Body: | Early Edom And Moab
The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan
edited by Piotr Bienkowski
1992 AD
(Early Edom And Moab, Egyptian evidence on Ancient Jordan; K. A. Kitchen,
Editor: Piotr Bienkowski, 1992 AD)
The Egyptian Evidence on Ancient Jordan K.A. Kitchen
The written historical sources for the lands of the Jordan plateau, between
rift valley and outer desert, come for periods before c. 1000 BC almost
entirely from pharaonic Egypt, seconded by a limited amount of biblical
tradition. Thereafter, Egyptian sources fade, and it is only from the
9th/8th centuries BC that indigenous ancient Jordanian sources and reports
from Mesopotamia carry forward the story, still with biblical
contributions. Non-literary archaeological data round out the picture. We
shall review the Egyptian data chronologically.
Early 2nd millennium BC
We begin this early - as compactly as possible - to lay the foundations
for later epochs. There are now three series of Egyptian 'Execration Texts'
that list lands and rulers on both sides of the Jordan: the Mirgissa series
(Koenig 1990:111-112) of c. 1870 BC (at very latest, c. 1840 BC)1, the
Berlin series (Sethe 1926) coming closely after these with identical
phraseology, of c. 1850 BC (at latest, c. 1840 BC), and then the Brussels
series (Posener 1940), near the end of the 12th Dynasty c. 1800 BC (at
latest, c. 1760 BC). From these texts, limited but valuable facts about
Jordan in Middle Bronze Age II can be gleaned.2 Locations east of the
Jordan can be viewed in three groups (Figure 3.1): SHUTU is a region named
in a Beni Hasan tomb, the Mirgissa texts and the Berlin texts as an area
(having three rulers in the Berlin texts), later specified as Upper and
Lower Shutu in the Brussels texts. The identification of this name with
Sheth of 'the Sons of Sheth' as an ancient synonym for Moab(ites) in
Numbers 24:16 is widely accepted and fits wel1.3 We have a virtual
succession of local rulers, thus:
Saripu(m) (Mirgissa), c. 1870 BC (Koenig 1990:111, F.4) Abisharru
visiting Egypt c. 1863 BC (Year 6 of Sesostris II; Newberry 1893:p1.28)4
Ayyabum ('Job'; Sethe 1926:46, e-4; Albright 1928:239; 1954:225-227,
232:1), Koshar (cf. Kothar; Sethe 1926:46f., e-5; cf. Helck 1962:50), and
Zabilunu ('Zebulon; Sethe 1926:47, e-6; Albright 1928:239; 1954:225-232;
Helck 1962:50), being three contemporary rulers within Shutu, c. 1850 BC
Shumu-abu (Posener 1940:89-90; Helck 1962:60) ruling Upper Shutu,
and Yalanis-`ammu5 in Lower Shutu, c. 1800 BC.
These rulers should be compared with `Ammi-inshi (or -nasi), ruler of
'Upper Retenu' in south Syria (north-west of Jordan) in the story of
Sinuhe, ruling agricultural and pastoral territories within definite
political boundaries with other polities.6 Some would claim (Rainey
1972:376 and n.38 [following Mazar]; Aharoni 1979:19, 143, 186, n.20) that
Sinuhe's enclave within his area, 133 or 'Araru, coincides with the Araru
of the later Amama Letters (EA 256), east of the Sea of Galilee and along
the north side of the Yarmuk.
2. KUSHU occurs in the story of Sinuhe (c.1900 BC) and in the Brussels
texts. In the former, Sinuhe summons the leader (? -hnty) Ya`ush from out
of Kushu7 (Sinuhe B 220). The man's name is identical with the Ya`ush
('Jeush') of Gen. 36:5, 15 (are), 18, among the sons of Esau traditionally
said to have decamped to Edom in the late patriarchal age (c. 17th century
BC). In the Brussels texts (c. 1800 BC), it is of special interest that we
find not 'rulers' (hew) but instead 'chiefs' (wrw) of clans (whywt) of (the
territory) Kushu (Posener 1940:88-89, E 50-51). Their names, unfortunately,
are too damaged to yield safe sense. Here again, an archaic biblical
allusion is generally admitted to indicate the probable location of these
clans - Hab. 3:7 sets Kushan in parallel with Midian. In this case,
Kushu/Kushan may be set south of Shutu (in later Moab), in what became
Edom, between eventual Moab and Midian. Correspondingly, we find in this
sparser region, not well-delimited agro-pastoral political entities under
settled rulers, but clans (perhaps pastoral/semi-nomadic) as attested in
later sources down to the 12th century BC (see under Ramesses III, below).
Series of tribal chiefs, with paramount leaders who were doubtless primus
inter pares, appear to be what we have in the Execration Texts, cf. the
Shutu list above, and also the 'Edomite' king-list of Gen. 36:31-39, whose
non-dynastic succession should be compared with the 18th-century BC
Egyptian 13th Dynasty, in which hardly more than six out of 60 kings show
any kind of family succession.8 In western Palestine, the Execration Texts
also have not only urban centres but also tribal groups linked with them.
This finds a direct counterpart in contemporary Old Babylonian Mesopotamia,
where it seems clear that we now have lines of kings over tribal groups (or
confederations) reigning in given areas contemporaneously with rulers of
urban states there. Such also would have been the Assyrian King List's
early 'kings who lived in tents', and not merely fictions (Yuhong and
Dailey Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern
Jordan 1990). Clearly, if it were not for the attestations of such tribal
kings in cuneiform documents with their urban counterparts, we would
(archaeologically) know nothing of them. Thus, the relatively poor, even
fugitive attestation of material evidence for the Middle and Late Bronze
Ages in (later) Edom and Moab is equally unreliable as negative evidence,
if (as is most probable) the rulers of Shutu and clan- chiefs of Kushu were
agro-pastoralists and largely nomadic pastoralists respectively.
3. Northern locations. Beginning up north, just east of the former Lake
Huleh, the later principality of Maacah may rather doubtfully be
foreshadowed in the Mky or M'Icy of E 37 and 62 of the Brussels texts.
However that may be, there were both chiefs (wrw) and a ruler (hq3),
perhaps their overlord, named Shamshi-[...]. South of here, the town of
Ashteroth (near Qarnaim) was ruled by Ya[...]-ilu, on the north- south
route east of the Jordan valley (E 25). Out eastward, one Yamru ruled in
Busruna (E 27), a Yansim/b-Hadad (E 19) in Sur (Rock [of Bashan?]), and far
to the south, Abu-[...] in Qarqur (E 56). Just east of Irbid at Tell
er-Ramith, Ramoth (Gilead) may just possibly be the Rmt of the Brussels
texts (F 3), where it is a variant replacing Yarmuth. Certainly in north
Jordan, one `Apiru-`anu ruled in Pahil (E 8: Pella). Finally, a
Ya(n)tin-Hadad ruled at Haram (E 4), probably the Beth-Haram reported for
the later area of Gad, just north-east of the north end of the Dead Sea at
Tell Iktanu. Of these places, Pahil (Tubaqat Fahl; Homes-Fredericq and
Hennessy 1989:408, 417-420), (Beth)-Haram (Tell Iktanu; ibid. 275-280), and
other sites (cf. Sauer 1986:4, 6) are, correspondingly, attested in the
Middle Bronze Age. The side-by-side existence of settled rulers and more
tribal chiefs finds a societal echo in contemporary Old Babylonian
Mesopotamia, where Amorite tribal 'kings' ruled in the same general areas
also subject to the dynasts reigning in specific cities; documents bear
oaths sworn in the joint names of such 'complementary' rulers, for example
(Yuhong and Dalley 1990).
In summary, the Egyptians of the early 2nd millennium BC clearly knew of,
and had contacts with, the whole line of territory east of the Jordan
valley from east of Huleh south to what became Edom. Up north, Maacah is
shadowy, but Araru was probably already an entity. Certainly Ashteroth,
Busruna and Sur(-Bashan) were settlements on and near important routes. In
later Gilead (latiore sensu), inland east of Pella, were perhaps Ramith,
certainly Haram, and faraway Qarqur. Bordering south of this, Upper Shutu
may have occupied the later Ammonite territory while Lower Shutu held the
later Moab. South again roamed the clans of Kushu. The proper names of all
the local rulers belonged to the familiar range of West Semitic
('Amorite/Canaanite') types so well-attested from the vast Mari archives
and reaching back into Ur III records even before the start of the 2nd
millennium BC.
Archaeologically, contact with Egypt can also be seen culturally. The
outstanding example is the superb ivory-inlaid box from the Middle Bronze
Age settlement at Pella, of entirely Egyptian form, and largely Egyptian in
decoration (Homes-Fredericq and Hennessy 1989:419; Bienkowski 1991:104 and
p1.126).
Late 2nd millennium BC: 18th Dynasty, c. 1550-1300 BC
The great topographical list of Tuthmosis III
In the basic list of 119 place-names, we have first to proceed by
elimination. Nos. 1 and 2, Qadesh and Megiddo, were the leaders whose
opposition to Egyptian rule led to the campaign by Tuthmosis III in his
22nd/23rd year (1457 BC), culminating in the siege of Megiddo and his
penetrating northwards. Nos. 3-9 belong to the land of Amq (Beqa` valley
between the Lebanon and Antilebanon ranges), while Nos. 10-12 remain
obscure. After Nos. 13-14, Damascus and (H)adaru, Nos. 15-21 are also
obscure at present - e.g., No. 19 (birt) could be either Beirut on the
coast or Berothai in the Beqa`. Nos. 22-29/30 circle out to Bashan and back
to the area of Ashteroth, while Nos. 31-34 are in the Upper Jordan valley.
