Next week I will be presenting a paper at the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual meeting in Atlanta. The paper's title is "" Kiriath-Jearim (Deir el-'Azhar): Archaeological Investigations of a Biblical Town in the Judean Hill Country" and was co-authored by myself, Boaz Zissu, Oron Schwartz, Gabriel Barkay (my former teacher) and Alexandar Fantalkin. You can view the presentation below.
Showing posts with label Historical Geography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Historical Geography. Show all posts
November 10, 2015
August 19, 2009
Megiddo's Identification in Historical Perspective
Dimensions and Tools of Historical Geography
Before discussing the particular identification of Megiddo, it is important to grasp the dimensions and tools of Historical Geography. To understand the discipline of Historical Geography one must understand the combination of different dimensions Historical Geography operates within. Those dimensions are the following:
· Spatially defined to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Ancient Near East.
· Temporally defined to the exposition of the country’s and people’s experiences over time (history and reflection). This requires the tools of paleography, epigraphy, grammar, syntax and discourse analysis.
· Culturally defined in light of the Ancient Near Eastern culture. The Bible and its contemporary sources must be read and interpreted in light of their local culture.
· Spiritually defined to the fact that religion and everyday life in the ancient world were not separate, religion was integral to everyday living.[1]
These dimensions are the overarching ideas that guide the historical geographer in his quest for identification of sites and reconstruction of history. Besides these overarching dimensions, the historical geographer has certain tools that he can use in his task. Those tools are the following:
· Physical Geography – this includes the subfields of Geology and Orography (geomorphology), Ecology (soils and rocks and flora and fauna), Hydrology (water sources and their utilization), Meteorology (weather patterns), and Cartography (map making).
· Historical Philology – the study of ancient texts that include: Biblical geographical texts, post-biblical sources, and inscriptions.
· Toponomy – the study of place names, the grammatical and syntactical analysis of Arabic and Hebrew places names in connection with sites.
· Archaeology – the scholarly investigation of past human life as it is revealed through material culture.[2]
Process of Identification
The story and methodology behind Megiddo’s identification are very interesting. In fact the process by which people took to identify Megiddo helped develop the dimensions and tools above. Megiddo was a major Bronze Age and Israelite city in the Jezreel Valley. It guards the best gateway into the Jezreel Valley and Carmel Range respectively serving a necessary part in the ancient Great Trunk Route that ran from Egypt to Damascus. Rainey describes its importance this way, “Throughout the three millennia of its existence, Megiddo was one of the most strategic points in Palestine and many crucial battles took place in its immediate vicinity.”[3]
The identification of Megiddo was of great importance. Megiddo appears 12 times in the Biblical text (Josh. 12:21; 17:11; Judg. 1:27; 5:19; 1 Kings 4:12; 9:15, 2 Kings 9:27; 23:29; 23:30; 1 Chr. 7:29; 2 Chr. 35:22; Zech. 12:11), 6 of these references indicate that the city of Taanach is close to Megiddo, particularly Judg. 5:19 which says, “at Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo.” The three candidates for the site are the Arabic village of Lejjun (in the Jezreel Valley), Khirbet el-Mujedda (near Beisan at the foot of Mt. Gilboa), and Tell el-Mutsellim (about half a mile south of Lejjun). Before discussing the merits of the different options for Megiddo it is important to note that the men that are about to be discussed did not have the tool of Archaeology nor the understanding of the nature of a tell. Because of this, the evidence for and against the different candidates was run through the grid of the existing tools of Historical Philology and Toponomy making it an ideal case study for the two disciplines.[4]
Map from George Adam Smith's Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land (plates 19-20) (markings are mine)
Lejjun
Eshtori Haparhi, a 14th century French Jewish scholar, was the first to try to identify Megiddo, which he did with the Arab city of Lejjun.[5] Much later an anonymous reviewer of Raumer in 1836 also identified Lejjun with Megiddo.[6] In 1838 Edward Robinson also suggested that Lejjun
was biblical Megiddo citing its close relationship to Taanach (Philology) and the fact that Eusebius and Jerome “speak of the plain of Legio” (Philology).[7] About Lejjun Robinson stated, “It does not seem probable that the ancient Legio was a city founded by the Romans, but rather that this was a new name imposed on a still older place.”[8] In the line of Robinson and his predecessors William Thompson and George Adam Smith[9] adopted Lejjun as the site of biblical Megiddo. Thompson even went on to say that Lejjun was the site for the Roman city of Legio as well as Megiddo.[10]
was biblical Megiddo citing its close relationship to Taanach (Philology) and the fact that Eusebius and Jerome “speak of the plain of Legio” (Philology).[7] About Lejjun Robinson stated, “It does not seem probable that the ancient Legio was a city founded by the Romans, but rather that this was a new name imposed on a still older place.”[8] In the line of Robinson and his predecessors William Thompson and George Adam Smith[9] adopted Lejjun as the site of biblical Megiddo. Thompson even went on to say that Lejjun was the site for the Roman city of Legio as well as Megiddo.[10]
Khirbet el-Mujedda
In 1882, C.R. Conder of the Survey of Western Palestine proposed that Khirbet el-Mujedda was biblical Megiddo. Conder’s argument is summarized by Rainey who writes,
1. “Supposed survival of biblical Megiddo in Arabic Kh. el-Mujjeda, the name of a place at the foot of Mt. Gilboa, near Beisan.
