Title: aRCHAE0L0GY-r0Y-aDKINS/DP/1845296o6o/REF=SR_1_1?IE=utf8&S=B00KS&QID=1224598647&SR=1-1">Handbook of British Archaeology
Editor: Roy Adkins
Publisher: Constable & Robinson
Website: Archaeology Websites
For over 25 years The Handbook of British Archaeology has been the foremost guide to archaeological methods, artefacts and monuments, providing clear explanations of all specialist terms used by archaeologists. This completely revised and updated edition is packed with the latest information and now includes the most recent developments in archaeological science. Meticulously researched, every section has been extensively updated by a team of experts. There are chapters devoted to each of the archaeological periods found in Britain, as well as two chapters on techniques and the nature of archaeological remains. All the common artefacts, types of sites and current theories and methods are covered. The growing interest in post-medieval and industrial archaeology is fully explored in a brand new section dealing with these crucial periods. Hundreds of new illustrations enable instant comparison and identification of objects and monuments from Palaeolithic handaxes to post-medieval gravestones. Several maps pinpoint the key sites, and other features include an extensive bibliography and a detailed index. The Handbook of British Archaeology is the most comprehensive resource book available and is essential for anyone with an interest in the subject from field archaeologists and academics to students, heritage professionals, Time Team followers and amateur enthusiasts.
Archaeology, Ethno‐history and Oral Traditions: Approaches to the Indigenous Past
Indigenous groups across the world are actively looking to maintain or rediscover their past. Many historians and archaeologists are sympathetic to their quest. As a result different ways of narrating the past are in action: oral tradition, ethno‐history and archaeology.
In the following the potential of each approach is discussed. In particular the possibility for collaboration between indigenous approaches and academic disciplines is evaluated. The focus is on the interpretative narrative, rather than on cultural heritage management. It is argued that we need multivocality as well as collaboration and integration of narratives.
This paper has developed from a presentation at a session on the archaeology of the subaltern at WAC in Cape Town 1999. I am grateful to Paul Lane and Andrew Reid for organising the session and for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper. Two referees have provided constructive suggestions, for which I am most thankful.
By Jerome A. Greene and Douglas D. Scott. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004 illustrations, maps, index, 241 pp. cloth $24.95.
In early January, at the annual meeting of the Society of Historical Archaeology in Sacramento, California, a historian told a room full of archeologists and historians that the two groups do not pay any attention to each other. According to him, each profession thinks the other is rife with particularists and therefore is not worthy of attention.
The man has obviously never read this fine study by Jerry Greene and Doug Scott, two of the best in their respective professions. The project that culminated in the location of the village massacred by the Third Colorado Volunteers commanded by Colonel John M. Chivington on November 29, 1869, could not have been successful without the cooperation, mutual respect, and deep admiration these two professionals have for each other and the dozens of people who worked with them.
Before I launch into my generally glowing review of their book, I must come clean. I am somewhat biased because I helped get this project off the ground. The day that then United States Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell introduced a bill to create a unit of the National Park System commemorating this massacre of more than 150 Cheyenne and Arapaho men, women, and children, I advised my boss at the time, Jerry Rogers, that he might want to call Washington and warn them that we did not know where the site of that massacre was. When the bill was passed that fall, it was renamed the Sand Creek Massacre Site Study Act of 1998, and it directed the National Park Service to work with the State of Colorado and the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes to identify the location and extent of the Sand Creek Massacre Site and to make recommendations on whether it should become a unit of the National Park System. Finding Sand Creek is the culmination of an exemplary interdisciplinary study that I am proud to have touched early in its process.
The book is organized into four very easy-to-read sections. The first part is a succinct and well-told historical overview of the context of the massacre, and the events leading directly up to the event, what occurred during the massacre, and Commander Chivington's movements immediately afterwards. Jerry Greene, the pre-eminent military historian on this team, explains the immediate negative significance of the massacre to Cheyenne social and political relationships and to Indian-white relationships in general. The massacre fragmented the Dog Warrior Society and created a lasting distrust of the Army, which swept throughout all the Plains tribes, escalating hostilities that continued for the rest of the century. Greene believes that echoes of this distrust remain in government-to-government relationships between tribes and the United States government to this day.
In the second part, Greene and Scott walk us through the historical documentation used to estimate the location of the massacre site, which had become confused over the years. Most valuable in this search was a map made by Second Lieutenant Samuel W. Bonsall, who visited the site in June 1868, four years after the massacre. His work constitutes the earliest, detailed map made of the massacre location, which placed it about six miles below a three-way fork in a trail. This fork was visible on a series of Soil Conservation Service aerial photographs from the 1930s.
The third part of Finding Sand Creek consists of a description of the National Park Service's archeological work. Scott's 1999 archeological team began a systematic metal-detector sweep north of the traditionally held location, which had already yielded a modest amount of munitions. When his crew arrived about a quarter of a mile east of the position predicted by Greene and the aerial photography analyst, they found an abundance of artifacts dating to the early 1860s that included domestic items (coffee pots, buckets, kettles, spoons, forks, and cans), tools (files, hammers, and axes), personal items (suspender grips, buttons, thimbles, and tinklers), and horse equipage. All were consistent with the types of supplies issued to American Indian villages in the late 1850s and 1860s.
Most telling, however, was that the ammunition was consistent with what was known to be used by the Third Colorado Volunteers and the telltale 12-pound case shot fragments fired from Chivington's mountain howitzers. The domestic wares had all been broken, thus confirming the Army reports that the volunteers had destroyed the Indians' supplies to impoverish the survivors. Together, the archeologists believed they had discovered powerful evidence of the location of the village site.
The fourth part of the book returns to the historic documentation, offering two maps prepared by survivor George Bent and reinterpreting them based on the archeological evidence. The authors find that the maps make perfect sense, when proportion and scale are ignored.
Finding Sand Creek appendices describe the hundreds of metal artifacts recovered and list common goods issued to tribes during that time to demonstrate how the artifact inventory mimics the known types of items that should have been in the village.
The only weakness of this collaborative effort is the failure to include the Cheyenne and Arapaho oral histories. In terms of timing and tone, perhaps it is too much to ask of this type of study. The authors make a well-articulated point that some of the descendants of survivors and victims of the massacre disagree with the archeological and historical interpretation of the evidence. Greene and Scott do a credible job of explaining the reasons for that difference of opinion, and as team leader Christine Whitacre reminds the reader, the legislated boundaries of the subsequently established National Historic Site are large enough to encompass the historically, archeologically, and traditionally held locations of the site. Even so, a similarly high quality volume on the oral histories would make a good companion to Finding Sand Creek.
Susan E. Alcock, Terence N. D'Altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison + Carla M. Sinopli (editors)
The seventeen contributions span a broad range. Geographically, there are six papers on American empires, three on South Asia and two on East Asia, and six on the Near East and Europe (counting the Portuguese and Spanish overseas empires as South Asian and American respectively). The major themes addressed include ideologies and actors (at various levels), geographical variation and local and peripheral perspectives, and connections to a broader world, whether geographical (world-systems) or temporal (successor states and historiographical perspectives). And a thematic approach is used to structure the volume, with the papers divided into five sections, each with its own introduction.
"Sources, Approaches, Definitions" contains a mixed bag of papers that address methodological or epistemological issues. The first paper, by Thomas Barfield, starts with the Xiognu and Han China, but extends to steppe empires and China more generally and thence to a universal taxonomy of empires. Barfield's typology embraces primary empires — with "administration of diversity", transportation and communication systems, a monopoly of force, and some kind of broad "imperial project" — and various forms of "shadow" empire — "mirror" empires (such as those of the steppe nomads), merchantile empires, "vulture" empires, and "empires of nostalgia". This framework is used by several of the other contributors to Empires , though sometimes only as a basis for dissent.
Sanjay Subrahmanyam presents a history of the Portuguese Estado da India , asking whether or not it should be classified as an empire. Katharina Schreiber surveys the archaeology of the Wari empire of Middle Horizon Peru , tackling the epistemological problem of what criteria can be used for assigning "empire" status in the absence of written evidence. And Amélie Kuhrt examines one of the archetypal examples of an empire, the Achaemenid Persian Empire , focusing on its formation and cohesion, governance, and the balance between central power and local particularism.
The papers in "Empires in a Wider World" are a bit of a miscellany. Michael Smith looks at the Aztecs in the context of the broader Mesoamerican economic world system, considering both Aztec imperial strategies and their effects on society in the provincial area of Morelos. Carla Sinopli gives a brief account of the earlier Mauryan empire before turning to the Satavahana dynasty of south India (c 100BCE to 200CE), where she focuses on the extent to which its ideological claims in inscriptions and monuments actually had substance in political, military, and economic infrastructure. And Kathleen Deagan looks at how the imperial ideology of Spanish America clashed with local practice, especially in frontier and rural areas.
In "Imperial Integration and Imperial Subjects", Terence D'Altroy surveys political and economic developments in the Inka empire , with a focus on aristocratic lineages, estates, and inheritance. Robert Morkot looks at imperial relations between Nubia and Egypt , during the expansion of the Eyptian New Kingdom Empire into Nubia (c. 1550-1050 BCE) and, a millennium later, during the 25th Dynasty Kushite domination of Egypt (c. 750-650 BCE). Kathleen Morrison attempts to illuminate debates about the nature of the Vijayanagara empire of south India (c. 1300-1700) by looking at three local areas (dry farmers in the urban hinterland, resistance in northern Tamil provinces, and forager-traders in the western mountains).
Opening the "Imperial Ideologies" section, Elizabeth M. Brumfiel presents a study of Aztec state religion and ritual, in both the capital Tenochtitlan and a regional town Tepepolco, arguing that it was aimed at the young men who formed the backbone of the army. Greg Woolf takes a fresh look at imperial ideologies in the familiar literary evidence from classical Rome . Susan Alcock writes about memories of the past in the Eastern Roman Empire , focusing on landscapes and architectural spaces. And Robin Yates argues that the Chinese Qin dynasty created key cosmographic myths, in particular those that underpin notions of Chinese cultural unity.