In each of the clearer sets of names, so far, it is possible to discern
segments of itineraries like those in Papyrus Anastasi I, much as was
suggested by Redford (1982a, b). However, Nos. 35-39 are merely scattered
across south Galilee in no clear order, whereas Nos. 40-44 traverse the
vale of Jezreel from west to east (with, perhaps, 45, 46), and Nos. 47-48
go from Accho to Mount Carmel headland. Unfortunately, Nos. 49-54 are a
further obscure series, perhaps linked with south Galilee through No. 52,
Anaharoth. At two extremes, Nos. 55-56 are back up in the Beqa` valley,
while Nos. 57-59 are the 'Negev' and two linked places. Then, Nos. 60-63
and 64-71 are two segments of the West- Palestinian south-north route
behind the coast, from south of Gaza to the Carmel ridge. Nos. 72-79 are
mainly obscure, but Shabtuna (73) and Ruhizzi (79) point back north to the
Beqa` and Qadesh-on-Orontes. No. 80 might be 'Galil(ee)', but 81-88 are
obscure once more. Leaving aside Nos. 89-103 for a moment, Nos. 104-105 may
be Gezer (unusual spelling?) and Rubute, and No. 106 unknown. Nos. 107-117
are clearly a circle again around the vale of Jezreel area, while Nos.
118-119, finally, are obscure.
Setting aside Nos. 89-103, and all the obscure names, all the foregoing
groups of names belong either to the Egyptian province of Canaan, from the
Negev up to Galilee, or to regions immediately north/north-east of it,
especially in the Bashan, Damascus and Beqa` areas. A bone of contention
remains the 15 names Nos. 89-103. Until the 1980s, it was fashionable to
guess at north Galilean identifications, as is exemplified in Aharoni's
major book (1979, gazetteer pp.162-163:89-102, lumped in with Nos. 80-88),
and even in the 1984 treatment by Abituv. But it has to be said that there
is not one 'safe', unambiguous identification in Galilee in this entire
group of names. Thus, Abils ('streams') can occur in any main region; Edrei
could be either that in Galilee or the one out east at Dera'a in Bashan,
and so on. No. 98, tpn, could in theory be at Talmudic Taphnith, at present
Tibnin - an untested site?
However, Redford has proposed a radically different solution for these 15
names - as part of an itinerary running north-south from the latitudes
of Damascus through Transjordan down to Kerak (1982a, b).9 His suggested
sequence is no mere armchair exercise, as he took the trouble personally to
study on the ground the possible archaeological topography of most of this
route. His sequence would run as follows:
89.? Hykrm - ?Assyrian Hukkurina, south of
Damascus, north of the Yarmuk, at Leja?10
90.** 'Abil I, 'stream' - the Yarmuk.
91.*** 'Edre`i, on the south side of the Yarmuk.11
92.** 'Abil H, 'stream' - Nahr ez-Zerqa.
93. Kntit, Gittoth, 'wine-presses'?
94. Mqrpt, 'fertile depression'?
95.* 'yn, 'Ain (Musa).
96.** Krmn, (Abil)-Keramin (near Na'ur).12
97.? Bt-i - obscure.13
98.*? Tpn -Dibon?
99.** 'Abil III, 'stream' - Wadi Mujib, just south of
Dibon.
100.** Yarutu - Yarut (Redford 1982a:72; Worschech
1990:20-27, with LB/EI pottery finds).
101.*? Hrkr, ?Kerak.14
On the starring system applied above to classify these proposed
identifications, Edrei and the three 'streams' come out very well, and
especially if it be
conceded that Nos. 98 and 100 really are Dibon and Yarut, to north and
south of the Wadi Mujib. Nos. 93-95 make good sense in terms of actual
Jordanian topography, while tirkr/Kerak is attractive. In geographical
sequence, Tpn=Dibon would fit well. However, two problems arise here.
First, the orthography is entirely different from that of the indubitable
Ramesside example of Dibon (see below). This is not fatal; new spellings do
appear in Egyptian group-writing from time to time, through time. The
second objection is rather more serious. Over and over again, in this
system, Egyptian b Semitic b, and not p. And likewise, Egyptian p = Semitic
p, and not b. If this rule were absolute, then Tuthmoside Tpn could not be
Dibon, either on phonetic equivalents or on orthography. But in the great
list of Tuthmosis III, at No. 78, the name is regularly equated with a
theoretical Semitic *Ygb-' il. Again, No. 103, qpt, is sometimes equated
with Gibbethon on the assumption that No. 104 is Gezer (e.g. Aharoni
1979:163). But none of this is beyond doubt, and cannot establish a b/p
equivalence. Rather, the one indubitable b/p equivalence is provided by the
name of Byblos. During the Old Kingdom into the 12th Dynasty, it appears in
Egyptian as Kbn, and in cuneiform as Kubla. In the 12th/13th Dynasties, the
Egyptian spelling moves to Kpn, as equivalent of cuneiform Gubla and later
West Semitic Gbl, Gebal, modern Jebail.15 The Byblos equation of b/p may
thus permit the suggested identifications quoted above, including
Tpn=Dibon. If the latter be disallowed, but the Jordanian locale be
retained, the Tpn would have to be some otherwise unattested place on the
Jordanian north-south route.
Thus, Redford's hypothesis of a Jordanian itinerary lying behind Nos.
89-101 of the great list remains such, but on balance appears to have much
to commend it, so far as the scanty data go. It is certainly far superior
to the north Galilee hypothesis. If acceptable, Redford's view would have
the Egyptian data give us a clear route through Jordan from south Syria to
the edges of Edom c. 1450 BC, in the Late Bronze Age.16
The later lists at Soleb (Amenophis III), recopied at Aksha and Amara West
(Ramesses II)
Careful correlation of the four individual lists (c. 1380 BC; c. 1270/1250
BC) (cf. Edel 1980) yields very little for Jordan in the late 2nd
millennium, and perhaps less than once thought to be the case. It is
possible to distinguish six stable groups of names, thus:
A. Naharin, Hatti, Alasia, Sangara, Keftiu
Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, East Mediterranean.
B. Qadesh, Ugarit, Qatna, Pahil (Pella) =
Phoenicia/Syria, plus Jordan valley.
C. Carchemish, Mrkws, Tyre, Q'tk, Byblos, Assur,
Lullu, Ipnnt / Ipjm, Mw-qd = Mesopotamia, Syria,
Phoenicia.
D. P3-srawn-bnlr, Pst, Danaya, 'Irw.f (Urhiya, Uruk,
Babylon) = East Mediterranean, Mesopotamia.
E. 'Canaan' (= Gaza?), Raphia, Sharuhen, [....], Mahaz, Socoh, Joppa =
south-west Palestine and coast-plain.
F. Ta-Shasu - the six 'Shasu-lands', T(w)rb, Yhw,
Pyspys (or Gysgys?), Rbn, S'r(?).
Of all these sets of names, nothing touches Jordan in five out of the six
except Pella in set B.17 The real question is the localization of the sixth
set, the Shasu-land names. The last name cited has been almost universally
identified as Seir (Seir), although this means assuming that the first of
two rs in the writing of the name here is a dittography, or a slip for one
of two other signs. This is perfectly possible, and the interpretation as
Seir is not ruled out. However, none of the other five names has ever been
convincingly located in Jordan, despite several attempts. An entirely fresh
view of this section was proposed by Astour (1979), offering
identifications for the whole series in Lebanon and south Syria (including
for the apparent Seir as a S`rr). In other Egyptian documents, the Shasu
are attested securely all the way from north Sinai and the Negev up into
Syria as far as Qadesh (cf. Giveon 1971), so Astour's view is certainly
possible for five of the names, leaving the Seir name open.
The El-Amarna correspondence, mid-14th century BC
This archive is Egyptian only by find-spot, except for Egyptian
'file-copies'. Hence it can be dealt with here only summarily, especially
as very little of it affects Jordan. With one exception, noted below, all
letters from east of the Jordan come from (or refer to) places north of a
line from Pella across to Busruna (Bosra, Busra Eski Sham) of EA 197:13,
199:23. This includes seven towns in Ge<shu>r (EA 256),18 the land
immediately east of the Sea of Galilee. Then there is Ashteroth, now Tell
'Astara (EA 197:10; 256:21), and Siri-bashani (EA 201:14), 'Rock of
Bashan', the biblical Har-Bashan in the Jebel Druze.
The one seeming exception to an entirely northern locale is the land of
Meru, in EA 288:26. Here, Abdi-Khepa, ruler of Jerusalem, claims: 'I was at
war (all the way) from the land of Sheru (up) to Ginti-Kirmil'. The latter
is in north Canaan, probably near the Carmel range (Schmitt 1987:43-48), so
the former (Sheru) would correspondingly symbolize the southernmost pole of
Abdi-Khepa's vision, and hence the fairly general inclination to accept an
identification of Sheru with Seir.19
Otherwise, Pella itself under Mut-Balu (EA 255, 256) is the only other
Jordanian locus mentioned. But field archaeology can take us a little
further. To the south at Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, Late Bronze Age finds include a
fine ivory cosmetic box in the shape of a fish, reminiscent of Egyptian
products and style during the 16th-13th centuries BC (Bienkowski 1991:104
and p1.127).
