., we have concluded that they can only be interpreted as functioning as a part of a Judahite economic and military system. Throughout these centuries, Tell el-Hesi was probably the first Judahite site encountered as one traveled ENE on the road from Gaza to Hebron and Jerusalem (fig. 4). Tell el-Hesi was a border station, almost certainly serving a variety of economic, governmental, and military functions. In the previous sections we have made some specific suggestions, but only further excavations, analysis, and publication of other archaeological sites may clarify those possibilities. At this time we can only conclude, Tell el-Hesi was Judahite. If ones looks at recent maps of the various administrative districts of Judah (e.g., Rainey 1983: fig. 1, where Tell el-Hesi is labeled  Yurza? ), inevitably one sees that Tell el-Hesi is located west of Judah s western boundaries. In other words, to historical geographers and biblical scholars who draw boundaries based on extant texts, Tell el-Hesi is not Judahite. How does one reconcile the texts with the archaeology of Tell el-Hesi? We find neither archaeological nor textual grounds for such from Judah s borders in the 10th, 9th, and 8th centuries B.C.E. In the end, we conclude that all of the biblical boundary lists must post-date the 8th century destruction of Tell el-Hesi, the event that appears to have terminated Hesi s political relationship with Judah. Such a conclusion allows us to redraw the 10th through 8th century borders of Judah based on the extant archaeological data. For those of us who are publishing the primary archaeological remains that we excavated at Tell el-Hesi, we remain convinced that they are best interpreted as being Judahite. Our Judahite attribution is based fully on the archaeological record of Tell el-Hesi when it is compared with the archaeological records of contemporary sites that are universally accepted as being Judahite, such at Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim (Tel Beit Mirsim), Tel Halif (Tell Khuweilfeh), Tel Beer-Sheba (Tell es-Seba), and Tell Arad (Tel Arad). In other words, we believe that Tell el-Hesi was both culturally and politically Judahite throughout the 10th and 9th centuries BCE and that the site only ceased to be politically Judahite with its destruction near the end of the 8th century BCE. This puts us in direct opposition to the now generally accepted interpretation, based on both historical geographical and archaeological argumentation, that Hesi never was Judahite. List of Tables Table 1: Tell el-Hesi: Stratigraphic Summary List of Figures Figure 1. Map of Palestine showing sites mentioned in the text. Figure 2. Plan of Petrie s Pilaster Building as augmented by the Joint Expedition. Figure 3. Bliss s Plan of City V. Figure 4. Revised Map of Hesi region showing roads, neighboring sites, and putative boundary of Judah. Figure 5. Revised Plan of Bliss s City V, showing two phases of use. Figure 6. Hypothetical plan of the original construction of the tripartite pillared structures. Figure 7. Petrie Wadi Section Figure 8. Chamber/Fill plan. Figure 9. City VI over City V. Figure 10. Master Section of Stratum VIIId Figure 11. Master Site Plan. Bibliography Albright, William Foxwell 1924 Researches of the School in Western Judaea. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 15: 2-11. 1925 The Fall Trip of the School in Jerusalem: From Jerusalem to Gaza and Back. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 17: 4-9. Amiran, R., and J. E. Worrell 1976 Tel Hesi. Pp. 514-20 in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavation in the Holy Land, ed. M. Avi-Yonah. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baillie, M. G. L. 1991 Suck-in and Smear: Two Related Chronological Problems for the 1990's. Journal of Theoretical Archaeology 2: 12-16. Barr, James 1990 Mythical Monarch Unmasked? Mysterious Doings of Debir, King of Eglon. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 48: 55-68. Bennett, W. J., Jr., and Jeffrey A. Blakely 1989 Tell el-Hesi: The Persian Period (Stratum V). Excavation Reports of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Tell el-Hesi 3. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Blakely, Jeffrey A. 1981 Judahite Refortification of the Lachish Frontier. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University. 2000 Petrie s Pilaster Building at Tell el-Hesi. In The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer, edited by Lawrence E. Stager, Joseph A. Greene, and Michael D. Coogan, pp. 66-80. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Blakely, Jeffrey A., and James W. Hardin Forth- Coming Blakely, Jeffrey A. and Fred L. Horton, Jr. 1995 Tell el-Hesi: What Is in a Name? In The Yahweh/Baal Confrontation and Other Studies in Biblical Literature and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Emmett Willard Hamrick, ed. by Fred L. Horton, Jr., and Julia M. O'Brien, pp. 94-149. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. Forth- Coming Blakely, Jeffrey A., and Lawrence E. Toombs 1980 The Tell el-Hesi Field Manual. Excavation Reports of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Tell el-Hesi 1. Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research. Bliss, Frederick Jones 1892 Report of the Excavations at Tell el-Hesy, for the Autumn Season of the Year 1891. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 1892: 95-113. 1894 A Mound of Many Cities. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Brandl, Baruch 1997  Erani, Tel. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. by Eric M. Meyers, vol. 2 pp. 256-258. New York: Oxford University Press. Cross, Frank M. and Wright G. Ernest. 1956 The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah. Journal of Biblcal Literature 75:202 226. Dahlberg, Bruce T., and Kevin G. O=Connell, S.J., eds. 1989 Tell el-Hesi: The Site and the Expedition. Excavation Reports of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Tell el-Hesi 4. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Doermann, Ralph W., and Valerie M. Fargo 1985 Tell el-Hesi, 1983. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 117: 1-24. Dorsey, David A. 1991 The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Eakins, J. Kenneth 1993 Tell el-Hesi: The Muslim Cemetery in Fields V and VI/IX (Stratum II). Excavation Reports of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Tell el-Hesi 5. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Fitz, Volkmar 2000 Die Grenzen des Landes Israels. In Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kollai, ed. By Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld, pp. 14 34. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol LXXXI. Leiden, E. J. Brill. Garsiel, Moshe 2000 David s Warfare against the Philistines in the Vicinity of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5, 17 25; 1 Chron 14, 8 16. In Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kollai, ed. By Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld, pp. 150 164. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol LXXXI. Leiden, E. J. Brill. Gophna, R. 1981 The Boundary between Judah and the Kingdoms of Gaza and Ashkelon in the Light of the Archaeological Survey in Nahal Shiqma. In Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Proceedings, vol 2 pp. 49-52. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Grintz, Y. M. 1960 The South-Western Border of the Promised Land. In Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, ed. by Menehem Haran, pp. 7-19. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Herr, Lawrence G. 1988 Tripartite Pillared Buildings and the Marketplace in Iron Age Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 272: 47-67. Herzog, Ze ev 1973 The Storehouses. In Beer-Sheba I, ed. by Yohanan Aharoni, pp. 23-30. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. 1992 Administrative Structures in the Iron Age. In The Architecture of Ancient Israel from Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, ed. by Aharon Kempinski and Ronny Reich, pp. 223-230. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Holladay, John S. 1986 The Stables of Ancient Israel. In The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies, ed. by Lawrence T. Gerraty and Larry G. Herr, pp. 103-165. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press. Horton, Fred L., Jr., and Jeffrey A. Blakely 2000  Behold, Water! Tell el-Hesi and the Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40). Revue biblique. 110 (1): 56-71. Kitchen, Kenneth A. 1988 Egypt and Israel during the First Millennium B.C. In Vetus Testamentum Supplement, vol. 40, pp. 107-123. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1997 A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and Deity *Dod as Dead as the Dodo? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 76: 30-44. Kletter, Raz 1991 The Inscribed Weights of the Kingdom of Judah. Tel Aviv 18: 121-63. 1996 The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. BAR International Series 636. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm. 1999 Pots and Politics: Material Remains of Late Iron Age Judah in Relation to Its Political Borders. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 314: 19-54. Kochavi, Moshe 1998a The Eleventh Century BCE Tripartite Pillar Building at Tel Hadar. In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, ed. by Seymour Gitin, Amihai Mazar, and Ephraim Stern, pp. 468-478. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1998b The Ancient Road from the Bashan to the Mediterranean. In From the Ancient Sites of Israel: Essays on Archaeology, History and Theology in Memory of Aapeli Saarisalo (1896-1986), ed. by Timo Eskola and Eero Junkkaala, pp. 25-48. Helsinki: Theological Institute of Finland. 1999 Divided Structures Divide Scholars. Biblical Archaeology Review 25 (3): 44-50. Kuhn, Thomas 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamon, Robert S.; and Geoffrey M. Shipton 1939 Megiddo I. Seasons of 1925-34. Strata I-V. Oriental Institute Publication, no. 42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Matthers, John M. 1989 Excavations by the Palestine Exploration Fund at Tell el-Hesi, 1890-1892. In Tell el-Hesi: The Site and the Expedition, ed by. Bruce T. Dahlberg and Kevin G. O Connell, S.J., pp. 37-67. Excavation Reports of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Tell el-Hesi 4. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. May, Herbert Gordon, ed. 1962 The Oxford Bible Atlas. New York: Oxford University Press. Mazar, Benjamin 1957 The Campaign of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine. In Vetus Testamentum Supplement IV, pp. 57-66. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Meeks, Wayne A. 1993 The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version. San Francisco, New York, London: Harper Collins, Publishers. Na aman, Nadav 1986 Borders & Districts in Biblical Historiography. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4. Jerusalem: Simor Ltd. 1992 Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19 (1): 71-93. Netzer, E. 1992 Domestic Architecture in the Iron Age. Pp. 192-201 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, eds. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. O Connell, Kevin G., S.J.; and D. Glenn Rose 1980 Tell el-Hesi, 1979. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 112: 73-91. O Connell, Kevin G., S. J.; D. Glenn Rose; and Lawrence E. Toombs 1978 Tell el-Hesi, 1977. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110: 75-90. Oren, Eliezer D. 1984  Governor s Residencies in Canaan under the New Kingdom: A Case Study of Egyptian Administration. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14: 37-56.[also published in Eretz Israel 18: 183-99. (Hebrew)]. 1992 Palaces and Patrician Houses in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Pp. 105-20 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, eds. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Petrie, William Matthew Flinders 1890 Journal of Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 1890: 219-246. 1891 Tell el-Hesy (Lachish). London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Pritchard, James B. 1970 The Megiddo Stables: A Reassessment. In Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, ed. by James A. Sanders, pp. 268-276. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Rainey, Anson F. 1976 Eglon (City). 1. Tell  Aitun. In Interpreter s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, p. 252, edited by K. Crim et al. Nashville: Abington Press. 1981 The Administrative Division of the Shephelah. Tel Aviv 7: 194-202. 1982 Eglon. In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol. 2, E-J, pp. 28-29. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdman s 1983 The Biblical Shephelah of Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 251: 1-22. 1993 Sharhn/Sharuhen  The Problem of Identification. Eretz Israel 24: 178*-187*. (Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak) 1954 Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak. Vol. 3, The Bubastite Portal. Oriental Institute Publication 74. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Robinson, Edward 1841 Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petra, vol. 2. London: John Murray. Rose, D. Glenn; and Lawrence E. Toombs 1976 Tell el-Hesi, 1973 and 1975. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 108: 41-54. Singer-Avitz, Lily 1999 Beersheba  A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 26 (1): 3-74. Toombs, Lawrence E. 1974 Tell el-Hesi, 1970-71. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 106: 19-31. 1983 Tell el-Hesi, 1981. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 115: 25-46. 1985 Tell el-Hesi: Modern Military Trenching and Muslim Cemetery in Field I, Strata I-II. Excavation Reports of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Tell el-Hesi 2. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. 1989 The Changing Function of a Palestinian Site: Tell el-Hesi. Echos du Monde Classique/ Classical Views 8: 125-146. Tufnell, Olga 1953 Lachish III: The Iron Age. London: Oxford University Press. Ussishkin, David 1978 Excavations at Tel Lachish, 1973-1977: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 5: 1-97. 1983 Excavations at Tel Lachish, 1978-1983: Second Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 10: 97-175. 1997 Lachish. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. by Eric M. Meyers, vol. 3, pp. 317-323. New York: Oxford University Press. Wright, G. Ernest 1971 A Problem of Ancient Topography: Lachish and Eglon. Harvard Theological Review 64: 437-450. Yadin, Yigal 1972 The Stables of Megiddo. Eretz Israel 12: 57-62. (Hebrew). Yeivin, Shmuel, et al 1961 Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tel Gat (Tell esh Sheykh Ahmed el-Areyny): Seasons 1956-1958. Jerusalem: Mishlahat Gat. 1975 El- Areini, Tell esh-Sheik Ahmed (Tel  Erani). In Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 1, pp. 89-97. Jerusalem. 1993  Erani, Tel. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 2 pp. 417-422. New York. Yezerski, Irit 1999 Burial Cave Distribution and the Borders of the Kingdom of Judah toward the End of the Iron Age. Tel Aviv 26 (2): 253-70. Zimhoni, Orna 1997 Lachish Levels V and IV: Comments on the Material Culture of Judah in the Iron Age II in the Light of the Lachish Pottery Repertoire. In Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological, Archaeological and Chronological Aspects, by Orna Zimhoni, pp. 57-178. Occasional Publication of Tel Aviv, no. 2. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Archeological Assessments, Inc., Nashville, AR 71852 Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109 Trinity Lutheran Seminary, Columbus, OH 43209 In this paper we will use the Arabic site names as preserved by the Survey of Western Palestine for all topographic features for which they exist, except when an excavated site is better known by a Hebrew toponym or in the case when a Biblical identification is certain, as in the case of Lachish (Arabic Tell ed-Duweir or Hebrew Tel Lachish). We notice, however, that this consensus has not made its way completely into popular publications. The Harper-Collins Bible (1993), for instance, labels the site of Tell el-Hesi as  Eglon? on one map (page 335) and labels both Tell el-Hesi and Tell  Aitun as  Eglon? on color map 18.  Nonetheless, we have included it in our stratigraphy as Stratum IX.  That Dorsey did not recognize the significance of this road leading him to describe it as a combination of his roads I15-J14/J16 (Dorsey 1991: 67, 195-196) is a result of his failure to utilize the sources of the Arabic periods.  This move from Tell el-Hesi to Lachish parallels the construction and of these structures first at Tel Masos (Khirbet el-Meshash) in the 11th century, Tel Malhata in the 10th century, and Beer-Sheba soon thereafter (Kochavi 1998a: 476). Reading with the ketiv: tamar as against the qere: tadmor. See 2 Chronicles 8:8, Ezekiel 47:19 and 48:28. Possibly `Ain el-`Arus below the Dead Sea. BDB 1071b, 1062. See also White 1992: 307 and Lott 1992: 315 316. It is difficult not to follow the LXX in its omission of 69!" here. As we shall see, however, this expression may be part of a formula that is important to the narration despite its syntactical inelegance.  For a possible economic motive, see Singer-Avitz (1999). See the review of the suggestions on the meaning of the name in Westermann (1985 248). Gerhard von Rad (1961 190) informs us that the narrative or is it the tradition behind the narrative? comes to us from the southernmost part of Palestine. While Kadesh fits as a deeply southern locale, leading us to the possible conclusion that Bared was also southern, that does not necessarily mean that the tradition or the narrative have to come from the south. H. Gunkel (1964 28 29) sees the function of such etymology as being to explain a linguistic phenomenon. J. Simon (1959 217 368) mentions a ebel umm el-b~red as possibly retaining the ancient name Bered but cannot locate that site. Beyond this half-hearted suggestion, commentators have agreed that the site is unknown to us. See, for instance, von Rad (1961 190), Westermann (1985 248), and Hamilton (1990 457). Although we agree that the site is unknown to us, the text reads as though the ancient reader/hearer would be expected to know it.  