2. Megiddo is almost as often mentioned with Beth-shean as with Megiddo.
3. Muqatta the name of the Kishon, is not an accurate reflex of Megiddo.
4. The site in the Jordan Valley suits the narrative of the flight of Amaziah (2 Kings 9.)
5.The “Travels of Mohar” mentioned Megiddo just after Beth-shean (today known as Papyrus Anastasi I).”[11]
In response to Conder’s assertion, Smith shows the fallacies in the argument. Smith basically argues that Mujjeda does not fit the biblical text, especially Jud. 5:19 “Taanach by the waters of Megiddo” and that the argument against Muqatta’s toponomy is invalid.[12] Rainey notes the validity of Smith’s argument as he writes, “C.R. Conder’s objections (against Lejjun and Tell el-Mutsellim) have been successfully refuted by G.A. Smith et al.”[13]
Tell el Mutsellim
The first to propose Tell el-Mutsellim as the site of biblical Megiddo was Van de Velde in 1852. He based his theory on the translation of Tell el-Mutsellim, which means “the Tell of the Governor.” He related the translation of the name of the tell to 1 Kings 4:12 which speaks of Solomon appointing a governor named Baana over “Taanach, Megiddo, and all Beth-shean that is beside Zarethan below Jezreel, and from Beth-shean to Abel-meholah, as far as the other 
side of Jokneam.”[14] At the turn of the 20th century Charles Wilson came to the same conclusion as Van de Velde saying, “Tell el-Mutsellim is at the end of a spur that runs out from the ridge of Carmel into the plain and is a conspicuous feature in the landscape. This is Megiddo.”[15] Wilson goes on to identify the Arab village of Lejjun with the Roman town of Legio explaining that it took the place of the Canaanite/Israelite town. C. Steuernagel and C. Watzinger confirmed this identification with the excavations of Tell el-Mutesellim from 1903-1905 proving that the site of Tell el-Mutesellim fit the physical geography, historical philology, toponomy, and archaeology related to biblical Meggido. In conclusion and having his own mind changed by the excavations Smith writes,
side of Jokneam.”[14] At the turn of the 20th century Charles Wilson came to the same conclusion as Van de Velde saying, “Tell el-Mutsellim is at the end of a spur that runs out from the ridge of Carmel into the plain and is a conspicuous feature in the landscape. This is Megiddo.”[15] Wilson goes on to identify the Arab village of Lejjun with the Roman town of Legio explaining that it took the place of the Canaanite/Israelite town. C. Steuernagel and C. Watzinger confirmed this identification with the excavations of Tell el-Mutesellim from 1903-1905 proving that the site of Tell el-Mutesellim fit the physical geography, historical philology, toponomy, and archaeology related to biblical Meggido. In conclusion and having his own mind changed by the excavations Smith writes,
“But this century excavations upon Tell el-Mutesellim have modified Robinson’s theory by discovering ruins from remote time and down to 350 B.C. which are evidence that the Tell was Megiddo and deserted about that date when presumably the inhabitants moved a mile south to the position which the Romans, when they came, fortified and called Legio, now Lejjun.”[16]
[1] Anson Rainey and Steve Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006). 9-10.
[2] Taken and adapted from Rainey and Notley, 10-24.
[3] Anson Rainey, A Handbook of Historical Geography, (Jerusalem: American Institute of the Holy Land Studies, 1984). 182.