Late 2nd millennium BC: 19th-20th Dynasties, c. 1300-1170 BC
In terms of Egypt east of the Jordan, Sethos I (c. 1294/90-1279 BC) follows
on from the evidence of the Amarna letters. They showed Egyptian
overlordship in Geshur and Bashan, north of the Yarmuk - and at Tell
esh-Shihab was found a stela of Sethos I (PM VII:383; text in KRI 1:17).
Regrettably, only the top half has survived, showing the king before the
deities Amun and Mut of Thebes - any historical details have been lost
with the now missing lower half that would have contained the main text of
the monument. Tell esh-Shihab itself may have been the Kheni (`Ain?)-anab
of EA 256, and the Qiryath-`Anab of Papyrus Anastasi I under Ramesses 11.20
In the topographical lists of Sethos I, the sole Transjordanian location
known to be named is Pahil (Pella), and this repeatedly.21 The people of
Pahil were reported as siding with the rebel chief of nearby Hammath in
seizing the Egyptian centre at Beth-Shan.22 A list of toponyms on a granite
sphinx now at the Palace of Diocletian at Split may date to this reign or
- probably - earlier; at No. 28, it mentions Ashteroth (of Bashan) (KRI
1:36:13, No.8).
Under Ramesses II (c. 1279-1213 BC), our information shows a definite
increase. In his topographical lists at Karnak, Pahil recurs. Another
place, Qmhm, might be speculatively understood as a *Qom-Ham,
'height?/settlement? of Ham' (Ham occurring just once in Gen. 14:5), unless
it were a variant of Qamon (Judg. 10:5), usually located south of the
Yarmuk23 - if an amissible soft h be allowed. Like his father, Ramesses
II also left a stela up in Bashan, at Sheikh Said to the north of Tell
esh-Shihab. Sheikh Said may possibly have been the ancient Qarnaim, twin
settlement to Ashteroth (cf. Aharoni 1979:438).
More important are the explicit references to Moab and Seir/Edom from
Ramesses II through to Ramesses III and later. First, we may deal with
Seir/Edom. The sometimes disputed mention of Seir in the Amara West list,
under Shasu-lands, would simply have been copied from that of Amenophis III
at Soleb, in a part not now extant. In texts of his own time, Ramesses II
twice describes himself as one 'who plunders the mountain of Seir with his
valiant arm; in context, Shasu is used in parallel phrases.24 On another
stela from Tell er-Retabeh (east Delta), he 'plunders their [=the Shasu's]
(mountain) ridges, slaying their people and building with towns (dmi)
bearing his name'.25 The location of this Shasu (not paralleled by Seir)
remains uncertain. But the mountain of Seir is already a fixed expression,
reminiscent of the Hebrew phrase Mount Seir.26 What we learn from this is
limited but of some value, namely that Seir was hilly (as in Hebrew
sources), and that in the 13th century BC it was worth Ramesses II either
raiding it or claiming it as subdued. Some 60 or more years later, in the
eighth year of Merenptah, c. 1206 BC, the term Edom appears for the first
time. Papyrus Anastasi VI contains the following well-known report (lines
51-61): "We have finished with allowing the Shasu clansfolk of Edom to pass
the fort of Merenptah that is in Succoth ['Tjeku'], to the pools (brkt) of
Pi-Atum of Merenptah that (is/are) in Succoth, to keep them alive and to
keep alive their livestock, by the will of Pharaoh, LPH, the good Sun of
Egypt, along with the names from the other days on which the fort of
Merenptah that is in Succoth was passed [by such people...] (text, Gardiner
1937:76-77; translations, e.g. ANET:259; with notes, Caminos 1954:293)."
The picture is one of pastoralists with their livestock, which agrees well
with the next item in the dossier. That in turn comes from the reign of
Ramesses III (c. 1184-1153 BC). Between accounts of his conflicts with the
Sea Peoples and with the Libyans (also attested on the walls of his temple
at Medinet Habu), there appears the following passage (Papyrus Harris I,
76:9-11): "I destroyed the Seirites, the clans of the Shasu, I pillaged
their tents [using the West Semitic term ' °hell, with their people, their
property, and their livestock likewise, without limit... (text, Erichsen
1933:93; translation, e.g. ANET:262:I; cf. Grdseloff 1947:87-88)."
This is entirely consistent with the pastoralists of Merenptah's time, and
the raid on Seir by Ramesses III (an action repeating the claim of Ramesses
II) may have been linked with Egyptian mining interests in Timna in both
reigns, and the security of those interests. Clearly, Seir/Edom was not
just a deserted wilderness in the Late Bronze/Iron Age transitional period
- there were enough people there to concern Egyptian official interests,
and the lifestyle was (at least in part) pastoral and (with tents) at least
semi- nomadic. The consequent scarcity of tangible physical remains in the
archaeological record is, therefore, not surprising; cf. above on the
tented tribal kings of the Old Babylonian period. Moab, and especially
Edom, should be considered mainly as 'tented kingdoms', likewise, in at any
rate the 13th to perhaps the 9th centuries BC, as a result.
A century or more later brings us to a peculiar, perhaps literary letter of
c. 1000 BC (at least in our extant MS - composition may have been
earlier). Here, one dispossessed Egyptian official begs of another that his
dire plight might be relieved (Papyrus Moscow 127; Caminos 1977:66-69, 72,
pls.11/12, Co1.5:4-5). Right at the end, the man utters in rhetorical vein:
'Oh that I could send him [his local oppressor] off to Nahar(in),27 to
fetch the hidden tmrgn,28 with whom he had (previously) gone to those of
Seir!'29 This comes close in date to the reported flight of the baby prince
of Edom into 21st- Dynasty Egypt (1 Kings 11:14-22).30 Thus, we have at
least some evidence for an inhabited Edom/Seir - and having intermittent
relations with Egypt - from the 13th into the 10th centuries BC.
Now we return north, to Moab, and back in time to Ramesses II. For over 80
years, the occurrence of Moab as an undoubted place-name in a topographical
list of Ramesses II has been universally recognized.31 Therefore it is
hardly surprising that further records of Moab in this reign should have
come to light. A few decades ago, clearances by the exterior east wall of
the forecourt of Ramesses II at the temple of Luxor laid bare two whole
registers of war-scenes of Ramesses II (Kitchen 1964; texts, recollated,
KRI II:179-183). The names of forts in the upper register indicated a
Syrian locale for the events there depicted: an Apheq and Krmyn,32 known
from other Syrian war-scenes of this reign.33 In the lower register, the
place-names are mostly palimpsest. The names of places captured were
plastered-over, and the new surface recut with names that relate to the
Syrian locale of the upper register: Shabduna, the Shabtuna of Qadesh fame,
and Da[l]at=Silul, 'Door of the Locusts', only otherwise known from a
Ramesses II topographical list at Luxor itself.34
But our interest is in the original names of the lower register. In the
first (north) scene, captives are led away from below a
conventionally-drawn fort, whose original label reads very clearly:
Town (dmi) that Pharaoh's arm captured in the land of Moab: Btrt (Butartu).
Despite being inscribed in palimpsest with the plaster gone, almost every
significant sign of both versions can be read with complete assurance. So,
the scenario of this activity is in Moab beyond any possible dispute.35 The
case for identifying Btrt as Raba Batora was made long ago, and is not
easily bettered, locating this place at some 14 miles/23 km. south of the
Arnon, or about 57 miles/92 km. south of Amman.36
The second scene has two places. The first has resisted any convincing
identification: Yn( ?)d... or Y(..)d... in the mountain of Mrrn. The second
is labelled, again, with no possible doubt as to the reading:
Town (dmi) that Pharaoh's arm [captur]ed: Tibunu.
In this strictly Moabite context, this name is, and can only be, Dibon. In
the third scene, no further names are readably preserved.
There is, therefore, no factual doubt whatsoever about the readings of the
names Moab, Butartu, Tibunu, and no convincing alternative to interpreting
these three names as standing for Moab, (Raba) Batora and Dibon. That is
- or should have been - the end of the matter, if normal scholarly
standards were to prevail. Unfortunately, in biblical studies, they do not;
and a veritable 'ignoramus choir' has done its best to evade the clear
impact of this evidence.
First came Ahituv (1972) in a paper swarming with careless inaccuracies,37
wrongly locating Tibunu in Galilee, in the wake of Aharoni's placement of
Tuthmoside Tpn, itself now ruled out by Redford's study (Redford 1982a,
1982b:118-119). Ahituv's blunders were completely refuted soon afterwards
by this writer (Kitchen 1976), a fact conveniently ignored by some
commentators.38 Totally misleading were the remarks by Miller
(1977:250-251), entirely wrongly claiming that this writer's readings were
'open to question' and that 'the names "Moab" and "Dibon" could be read
only after prolonged study which involved some reconstruction of the text'.