The final section is "The Afterlife of Empires". Mario Liverani gives a historiographical overview of ancient and modern explanations for the end of empires generally and for that of the Assyrian Empire in particular, considering such themes as inner decadence, outer shock, and cycles of collapse and rebirth. John Moreland outlines the roles of administration, warfare and plunder, and trade in constructing the Carolingian empire , but focuses on the ideological appeal to classical Roman models, examining the monastery of San Vincenzo in southern Italy as "a beacon of Carolingian ideology on the edge of empire". And Sabine MacCormack looks at historical perspectives on the Inca Empire , at the Spanish use of comparisons with the Roman Empire and at the effect on indigenous histories of conflicts within Inca lineages in Cuzco.
Review: Volume 25 - Archaeology - History
Kiva is a quarterly journal containing articles on southwestern archaeology, anthropology and history. Past issues have been devoted to such topics as: the pottery village of Mata Ortiz, Chihuahua Anasazi origins and the Archaic-Formative transition in the Tucson Basin. In honor of our 75th anniversary we have recently compiled collections of the most significant articles on Anasazi, Hohokam and Mogollon archaeology, with thematic essays by experts in each area.
AAHS has joined in a collaboration with Taylor & Francis to publish Kiva. To receive Kiva as a benefit of membership in AAHS individuals should go to the membership page. Institutions should contact Taylor & Francis directly. All individuals or institutions interested in ordering back issues of Kiva should contact Sarah Herr, AAHS Publications Co-Chair.
Twelve Important Kiva Articles for all time….
Life Forms in Prehistoric Pottery of the Southwest by Clara Lee Tanner Kiva 8(4):26-32, 1942
The Tumacacori Census of 1796 by Alfred F. Whiting and A. W. Bork Vol. 19 (1) (Fall, 1953), pp. 1-12
Johnny Ward’s Ranch: A Study in Historic Archaeology by Bernard L. Fontana, J. Cameron Greenleaf, Charles W. Ferguson, Robert A. Wright, Doris Frederick. Kiva, Vol. 28, No. 1/2, (Oct. – Dec.1962).
Notes on the Origins of Historic Zuni Culture, by John B. Rinaldo. Vol. 29 (4) (Apr., 1964), pp. 86-98.
A Conservation Model for American Archaeology, by William D. Lipe Vol. 39 (3/4) (Spring – Summer, 1974), pp. 213-245.
A Reevaluation of the Mogollon-Mimbres Archaeological Sequence by Roger Anyon, Patricia A. Gilman and Steven A. LeBlanc. Vol. 46(4) (Summer, 1981), pp. 209-225
A Prehistoric Cotton Cache from the Pinaleño Mountains, Arizona, by Emil W. Haury and Lisa W. Huckell Vol. 59 (2) (Winter, 1993), pp. 95-145
The Pottery and Potters of Mata Ortiz, Chihuahua Vol 60(1) (Fall, 1994)
The Archaic-Formative Transition in the Tucson Basin. Guest edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul, Vol. 60(4) (Summer, 1995)
Migrations in Late Anasazi Prehistory: “Eyewitness” Testimony, by William K. Hartmann and Richard Flint Vol. 66 (3) (Spring, 2001), pp. 375-385
Recent Perishables Research in the U.S. Southwest. Guest edited by Laurie D. Webster. Vol. 71(3) (Spring, 2006).
Mesa Verde Settlement History and Relocation: Climate Change, Social Networks, and Ancestral Pueblo Migration, by Linda S. Cordell, Carla R. Van West, Jeffrey S. Dean and Deborah A. Muenchrath Vol. 72(4) (Summer, 2007), pp. 379-405
Text and History: Reassessing the Relationship between the Bible and Archaeological Findings: A Review Essay of Jennie Ebeling, J. Edward Wright, Mark Elliott, and Paul V. M. Flesher eds., The Old Testament in Archaeology and History (Waco: Baylor, 2017).
Do the Bible and archaeology still have a relationship in scholarly studies of the ancient text? Many Biblical scholars and archaeologists continue to work to bring together these two subjects. This essay surveys a selection of representative researchers from both disciplines. It evaluates discussions from all the major periods and from many of the cultural aspects of ancient Israel. Rather than providing generalizations of a broad nature, there is an attempt to identify representatives from each period and to critically examine in detail their approaches, evidence, and conclusions. The 2017 volume, The Old Testament in Archaeology and History, provides an important resource for accomplishing the goal of evaluating both generally and in detail the state of the relationship between archaeology and biblical studies.
The work under consideration is the product of eighteen contributors including the four editors.  The purpose of the book is to rectify a perceived absence of the critical use of archaeology and the Old Testament &ldquoto develop for its introductory readers a historical understanding of the ancient Israelites as they were, in all their achievements and failures&rdquo (p. 4). It therefore seeks to serve as a textbook that uses the fruits of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and the academic study of history, specifically ancient Near Eastern history. The editors recognize that the views of the contributors will not represent a unity. The purpose of this essay will be to reflect on each of this essay is to reflect on each of the essays, to note the important historical and archaeological observations, and to annotate these studies in specific points as well as discussions of method.
The first chapter (Gary P. Arbino, &ldquoIntroduction to the Geography and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East&rdquo) provides an excellent geographical and topographical context for the book by outlining the larger Middle East as well as the specific regions and features of Israel, Judah, and transjordan. The author also provides a kind of abbreviated course in archaeological methods and techniques as used in the southern Levant. The strengths and limitations of archaeology for historical interpretation are also briefly mentioned. As with every chapter, a paragraph or two at the end provide an annotated guide for further reading in the subject area.
Chapter 2 (M. Elliott and P. V. M. Flesher, &ldquoIntroduction to the Old Testament and Its Character as Historical Evidence&rdquo) surveys the manuscripts and books of the Old Testament at the beginning. The text turns to consider the canon, arguing that its formation is late. Aside from the diverse Qumran biblical texts (which do not mention the subject of canon beyond the reference to the common threefold division in 4QMMT fragment 10), the only evidence deduced is the mention of a debate regarding the status of the Song of Songs and Qohelet in M. Yadayim 3:5, usually dated to the end of the second century. However, this text does not indicate the extent of the dispute (that took place earlier) and it affirms at the beginning and end of the paragraph that these two books were fully recognized as canonical. After reviewing the ancient translations and editions of the Old Testament, various forms of critical study are discussed. These trace the last century and a half. The focus is on Pentateuchal criticism, especially the documentary hypothesis and the recent neo-documentarians. Sweeping generalizations reject or ignore any view that critiques this approach. For example, the linguistic evidence for the broad dating of biblical Hebrew into Classical and Late (as well as Early) is dismissed as &ldquoa long way from reaching a consensus&rdquo (p. 72). This ignores the twenty-two scholars connected with universities around the world who affirmed various techniques and approaches for this sort of dating in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew.  On p. 74 we learn that &ldquoConservatives often maintained that no scholar was worthy of undertaking an investigation of Holy Writ until there was some acknowledgement of its divine qualities and its inerrant nature.&rdquo The authors feel no need to provide documented evidence for this statement. On p. 75 the clear mention of &ldquoIsrael&rdquo in the Egyptian Merneptah stele, dating the existence of Israel as a people group in the land of southern Canaan at the end of the thirteenth century BC, is followed at the bottom of the same page by the what the authors regard as the &ldquoincisive&rdquo statement of S. R. Driver that &ldquoarchaeology has not confirmed any &lsquosingle fact&rsquo recorded in the Hebrew Bible prior to the tenth century BCE.&rdquo Yet the books of Joshua and Judges would place Israel in the land by the late thirteenth century BC, in agreement with the Merneptah stele. One could go on here with further comments about the final pages of the chapters and problematic statements. Certainly, there is value in the literary study of the documentary hypothesis. However, there are serious disagreements among serious Bible scholars. To ignore these by calling one side names and praising the other side with unsubstantiated generalizations does little to advance the argument or provide a useful textbook.
Chapters 3 and 4 (Victor H. Matthews, &ldquoThe West&rsquos Rediscovery of the Holy Land&rdquo and Rachel Hallote &ldquo&rsquoBible Lands Archaeology&rsquo and &lsquoBiblical Archaeology&rsquo in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries&rdquo) provide a fine survey of the early antiquarian and collecting interests of explorers as well as the gradual development of the archaeological and geographical study of the ancient Near East and of Palestine. Along the way the decipherment and importance of the Egyptian and Akkadian languages and texts are discussed. Hallote&rsquos piece ends with the founding of the British, German, French, and American schools in Jerusalem and their early work in the Holy Land.
William G. Dever&rsquos essay, &ldquoA Critique of Biblical Archaeology: History and Interpretation,&rdquo is a noteworthy contribution to the volume. In contrast to chapters 1 and 2, as well as ones that follow Dever, one finds here a well-balanced and appreciative approach to key figures in this area and their methods. Although providing special focus on American and indigenous (mostly Israeli) archaeologists, Dever is much more aware of the larger philosophical (e.g., processural archaeology) and political (e.g., intifada) contexts that seem not to have been addressed by other chapters in this book engaging the last thirty years of the history of the discipline. The chapter also reads as background and perhaps advertising for Dever&rsquos own recent volume. 