[4] Note that all ensuing references were adapted from Anson Rainey, "In Search of Megiddo," SBL and AAR National Conference (Nov. 1988). 1-10.
[5] A.M. Luncz, Caftor va-pherach par Estori ha-Parchi, le premier exlporator de la Terre-Sainte (au treizeeme siècle), Troisieme edition, (Jerusalem: Imprimerie de l’Editeur Vol. 1, 1897). n.p.
[6] Anonymous, “Review of Raumer,” Palestina in Muncher Gelehrie Anzeigen, (Dec. 1836): 920.
[7] Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1938 by E. Robinson and E. Smith Undertaken in Reference to Biblical Geography vol. 3, (Boston: Crocker and Brewster; New York: Jona Leavitt; London: John Murray; Halle: Waisenhausbuchhandlung, 1941). 177-180.
[8] Rainey, 177.
[9] George Adam Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. (London: Hodder and Stoughton; New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1894). 387.
[10] William Thompson, The Land and the Book or Biblical Illustrations Drawn from the Manners and Customs, the Scenes and Scenery of the Holy Land, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882). 212-214.
[11] Rainey, 4.
[12] Smith, 268-269.
[13] Rainey, 182.
[14] Carel Willem Meredith van de Velde, Memoir to Accompany the Map of the Holy, (Gotha: J. Perthes, 1858). 333.
[15] Charles Wilson, “Megiddo,” A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1901). 3:334.
[16] George Adam Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. (London: Hodder and Stoughton; New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1931). 386.
August 15, 2009
The Plain of Sharon
Physical Description
The Sharon Plain is situated along the Mediterranean coast bordered by the Plain of Dor[1] to the north, the Carmel Range to the northeast, the Basin of Samaria to the east, and the Valley of the Craftsmen[2] to the south.[3] The plain itself is 10 miles wide by 27 miles long (16 by 45 km.) south of the Crocodile River and north of the Yarkon River and its tributary the Wadi Qana.[4] The center and largest portion of Sharon is made up of Mousterian Red Sand ranging in height from 150-300 feet (60-90 m.).[5] Karmon describes the properties of the red sand this way, “The red sand consists of grains of sand, each covered with a thin coat of colloidal matter, rich in iron and aluminum oxide.”[6] To the west of the red sand are three parallel Kurkar ridges that define Sharon’s coastline and encroach 5 miles inland.[7] Karmon defines the properties of Kurkar like this,
“Kurkar are solidified sand dunes, which were cemented with the aid of calcareous solutions. The main source for the supply of calcium is probably the seashells, which cover the beach in huge quantities after every storm in winter, and in the north their fragments for a coarse sand, called ‘zifzif.’ These are found between Netanya and ‘Atlit and they are widest around Caesarea.”[8]
Sharon Plain with International Coastal Highway on the east
Moreover much of the Kurkar ridges themselves are covered with the red sand increasing the height of the ridge.[9] The combination of the red sands and ridges greatly impedes the drainage of the wadis coming off the hills of Samaria causing the area to become swampy.[10] This is particularly the case in the northern section where there are large quantities of sand dunes.[11] Because of its thick swamp, Sharon[12] in antiquity was densely forested with scrub brush. In antiquity the red sands were not cultivable as a consequence the region was not heavily settled, however, today the red sands are used to cultivate some of the finest citrus fruits in the world. Rainey calls this Mousterian Red Sand the citrus soil “par excellence.”[13] The combination of marsh and lack of deforestation due to its uncultivable nature in antiquity caused the region to be become densely forested.