As has been made clear already above, exactly the opposite is true. There
is no doubt about the physical readings of Moab, Dibon or Butartu;
prolonged study and recollations were devoted to the wall specifically to
ensure that no fundamental error could creep into its decipherment; and
there was no 'reconstruction' of the text other than in minor details. In
any future edition of that work, Miller's remarks require to be publicly
retracted. In turn in 1979, Weippert indulged in equally misleading
speculations (1979:27 and n.44). First, the type of fort shown (be it 2b or
whatever) is irrelevant; whenever the places named on such forts can be
identified, they were proper settlements - and the term dmi, 'town',
means a proper settlement (even if small), not merely a few tents of moving
nomads. Therefore, we do know that Ramesses II did capture either a fort or
a settlement, if of unknown size, contrary to Weippert's misleading
remarks. Second, Weippert blindly follows Ahituv over Tibunu, in total
disregard of the relevant facts about context, spelling, etc., set out by
the writer in 1976. Third, Weippert's ideas about *Yud-hamelek for
Yni?]d[...] are worthless; the probable n would preclude his idea
completely, and the alternative w, likewise. Thus, his denials of a Moabite
locale are totally without factual foundation and must be dismissed.
Then in 1981, Weinstein blindly and wholly uncritically followed the errors
of Ahituv, in total ignorance of the refutation of those errors (1981:21).
Aliituv in 1984 merely repeated his mistakes of over a decade before,
without the slightest attempt to discuss any other views or contrary facts,
in a work damned by others for its incompetence.39 His excuse (shared by
others) that no Late Bronze remains are attested at Dibon is facile (cf.
below), and - curiously - is an excuse that rarely prevents him from
accepting other identifications that suit him; cf. his pp.103 (Gibeon),
115/6 (Hashabu), 116 (Hasi), 131 and n.33 (Labwe), and 147 (Na'aman).
Clearly, double standards rule here.
Finally, we have F.M. Cross who, in a hasty and ill-conceived addendum to a
footnote, peremptorily rejected the clear equation of Tibunu - Dibon on
the say-so of Ahituv, Weippert and Weinstein, without the slightest attempt
to verify the facts (Cross 1988:58f., n.41, second part). 'I've got my pet
theory, don't confuse me with contrary facts' represents his approach and
the absolute nadir of scholarship.
The whole tissue of nonsense, therefore, may be set aside in favour of the
facts. Moab was a real entity in the 13th century BC, sufficiently to
engage the attentions of Ramesses II. While it (like Edom) may have had a
considerable pastoral/semi-nomadic element, it also had a certain number of
settlements, and some - including Dibon and (Raba) Batora - are named
by Ramesses. The 'Mount Mrrn' is some strategic spur whose name has simply
not come down to us in any continuous tradition.40 The date of Ramesses
II's campaign into Moab is unknown; it is probably best dated after Year 9,
as recently suggested.41
The claim has several times been made that there was no Late Bronze Dibon,
hence it could not be Tibunu. Here, we have the fashionable fallacy (of
which archaeologists in particular should beware): 'we never found it, so
it never existed!' The proper attitude, of course, is different; it should
be: 'we never found it - either we missed it, or it's long gone, or it
never was'. The work done at Dhiban so far has been useful, but remains
very inadequate. Our knowledge of the main mound at Dhiban is incomplete
- and there is no guarantee that the Late Bronze settlement was on that
spot, rather than nearby, whether under the modern village or
The Egyptian Evidence on Ancient Jordan
elsewhere. Site-shift is so well-attested a
phenomenon42 that it cannot be arbitrarily ruled out here. The Egyptian
texts in this matter are valuable evidence hinting at what we have so far
missed, and should not be cavalierly dismissed, especially by those who are
unfitted to interpret them.
The recent official publication of his Lower Galilee surveys by Zvi Gal
(Gal 1992, esp. 54-62) has now delivered the coup de grace to Abituv's
mistaken transferral of Transjordanian toponyms to imaginary Galilean
locations. The 'Bronze Age' sites (i.e. Late Bronze) supposed by Aharoni in
his pioneering work appear in fact to be solely Early Bronze and/or Middle
Bronze in nearly every case. None of the sites to which Ahituv (and his
uncritical followers) would attach the Transjordanian names in Galilee is
Late Bronze at all! The total evidence from documents of Tuthmosis III,
Amenophis III and Ramesses II (as Gal points out clearly) shows that Tpn
and the rest really are Transjordanian and Bashan, not west of Jordan.
Passing to a different class of evidence, we do have other possible
indications for Egyptian influence in the Jordan of Late Bronze II/Iron I,
at the turn of the 13th/12th centuries BC: namely, the Balu'a and Shihan
stelae from Moab itself.43 Leaving aside its illegible inscription, we have
on the Balu'a stela a human ruler flanked by a god at the left and a
goddess at the right - all in purely Egyptian costume except for the
man's headgear. Both deities wear the tall, bulbous-topped crown with two
flanking plumes known in Egyptian as the Atef-crown - and in Egypt,
mainly the prerogative of deities (not humans), especially of Osiris and
Sokar. The deities wear millennially-old 'traditional' gear - collar and
kilt for the god, long shift for the goddess. By contrast, the man in the
middle wears full-length, pleated 'modern' robes of the late 2nd millennium
BC. His headgear is either a bungled form of the Egyptian khopresh or Blue
Crown of the pharaohs (mid-2nd millennium BC onwards) or else a cap related
to what is worn by various Levantines in Egyptian war-scenes and other
sources.44 The scene itself is directly reminiscent of numberless Egyptian
temple scenes of a king between deities who bless him.45
Much less well preserved, the Shihan stela illustrates a different concept.
Its two-dimensional artistic conventions are based on Egyptian (as is true
of the Levant as far north as Ugarit), and the one personage depicted wears
a traditional Egyptian short royal kilt, if with rather un-Egyptian
striations. The pendant plait and curl are also un-Egyptian in this form
and position. The man's poise is that of a victor, about to plunge his
spear into some defeated and recumbent foe. This theme has Egyptian
iconographic origins, in the familiar triumph-scenes
showing Pharaoh about to crush a bunch of cowering and defeated foes (or
just one foe) with his uplifted mace.46 In Ugarit, the theme reappears
among the ivories of the bedstead, one showing the king of Ugarit grasping
a defeated foe (in the Egyptian fashion), but threatening him with a sword,
not a mace (Schaeffer 1954:57, p1.10; also ANEP, no.817). Here, the theme
is repeated, but the spear replaces the sword or the mace, and the foe is
lost with the bottom of the monument.
Both of these pieces are now attributed to the 13th/12th centuries BC
(Zayadine 1991:37 and pls.33-34), and represent monumental-type art on a
modest scale (Baltea stela 1.7 m. [c. 5+ feet], Shihan stela 1.03 m. [c. 3+
feet] high) as prestige symbols of some local ruler in Moab. This implies
the existence of some kind of simple political state, with at least a few
tangible centres permanently occupied under organized rule, exercised over
farming and pastoral populations of unknown if modest extent. This would
agree with the growing Egyptian interest in the area, seeking (under
Ramesses II) to dominate the emerging entities east of the Jordan and Dead
Sea.
The early 1st millennium BC: Late Period and Iron I-II (c. 1000-600 BC)
After 1000 BC, all Egyptian evidence for relations abroad is limited and
fleeting. The centres of political power were almost entirely in Memphis
and the Delta, where monuments are mainly fragmentary, and most written
records on papyrus have long since perished. The monumental tradition of
celebrating success abroad has itself now become attenuated. Leave aside
the triumphal reliefs of Siamun and Shoshenq I plus victory stelae of
Psammetichus I and II, and evidence is almost zero. So, in terms of
history, for Jordan, Egypt's sole contribution at this period (besides
Papyrus Moscow 127, see above) is the campaign of Shoshenq I in Palestine
and the topographical list included in the triumph-scene celebrating that
campaign.47 Names in rows II and V of the great list show the Egyptian
forces briefly penetrating land east of the Jordan. In II, we have 19-22,
3drm, (LOST), Jwd, and Mahanaim. The first three names remain unidentified;
Mahanaim is nowadays usually located at Tell edh-Dhahab el-Gharbi (Gordon
and Villiers 1983). In V, we have names 53-56, Penuel, a Hadashat ('New
town'), then probably Succoth, and Adam(ah).48 So, we catch just a brief
glimpse of settlements in the Wadi Zerqa (ancient Jabbok) and environs, c.
925 BC.
More obvious to the eye in this general period are background Egyptian
influences on art in the Iron Age kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and Edom. The
kingdom of Ammon is justly famed for a remarkable series of sculptured
figures found within its bounds, some 30 in al1.49 A fair number of the
male figures and heads wear a conical crown with broader top and
side-plumes, reminiscent of, and ultimately derived from, the Egyptian
Atef-crown. However, the form of the Ammonite crown suggests that it was
adopted and adapted not from Egypt directly, but via Phoenicia and the
Levant. As in both areas, this is principally a crown of deities, and one
may here endorse the view that the relevant Ammonite figures and heads are
of a deity, not (e.g.) of kings. Contrast the head of Yerah-ezer, an
indubitable Ammonite Idng.50 These Atef-crowned pieces may well represent
Milcom, the only securely attested god of the Ammonites. By contrast with
indirect items like Atef-crowns, actual Egyptian artworks were sometimes
acquired by ancient Jordanians. One example is the faience chalice, of
which a fragment was found at Buseirah; this type of vessel is securely
dated to the 10th-9th centuries BC (one of Shoshenq I/Takeloth II, another
to Shoshenq son of Osorkon II), may have begun in the 1 1 th century BC,
and almost certainly continued into the 8th century BC ('Bocchoris vase')
if not beyond (cf. Milward 1975).