We are very grateful for the generous help on Nahum provided by Professor Julia O Brien of Lancaster Theological Seminary, who is preparing a new commentary on Nahum. While she is in no way responsible for our conclusions, she provided us with very helpful bibliographical references and suggestions based on her current research. See Paul (1991: 35). The exact location of Tekoa, however, is important for H. W. Wolff (1977). The putative location of biblical Tekoa at modern Hirbet Teku means for Wolff that Amos must have practiced his trade of tending sycamoretrees in locations well removed from his home town where sycamores do not grow (Wolff 1977: 90). Wolff assures the reader that Tekoa is a likely location for a  sheep breeder, the other profession Amos follows (Wolff 1977: 123). As expected, Wolff (1977: 123n66) follows Hans Schmidt (1920)in dismissing the Rabbinic and medieval idea that Amos came from a town in the northern kingdom. Too much is at stake. If Amos were a citizen of the northern kingdom, then that fact would make the whole issue of the royal theology in the prophecy of Amos moot because his placement on the theological grid would then make it unlikely that the prophet would hold a typically southern kingship ideology. We have, of course, also raised the question as to whether even birth in the south would guarantee such a pristine kingship ideology. It would, of course, be difficult or even impossible to interpret Nahum out of a northern context because of the mention of the destruction of Thebes in Nahum 3:8, a reference, most likely, to the Assyrian conquest of the city in 663 B.C.E. Francisco O. Garca-Treto (1996 597) claims that the mention of Thebes in 3:8 is a clear terminus post quem, whereas the Fall of Nineveh in 612 is on the order of actual anticipatkion. He dates the book near the time of the city s destruction and deals with the prophecy as stemming from a late 7th century Judean prophet. For him too  Elkoshite must refer to a city in the southwest part of Judah (1996 599). His reasons for these two assumptions about  Elkoshite are as obscure as they are in the work of Roberts and Cathcart. For a thorough discussion of this passage see Moshe Garsiel (2000). We believe the Tel Dan inscription clearly reads  House of David in line 9 of Fragment A and take it to be a reference to the Davidic dynasty. See Avraham Biran, and Joseph Naveh. "An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan." Israel Exploration Journal 43 (1993):81-98 and "The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment," Israel Exploration Journal 45 (1995):1-18. This inscription has excited extensive debate, especially among the so-called  minimalists. See, for instance, Niels Peter Lemche, and Thomas L. Thompson. "Did Biran Kill David? The Bible In the Light Of Archaeology," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64 (1994):3 22. Thomas L. Thompson,   House of David : An Eponymic Referant to Yahweh as Godfather, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 9 (1995): 59 72, makes an interesting case for reading a place name here but misdirects his energies against the historicity of David rather than the establishment of his case. His argument is interesting as regards a place name, but that by no means rules out the possibility that the dwd element is a reference to a person. There was a rather unpleasant and unenlightening debate on the meaning of the Tel Dan Inscription led off by P. R.Davies,  'House of David' Built on Sand, Biblical Archaeology Review 20 (July-August, 1994): 54 55; A. F. Rainey,  The  House of David and the House of the Deconstructionists, Biblical Archaeology Review 20 (November-December, 1994): 47; and David Noel Freedman and Jeffrey C. Geoghagan,   House of David Is There! Biblical Archaeology Review 21 (July-August, 1995):78 79. The May/June issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (1994):30 37 contained an article by Andr Lemaire in which he announced his reconstruction of line 31 of the Mesha Inscription to include the phrase bt [d]wd, yet another reference to the  House of David, if that suggestion, also contained in a scholarly article  La dynastique Davidque (Byt Dwd) dans deux inscriptions Ouest-Smitiques du IXe S. av. J.