The second part of the book, consisting of four chapters, considers &ldquoIsrael before Settling in the Land.&rdquo The first of these, by K. L. Noll (&ldquoIn the Beginning, Archaeologically Speaking: Archaeology to the Bronze Ages in Canaan&rdquo &ndash the subtitle seems odd), begins with a discussion of the opening chapters of Genesis that, along with most of the Old Testament, is best understood as &ldquosecular folklore.&rdquo Noll cites only the work of Thomas L. Thompson to demonstrate his assertions of contradictions in Genesis 1-3, as well as later chapters. Alternative explanations (or even the majority readings of the Classical Hebrew in these texts) are ignored and thus the work takes on an idiosyncratic perspective that it retains whenever discussing Bible. Noll has helpful surveys of early hominids and their development (&ldquomitochondrial Eve&rdquo is not mentioned) and his own perspectives on the influence of Late Bronze Age West Semitic rituals on ceremonial texts in Exodus and Leviticus. For Noll these literary texts made their way from Canaan to Mesopotamia where they were preserved and encountered by Israelite scribes five hundred or a thousand years later (in the mid-first millennium BC). There is no textual evidence to support this circuitous route. Nor is there evidence for the view that any &ldquoreligious&rdquo texts in the Bible were the preserve of elites who used them for their own interests and did not make them known to the Israelite public. This and other interpretations of the biblical text do not address any objections but are presented as fact. While there is literary influence, biblical literature knows nothing of the second millennium BC, according to Noll, because it does not mention pharaoh Merneptah or the Egyptian imperial presence in Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. Noll does not consider my &ldquoJoshua and Egypt.&rdquo  I point out that the presence of &ldquoEgypt&rdquo in Joshua is greater than its presence in the Amarna letters and other Late Bronze Age texts from southern Canaan. If this is evidence for the lack of historical awareness, then the Amarna letters cannot come from the Late Bronze Age world of Egypt&rsquos New Kingdom empire an absurd conclusion.
Jill Baker writes chapter 7, &ldquoCanaan and the Canaanites.&rdquo Reviewing some references to Canaan in the first half of the second millennium BC., Baker notes the original sense of the term in either &ldquobow down&rdquo (Semitic) or &ldquopurple cloth&rdquo (Hurrian). The view that Canaan includes Ugarit and Transjordan runs counter to the borders as defined by biblical and Egyptian sources.  Neither include these two in the territory of Canaan. Texts from Ugarit distinguish people from Canaan from those of Ugarit. The use of Canaanites in the Bible portrays the people in a negative light. The section entitled &ldquoHistorical Background&rdquo focuses on ecology, roads, and city-states rather than on political history. Nevertheless, there is much of interest here and the following summary of Bronze Age settlement patterns is valuable. The same is true on the review of city planning, fortifications, gates, and public and private buildings. The useful discussion on political structures and religions at Ugarit might profit by comparisons with contemporary West Semitic Emar. Dothan should be added to the list of large Bronze Age burial sites. Regarding Baker&rsquos statement that the Bible&rsquos portrayal of the Canaanites was that of &ldquoa thoroughly uncivilized people,&rdquo this might be balanced by other biblical texts. 
Mark Elliott and J. Edward Wright contribute chapter 8, &ldquoThe Book of Genesis and Israel&rsquos Ancestral Traditions.&rdquo This essay provides a survey of the contents of Genesis 12-50. It examines them with a variety of conclusions concerning the religion and historicity described here. While many issues are touched on, a few additional notes might be worthwhile considering. The chapter begins and ends asserting that Genesis 14:14 and similar texts demonstrate that Israel remembered its ancestors as worshipping the Canaanite god El. While it may be true that Yahweh was known as El before he was revealed as Yahweh, it is difficult to equate the El of Genesis 14 with the Ugaritic El or a reconstruction of what El &ldquomust&rdquo have meant. Its use as a title may be in play. A few additional notes are appropriate. Jacob&rsquos stone pillars are explicitly memorials, not objects representing other deities (as in Deuteronomy 12:2-3). The tree that Abraham plants (an &rsquoeshel) is identified with a different term from the Asherah pole forbidden in Deuteronomy 16:21. Contrary to Elliott and Wright, the term &ldquoChaldeans&rdquo (in &ldquoUr of the Chaldeans&rdquo) is increasingly unlikely to be anachronistic, as it is now attested in the twelfth century BC (see review of Becking&rsquos ch. 19 below). While Amorites were more diffuse at the end of the third millennium than previously thought, Gimil-Sin did not build an &ldquoAmorite Wall&rdquo to resist drought and famine. The references to names such as Abram, Haran, and Serug prove nothing about dating. Many names include elements common throughout the second and first millennia BC. However, some forms, such as y-prefix names (Israel, Jacob, Isaac, Ishmael, Issachar), occur in sizeable numbers early in the second millennium BC as a large percentage of the recorded W. Semitic names. By the late second millennium BC this number dwindles and reduces to less than ten percent as the centuries progress. If one were to date the likeliest context for the relatively large percentage of such names in Genesis 12-36, it would be the early second millennium BC, not later. Camels appear in a Middle Bronze Age ceramic design from Alalakh with indication of bearing a load. They also appear as early as the third millennium BC in lexical texts.  Gerar (Tel Haror) may be a small site in the Late Bronze Age (and later) but it is one of the largest sites in southern Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age (c. 40 acres), a traditional date for the stories of Genesis 20 and 26. The use of the term, &ldquoPhilistine,&rdquo may be an updating of references to Aegean people in the region. Aegean culture is attested by Middle Bronze Age Cypriot pottery and Minoan-style handles. In Genesis 21:13 Beersheba is designated a &ldquoplace,&rdquo not a &ldquotown.&rdquo The &ldquotown&rdquo Beersheba in 26:33 is mentioned in the context of its presence &ldquoto this day,&rdquo i.e., a later period than Abraham. The mention of Dan in Genesis 14:14 is no more surprising than the modern statement that &ldquothe Dutch settled New York&rdquo (rather than New Amsterdam). The reference to Ai in Genesis is not necessarily to an occupied town as the term, Ai, means &ldquothe Ruin.&rdquo As for early Arameans, the fourteenth century BC pharaoh Amenhotep III mentions &ldquothe one from Aram&rdquo as the name of a place in Syria. Tiglath-pileser I (c. 1100 BC) equates the Arameans with the Ahlamu (an older term). The Ahlamu appear as early as an 18 th century BC (Middle Bronze Age) letter to Hammurabi.  I could go on with, among other things, a discussion of the Hyksos (c. 1750-1550 BC) and the manner in which they provide a unique background for Joseph. However, this suffices to make the point that this chapter&rsquos claims of contradiction and historical inaccuracy should be taken with a grain of salt.
Edward Wright, Mark Elliott, and Paul V. M. Flesher discuss &ldquoIsrael In and Out of Egypt&rdquo in ch. 9. Once again, the writers (who are also the editors of this volume) give the reader two choices either readers accept the editors&rsquo reading of what &ldquoconservative&rdquo scholars think, or they accept that the text is riddled with contradictions and needs to be understood according to other scholars that the editors choose. Here I will try to contextualize a few statements that are made. The authors state that, one of the two main problems with finding anything historical in the biblical account is that the &ldquoexodus story itself seems written to avoid historical specificity&rdquo (the other problem is the lack of archaeological evidence). The evidence for this is that it &ldquoassigns no names to either pharaoh mentioned or to the pharaoh&rsquos daughter who raised Moses.&rdquo A few pages later the authors note that &ldquothe book of Joshua&rsquos stories of the conquest of Canaan never even presents the Egyptians as opponents in battle.&rdquo A critical reader might ask, How important is this to establish historicity? How often must the accounts mention the names of pharaohs and Egypt or the Egyptians? We have only one set of literature to compare this with, the 300+ letters from rulers of southern Canaan in the Amarna age in the mid-fourteenth century BC and cuneiform documents from Late Bronze Age southern Canaan. Although the genre is different, the letters certainly deal with current political and historical events. Among several hundred cuneiform documents there is no mention of the name of the pharaoh himself, despite most of these letters being written to the pharaoh. One must go north to Qatna to find the first mention of the name of pharaoh. There and in the international correspondence, pharaoh&rsquos name does appear. Regarding &ldquoEgypt&rdquo or &ldquoEgyptian,&rdquo only six occurrences can be found in any Late Bronze Age documents from the area of Canaan around Tyre and to its south. This contrasts with the book of Joshua that mentions Egypt/Egyptian 18 times.  By the standard of naming pharaohs and their country, the Amarna letters must be non-historical texts, certainly not from the time they purport to come. Of course, that is nonsense as is the &ldquoevidence&rdquo that the authors of ch. 9 use to decry the exodus account (and that of Joshua).
The authors summarize the exodus story and then describe the Documentary Hypothesis which enables them to state as a matter of fact that the exodus account was written down four centuries later. I believe that the Pentateuch contains literary strands similar to the documentary sources. It is, however, speculation that the exodus and other Pentateuchal accounts waited four centuries before &ldquothey began to be written down.&rdquo The authors provide a nice historical review of Late Bronze Age Egypt and the presence of Semites there. There is some note of the W. Semitic city of Tell ed-Dab&rsquoa in the eastern Delta and its association with Pi-Ramesses of the Egyptian records and Ramesses of Exodus 1:11. Wright, Elliott, and Flesher discuss the well-known possibility that the fourteenth century BC toponym, &ldquothe land of the Shasu of Yhw&rdquo may be the first mention of Israel&rsquos Yahweh outside the Bible. The authors discuss theories regarding the identification of the Red Sea and of the route of the exodus. However, they do not accept any evidence of historical value. For them the &ldquoThe exodus story thus presents a national theology of deliverance from slavery to freedom.&rdquo Why did the nation choose to begin its history as a nation of slaves? Who would invent such a national epic? The writers assume that Numbers 14 and 20 project Israel as resident at Qadesh Barnea for 40 years. However, verse 1 of ch. 20 begins with the preterite form of bw&rsquo, a verb normally translated as &ldquoenter&rdquo from somewhere else, not indicating an ongoing occupation. Finally, they argue that many of the sites mentioned in Israel&rsquos wandering that can be identified, were not occupied in the Late Bronze Age (and thus did not exist at that time): Hebron, Arad, Hormah, Heshbon, Dibon, and the kingdoms of Edom and Moab. Names of sites can shift as, for example, Jericho which moved several miles between its OT and NT sites. Heshbon may not have been Tell Heshbon but nearby Late Bronze Age sites such as Tall al-&lsquoUmeiri or Tall Jalul. Dibon is known as a conquered population center in a Late Bronze Age itinerary of Ramesses II (Egyptian tbn). The biblical texts purporting to come from the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age do not require the site to have people living at Hormah. It may simply be a place so called (&ldquodestruction&rdquo) due to events (such as battles) there and there may have been more than one place called Hormah (Numbers 21:3 Judges 1:17). The same may be true of Arad or the site name may have been applied to nearby Tell Milḥ (Tel Malḥata). Late Bronze Age pottery and tombs were found near Tell er-Rumeideh, the site ascribed to ancient Hebron. Edom was likely occupied (sedentary) early in the Iron Age, and perhaps earlier, beside the copper mines at or near Khirbet en-Nahas rather than in the highlands as previously thought. Late Bronze Age towns have already been mentioned and additional ones have been identified by the Madeba Plains Project. This evidence for occupation, whether sedentary or mobile pastoralism, suggests that coalitions could exist, especially temporary ones for special needs. See the earlier example of Mari, where we have written documentation. Whether these were briefly expanded city-states or something more, they allow for the picture of these regions as preserved in the biblical text.