Seal-stones from Edom, Moab and Ammon often show artistic devices as well
as inscriptions. Here, alongside use of Syrian and Mesopotamian-related
motifs, one may find Egyptian and Egyptianizing motifs. The latter (like
the Atef-crown) were undoubtedly mediated via the Levant - so, e.g., the
modified winged discs and crowned creatures on some seals (in Bienkowski
1991:140-141, pls.160- 161; Bordreuil 1987:159, 161, nos.168, 171). The
former may include scarabs and more closely Egyptian-style figures.51 Here,
as in other respects, the ancient Jordanians in a cosmopolitan world made
lively and intelligent use of the resources of that world in creating their
own particular culture and civilization.
Notes
1. Here, the first date given each time is based on the current optimum
dates for the Egyptian 12th Dynasty (Kitchen 1989:153). The dates in
brackets are the absolute minimum dates (possibly too low!), as favoured by
R. Krauss (Kitchen 1987:49 - Low).
2. From the considerable secondary literature on these texts, the most
useful contributions are the following: Albright 1928; 1941a, b; Alt 1941;
Moran 1957; Goetze 1958; Rainey 1972:381-388; and Helck 1962:49-68.
3. The precise location of Upper and Lower Shutu remains theoretical. Still
attractive is the suggestion by Albright (1941b:34 n.8) to place Lower
Shutu in the Mishor of Moab and Upper Shutu to its east, in the
Amman district. The terms Upper and Lower show that specific districts were
envisaged, and Shutu has nothing to do with Egyptian 1w, 'dry' and is not
simply a vague general term as is wrongly alleged in the totally misleading
presentation by Thompson (1974:123ff.).
4. Mention of Shutu is in a hieratic epigraph (Newberry 1893:p1.38:2 =
Lepsius 1904:88).
5. On this name, cf. Moran 1957:342, comparing Iakmesi of the Assyrian King
List.
6. Sinuhe, R 30-108; text Blackman 1932:9-23; translations cf. ANET:19-20,
Lichtheim 1973:224-227; on states cf. Rainey 1972:374, 378-379.
7. The common rendering Ithent-Yeush of Khenti-Kushu (two hybrids of
Egyptian and Semitic) is clearly wrong; the second is certainly
prepositional (m-lint), and the former may be a title.
8. For the 13th Dynasty, cf. von Beckerath 1964-65:29ff.; Hayes 1973:44ff.
In Gen. 36:31-39, the whole list deserves reconsideration; the two Hadads
are reminiscent of Hadad-names in the Execration Texts.
9. For a critique of Redford's Jordanian hypothesis, see Timm 1989:35-50.
But his constant complaint that 'name-groups' in lists have no markers is
specious; no such markers ever occur in any of these lists. Groups only
emerge by establishing sound identifications - then they validate
themselves.
10. Location possible, but identity rather uncertain; cf. Weippert
1973-74:65-66.
11. Cf. Redford 1982a:60 and n.43 with references. For the seeming lack of
places mentioned between Edrei and the next Abil (Zerqa), Redford points
out the seeming corresponding lack of attested Late Bronze Age sites along
the main route (p.66 and n.115).
12. Redford 1982b:119 distinguished between Nos. 95 and 96 (` Ain and
Keramin), whereas in 1982a:66, 69-70 he appeared to treat them as virtually
one location. Krmn would then be the Abel-Keramim of Judg. 11:33. He wished
also to identify it with present-day Tell el-`Umeiri.
13. Cf. Redford 1982a:62 on this place; Gorg (1976) would - wrongly - link
it with Bwtrt under Ramesses
which he misinterprets as *Bt-Lt, 'House of Lot'. Cf.
also identifications proposed by W. Zwickel in Worschech 1990:127 n.15.
14. For a possible link between the supposed ancient and modern names, cf.
Redford 1982a:63. His full list of suggested identifications, p.74.
15. On the spellings of Byblos, cf. Horn 1963. The b/p equivalence provided
by the name of Byblos (Kbn/Kpn) is admitted by Timm 1989:40-41, but its
relevance is evaded by him.
16. Late Bronze sites in Jordan were gazetteered in outline by Sauer
1986:6-9, without subdivision into LB I and II; other refinements will
doubtless also be needed as work proceeds in the field.
17. Aksha 11, Amara West 11 (KRI II:211, 215); Soleb, Simons 1937, IX, g.3;
Giveon 1964:249, VIII, A.1. The Egyptian Evidence on Ancient Jordan Soleb
lists, see also Leclant 1965.
18. Listed as Udumu, Aduru, Araru (cf. 133 of Sinuhe), Meshtu, Magdalu,
Kheni-anabu and Sarqu, plus Hayyunu and Yabiluma (both EA 256), and
Shaskhimu (EA 203:4) and Tubu (EA 205:3), perhaps the land of Tob.
19. So, tentatively, Moran 1987:602; likewise earlier, Aharoni 1979:189
n.112, with Zoar in mind; and Schmitt 1987:43.
20. Papyrus Anastasi I, 22:4 - text, Gardiner 1911:66 end; Fischer-Elfert
1983:136 top; translations e.g. Gardiner 1911:24*; ANET:477.
21. Texts KRI I:29:54A, 32:49A and A2, 33:15, 34:13, 15; Epigraphic Survey
1986:p1s.15/16:54 [p.65] and 17/18:54 [p.56] for the Karnak examples.
22. First Beth-Shan stela, lines 14ff., KRI 1:12:7-14; translations cf.
ANET:253-254; cf. also Murnane 1985:59f., 68.
23. In lists of Ramesses H, Pahil, in KR1 II:163:26, 215:11. Qiryath-`Anab,
KRI H:163:41. Qmhm, under Sethos I, Epigraphic Survey 1986:65 n.f to
pls.17/18:53; under Ramesses H, KRI H:163:30, and probably in the lists,
pp.177, 178, 184.
24. Tanis, Obelisk I, E. face, KRI 11:409:1; broken parallel, Gebel Shaluf
stela II, KRI 11:303:6; translations, Kitchen 1964:66, 67.
25. KRI 11:304:14-15; translation given here corrects that in Kitchen
1964:66 - 'ridges', not 'tells' for jswt.
26. As in Gen. 14:6, 36:8, 9; Deut. 2:1, 5; Jos. 15:10, 24:4; 1 Chr. 4:22;
2 Chr. 20:10, 22, 23; Ezek. 35:2, 3, 7, 15.
27. Written Nhr (for Nhrn) as sometimes in other cases; references, Caminos
1977:67 n.6. Caminos shrinks from identifying the name as Naharin [N.
Syria] here, while admitting (p.67) that the ancient writer is making a
wild wish - that his oppressor be sent off to the back of beyond; hence,
the reference to Trans-Euphratean North Syria is entirely appropriate from
an Egyptian perspective.
28. A person (and a hapax), with near certainty a loanword. Why not a
metathesised form of Semitic trgmn, targamannu, 'guide, interpreter'? (In
Akkadian, cf. von Soden 1959-1981:1329b.)
29. Clearly so, in the text; again, Caminos had wished to locate this
entity within Egypt itself. But this would miss the point of the victim's
ardent desire to fetch deliverance even from afar.
30. On this passage and its background, see Kitchen 1986:273-275 and
references.
31. On the base of the westernmost statue of Ramesses H before the pylon of
Luxor temple - KRI 11:185, Cw 14 (collated by this writer), earlier in
Simons 1937, No.XXII e+d; and first published by Kyle 1908. 'Moab' may also
possibly occur in the Amara West list of Ramesses II at No.17 (cf. Timm
1989:12-13), with a slightly different orthography - a list copied from
the Soleb lists of Amenophis III (14th century BC); but this is not
certain.
32. Kitchen 1964, Scenes E-[H], pp.57 and fig.4 (Krmyn) and 60-61, fig.5
(Apheq), p1.6; KRI 11:182:6, 12.
33. So, at Karnak, south wall, Great Hypostyle Hall - KRI 11:156:16
(Krmyn), 157:16 (Apheq).
34. On this wall, Kitchen 1964, text AM, p.50 and fig.2, p1.3 (KRI
II:180:3), and ibid., text BIVB, p.53f., fig.3, p1.4 (KRI II:181:4). List,
KRI 11:178, No.19.
35. The actual state of the wall and of the texts is clearly represented in
Kitchen 1964:49, fig.7, AI, A and B (the photo in p1.3 is not adequate);
the text in KRI 11:180:2 resulted from repeated careful collation of the
originals.
36. See the discussion (Kitchen 1964:64-67, with map, fig.6). The highly
speculative attempt to reinterpret this toponym as *Beth-Lot by GOrg (1976;
1978:7-8) must be dismissed as fantasy, without any support from any other
source, and based on misuse of a dubious name in the Execration Texts plus
an Ugaritic plural. Simple lack of LB/EI surface pottery at later Raba
Batora (or at El-Lejjun, cf. Kafafi 1985:19) is not decisive in the absence
of proper excavation. An attractive alternative (with El pottery) is
offered by Worschech 1990:102 and n.44, with fig.28; a chain of forts,
early lion Age, protecting Moab, cf. ibid., 105, 109, and Miller infra,
Chapter 9. On the term Raba Batora, see Timm 1989:16-18, and his 18-19,
dismissing GOrg's fantasies.