-C., Studi epigraphici e linguistici 11 (1994): 17 19. The fly in the ointment for this reconstruction is that one must then make some explanation for the word dwdh in line 12 of the Inscription. Lemaire does not deal adequately with this problem, and that leaves room for other interpretations. Perhaps one of the most interesting reconstructions is that of Nadav Na aman, who has constructed a summary history of a  Daudoh dynasty in the el-Karak region from the reference to dwdh in line 12 and the possibility of the reconstruction bt [d]wd in line 31. (For bt [d]wd see below.) Fascinating as it is, this reconstruction is too conjectural to qualify as a sufficient interpretation of the phrase in either line. The meaning of dwdh in the Mesha Stele at line 12 is a difficulty and has suffered many interpreters. The phrase  r l dwd J. C. L. Gibson reads as "lion of David" (Syrian Semitic Inscriptions [Oxford: Clarendon, 1971] 1:76, line12) despite the almost insuperable difficulties this suggestion faces in light of the suffix pronoun h. The most usual translation is something like  its chieftain as in Albright s translation (ANET3, 320), though of uncertain etymology, is perhaps most familiar to readers. (On the possible meanings see J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-west Semitic Inscriptions [Leiden, New York, Kln: E. J. Brill, 1995] 1:242 243.) In any event, neither inscription describes the life or actions of a particular person. For further on the language of the Mesha Inscription see Kent P. Jackson,  The Language of the Mesha Inscription, Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), 96 130. See also the ADB articles on Mesha (Gerald L. Mattingly 4:707) and on the Mesha inscription (J. Andrew Dearman, Gerald L. Mattingly 4:708 709). Of importance too are J. Maxwell Miller, "The Moabite Stone as a Memorial Stele," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 106 (1974):9-18; Patrick D. Miller, "A Note on the Mesha Inscription." Orientalia 38 (1969):461-64; Dennis Pardee, "Literary Sources for the History of Palestine and Syria II. Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite and Edomite Inscriptions," Andrews University Seminary Studies 17 (1979):47-70; and Klaas A. D. Smelik, "The Literary Stucture of King Mesha's Inscription," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46 (1990):21-30.  The absolute date of the destruction of Hesi s Stratum VIIIa is currently being reconsidered by Jeffrey A. Blakely and James W. Hardin. They are considering the possibility that Hesi, as well as some neighboring sites, was destroyed prior to 701 BCE, possibly by Tiglath-Pileser III or by Sargon II. Could we vary the word excavate/excavator a bit? They don t all have historical contexts, do they? Are we sure of this?? I assume this should read  that of ... Why 1140? Is this just a date in the  middle of the 12th century? Should we use metric units here?   *, JLz|F H ("*02&&x--566666;;;;8A:AAMMMMN NN,N8NFNJN@[B[[\aa@lDllqqqqCJH* CJ>*5CJ5CJH* UCJH*<UCJ6CJ UCJH*CJCJ CJH*56 CJ56ULqrrrr:t>tlupuVvXvyy{{{P|vz>@`d޺¿ƿ`dFJ (*JN:>JNBF$(tvCJ UCJH*<UCJ6CJH*CJZv"$,.46<>JLRTZ\dflntvTV46vz"CJ6CJH* UCJH*CJCJ OJQJCJZdnr  "".3<333^8b8`:d:p:t:~DDDDIINNNNbOfOO"P$PPTTTT$U(UvUzUUUUUvZzZZZ&[*[p[t[D]H]aaddffffffjkkk@kDk\kkkkZy^yVX CJ>*65 UCJH*<UCJH*CJ5CJ6CJXX ^ȐpژКܚœΜFR~^v~*8j\ 2J  $*,68@BHJRTZ\bdjlvx UCJH*CJ5 UCJH*5 OJQJCJCJ6CJH*CJW $&*.68>@DFLNTV\&##+ +==V@Z@(BVBDDDD EEJKNNNNNNNNrOvOPPPPZV^VjVnVRWVWpWrWXYrYY^^CJ5CJ6 UCJH*CJH* OJQJCJCJZ^B__l``haacXc(d|ddVegrhjkl$m(oooopp`rrrr4ssu>uuunvvVxypyyz{|^|}0~8x6rȄ܆ކއ `@lD܍B0NБ֒,ԖޚCJH*CJ6 OJQJCJ CJ65CJ[Bj֟N T DP L¨\rh­.JZD´n~ĵ2v$<r$̼ܼ@޿JLNPCJ UCJH*CJCJ5CJ6 CJ65CJX  `bdfhjBDFHjtxnvrtvx CJH*OJQJCJ6 OJQJCJ CJ56CJ6CJCJH*CJ6 UCJH*CJCJPhjln(^@ ^ X4lP.Zj>6>(8\l|.0lt>D(:N p r t v                    $ & ( , <CJU CJH*6CJ6CJCJCJ UCJH*Y, . 