Chapter 10, by J. P. Dessel, &ldquoLooking for the Israelites: The Archaeological Evidence,&rdquo introduces a new section on early Israel&rsquos emergence in Canaan in the late 13 th and early 12 th centuries BC. Dessel provides an excellent review of the dramatic demographic changes in the hill country and Galilee at the end of the 13 th century, in the appearance of hundreds of small villages. He describes these, including the distinctive four-roomed house architecture and village planning, the wide use of the collar rim storage jars, and the terracing and other increased use of storage pits and plastered cisterns. These provide indications of people who may be Merneptah&rsquos Israelites as identified on his Egyptian stele of c. 1208 BC. The Ebal site (while anomalous in terms of earlier religious shrines) and the Bull site may be an altar and a local ritual center (although the Ebal site cannot be identified as the altar of Joshua 8). Nevertheless, a diet devoid of pork (in contrast to the diet on the Philistine coast) comports with food regulations of the Hebrew Bible. Dessel also provides a readable summary and evaluation of the various theories of Israel&rsquos appearance, dividing into two groups: Israelites coming from outside Canaan and those coming from inside Canaan. This is one of the more useful sections of this volume. I would just note that, while Albright may have been the first modern archaeologist to use the Conquest model, this had been the model of biblical historians for centuries before the advent of current archaeological explorations. The chapter suggests that archaeologists take a variety of views regarding the connections between the biblical accounts and archaeological evidence, a suggestion not found in the next chapter.
Chapter 11, by Paul V. M. Flesher, has the same main title as ch. 10, but the subtitle indicates the difference: &ldquoLooking for the Israelites: The Evidence of the Biblical Text.&rdquo This chapter incorporates the archaeological evidence of ch. 10 into the theory that the book of Joshua is largely the product of Deuteronomistic History writing while the book of Judges demonstrates the realities of tribal fluidity and the overall importance of the Rachel tribes over that of Judah. In this respect it may be significant to note that Joshua distinguishes allocation of the land, which is the main point of chs. 13-21, from actual settlement in the land. The focus is clearly on the settlement of Caleb at Hebron (14:6-15), and of settlement in the highlands of central Canaan as represented by the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (cf. e.g., 17:14-18), by the central meeting place of Shiloh in this region (e.g., 17:19), and by the covenant renewal in and around Shechem and Mt. Ebal (8:30-35 chs. 23, 24). This actually corresponds well with the settlement picture in southern Canaan c. 1200 BC. After a helpful review of many of the activities of the Judges, Flesher focuses on the victory poem of ch. 5 to argue that its early date coincides with the omission of many tribes and the naming of some groups as tribes that were not tribes in the later biblical material. In fact, Judges 5 does not use the word for &ldquotribe&rdquo (except as &ldquostaff&rdquo in v. 14). Thus, it should not be used as a description of how the poet understood the tribes of her day. The comments on Hazor actually coincide with the late 12 th century BC, when many would date the Israelite destruction of Hazor in Joshua 11. The association of Jabin with Hazor in Judges 4:2 is much more nuanced. He is not designated king of Hazor but rather &ldquoKing of Canaan.&rdquo He ruled in or around Hazor the beth preposition is not so clear. Nor does Sisera appear to be associated with Hazor at all, but with another site that may be in a Canaanite coalition. Finally, the mention of Judah in the book of Judges is not well described in this chapter. It appears more than &ldquojust three times.&rdquo In additions to the chapters that Flesher lists, it can be found in Judges 1 (vv. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19) and in chs. 10, 15, 17, and 18. It is true that the last two chapters reference a name from the area of Judah, but the overall impression is that the writing of the major parts of the book was done by someone(s) acquainted with a tribe of Judah.
Ann Killebrew, &ldquoThe Philistines during the Period of the Judges,&rdquo provides an important and valuable overview of the biblical, extrabiblical textual, and archaeological evidence for the appearance of these peoples on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean coast. She begins with a review of the biblical evidence. This includes a special focus on the appearance of the Philistines in Judges and the early battles with Israel there and in the books of Samuel. This is handled in a moderately critical fashion. She provides one of the most complete and readable summaries of all the extrabiblical epigraphic and (Egyptian) iconographic evidence, and she does so in an orderly sequence that I have not seen elsewhere. This includes the &ldquoclassic&rdquo sources from Egypt as well as the materials found more recently at Aleppo, Tayinat and elsewhere in northern Syria. This, as well as Killebrew&rsquos personal archaeological experience at Tel Miqne/Ekron and her thorough knowledge of the archaeology of the other Philistine sites, provides a concrete evaluation of the cultural innovation and change that these peoples brought to the region of southern Canaan, as well as the connections of these material cultural forms to the Aegean and also to the regions of Cilicia (Amuq) in modern southern Turkey. Killebrew concludes her discussion with a summary of the one or two &ldquoinvasion&rdquo hypotheses and how these are tied to theories of chronology and dating.
Baruch Halpern writes ch. 13, &ldquoThe United Monarchy: David between Saul and Solomon.&rdquo Halpern summarizes and updates his arguments which focus on an evaluation of the biblical text, rather than a modern critical redaction of it. The presentation is a creative application of archaeology, textual witnesses, and geopolitical theory to the period. He notes that David ruled from Dan to Beersheba, with some domination of Ammon and official ties to other areas. As various times he defeats Arameans and he garrisons Edom. The plain of Philistia retains a culture distinct from Israel at this time. Halpern notes that David&rsquos good relations with Achish of Gath continued after he became king. While Saul&rsquos base was in Benjamin and stretched northward, David appears to move about Benjamin and central Judah, where the archaeology of the period reveals few settlements and thus plenty of room for movement independent of Saul&rsquos control. David&rsquos attacks on nomadic gangs (Amalekites) in the Negev provided a basis for the loyalty of local towns and residences that served him well in his initial rule from Hebron. David&rsquos garrisoning of this area and of Edom to the south and east corresponds to the Negev settlements that Shishak claims to have destroyed c. 925 BC. The disappearance of the Negev settlements after this and the settling of the Judean hills create a world unknown to the accounts of 1 and 2 Samuel. On the basis of the pottery, Halpern dates to David&rsquos time the Stepped Stone Structure and Eilat Mazar&rsquos discovery of a public building in Jerusalem that is larger than what would be expected for a small regional center. Contemporary Qeiyafa (on the Philistine border) was a ring fortress, that is a barracks with parallels to Tell Beit Mirsim and other Judean cities. This large-scale construction gives evidence of central state planning and execution. Davidic period (or earlier) inscriptions from Qeiyafa, Izbet Sartah, and Jerusalem share the same scribal tradition and suggest for Halpern &ldquoa state-supported administration&rdquo (p. 348). I would agree and, in light of a writing exercise at a small village such as Izbet Sartah, believe that it suggests more widespread reading and writing. The Negev forts also imply the central planning of a larger state. Finally, the Tel Dan inscription demonstrates beyond doubt the presence of a Davidic dynasty in Judah. Its discovery &ldquostruck a major blow to the school of minimalists who argued that David was no more historic than King Arthur&rdquo (p. 349).
Halpern places the advent of Iron Age IIA with the reign of King Solomon. Like Yadin, he finds the identical six-chambered gates, along with similar pottery, at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, give evidence of far-flung state planning and control (cf. 1 Kings 9:15-18). Halpern notes the same gate at En Hazeva, which has the Roman name of Tamar, probably the Tamar that was another of Solomon&rsquos forts. Shortly after Shishak&rsquos invasion c. 925 BC the style of gates changed and no longer resembled one another. These cities lack temples and a significant domestic presence. Halpern finds here the desire to move the people into the countryside. There they would promote agricultural work and also be discouraged from using these forts as centers for resistance. Halpern believes that, along with the appearance of burnished red-slipped bowls, this period saw the beginning of international trade as well as a chariot force that would become legendary in its numbers by the time that Shalmaneser III encountered Ahab in 853 BC. The temple palace complex, described in 1 Kings 6-7 and based in Jerusalem, was paralleled by contemporary structures of similar art and architecture at &lsquoAin Dara, Tell Tayinat, and Sam&rsquoal. David&rsquos reign had brought an end to the Canaanite city-state kings and their polities as attested in the Amarna letters and in Joshua. These cities took on a trading culture under David. According to Halpern, by Solomon&rsquos period new elites had residences in Jerusalem and in the provincial capitals (1 Kings 4:7-19) with their agricultural estates nearby. Rather than only an earthquake as behind the destruction of Megiddo VIA, Halpern suggests Absalom and his allies as destroying the trade system or pharaoh Siamum in an otherwise unattested incursion. Finally, Halpern observes: &ldquoKnauf&rsquos point (1991b) about the import of the Faynan copper supply during this era when the copper supply from Cyprus was disrupted comports precisely with the Iron IB-IIA Negev settlement as a state policy&rdquo (p. 359).  Thus, the excavations of Levy and Najjar more than thirty miles south of the Dead Sea at Khirbet en-Nahas in Wadi Faynan confirm copper production in Edom, in the twelfth to eleventh and in the tenth to ninth centuries BC.  In every region, in all the major sites, and in Jerusalem Halpern makes his case that his reading of the biblical text of Samuel conforms in large part to the archaeology with the geopolitical model that he brings to the discussion.