Herod the Great's Aqueduct from Mt. Carmel to Caesarea
Photo Courtesy of Mindy M. Photography
The meaning of the Hebrew name, Sharon, is unclear,[14] however, the Greek name for the site in the LXX (Isaiah 35:2, et al) and in Josephus (War 1:12:2:250; Ant. 14:13:3:334) is Drumos, which means “Oak coppice.”[15] Concerning the name of the plain Smith writes, “The Maritime Plain between Carmel and Joppa was called in the Hebrew Sharon, probably meaning the Level, but in Greek the Forest, from a great oak forest which once covered it.” The Crusaders named it the Forest of Assur, Tasso Enchanted Forest, and the Napoleon Forest of Meski showing that the area was forested up until the medieval period.[16] Smith writes on the density of the forests in this way, “Sharon now scattered and ragged, it must have originally swept from the heights of Carmel to Aijalon.”[17] Today only a few of the offspring of the scrub oaks remain in Sharon.[18]
Historical Significance
The place name “Sharon” occurs 7 times in the Bible (1 Chr. 5:16; 27:29; Song 2:1; Is. 33:9; 35:2; 65:10; Acts 9:35.) 1 Chronicles 5:16 mentions the name Sharon, “they lived in Gilead, in Bashan and in its towns, and in all the pasturelands of Sharon to their limits.” Based on the context this Sharon clearly is in the Transjordan area next to Gilead and Bashan somewhere within the tribal territory of Gad. Moreover, Isaiah 65:10 says, “Sharon shall become a pasture for flocks,” the implication was that it was not a pastureland at that time. This line of thought might also be applied to the other mentioning of Sharon in 1 Chronicles, which says, “Over the herds that pastured in Sharon was Shitrai the Sharonite.” The Plain of Sharon was not a large pastureland in antiquity, in order for there to be pasture there must be an abundance of grasses and a lack of dense forestation like the regions of Bashan and Gilead. The Plain of Sharon was covered with brush, marshy, and uneven, therefore not a likely candidate for sheepherders. Baly tries to tie the passages in 1 Chronicles together with the other references to show that it is a fertile land, but in so doing he misses the context of 1 Chronicles 5:16 and the irony of Isaiah 65:10.[19] Despite this Baly does acknowledge the difficulty as he writes, “The most that could ever be hoped for from Sharon was grazing on the fringes of the forest.”[20] Aharoni and Payne both came to the same conclusions regarding the references in 1 Chronicles 5:16.[21]
Consequently the region of the Plain of Sharon is referred to only 5 (maybe 6) times by name in the Bible (Song 2:1; Is. 33:9; 35:2; 65:10; Acts 9:35.) Each one of these passages (save Acts 9:35) either directly states or implies that Sharon is a region of fertility, beauty, and majesty. Song of Solomon 2:1 amidst numerous metaphorical allusions to nature’s beauty says, “I am a rose of Sharon” attesting to the abundance of flowers that grew there. Isaiah deftly uses Sharon to show quirks of fate. Isaiah 33:9 describes the coming of judgment of the Lord as causing “Sharon to be like a desert,” the implication is that it’s a fertile land and it would be shocking for it to lose its fertility. Isaiah 35:2 is the reverse of 33:9 as it describes that the “vengeance of God” will make the desert like “Carmel, Lebanon, and Sharon.” The Acts 9:35 account provides geographical data by placing the New Testament city of Lydda next to “Sharon.” In short the Bible’s idea of the Plain of Sharon is one of majestic fertility, but of uselessness for cultivation and herding. Smith gushes over the majesty of Sharon as he proclaims,
“The Maritime Plain possesses a rich but quiet beauty. If the contours are gentle the colours are strong and varied. Along almost the whole seaboard runs a strip of links and downs, sometimes of drifting sand, sometimes of grass and sand together. Outside this border of broken gold is the blue sea with its fringe of foam. Landward the soil is chocolate brown, with breaks and gullies, now bare of their dirty shingles and puddles, and now full of green reeds and rushes telling of ample water beneath. Over field and moorland millions of flowers are scattered – poppies, pimpernels, anemones, the convolvulus and the mallow, narcissus and blue iris – roses of Sharon and lilies of the valley. Lizards haunt the sunny banks. The shimmering air is filled with bees and butterflies, and the twittering of small birds, hushed now and then as the shadow of a hawk blots the haze. Nor when darkness comes is all a blank. The soft night is sprinkled with glittering fireflies.”[22]
In antiquity armies and caravans that travelled to Mesopotamia from Egypt and vice versa would have used the Great Trunk Route. For much of its distance this route runs along the coastal plain until it reaches the Yarkon and the city of Aphek, which forces the route northward in order to avoid the impassable swamps and forests of Sharon. Instead of traversing the Kurkar ridges and red sand dunes of Sharon travelers would have skirted the eastern edge of Sharon, the western seam of the foothills, in order to continue north through the Carmel Passes or to the port of Dor. The Plain of Sharon sits directly northeast of the Great Trunk Route this route would have been travelled by countless armies and caravans throughout history. Along this route there are some important cities that are on the border of this region those include: Socoh (1 Kings 4:110, Yaham, and Gath-Padalla. Caesarea also became an important city and port during the time of Herod the Great and following. Caesarea sits on the northwestern border of the Sharon plain before it is restricted into the narrow corridor of the Plain of Dor. The following is a summary of the historical events that occurred within the region.