0 < > @ D F H T V X \ ^ ` l n p t v x                                 Z \     @B   Uj\ UjB*B*H*j<CJUG~  Z"'3556:A1$x$$1$$x1$ 1$x1$x1$$1$$:AALLMMMMMHNJNNNPPPJQLQR 1$1$ 1$@  1$`1$1$1$x$1$x$$RXRRSSSSS~TU$U&UU(VVV1$@ 1$P1$1$1$@ 1$V&WWWWlXXhYYYY0Z2ZZ2[>[@[D[ 1$/Z.Z1$1$1$1$1$@ 1$@ D[[[[\\\ ]R]T]^^^^ 1$/Z.Z@ 1$/Z.Z 1$/Z.Z 1$/Z.Z 1$/Z.Z ^l__>`@``^aaabRcccVd 1$/Z.Z` 1$/Z.Z 1$/Z.Z 1$/Z.Z@ 1$/Z.Z Vddd`eeffff g(g*ggNhhh 1$/Z.Z 1$/Z.Z@ 1$/Z.Z 1$/Z.Z 1$/Z.ZhhRiTiiijjjj*kPknkkkBlDl 1$/Z.Z@  1$/Z.Z 1$/Z.Z 1$/Z.ZDlmm.s0s{{R|T|@}B}ȎjDƤlĶ 1$x/Z.Z 1$x/Z.Z 1$/Z.ZHrtv8:$v" 1$$x/Z.Z 1$x/Z.Z 1$x/Z.Z"T!B( 58CIOO$P&PPWb_e|i\kkkkloxqsu| 1$$x/Z.Z 1$x/Z.Z|\ȉ `*^&2,`p^" 1$x/Z.Z 1$x/Z.Z"$,^`$Z%l)n))4&BXBZJNlQXXX 1$x/Z.Z  1$x/Z.Z  1$x/Z.Z 1$$x/Z.Z1$$x/Z.Z 1$x/Z.ZXXXXXXXYYnYpYrYYYZZZ[[[[f\h\*],]j]l]]] 1$x/Z.Z ]]]D^F^^^^^^^^_/1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8" 1$$x/Z.Z  1$x/Z.Z  1$x/Z.Z  __``(a/1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"/1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P (aPbRbvbncpccdq/1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"/1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P -1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"ddd@fBfu/1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8")1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P Bfjfrgtg\i-1$x/Z.Z0 >  X(h8" p@ P )1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P \i^iiiii4jTlVljllwww-1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"/1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8")1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P  lll@nBnu/1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8")1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P Bnpnoo.pu/1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8")1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P .p0pNpqqqrr$srttttVuXu-1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"-1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8" Xuzu6v8v^vwwy-1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"-1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"yz|||~~~s-1$x/Z.Z0 >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P -1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"8:Vu/1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8")1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P V24/1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"*:<xz.wwwwwwwwwww-1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"/1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8")1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P  .0,.q/1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"/1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P -1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8" prƒГғw)1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P -1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"df "B)1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P -1$x/Z.Z0 >  X(h8" p@ P B:<\bdLfh)1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P -1$x/Z.Z0 >  X(h8" p@ P  &Ԝ֜0ĝH})1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P -1$x/Z.Z0 >  X(h8" p@ P )1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P HڞܞҠԠ-1$x/Z.Z0 >  X(h8" p@ P )1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P Уң{K/1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8")1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P )1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P ң\^uG-1$x/Z.Z0 >  X(h8" p@ P )1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"@$u/1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8")1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P $&24  q/1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"/1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P -1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8" 46X&(q/1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P -1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"/1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"(vBLNv}-1$x/Z.Z0 >  X(h8" p@ P )1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P )1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P v)1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P )1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P hj^`|qG)1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P -1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"/1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"|*ִuG-1$x/Z.Z0 >  X(h8" p@ P )1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P /1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"ִشֶ-1$x/Z.Z0 >  X(h8" p@ P )1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P ֶضƷȷjlܺ޺ػwwwwwwwwww-1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"/1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8")1$x/Z.Z >  X(h8" p@ P  ػڻ޿Ldqqqqqq,1$dx > p@ P   X(h8"21$dx/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"-1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8" dDtj*1$dx > p@ P   X(h8",1$dx > p@ P   X(h8" r    |X#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P *1$d > p@ P   X(h8",1$dx > p@ P   X(h8"*1$dx > p@ P   X(h8"       xPP'1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P #1$ >  X(h8" p@ P (1$d >  X(h8" p@ P      pL#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P ,1$d/. >  X(h8" p@ P '1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P        xPP'1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P #1$ >  X(h8" p@ P (1$d >  X(h8" p@ P      pL#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P ,1$d/. >  X(h8" p@ P '1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P        xPP'1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P #1$ >  X(h8" p@ P (1$d >  X(h8" p@ P      pL#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P ,1$d/. >  X(h8" p@ P '1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P   " $ ( * , xPP'1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P #1$ >  X(h8" p@ P (1$d >  X(h8" p@ P , 0 2 4 6 pL#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P ,1$d/. >  X(h8" p@ P '1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P 6 8 : < @ B D xPP'1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P #1$ >  X(h8" p@ P (1$d >  X(h8" p@ P D H J L N pL#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P ,1$d/. >  X(h8" p@ P '1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P N P R T X Z \ xPP'1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P #1$ >  X(h8" p@ P (1$d >  X(h8" p@ P \ ` b d f pL#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P ,1$d/. >  X(h8" p@ P '1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P f h j l p r t xPP'1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P #1$ >  X(h8" p@ P (1$d >  X(h8" p@ P t x z | ~ pL#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P ,1$d/. >  X(h8" p@ P '1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P ~       xPP'1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P #1$ >  X(h8" p@ P (1$d >  X(h8" p@ P      pL#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P ,1$d/. >  X(h8" p@ P '1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P        xPP'1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P #1$ >  X(h8" p@ P (1$d >  X(h8" p@ P      pL#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P ,1$d/. >  X(h8" p@ P '1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P        xPP'1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P #1$ >  X(h8" p@ P (1$d >  X(h8" p@ P      pL#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P ,1$d/. >  X(h8" p@ P '1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P        xPP'1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P #1$ >  X(h8" p@ P (1$d >  X(h8" p@ P      pL#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P ,1$d/. >  X(h8" p@ P '1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P        xPP'1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P 91$$d#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P #1$ >  X(h8" p@ P (1$d >  X(h8" p@ P      Z   @uuQQQQQ#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P '1$/. >  X(h8" p@ P ,1$d/. >  X(h8" p@ P 41$$#$& 7$+D:D-D >  X(h8" p@ P   -1$x/Z.Z > p@ P   X(h8"1$#1$ >  X(h8" p@ P $/ =!"#F$%F'/ =!"F#&$% 0F'/ =!"F#$% 0'/ =!"#$% 0'/ =!"F#$% 0*/ =!"F#$%0 0*/ =!P"P#$%0 0*/ =!"F#$%0 0*/ =!F"F#$%0 0*/ =!p"#$%0 0*/ =!F"F#$%0 0*/ =!F"F#$%0 09 [(@(NormalCJmH <A@<Default Paragraph Font:O: HTML Pretag1$ OJQJCJ<O< HTML Teletyp1$ OJQJCJ6O"6 HTML Code1$ OJQJCJ@O2@ HTML Code De1$6OJQJCJ0OB0HTML Var1$6CJ4OR4 HTML Blockqu1$CJ8Ob8 HTML Address1$6CJ2Or2 HTML Cite1$6CJ8O8 HTML Heading1$5CJ0"O"11$5CJ$"O"21$5CJ"O"31$5CJ"O"41$5CJ"O"51$5CJXOX_level171$0 # p@ P TOT_level241$0 p@ P ROR_level31 1$p0  p@ P NON_level4.!1$@ 0 @ P LO"L_level5+"1$0 P HO2H_level6(#1$0 P FOBF_level7%$1$0 P BORB_level8"%1$0 P @Ob@_level9&1$P0 P XOrX_levsl17'1$0 # p@ P TOT_levsl24(1$0 p@ P ROR_levsl31)1$p0  p@ P NON_levsl4.*1$@ 0 @ P LOL_levsl5++1$0 P HOH_levsl6(,1$0 P FOF_levsl7%-1$0 P BOB_levsl8".1$0 P @O@_levsl9/1$P0 P XOX_levnl1701$0 # p@ P TOT_levnl2411$0 p@ P RO"R_levnl3121$p0  p@ P NO2N_levnl4.31$@ 0 @ P LOBL_levnl5+41$0 P HORH_levnl6(51$0 P FObF_levnl7%61$0 P BOrB_levnl8"71$0 P @O@_levnl981$P0 P  OuSj*tOtս)| 7i[C3 K  T z$%%Comment+9:UCommentCommentCommentCommentCommentComment2e|  <?f:su 0 &Oxʸ"Nzҹ  $$$&(,000248<<<>@DHHHJLPTTTVX\```bdhlllnptxxxz|qvX^, :ARVD[^VdhDl"|"X]_(adBf\ilBn.pXuyV.BHң$ (v|ִֶػd       , 6 D N \ f t ~           8@6(  x  <>>>> ~  B>>>>  B S  ?++$Zp$ZpCorel Corporation@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3& Arial?5 Courier NewGWP Hebrew DavidSWP TypographicSymbolsWWP MultinationalA Roman#11!# '$--'\D$Zƚ#M   $--$--$$o$o$--$' o o''$s$o'o l$lss$$osloo$   $ '$--'\D$Zƚ#M   $--$--$$o$o$--$' o o''$s$o'o l$lss$$osloo$   $