37. Ahituv's mistakes include 1) the howler of confusing Luxor with Karnak;
2) wrongly attributing to this writer the supposed equation of Tibunu with
Tuthmosid Tpn, which was not accepted, see Kitchen 1964:55; 3) he
carelessly confused Krmyn, Qrmn, and other distinct place-names; 4) he paid
no attention to the differing locales of the two registers of scenes; 5)
his adduction of the incomplete name Tpn[....] in Kom el-Hetan is
irrelevant; 6) he failed to understand the nature of the palimpsests or the
wall-surfaces.
38. Not quite all, cf. Gorg 1978; Timm 1989:25-33.
39. Ahituv 1984; cf. reviews, Kitchen 1988, esp.105-106, which let him off
lightly, and particularly Knauf and Lenzen 1989, which did not.
40. One suggestion is to locate it at Jebel Shihan, so Worschech
1990:127-128; but if so, then Ynd... must also be located there, and not at
Yarut 8 km. south, to fit the Egyptian text.
41. By Haider 1987. A date in Year 4 (Timm 1989:20-21) is highly unlikely,
because Ramesses II was on the Phoenician coast that year, not in
Transjordan; the change of relief-label almost certainly was executed long
after Year 5, as the spelling of Shabtuna does not correspond with that in
the Qadesh texts, but is from a different scribal orthography.
42. Cf., e.g., Aharoni 1979:123-124; in Jordan, also, as in other desertic
areas, site-deflation can be more pervasive.
43. Conveniently pictured in Dearman infra, Chapter 8 Figure 8.4 and
Mattingly infra, Chapter 7 Figure 7.2, and Bienkowski 1991:35-36,
pls.33-34. For the site of Jebel Shihan, see Worschech 1990:13-15. On
recent work at Balu'a, cf. ibid., 71-90, following on idem. 1986. One
should note that the cartouche on the bulla (Worschech 1990:87f., fig.26a,
p1.10:1) has been misread: it is not Menkare, but Djoserkare, the prenomen
of Amenophis I, c. 1520 BC. The piece is in any case long posthumous, so
its real date is not affected by this change of reading.
44. Cf. the headgear of the captives on a well known Megiddo ivory, Loud
1939:p1.4:2a, 2b; often reproduced since, e.g. Yadin 1963:243.
45. E.g., on stelae, Tuthmosis lII (c. 1450 BC) offering to Amun and
attended by the goddess 'Thebes' (Grapow 1936:p1.1), or Merenptah between
Amun and the goddess Mut on the famous 'Israel stela' (Petrie 1897:p1.13);
in temple scenes, e.g. Osorkon I, Epigraphic Survey 1954:p1.13.
46. Cf. study of this type of relief, Gaballa and Kitchen 1969:23-28.
47. Definitive publication, Epigraphic Survey 1954:p1s.2- 9. General
account of the campaign and full discussion, see Kitchen 1986:294-302 and
432-447, plus 575. The boustrophedon theory of Mazar is impossible, cf.
facts stated in ibid., 444-445.
48. For these names here, see Kitchen 1986:438, correcting Mazar and
Aharoni.
49. See, conveniently, Abu Assaf 1980/81, plus two more figures, Oman
1986:36-39, Nos.12-13.
50. Conveniently illustrated in Bienkowski 1991:40, p1.38. That the
Atef-wearing figures are those of a deity was also advocated by Dornemann
(1983), Abu Assaf (1980-81:36, 77-78) and others.
51. As in Bienkowski 1991:138, p1.156 top right (scarab with proper
Egyptian figure and standard); cf. ibid., top left, winged scarab.
Bibliography
Abu Assaf, A.
1980-81Untersuchungen zur Ammonitischen
Rundbildkunst. UFo 12:7-78, pls.l-17.
Aharoni, Y.
1979 Land of the Bible.' London.
Ahituv, S.
1972 Did Ramesses H Conquer Dibon? IEJ 22:141-142.
1984 Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem.
Albright, W.F.
1928 The Egyptian Empire in Asia in the Twenty-first Century B.C. JPOS
8:223-256.
1941a New Egyptian Data on Palestine in the Patriarchal Age. BASOR
81:16-21.
1941b The Land of Damascus between 1850 and 1750 B .0 . BASOR 83:30-36.
1954 Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the
Eighteenth Century B.C. JAOS 74:222-233.
Alt, A.
1941 Herren und Herrensitze Palastinas im Anfang des zweiten Jahrtausends
v. Chr. Vorlaufige Bemerkungen zu den neuen Achtungstexten. ZDPV 64:21-39.
Astour, M.C.
1979 Yahweh in Egyptian Topographic Lists. In Festschrift Elmar Edel 12.
Miirz 1979, eds. M. Gorg and E. Pusch. Bamberg, 17-34.
Beckerath, J. von
1964-65Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der zweiten Zwischenzeit
in Agypten. Munchen. Agyptologische Forschungen 23: Gltickstadt.
Bienkowski, P., ed.
1991 Treasures from an Ancient Land: The Art of Jordan. Stroud,
Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton. Blackman, A.M.
1932 Middle-Egyptian Stories. Brussels.
Bordreuil, P.
1987 Transjordanische Siegel mit Inschriften. In Der KOnigsweg: 9000 Jahre
Kunst und Kultur in Jordanien und Paldstina, eds. S. Mittmann et al. Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern, 156-169.
Caminos, R.A.
1954 Late-Egyptian Miscellanies. Oxford.
1977 A Tale of Woe. Oxford.
Cross, F.M.
1988 Reuben, First-born of Jacob. ZAW 100 Supplement-issue:46-65.
Edel, E.
1980 Die Ortsnamen in den Tempeln von Aksha, Amarah und Soleb im Sudan. BN
11:63-79. Epigraphic Survey
1954 Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak III: The Bubastite Portal. Chicago.
1986 The Battle Reliefs of King Sety I. RIK IV: Chicago.
Erichsen, W.
1933 Papyrus Harris I. Brussels.
Fischer-Elfert, H-W.
1983 Die satirische Streitschrift des Papyrus Anastasi I. Wiesbaden.
Gaballa, G.A. and Kitchen, K.A.
1969 Ramesside Varia II. ZAS 96:14-28.
Gal, Z.
The Egyptian Evidence on Ancient Jordan
27:275-289, pls.54-68.
Gorg, M.
1976 Bwtrt = 'Wohnsitz des Lot'. GM 19:31-32.
1978 Namenstudien I: Fruhe moabitische Ortsnamen. BN 7:7-14.
Grapow, H.
1936 Sprachliche und schriftliche Formung
Agyptischer Texte. Leipziger Agyptologische Studien 7: Ghickstadt.
Grdseloff, B.
1947 EdOm, d'apres les Sources Egyptiennes. Revue de l'Histoire Juive en
Egypte 1:69-99.
Haider, P.
1987 Zum Moab-Feldzug Ramses' H. SAK 14:107-123.
Hayes, W.C.
1973 Egypt: From the Death of Ammenemes HI to Seqenenre II. In CAH
II:1,42-76.
Heck, W.
1962 Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v.
Chr. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Homes-Fredericq, D. and Hennessy, J.B., eds.
1989 Archaeology of Jordan II: Field Reports. Louvain: Peeters.
Horn, S.H.
1963 Byblos in Ancient Records. AUSS 1:52-61. Kafafi, Z.
1985 Egyptian Topographical Lists of the Late Bronze
Age in Jordan (East Bank;. BN 29:17-21.
Kitchen, K.A.
1964 Some New Light on the Asiatic Wars of Ramesses H. JEA 50:47-70.
1976 Two Notes on Ramesside History. Oriens Antiquus 15:313-314.
1986 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-
650 BC).2 Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
1987 The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age. In
High, Middle and Low, Part 1, ed. P. Astrom. Gothenburg: Astrom, 37-55.
1988 Review of Ahituv, Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents.
CdE 63:102-111.
1989 Supplementary Notes on the Basics of Egyptian Chronology. In High,
Middle and Low, Part 3, ed. P. Astrom. Gothenburg: Astrom, 152-159.
Knauf, E.A. and Lenzen, C.
1989 Review of Ahituv, Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents.
ZDPV 105:174-177.
Koenig, Y.
1990 Les Textes d'Envoinement de Mirgissa. RdE 41:101-125.
Kyle, M.G.
1908 Some Geographic and Ethnic Lists of Rameses
at the Temple of Luxor. RT 30:222-223.
Leclant, J.
1965 Les Fouilles de Soleb (Nubie Soudanaise). In Göttingen Vortrage, ed.
S. Schott. Gottingen, 205-216.
Lepsius, C.R.
1904 Denkmeiler aus Aegypten und Aethiopen, Text, II, ed. E. Naville.
Leipzig.
Lichtheim, M.
1973 Ancient Egyptian Literature I: Old and Middle Kingdoms. Berkeley/Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Loud, G.
1939 The Megiddo Ivories. Chicago.
Miller, J.M.
1977 The Israelite Occupation of Canaan. In Israelite and Judean History,
eds. J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller. London/Philadelphia: Westminster Press/SCM
Press, 213-284.
Milward, A.