Randall W. Younker writes ch. 14, &ldquoIsrael: The Prosperous Northern Kingdom.&rdquo This is a well written survey of its subject, taking the biblical, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence seriously rather than privileging one in favor of the others. He identifies nine dynasties, with those of Jeroboam I, Omri, and Jehu as the most important. He stresses the abundant rainfall in the north that produced cereals, grapes, and olives. Whether the population of the Northern Kingdom ever reached 800,000 may be disputed. However, its position along key trade routes enhanced the agricultural productivity with the wealth of trade. Younker begins his story with the Egyptian pharaoh Sheshonq I (biblical Shishak) who provided refuge for the future first king of the North, Jeroboam, when Solomon threatened him. Shishak attacked Rehoboam of Judah and his cities c. 926 BC. Younker argues against Finkelstein&rsquos low chronology and the challenge that resets Iron Age IIA (c. 1000/980 &ndash 840/830 BC) into the divided monarchy instead of the earlier monarchy. He cites as support some of the arguments of Halpern (ch. 13 in this book). Although I find insufficient evidence for two campaigns of Sheshonq into Israel and Judah, Younker makes the case for the evidence of destruction at Taanach IIB as connected with Sheshonq. Since this stratum of Taanach matches Megiddo VA-IVB, and the latter can be associated best with the tenth century BC and the United Monarchy, this supports the traditional dating (not the low chronology). Younker moves chronologically through the history of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. From the time of the first king, Jeroboam, he identifies the high place at Dan and the large podium found there. The pottery is tenth century and the cultic precinct may relate to 1 Kings 12:31. Shechem Stratum IX is likely the structure that Jeroboam I rebuilt (1 Kings 12:25), following Stratum X&rsquos destruction by Sheshonq. Omri took control of Israel by 880 BC, at which point he created alliances with Phoenicia and with Judah, both through royal marriages. The 11 th -10 th century scant remains at Samaria testify that Omri purchased an agricultural estate owned by Shemer and built his capital on it. The large enclosure and palatial building that can be dated to Omri&rsquos rule comport well with his construction of a palace here. His son Ahab (c. 875-852 BC) is mentioned by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III on the Qarqar stele that records the 853 BC battle. In Samaria Ahab added walls and a pool (connected with 1 Kings 22:38?) and many ivory plaques and fragments (1 Kings 22:39). The interpretation of Jezreel&rsquos excavations, according to Younker who follows the excavators, was that it was primarily a military complex, destroyed near the end of the ninth century, perhaps by Hazael. The large structures found there could have included a palace occupied by Ahab. At Dan a large limestone structure with header-stretcher ashlars could have been a temple during the time of Ahab. These and other cities suggest the wealth available during Ahab&rsquos reign wealth that, according to Shalmaneser III, enabled the king to field 2,000 chariots and 10,000 foot soldiers at the 853 BC battle of Qarqar. Jehu&rsquos dynasty began when this general killed Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah in a coup, c. 842 BC. This follows Hazael&rsquos seizure of the Damascus throne. It is possible, as Younker suggests, that the two were allies and Jehu was a vassal of Hazael who allowed his superior to take control of Transjordan. About 841 BC Mesha may have occupied the Madaba plains, expanding control of Moab northward, as related in his inscription. In the Tel Dan inscription, Hazael takes credit for the deaths of the two kings that his vassal Jehu may have killed. Shalmaneser III appeared on the scene, destroying Hazael&rsquos countryside while Jehu submitted to the king, a scene recorded on the Black Obelisk from c. 841 BC. Jehu&rsquos successor Jehoahaz inherited a kingdom severely weakened by the assault of Hazael. As Younker notes, the destruction at Tel Rehov and the end of occupation at Jezreel demonstrated this weakened kingdom. He fielded a mere ten chariots compared with his father&rsquos 2,000 a significant difference even if the latter number is an Assyrian exaggeration. King Menahem of Israel (c. 752-742 BC) tried to pay off Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria with a tribute of one thousand silver talents, mentioned in both 2 Kings 15:19-20 and in the Assyrian king&rsquos inscription from Calah. Circa 735 BC, Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Damascus united to resist Assyria. When Ahaz of Judah did not join them, they attacked him. This Syro-Ephraimite war resulted in Ahaz paying Tiglath-pileser III who came against Damascus and executed Rezin. He captured much of northern Israel and the area around the Sea of Galilee. Hoshea&rsquos subsequent murder of Pekah is mentioned in both 2 Kings 15:29-30 and the Neo-Assyrian Kalhu Summary Inscriptions. Hoshea&rsquos tribute and loyalty to Assyria was replaced with rebellion and the withholding of tribute. This led to the conquest of Samaria, the death of Hoshea, and the deportation of the northern population in 722-721 BC. Younker concludes by noting how factors such as unequal wealth distribution and heavy taxation, despite Israel&rsquos natural wealth, led to political instability and the ultimate downfall of the kingdom. All in all, this chapter repays careful study for understanding the outline of the rise and fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
Aren M. Maeir writes on &ldquoThe Southern Kingdom of Judah: Surrounded by Enemies,&rdquo (ch. 15). He finds the Judahite kingdom attested in the late tenth and ninth centuries BC by Shishak&rsquos list, the Tel Dan inscription, and the Mesha stele. Beginning with the late ninth century BC, Assyrian texts become important textual sources. The absence of mention of Judah in pharaoh Shishak&rsquos list of 925 BC may suggest the absence of a state or it may have been recorded in major parts of the inscription that have been lost. Tel Dan and the Mesha stele both mention the &ldquohouse of David,&rdquo evidence of a dynasty at this time. Maier goes through the major periods and records the significant archaeological finds. Unlike Dever and others, he does not emphasize the ninth century bullae discovered in the pool near the Gihon spring, noting that these may be later due to some Iron IIB materials found there. Yet intrusive pottery should not date 150 bullae. Along with Jerusalem, the author devotes time in each period to the evidence from the second city of the kingdom, Lachish. His acceptance of both traditional and late chronologies affect the interpretations of the ninth century. Thus forts in the Negev may indicate Judean state control if they are ninth century but they may also represent Edomite expansion if they are later. Is it really impossible to decide? Others, such as Dever, see no difficulty in rejecting the low chronology. Archaeologists, even some low chronologists, have moved toward a modified scheme (see Younker&rsquos chapter above) that would date this material earlier than originally argued. Iron IIB is the eighth century, beginning after the campaigns of Hazael. The middle of the century experienced one or more earthquakes remembered in Amos 1:1 and found in the archaeological strata of several sites. The rise of Assyria and the destruction of the Northern Kingdom have led many to suggest a large migration of northerners coming to Jerusalem and Judah. Although the city and state did increase significantly in population, it was gradual rather than a sudden increase. Maier follows Na&rsquoaman in presenting this evidence. While important, it remains possible that the Assyrian pressure may have created a gradual population shift. The Arad sanctuary was in use at this time but then went out of use at the end of Stratum IX, a period that may be associated with King Hezekiah&rsquos cultic reform. Maeier discusses the settlement pattern with various levels of sites (from capital city and administrative centers to villages and forts) cooking and the two distinctive styles of pots that were common (a large open vessel and a new smaller closed jug-like vessel) architecture that includes the four-room house with their most common orientation of entrances to the west (Faust) common bench tombs that may have resembled the four-room house, water systems with the most complex of these in Jerusalem, increased trade as well as taxes, Judah as an androcentric society, the kinship-based patronage structure as well as a complex bureaucracy, the LMLK jar handles on pottery that is minimally decorated, urban fortifications with chambered gates as well as smaller forts (and much information on war from Judah in its reliefs but surprisingly little mention of horses and chariotry in warfare), and linguistic, artistic, and religious differences with the north (noting some pork consumption in the north). Although there is not discussion of the final century of Judahite independence, this is an important study on the earlier period.
Jennie Ebeling contributes ch. 16, &ldquoDaily Life in Iron Age Israel and Judah.&rdquo While the other editors of the book are each involved with several chapters, this is Ebeling&rsquos only contribution. It may be the best overall from the editors. She draws from the Bible, archaeology, and ethnographic studies to reconstruct the patrilineal, &ldquoheterarchical&rdquo (following Carol Meyers) society architecturally based around the 4-room or pillared house. Her brief observations on art would have perhaps benefited more by a study of seal images and designs than by the Judean pillar figurines whose function as goddess images has not been proven (given their cheap clay material and mass-produced manufacture). A strong contribution of Ebeling&rsquos chapter is her awareness of women&rsquos activities and life cycles. Female puberty initiation rites (assigned to Jephthah&rsquos daughter in Judges 11:30-40), marriage, giving birth, typical work responsibilities, and (with men) burial in family bench tombs. The sowing, harvesting, and processing of barley, wheat, grapes, and olives, as well as the use and consumption of sheep, goats, and cattle all contributed to the diet, textiles, energy, surplus trade, and other aspects of the daily lives of Israelites and Judeans. Although commercial pottery and bread making seems to have included men, Ebeling assigns women with the major role for these activities in the domestic contexts. She bases this on both biblical texts and ethnographic studies. These roles and those of spinning and weaving can be localized in the same spatial contexts in some houses which the author suggests may involve female activity areas. After surveying the interesting room-by-room finds in two &ldquofour-room&rdquo houses at the Judean site of 8 th /7 th century Tel Halif, Ebeling concludes with a few additional observations on gender specific occupations and on archaeological finds she associates with the domestic cult.