- The first record of travel along this route was the first campaign of Thutmose III, whose forces marched to crush the Canaanite coalition at Megiddo.[23]
- Thutmose III’s successor Amenhotep II also used this route after his first campaign in Syria where he captured an emissary from Mitanni. Later in Amenhotep II’s last campaign he would raid the Sharon Plain from his base at Megiddo.[24]
- During the El Amarna age the capital of the region was a city called Gath-padalla, which is in the central part of the plain.
- Joshua 12:18 says that Joshua conquered “the king of Aphek, one; the king of Lasharon, one” in the LXX this reads, “the king of Aphek of the Sharon.”
- In the early Iron Age there were many small, unfortified sites in the region.
- During the time of the United Monarchy the plain was included in Solomon’s third administrative district (1 Kings 4:10).
- Shishak marched along this route during his campaign against Israel and Judah (1 Kings 14:25-28). The sites of Gath-Padalla, Yaham, and Socoh all fell prey to Shishak’s campaign.
- After the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE the Sharon Plain was attached to the new Assyrian province of Samerina.
- In 671 BCE Esarhaddon passed through Sharon on his way to Egypt.[25]
- In the Persian period the Phoenicians made colonies at the mouths of the streams in Sharon. King Eshmunezer of Sidon claimed that the king of Persia had given him the ports of Dor and Joppa along with the rich grains of the land of Sharon.[26]
- During the time of the New Testament Herod the Great constructed the city of Caesarea that became the major port for the entire region. Sharon is mentioned in conjunction with the ministry of Peter in Acts 9:35. Simon Magus in Acts 8 is a resident of Gitta, which is probably Gath-padalla.[27]
[1] This is sometimes called the Coasts of Asher, this would be the southern coast of Asher that is sandwiched between Carmel and the Mediterranean and ends at the Crocodile River on the south. See Denis Baly, The Geography of the Bible, (New York: Harper and Row, 1973.) 118-119. Smith refers to the region as the “Maritime Plain.” George Adam Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, (Jerusalem: Ariel, 1966.) 112-124.
[2] This region is sometimes called the Lod/Lydda, Joppa, Aphek triangle.
[3] This delimitation is based on Baly’s boundaries. For a similar delimitation see Anson Rainey, A Handbook of Historical Geography, (Jerusalem: American Institute of the Holy Land Studies, 1984.) 221.
[4] The Qana formed the boundary between Manasseh and Ephraim (Josh, 16:8; 19:9). Ibid, 127-128.
[5] Ibid, 127.
[6] Yehuda Karmon, Israel: A Regional Geography, (London: Wiley-Interscience, 1971). 14-17.
[7] Ibid, 128.
[8] Ibid, 14-17; 34.
[9] Ibid, 16.
[10] Rainey discusses the wadis in Sharon as he says, “Several streams work their way from the foothills across the Sharon to the coast; among the most important are Crocodile River, Nahal Hadera, and Nahal Alexander which comes out of the foothills and curves NNE collecting several other streams until it finally turns west to the sea. Of lesser importance was Nahal Poleg. The Brook Kanah (Josh. 17:9-10) cuts across the plain to its outlet 3 ½ miles north of Joppa. It is joined by the biblical Yarkon (Josh. 19:46 LXX). Ibid, 221.
[11] Ibid, 130.
[12] Ibid, 55.
[13] Ibid, 221.
[14] On this topic Aharoni writes, “This name, which also applies to other regions in Palestine (1 Chron. 5:16), is taken by some to mean “level country,” but more likely means “forested region,” which aptly describes its nature and fits well the various biblical allusions.” Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979. 24-25.
[15] Ibid, 221.
[16] Ibid, 113.
[17] Ibid, 113.
[18] Ibid, 221. Smith also refers to this remnant. Ibid, 112.
[19] Ibid, 128.
[20] Ibid, 128.
[21] See Aharoni, 24-25 and J. Barton Payne, “1, 2 Chronicles,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988). 4:346.
[22] Ibid, 113.
[23] Ibid, 222. For a more detailed discussion on Thutmose III’s first campaign see Anson Rainey and Steve Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006.) 65-67.
[24] Ibid 69-71.
[25] James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, (Princeton: Princeton, 1955). 292.
[26] Eshmunezer Stele, Line 19. ANET, 505.
[27] The historical period list is adapted from Ibid, 222-223.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)