1975 A Fragment of an Egyptian Relief Chalice from Buseirah, Jordan. Levant
7:16-18.
Moran, W.L.
1957 Mari Notes on the Execration Texts. Orientalia n.s. 26:339-345.
1987 Les Lettres d'El Amarna. Paris.
Murnane, W.J.
1985 The Road to Kadesh SAOC 42: Chicago. Newberry, P.E.
1893 Beni Hasan I. London.
Ornan, T.
1986 A Man and his Land: Highlights from the Moshe Dayan Collection.
Jerusalem.
Petrie, W.M.F.
1897 Six Temples at Thebes in 1896. London.
Posener, G.
1940 Princes et Pays d'Asie et de Nubie. Brussels. Rainey, A.F.
1972 The World of Sinuhe. /OS 2:369-408.
Redford, D.B.
1982a A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan (Nos.89- 101 of Tuthmosis III's
List of Asiatic Toponyms). JSSEA 12:55-74.
1982b Contact between Egypt and Jordan in the New
Kingdom: Some Comments on Sources. In SHAJ
1, ed. A. Hadidi. Amman: Department of
Antiquities, 115-119.
Sauer, J.A.
1986 Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages: A Critique of Glueck's
Synthesis. BASOR 263:1-26. Schaeffer, C.F.A.
1954 Les Fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit, quinzieme,
seizieme et dix-septieme Campagnes (1951, 1952
et 1953), Rapport Sommaire. Syria 31:14-67. Schmitt, G.
1987 Gaba, Getta und Gintikirmil. ZDPV 103:22-48. Sethe, K.
1926 Die Achtung feindlicher Fiirsten, VOlker und Dinge auf altagyptischen
Tongefassscherben des Mittleren Reiches. Abhandlungen der Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse No.5: Berlin.
Simons, S.J.
1937 Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to
Western Asia.
Leiden.
Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan
Soden, W. von
1959-1981 Akkadisches HandwOrterbuch. Wiesbaden. Thompson, T.L.
1974 The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives.
Berlin.
Timm, S.
1989 Moab zwischen den Miichten: Studien zu historischen Denkmiilern und
Texten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Weinstein, J.M.
1981 The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment. BASOR 241:1-28.
Weippert, M.
1973-74 Die Kampfe des assyrischen Konigs
Assurbanipal gegen die Araber. WdO 7:39-85.
1979 The Israelite 'Conquest' and the Evidence from Transjordan. In
Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the
American Schools of Oriental Research (1900-1975), ed. F.M. Cross.
Cambridge, MA: ASOR,
15-34.
Worschech, U.
1986 The Fourth Season in the North-West Ard el-Kerak, and Soundings at
Balu`. ADAJ 30:285-310.
1990 Die Beziehungen Moabs zu Israel und Agypten in der Eisenzeit:
Siedlungsarchtiologische und siedlungshistorische Untersuchungen im
Kernland Moabs (Ard el-Kerak). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Yadin, Y.
1963 The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands. London. Yuhong, W. and Dalley,
S.
1990 The Origins of the Manana Dynasty at Kish and the Assyrian King List.
Iraq 52:159-165. Zayadine, F.
1991 Sculpture in Ancient Jordan. In Treasures from an Ancient Land: The
Art of Jordan, ed. P. Bienkowski. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton,
31-61.
Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan
0Figure 1.1 Edom, Moab and surrounding areas, with place names mentioned in
the text.
Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan
Territorial Designations in Moab
cM of Moab?
Figure 8.1 Territorial designations in Moab.
Settlement Patterns and the Beginning of the Iron Age in Moab
*B aluca
Figure 8.2 The northern region of Moab.
Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan
Figure 8.3 The southern region of Moab.
================================
7. Iron Age Settlement in the Land of Edom Stephen Hart
8. Wadi Feinan region
9. The Iron Age pottery of the Wadi Feinan region
10. Iron Age Settlement in the Land of Edom
11. The Date of Sedentary Occupation in Edom: Evidence from Umm el-Biyara,
Tawilan and Buseirah
Umm el-Biyara, Tawilan and Buseirah (for location see Bienkowski infra,
Chapter 1 Figure 1.1), excavated by the late Crystal Bennett between 1960
and 1982, are still the only Edomite sites to have been extensively
investigated (see summary in Bienkowski 1990a). Nevertheless, no final
report has yet appeared on any of the three.
This paper has two aims. First, to summarize the evidence for the date of
the earliest Iron Age settlement at each of these sites. Second, to assess
critically the claims by Israel Finkelstein that there was widespread Iron
I occupation throughout Edom (Finkelstein 1992a, b; Bienkowski 1992).
Umm el-Biyara: Umm el-Biyara rises 300 m. from the Petra basin and is the
highest mountain overlooking Petra from the west. It was excavated in 1960,
1963 and 1965 (Bennett 1966; Bienkowski 1990a:91-95). One of the main aims
of the excavation was to obtain a group of stratified pottery from Edom.
Bennett excavated c. 700 m.2, less than one-third of the whole site. She
found a group of dry-stone houses with long corridor rooms, and small
square rooms leading off (Figure 11.1). The occupation was evidently
domestic, and the main area of the settlement was destroyed by a fire. In
one room a clay impression of a royal seal was found (Figure 11.2),
restored convincingly as qws g[br]Imlk '[dtn], 'Qos-Gabr, King of Edom'
(cf. Bartlett 1989:213). This is the only example of a king's seal from
Iron Age Jordan. Qos-Gabr (or 'Qaus-gabri') is mentioned twice in Assyrian
inscriptions: on Prism B of Esarhaddon, which is dated 673-2 BC (ANET:291;
Borger 1956: Nin.A v.56), and in a description of the first campaign of
Ashurbanipal of 667 BC (ANET:294; Streck 1916:ccclx, 139; see also Millard
infra, Chapter 4). The two references to Qos-Gabr thus date between 673 and
667 BC. Parallels, such as they are, for pottery and small finds also point
to a 7th-century BC date, within the Iron II period (Figures 11.3-4;
Oakeshott 1978:96-99, 158-183; Hart 1989:51). The seal impression of
Qos-Gabr is still the only clear evidence from any site for the absolute
date of pottery from Edom. Of course, it only gives us a terminus post quem
for the date of the pottery. We really have no idea and at present no means
of knowing how much earlier this type of pottery might date - and by
extension the settlements from which it comes. Is the pottery largely 7th
century, or does it go back to the 8th, 9th or even 10th centuries BC? Umm
el-Biyara does not provide the answers, since it is essentially a
one-period site and no stratified sequence of pottery was recovered. It is
true that Bennett reported three 'phases' of construction, but it is clear
that they cannot be separated much chronologically and that they represent
a single period of occupation. The sequence all over the site appears to be
the same: floor, collapse, abandonment and collapse. All the floors,
whether on bedrock, slate or packing, appear to be contemporary (Bienkowski
1990a:93-95).
Tawilan: Glueck's original survey of Tawilan had concluded that it was a
very important Edomite site, dating from the 13th to 6th centuries BC
(Glueck 1934:13-14; 1935:82-83). Glueck's Tawilan comprised a possible
outer wall, and a 'conjectural' inner wall, terminating in a north-western
and a southern 'tower'. The original objective of most of Bennett's
trenches was to ascertain the validity of Glueck's identifications, none of
which stood up to scrutiny (see Bienkowski 1990a:96).Buseirah: Buseirah is
on a promontory c. 22 km. south of Tafila, 4 km. west of the King's
Highway. It was excavated from 1971-1974 and in 1980. One of the main aims
of the excavation was to provide a good chronological sequence for the
history of Edom (Bennett 1983; Bienkowski 1990a: 101-103). Buseirah was a
substantial administrative centre dominated by two or three large buildings
and fortified by a town wall. The area excavated probably embraced only the
central part of the ancient city, the rest being hidden under the
present-day village to the south. Bennett concluded that the city was
divided into Upper and Lower Towns. The Upper Town consisted of the
'Acropolis' (Area A) with palatial and/or temple buildings built on a deep
fill or mound, the Lower Town of ordinary domestic buildings on the
terraces surrounding the 'Acropolis' (Areas B and D) (Figure 11.6); Area C
also probably contained a public building (Figure 11.7). The Upper Town was
cut off from the Lower Town by a battered enclosure wall, which has been
traced only between Areas B and A (Figure 11.6).
11. The Date of Sedentary Occupation in Edom: Evidence from Umm el-Biyara,
Tawilan and Buseirah cannot be conclusively demonstrated (Bienkowski 1990b)
- thus a 7th or 6th-century occupation terminating prior to the date of
the tablet cannot be excluded; but on the other hand 2) if we assume an
association between tablet and occupation, it is nevertheless not certain
which king Darius is named. Darius I (521 BC) and III (335 BC) have been
excluded by some scholars, while dating to Darius II would put the date of
the tablet at 423 BC - but none of the three can be definitely excluded
(see Dalley forthcoming). 4. It is impossible to judge the exact shape of
the Shiloh pithos rims, because Finkelstein has so far published only
photographs, not drawings (see Finkelstein 1988a). 5. Sauer has also
remarked that 'some possible Iron I sherds have already been published from
Buseira' (1986:10), referring to two incomplete storage jars (Bennett
1975:fig.8:7-8), the first of which was also cited by Finkelstein
(1992a:fig.2:17). Stephen Hart dates both these to Iron II on parallels
from Edom (Hart 1989:129; cf. also Hart infra, Chapter 10).