Editors also contribute ch. 17, &ldquoIsrael and Judah under Assyria&rsquos Thumb.&rdquo J. Edward Wright and Mark Elliott inform us that the belief in Yahwistic monotheism was a southern perspective that &ldquofew outside Jerusalem&rsquos temple priesthood held&rdquo (p. 435). Actually, this can be challenged in the seventh century by the virtually exclusive appearance of Yahweh, as opposed to any other divine name, in the personal names of Judean theophoric name bearers both within and outside of Jerusalem. The writers provide a helpful review of Israelite and Judean prophets, though severely truncated. I don&rsquot understand the point that a book like Hosea lacks &ldquothe personal and narrative detail found in the narratives of Elijah&rdquo (p. 437). It is difficult for me to read the narratives of chs. 1 and 3 of the prophet&rsquos book without entering into the personal life and pathos of Hosea as much and more than that of Elijah. The authors consider the archaeology and provide observations on the cities of Megiddo, Dan, and Gezer. The majority of Judah and Israel lived in rural settlements. Ekron could have produced a thousand tons of refined olive oil annually. Several times the writers make the point that much writing did not survive because papyrus, on which most of the writing was done, disintegrated in the moist climate (among other factors). Also noted in this section are the seals, bullae, ostraca, and other inscriptions that fill out our picture of this period, as well as those that do not assist because they are forgeries. Events such as the fall of the northern kingdom and the deportation of the survivors are witnessed in Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions. The authors regard Sargon II&rsquos claims that he took away 27,000 Israelites from Samara as &ldquofarfetched&rdquo (p. 445). The subsequent provincial period reveals Assyrian tablets at Gezer and administrative buildings clustered around courtyards, in Assyrian style, at Megiddo, Gezer, and Dor. A strong point for this chapter is the translation of relatively large sections of biblical texts from 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, and of the Assyrian texts. Both Jerusalem and much of Judah saw their populations rise substantially at the end of the eighth century, due to the Assyrian attacks and destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. King Hezekiah of Judah reigned at the end of the eighth century and enacted a reform toward Yahwistic monotheism. Archaeologically, the authors identify the destruction of the Arad &ldquotemple,&rdquo the Beersheba horned altar, and the Lachish sanctuary with its stone altar. Excavations at Lachish stratum III revealed a burn layer over the entire city, an estimated thirteen to nineteen thousand tons of field stones used to build a siege ramp, a mass burial cave of about 1,500 people, and lmlk jar handles. The authors turn to Jerusalem and discuss construction of the Siloam tunnel, translating the text found there but noting R. Reich&rsquos argument that the tunnel was built a century earlier (despite the problems with this that are not mentioned). Sennacherib&rsquos claim to have destroyed forty-six cities, but not Jerusalem, seems to be accepted by the authors. They note that the Shephelah in western Judah never regained its status after the ravages of the Assyrian army.
The authors then turn to address deportations and note the 13,250 Israelites that Tiglath-pileser III claims to have deported from Galilee in his campaign of the 730&rsquos BC something that region did not recover from until the second century BC. The resettlement of foreign peoples from around the ancient Near East to Samaria (2 Kings 17:24 and 18:34 Ezra 4:2 and 9-10 suggest further resettlements in the seventh century) left virtually no archaeological evidence in the region. On the other hand, Sennacherib&rsquos deportation of 200,150 people from Judah in 701 BC is &ldquoan impossible number&rdquo (p. 459). By the end of the eighth century BC people bearing Hebrew names (with Yahwistic elements) were serving as administrators and chariot drivers for the Assyrian King Sargon II. In the seventh century Samarians served as troops for the Assyrian king. On p. 462 the authors ask the question concerning Hezekiah&rsquos Yahwistic &ldquomonotheism&rdquo and his reforms: &ldquodid everyone in ancient Judah accept that ideology?&rdquo I know of no one who would affirm this. They then claim that King Manasseh, Hezekiah&rsquos successor who promoted the worship of many gods, was likely driven by what the majority of the population wanted. This may or may not be true. Certainly, the assumption the authors make that the &ldquoAsherah figurines&rdquo (already assuming in the description what they seek to prove) demonstrate goddess worship can be questioned. They do not. We don&rsquot know what purpose these mass-produced clay Judean pillar figurines served. They are never explicitly identified as deities. This seems unlikely in terms of their manufacture and the composition of the product. The same is true of the altars and sanctuaries at Arad and Beersheba. Their role in the worshipping of Yahweh or other deities is a matter of conjecture. More likely, these attest to the great variety of religious practices in Judah in the eighth and seventh centuries. In general, there is much freedom of worship and freedom of religion (the two points are not identical in ancient or modern states). The authors argue that the conversion of Manasseh near the end of his life was an &ldquoinvented&rdquo tale to encourage how Judeans returning from exile should live. Wright and Elliott provide a helpful review of the Kuntillet Ajrud evidence, although again assuming that the thousands of terra-cotta Judean pillar figurines must be &ldquofertility goddesses&rdquo (p. 466). It simply is too great a leap to draw this conclusion. There are also the two seventh century BC Ketef Hinnom inscriptions containing texts from Numbers 6:24-26 and Deuteronomy 7:9. While these early texts in no way &ldquoproved the date of the composition of the book of Numbers,&rdquo they have indicated that &ldquothis blessing was known and used with the exact words now found in the Bible&rdquo (p. 468). This one piece of evidence we have of an early text of the Bible would seem to directly contradict the assumption (largely held by these authors) that the priestly text of the Pentateuch must have a post-exilic date.
A discussion of Josiah concludes this chapter. The authors summarize Josiah&rsquos reformation but they also challenge several items: (1) the survival of the high places east of Jerusalem that Solomon had built (until Josiah destroyed them three centuries later, 2 Kings 2313) (2) interpreting 2 Kings 23:22 to indicate that no one celebrated the Passover for more than four hundred years (3) the first years of Josiah&rsquos reign as a time of acceptance of &ldquothe temple full of pagan gods and vessels&rdquo (4) the &ldquodiscovery&rdquo of the book of the Law in the temple as something composed by officials sympathetic to and contemporary with Josiah and (5) that &ldquoJosiah&rsquos death in battle contradicts the peaceful death predicted for Josiah by Huldah&rdquo (p. 472). Some alternatives to be considered are as follows. (1) as earlier historians noted, these &ldquohigh places&rdquo were likely connected to the embassies of the surrounding states. There is no reason they would have been destroyed by any Judean king. Even where a state of war existed between Judah and one of the Transjordan states, the embassy would have been closed and then, with the establishment of peace, re-opened with worship of the appropriate state deity by the officials from that state. (2) 2 Kings 23:22 does not indicate that no Passover had been celebrated since the Judges. Rather, it says that no Passover &ldquolike&rdquo (on such a vast level) Josiah&rsquos had been celebrated. (3) Yes, Josiah was a child (perhaps eight years of age 2 Kings 22:1) in his early years and unable to enact reforms. (4) This remains the hypothesis of DeWette and his followers. It is hypothetical and deals with issues such as when Deuteronomistic language emerged and when the vassal treaty structure of Deuteronomy (with its initial historical prologue and its blessings) best fits. (5) This interpretation does not consider whether the &ldquoin peace&rdquo element of Josiah&rsquos death refers to the manner of his death or what the text emphasizes at this point, the peaceful status of Jerusalem and Judah at the time of Josiah&rsquos death (long before its invasion by Babylon). A summary concludes this chapter.
Chapter 18, &ldquoThe Religions of the People Israel and Their Neighbors,&rdquo was contributed by the author of this review and will not receive further comment here.
Bob Becking&rsquos ch. 19, &ldquoDestruction and Exile: Israel and the Babylonian Empire,&rdquo opens up with the claim, &ldquoJudaism arose out of the ancient Yahwistic religion only after the conquest of Alexander the Great&rdquo (p. 505). Yet there are many scholars (e.g., Jacob Neusner) who would see Judaism emergent in the Exile and its aftermath. Becking reaffirms (following the earlier chapters of this work) that Genesis 1-11 contain no historical data, including Abram&rsquos origin in Mesopotamia, but rather it serves as &ldquoa sign of hope&rdquo for the exiles. He bases the argument against any authentic tradition about Abram on Genesis 11:31 and its reference to Abram&rsquos migration from Ur of the Chaldeans. Citing a 1970 work, Becking writes, &ldquoThis is an obvious anachronism, since this Aramaic-speaking tribe only entered the stage of history in the eighth century BCE&rdquo (p. 505). This is now false. Ran Zadok has published a 12 th century BC Assyrian text that mentions Chaldee/Chaldean.  Becking reviews the bad relations between Assyria and Babylon, so often evident in the seventh century. He cites biblical sources and the Babylonian Chronicle to relate the familiar events of the fall of Assyria, beginning with the rise of the Babylonian Nabopolassar after the death of the Assyrian Ashurbanipal, led to multiple conquests of Jerusalem by the Babylonians beginning with that of Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BC and concluding with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 587/586 BC. Scythian arrowheads found in the destruction of Jerusalem&rsquos defenses attest to the presence of this people as part of the Babylonian army (Jeremiah 51:27). The controversy of whether the Babylonians left anyone alive in Judah and its environs is resolved by understanding that the land was devastated and many were exiled, but others remained in the land. Becking notes that this is suggested by 2 Kings 25:11-15 and by the lack of destruction in various parts of the northern kingdom of Judah and the tribal area of Benjamin (see Cindy L. Van Volsem, &ldquoThe Babylonian Period in the Region of Benjamin [586&ndash538 BCE],&rdquo MA thesis, Institute of Holy Land Studies, 1987). Becking provides a helpful review of some of the Lachish ostraca related to the Babylonian invasion as well as the Hanging Gardens, the Babylonian prisoner lists that mention Judean King Jehoiachin, some of the sixth and fifth century BC Akkadian texts from &ldquothe city of Judah&rdquo in Babylonia, and the reference to identical Persian period seal impressions of a Hananu Yehud found in the Judean Shephelah and in Babylon. Becking relates the brief governorship of Gedeliah that ended with his murder. He also discusses the Cyrus cylinder. While it does not mention Jerusalem and Judah specifically, it certainly does describe the return of religious paraphernalia to temples under Cyrus&rsquo rule a reversal of the Babylonian practice. He concludes with a discussion of the Murashu archive, a collection of more than eight hundred cuneiform tablets from a fifth century BC Judean community in southern Babylonia. Overall, Becking presents much of the important political and cultural history of the late sixth and early fifth centuries BC.
Charles David Isbell concludes the book&rsquos historical studies with &ldquoPersia and Yehud.&rdquo He argues that Judean society was broken after the Babylonian invasion, but that only a few people were exiled and large urban centers remained, especially in Benjamin and the north. This may be but we cannot know how many were exiled from the biblical or non-biblical sources. Faust notes the absence of population throughout the urban centers of Judah. Twice Isbell asserts that &ldquoThe prophets had been correct&rdquo (pp. 532-33), first with reference to the Bible editors and then with reference to the perspective of the exiles in Babylonia where there was a concern to recreate the society the prophets envisioned for Judah. The Cyrus cylinder establishes the repatriation policies for various cities whose inhabitants have been exiled. The policy to return and worship one&rsquos own deities allowed for economic redevelopment of various lands to provide income from them. Isaiah 44:28-45:8 asserts that Cyrus, perhaps by doing this, was called by name and that Yahweh went with/before Cyrus all expressions used in Babylon of Cyrus in relation to Marduk. In the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah, Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah are named governors of Judah. Isbell finds Zoroastrianism influence in biblical religion in this time attested by such beliefs as the afterlife and dualism between good and evil. However, this is not the only interpretation. There is evidence in the archaeological and textual record that these elements already existed in earlier biblical and West Semitic religious traditions.  Along with the prophecies of the second half of Isaiah, other prophets dated to this period describe the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and the importance of Zerubbabel in the Davidic line (Haggai and Zechariah). Zechariah 9-14 also introduces apocalyptic visions of restoration. Malachi (c. 460 BC according to Isbell) exhorts faithful obedience to receive God&rsquos love and approval and to appear in the divine book of remembrance. Yet it also looks to divine grace and the aid of two who would return to help the people emphases that are just as important as those Isbell finds. The cuneiform texts from Al-Yahudu in Babylonia indicate that Jewish life went on in the Exile (see also the Murashu archive). Isbell suggests Ezra did not have the full authority that the Bible claims for him. Yet power to coerce was not Ezra&rsquos goal it was to change hearts and lives so that obedience would come willingly. In this context, Nehemiah&rsquos governorship provided more direct enforcement toward those who continued to resist and oppressed the poor. Five additional governors of Judah are known in the Persian period based on coins and other written sources outside the Bible. Isbell is correct in concluding that Nehemiah&rsquos mention of the abuse of &ldquoformer governors before me&rdquo (Nehemiah 5:15) then applies to Judean governors, not to those of Samaria. The author concludes with Nehemiah&rsquos opposition from Geshem the Arab, Tobiah the Ammonite, and Sanballat the Samaritan. He discusses the Tobiad family influence from their center in Araq el-Amir, southwest of Amman. The Samaritans are mentioned in the Elephantine papyri (c. 496-399 BC) and in the Wadi ed-Daliyah papyri found in a cave where Samaritans fleeing after their revolt against Alexander (331 BC) were murdered. Surprisingly, Isbell does not mention Briant&rsquos magisterial From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, in his annotated bibliography. 
Overall this well-written work can be recommended for its discussion of all data of major importance and for its presentation of significant interpretive models. One gains the impression that the editors (except J. Ebeling whose chapter does not betray bias) lean towards a skeptical attitude regarding any use of the biblical text as a historical source. However, there are many chapters written by others (often archaeologists) that balance this view, especially in the Iron Age and later. All in all, I would recommend this book as an important and positive survey of the state of studies regarding Israel&rsquos history and as containing essential essays for those researching and writing in the field. Readers may decide for themselves whether the contributions are successful in bringing together archaeology and the Bible, using a variety of approaches.
Ben-Yosef, Erez, Thomas E. Levy, and Mohammad Najjar.
2009 &ldquoNew Iron Age Copper-Mine Fields Discovered in Southern Jordan.&rdquo NEA 72.2 (June): 98-101.
2002 From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Peter T. Daniels trans. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
2017 Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah. Atlanta: SBL.
Ebeling, Jennie, J. Edward Wright, Mark Elliott, and Paul V. M. Flesher, eds.
Cod and Herring: The Archaeology and History of Medieval Sea Fishing, ed. James H. Barrett and David C. Orton
Wendy R Childs, Cod and Herring: The Archaeology and History of Medieval Sea Fishing, ed. James H. Barrett and David C. Orton, The English Historical Review, Volume 133, Issue 562, June 2018, Pages 668–670, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/cey071
This is an important volume, not only for those already interested in fishery history, but for those interested in the development of commercial activity in the Middle Ages and in the social history of diet. It provides fascinating detail, interesting statistics (where available) and wide-ranging arguments by experts in full command of their material. It is (as its editors, James H. Barrett and David C. Orton, rightly say) a ground-breaking volume in its combination of archaeological and documentary evidence and the new application of stable isotope analysis to archaeological deposits. Together these sources provide evidence for a convincing hypothesis on the chronology of fishing and fish consumption spanning over a thousand years, between c.500 and c.1550, around the northern.
Baalbek-Heliopolis, the Bekaa, and Berytus from 100 BCE to 400 CE: a landscape transformed
The book offers a valuable overview of the history and archaeology of Berytus (modern Beirut) and the northern Bekaa, which in the Roman imperial period formed the Colonia Iulia Augusta Felix Berytus. Its sub-centre Heliopolis (Baalbek) was later separated from Berytus as an independent colonia in AD 194. The chronological frame spans from the late Hellenistic period when the area was dominated by the declining Seleukid Empire, with small kingdoms like Judaea, Emesa, and—for the area studied—the Ituraean tetrarchy emerging. After the conquest of Pompey these became client kingdoms and subsequently part of the Roman provincia Syria. The end date AD 400 was chosen in order to separate the study from the book of Linda Jones Hall, Roman Berytus. Beirut in Late Antiquity (London 2004).
Simone Eid Paturel discusses her topic along the leading question defined in the first, introductory chapter: was the establishment of the Roman colony Berytus in 15 BC an intrusion of Latin culture into the Near East? In the second chapter she describes the research history and methods. The research history is almost comprehensive, but some important works are missing, including Robert Fleischer’s Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien (Leiden 1973), which provides fundamental conclusions on the cult images of the Heliopolitan gods. Apart from that, the bibliography ends in 2016, so that recent publications on the sanctuary of Jupiter Heliopolitanus in Baalbek along with those on a domestic insula and the hippodrome in Berytus are missing. For literary sources, she mentions Flavius Josephus as the most important one, which doubtless is true—yet Josephus deserves a more critical view. Most of his text cannot be controlled by other sources, and it is obvious that he interpreted events and facts with bias in order to fit his view of the history of Judaea.
For the methodology, Paturel discusses various approaches to ancient religion, settling on one that draws on recent post-processual archaeological theory. This part contains some misunderstandings of ancient religion, which is implicitly discussed from the view of modern monotheistic book religions. For example, the author uses “religion” and “cult” as interchangeable terms (p. 35). As a second method she uses landscape archaeology.
The third chapter opens the discussion of the history of the pre-Roman period in the area of study. The author focusses on the Ituraean principality which ruled over the Bekaa since the early first century BC with Chalkis (Mejdel Anjar?) as its capital. Ituraea became a client kingdom of Rome after Pompey’s conquest in 64 BC and may at times have included the Phoenician cities along the coast. The fourth chapter gives an overview on pre-Roman Berytus. Here a crucial question is whether Strabo’s (16.2.18-20) description of the heavy destruction of Berytus by Tryphon in 140 BC is historically correct, especially the statement that it was only reconstructed under the Romans with the foundation of the colonia in 15 BC, which would imply a hiatus of more than a century. The archaeological evidence from Beirut yet shows more of a continuity, although this topic still needs more research.
Berytus then became the only certain colony of Roman veterans settled in the East. It was exceptional for its enormous size, including the mountains above Berytus and the northern Bekaa down to Heliopolis-Baalbek. According to Paturel, the reason for this exceptional creation was that the Ituraeans were not reliable as client kings but were perceived as bandits. Therefore, the Romans deposed the Ituraean tetrach Zeonodoros in 24/23 BC and used most of his territory for the creation of the colonia. The colonia Berytus thus initially had the main scope of controlling and securing the formerly Ituraean area.
The fifth chapter is devoted to pre-Roman Baalbek and the Bekaa. For Baalbek, in accordance with the results of the Baalbek project of Margarete van Ess and Klaus Rheidt, Paturel rejects the former view of Ragette and others of cult continuity in the sanctuary of Jupiter from the Hellenistic period or even prehistoric times. The tell on which the Jupiter sanctuary was erected had been a settlement from the Neolithic to the Hellenistic periods, and the ‘Hellenistic’ phase of the Jupiter temple has now been revealed as being of a later date. The masonry of the preserved T-shaped podium is identical with that of Herod’s terrace walls for the Temple in Jerusalem, indicating that Herod was involved in the erection of the Jupiter temple in Heliopolis. Paturel argues that Herod’s engagement in Baalbek is only plausible in the period between the deposition of Zenodoros and the foundation of the colonia, i.e., between 24 and 15 BC. Yet, since Herod donated monumental buildings in Berytus and other cities like Antioch, his activity has the same plausibility after 15 BC. The planned erection of a T-shaped temple similar to the Temple in Jerusalem, but otherwise unique in the whole Roman Empire, remains a theory which cannot be proved because the project remained unfinished and the temple most probably was never built. Lohmann in his recent publication prefers the idea of a smaller temple on a terrace with towers on the T-shaped extensions.