12. Evidence from the Wadi el-Hasa and Southern Ghors and North-east Arabah
Archaeological Surveys
Conclusions: The above-detailed evidence from the WHS and SGNAS indicates
human occupation in the areas during Iron I and II. This occupation is in
contrast to the general lack of occupation in the same areas in the
preceding Late Bronze Age. On the basis of the findings from the literature
search for ceramic parallels, it seems that the Iron Age began in these
areas sometime between 1200 and 1000 BC or in the so-called Iron IA. It is
impossible to determine, on the basis of the available evidence, a more
precise date other than within this 200-year time-frame. Excavations at the
sites where the WHS and the SGNAS collected Iron IA sherds will hopefully
determine the date more precisely.
13. Edom Outside the Famous Excavations: Evidence from Surveys in the
Greater Petra Area
An Edomite occupation of es-Sela`
There are definite indications of Edomite occupation on the rock opposite
the recent but possibly also ancient village of Sela' near Buseirah (Figure
13.2).
Thus, es-Sela` is by no means a 'miniature Petra', but nor is it an
indisputable typical Edomite site. It was certainly a stronghold of
importance near the ancient north-south route and another one branching off
to Wadi Arabah for more than 4000 years, undoubtedly also for Edomites in
the mid- 1st millennium BC. It will take much studying, comparing and,
hopefully, also excavating to know tolerably well what belonged to what
period and what population.
The Edomite mountain stronghold of Bala III
There are several possible explanations for the particular location of the
site on Baja III. A defensive plan of the Assyrians could have been imposed
in the region against the desert tribes (Hart 1986:58). During the time
documented by the pottery, copper production in the Feinan region
flourished, and thousands of tons of slag were produced. Hauptmann reports
a 'copper industry' serving a wider Near Eastern market (Hauptmann 1986:37;
Knauf and Lenzen 1987:86) which had to be controlled. Furthermore, it is
easy to imagine political crises when there was danger of molestation from
military units or bands of robbers. On the other hand, could not our people
on the Baja summit, at least during certain periods, have been the
evil-doers who after their tricks sought refuge where a handful of men or
even women could defend themselves against an army (cf. Lindner and Farajat
1987)?
Umm el-Ala: an Edomite fortress south of Petra
It was by pure chance that after Baja III another Iron II (Edomite) site
should have been discovered. When I was invited by the then
Director-General of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan to survey the
valley of es-Sadeh, not even the name of it was undisputed. Nothing was
known besides the information that there were 'Nabataean ruins' which had
been seen by a helicopter reconnaissance team of H.R.H. Prince Hassan and a
small detail of Jordanian archaeologists. As a matter of fact, the
Nabataeans had been there, and they had left noteworthy ruins. But on an
isolated plateau with steep cliffs on all sides at 820 m. above sea level
called Umm el-Ala by the beduin, other house ruins were found and dated by
surface and excavation finds to the 7th-6th centuries BC (Figures
13.26-29). The foundations showed the astounding lengths of c. 20, 47 and
83 m. Other dwellings below the rim of the plateau were rock-shelters with
walls of large boulders in front of them. There was no notable difference
in the pottery between that collected from the plateau and from the
rock-shelters.
14. 'Edomite' Pottery from the Petra Region by John P. Zeitler
Es-Sadeh: A large number of finds was collected in es-Sadeh. The
typological spectrum is restricted to 12 major types (Lindner et al.
1990:206ff.), ranging from large vessels (group 3) to small bowls (group
8). The fabric is coarse, the colour is usually light red. The temper
consists of grey and brown grits. Although already published (ibid.), a
short description of the groups is given for convenience. Two further
groups (13, 14) have also been defined. Baja III: Baja III revealed an
assemblage of hard and coarse ware, mostly cooking pots, bag-shaped jars
and large storage jars. The colour varies from light buff to pink;
fragments of larger vessels show a grey core. The temper is usually of
small white grits. Painted pottery is lacking, also in the undrawn part of
the sample (Lindner p.c.). The spectrum is restricted. Using the typology
established for the es-Sadeh pottery, only groups 1 (jug with high neck and
handle), 2 (cooking pots), 7 (jars with rilled rims), 9 (bowls with high,
slightly outturned rims) are present. The only form different from es-Sadeh
is part of a jug with a shoulder handle, straight neck and outturned lip
(Lindner and Farajat 1987:fig. 5:14). This type is referred to as group 15
(Figure 14.2:1, 10). Another Edomite settlement in the Petra region is
Tawilan. Although only a few examples of its finds have been published
(Bennett 1984), they allow general comparisons with our material. Cooking
pots (ibid.fig.5:797) have close similarities with group 2. Bowls and cups
are comparable with groups 9, 11 and 12, although the illustrated examples
from Tawilan have a higher, more rounded bottom (ibid. fig.3:872, 841, 803,
885, 860). Additionally, one bowl shows parallels with group 13 (ibid.
fig.4:802), and the lip treatment of a mug (ibid.fig.3:844) is similar to
the lips of our group 6. Minor typological differences cannot be discussed
in detail, as the published material from Tawilan is much too small for
definite conclusions. In terms of chronological questions, Tawilan is a
disappointment. Its pottery is mostly homogeneous and shows no indications
of a typological development based on vertical stratigraphy (Bienkowski
1990:101). Bienkowski subdivided five phases, which revealed Iron II
pottery, probably from the 7th-6th century BC (Bienkowski 1990:97, 101 and
infra, Chapter 11; cf. Bennett 1984:4). The most prominent Edomite site in
Jordan is Buseirah. The pottery there shows a large variety of both coarse
and fine wares. From the published examples, many similarities can be
detected. Surprisingly, the type assemblage of es-Sadeh is not wholly
repeated in the Buseirah finds. The following pottery groups are well
represented at both es-Sadeh and Buseirah: Typologically similar pieces are
also attested in the finds from Tell el-Kheleifeh. The cooking pots (group
2) and jugs (group 1) are especially abundant there (Pratico 1985:24). Like
the other Edomite sites, Tell el-Kheleifeh lacks any intra-site pottery
development. In general, the finds are dated to Iron II with parallels
ranging between the 8th and 6th centuries (ibid.26f.). In conclusion, a
link between the pottery assemblage and the location of Edomite sites is
observable. As an hypothesis, it seems possible that similar localities
induced similar typological assemblages. Following this statement, two
types of Edomite settlement seem plausible: Interpretation of this
difference is difficult. As Bennett stated, painted pottery seems to belong
to a ruling class (Bennett 1975:15). In our case, this would indicate an
absence of the ruling class from the mountain settlements, although a royal
seal impression was found on Umm el-Biyara. The extreme position of the
settlements makes it difficult to suggest a farming community. Farming
usually requires arable land and a good supply of water. Neither of these
is available at Baja III, Umm el-Biyara or es-Sadeh. There, water had to be
gathered in cisterns and the ground is nothing but an outcrop of rocks. On
the other hand, all three sites dominate rich arable lands in the vicinity,
cultivated again in Nabataean times. Therefore, regional control seems to
be a possible function of the sites. Whether they had more functions is
uncertain at the moment. Based only on the pottery assemblage gathered from
short surveys and the situation of the sites, any assumption remains
speculative. In any case, more excavations are necessary before the mist
rises over the Edomite mountains of Jordan.
15. Romancing the Stones: New Light on Glueck's 1934 Survey of Eastern
Palestine as a Result of Recent Work by the Wadi Fidan Project
Concluding remarks: The misplacing of Glueck's site of Khirbet Hamra Ifdan
is a very good example of one of the key problems inherent in large scale
surveys in difficult terrain, that of relocation of sites without the
adequate ability to map their location in detail. The somewhat worrying
aspect of modem surveys in southern Jordan is that in many ways we have not
yet reached beyond the level of Glueck's early work. This perhaps overly
critical assessment can be more or less supported when we consider that in
spite of the intervening 50 years between ourselves and Glueck, we are
still almost invariably reliant upon a small team of haggard archaeologists
roaming over vast areas, locating sites with little precision. Our attempts
to refine our survey techniques, and by so doing to gather the essential
information necessary to answer some of the most basic questions, have been
rather limited in comparison to surveys in other Mediterranean countries.
The point which we seem to be missing in our surveys of southern Jordan is
that while they have invariably added to the quantity of known 'sites',
they have rarely given us specific insight into either the full history of
any one 'site' in particular or to that 'site's' relationships in time and
space, or how it relates to the evolving landscape and man's use of it. In
many ways we are still back at Nelson Glueck's tried and true method of
assessing a 'site's' importance based upon the 'quantities of sherds
found'. What is needed in archaeological surveys of this region is a more
balanced approach in which large- scale extensive surveys are balanced
against smaller, intensive surveys, possibly with the introduction of
selective, small-scale excavation for clarification of the actual nature of
surface deposits. Without a more detailed analysis of the region which
would be the obvious result of such studies, we will be confined to the
very limited nature of questions which can now be answered by our survey
results. This intensive analysis of specific sites may to some degree
redress the problem of assessing the quality of site recovery rather than
continually attempting to maximize the quantity of sites recorded.
By Steve Rudd: Contact the author for comments, input or corrections.
Click to View
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA
|