The sixth chapter deals with Roman Berytus. Paturel describes the colonnaded main streets of the city, two decumani and the cardo maximus, the Roman forum, the public buildings like baths and a hippodrome (whose interpretation here has been superseded by new research), and the sanctuaries. Here the Roman gods—which one would expect in a Roman veterans’ colony—are a small minority among the preeminent local Semitic gods. It is clear that the Hellenistic city was enlarged, and the veterans in Berytus would likely have settled in the extension of the city.
The chapter lacks a general discussion of the city plan: was Berytus a planned city with a regular street grid according to the standard of a Roman colonia, and how far did colonization change the Hellenistic city plan? Answering this question is still a desideratum in the archaeology of Beirut and could not have been solved by the author. Since the scattered and mostly preliminary publications on the excavations in Berytus all concentrate on their respective excavation area, it was indeed not yet possible to reach the aim of this chapter to provide the desired synthesis of Beiruts’s urban history. Correctly, Paturel characterizes Berytus’ grandeur, with large bath complexes and sumptuous use of Egyptian red and grey granite for the colonnaded streets.
The seventh chapter deals with the sanctuary Deir el-Qalaa in the mountains above Berytus, emphasizing the commanding position. The characterization of this extraurban sanctuary of Berytus as exceptional compared to cities like Sidon and Tyre overlooks that Sidon did indeed have the extraurban Eshmun sanctuary. In the Bekaa valley, large-scale surveys are missing, so that the area of Niha and Hosn Niha, where recent surveys provide good evidence, was chosen as a case study. Both are villages which presumably had a mixed population of indigenous people and Roman veterans, both with a large sanctuary in their centre. The temples, like those of Deir el-Qalaa, combine features of Roman architecture with local characteristics like stairs to the roof, and are dedicated to Semitic deities. The same applies to Baalbek described in the ninth chapter, with the exception of the “Temple of the Muses” which dates to the Augustan period and, as pseudoperipteros on a podium, shows a distinctly Italian-Roman architecture. The development of the sanctuary is described according to the results of the recent German Baalbek project.
The tenth chapter, “Life in the Colonia from Epigraphic, Numismatic, and Iconographic Evidence,” provides the most important results of the study beginning with useful statistics of the inscriptions which are roughly half Latin and half Greek. Important is the observation that the earlier inscriptions of the first and second centuries AD are almost entirely Latin, which shows indeed an intrusion of Latin culture in the otherwise Greek-dominated East. It is followed by a discussion of the ‘Heliopolitan triad’ of Jupiter, Venus, and Mercury. Paturel argues against the view of Seyrig, Hajjar and others who saw a fixed triad she convincingly shows that this is a modern construct. She prefers the definition of a more flexible “divine constellation” (p. 259). Since these three deities had their own sanctuaries and were not venerated together in one temple like the Capitoline triad in Rome, this is certainly correct, although the differentiation between both concepts itself might be more a problem for modern scholars than for ancient inhabitants of Berytus and Heliopolis. Paturel is also right in rejecting the concept of a syncretism of Jupiter and Helios, in favour of seeing Jupiter Heliopolitanus as the interpretatio Romana of a local Semitic god. The question of imperial sponsorship remains there is only very scarce evidence for the dedication and financing of the public buildings in Berytus and Heliopolis. The scale of the temple of Jupiter Heliopolitanus (not the largest temple of the Roman Empire, which was instead the temple of Hadrian in Tarsus) makes imperial engagement more than plausible.
The eleventh chapter deals with the temples and the landscape using GIS-generated intervisibility viewsheds. It shows that the Baalbek temples were visible from far, while the temples of Niha and Hosn Niha were almost hidden in the little valley. The conclusion that this (in)visibility was deliberate seems less convincing. This could just as well mean that visibility was not a major criterion for placing the sanctuaries.
The twelfth chapter provides a conclusion. For the leading question whether the colonia of Berytus was a Latin intrusion in the Near East, the answer is that it is not, but rather “synergistic with the Hellenistic past” (p. 293), with a mixed population of indigenous people and veterans in the city of Berytus as well as in the Bekaa villages like Niha and Hosn Niha. In order to characterise the peculiarity of the colonia Berytus, a comparison to a more typical Roman colonia (for example, Timgad) would have been helpful.
Formally, careful copy-editing would have improved the text which has a large number of typographical errors and mistakes in the Latin terms. For the discussion of the archaeological sites, the figures provide few photos and almost no plans, which makes it difficult for the reader to follow the arguments. The place names on the maps are so small that they are barely legible. For a volume of the renowned Mnemosyne supplements, and regarding the price of the book, good copy-editing could have been expected.
To sum up, the book provides a very useful overview of the history of Roman Berytus including the Bekaa valley, which before could only be gained by extensive reading of the scattered literature. The gaps of this survey are not in the responsibility of the author but due to the lack of research and should be taken as desiderata for future research. Thus, the book is highly recommended for every scholar interested in the late Hellenistic and Roman Levant.
 Daniel Lohmann, Das Heiligtum des Jupiter Heliopolitanus in Baalbek. Die Planungs- und Baugeschichte, Rahden 2017 Reuben Thorpe, The Insula of the House of the Fountains, Beirut, Archaeology of the Beirut Souks 3, Berytus LVII-LVIII, 2017-2018 Hans Curvers et al., “Der Hippodrom von Berytos. Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der Arbeiten 2012 bis 2015,” Marburger Winckelmann-Progamm 2015-2016, 147-217.
 F. Ragette, Baalbek (London 1980), 27-28 M. van Ess and K. Rheidt (eds.), Baalbek – Heliopolis. 10.000 Jahre Stadtgeschichte (Darmstadt 2014), 24-31.
 H. Seyrig, “La triade Héliopolitaine et les temples de Baalbek,” Syria 10, 1929, 314-356 Y Hajjar, La triade d’Héliopolis-Baalbek vol. 1-3 (Leiden 1977/1985).
The Archaeology of Oxford in the 21st Century
The Archaeology of Oxford in the 21st Century
Anne Dodd, Stephen Mileson, Leo Webley
A major new contribution to the archaeology and history of Oxford, including introductory chapters by Tom Hassall and David Radford.
OAHS is delighted to announce the publication of its first Occasional Paper, a 480-page, full colour volume on 'The Archaeology of Oxford in the 21st Century', available for just 㿊 + p&p. OAHS members can take advantage of a special offer price of 㿅.50 plus p&p, available until 31 March 2021.
To read more and order a copy, please go to the OAHS website
Review: Volume 25 - Archaeology - History
Medieval Fashion Statement
Who Came to America First?
Livestock for the Afterlife
Running Guns to Irish Rebels
Diagnosis of Ancient Illness
Peru’s Mysterious Infant Burials
The oldest bow in Europe, domesticated sheep and goats at Namibia’s Leopard Cave, how climate changes fueled Genghis Khan’s invasions, and mistaking matches for ritualistic phallic objects
Letter from India
Searching for a new approach to development, tourism, and local needs at the grand medieval city of Hampi
Ceramic beakers were the vessels of choice for the so-called “Black Drink” used at Cahokia by Native Americans in their purification rituals
Top 10 Discoveries of 2012
Mohenjo-Daro's New Story
Neolithic Europe's Remote Heart
The Water Temple of Inca-Caranqui
Gateway to the Netherworld
From The Trenches
The Rehabilitation of Richard III
Fixing Ancient Toothaches
Neutron Beams and Lead Shot
Turning Back the Human Clock
San Francisco's earthquake-ravaged City Hall unearthed, Dakar floodwaters reveal Neolithic artifacts, the source of Angkor Wat's sandstone blocks
Letter from France
Nearly 20 years of investigation at two rock shelters in southwestern France reveal the well-organized domestic spaces of Europe's earliest modern humans
A mid-nineteenth-century trident illustrates a changing marine ecosystem in the South Pacific
Pirates of the Original Panama Canal
A Stunning Sacrifice
A Soldier's Story
From the Trenches
Saving Northern Ireland's Noble Bog
Mussel Mass in Lake Ontario
Deconstructing a Zapotec Figurine
Let Slip the Pigeons of War
Burials and Reburials in Ancient Pakistan
Life (According to Gut Microbes)
A Prehistoric Cocktail Party
Correcting the record on Tycho Brahe, a 2.5-mile-long labyrinth among Peru’s Nazca Lines, Ramesses III may have been the victim of a “Harem Conspiracy,” and northwestern India identified as the birthplace of the Romani
Letter from Cambodia
A territorial dispute involving an 1,100-year-old Khmer temple on the Thai-Cambodian border turns violent
Scientific analyses and experimental archaeology determine that mysterious, 1,000-year-old balls of clay found at a Yucatán site were used in cooking
Inside Hanoi's Forbidden City
Uncovering a Maya Warrior Queen
On the Trail of the Mimbres
Haunt of the Resurrection Men
The Kings of Kent
From the Trenches
Archaic Engineers Worked on a Deadline
A Pyramid Fit for a Vizier
A Killer Bacterium Expands Its Legacy
Hail to the Bождь (Chieftain)
From Egyptian Blue to Infrared
A surprising cannon in Central Park, Hawaiian Buffaloes underwater, ancient Panama’s first shamans, and 4,400-year-old curry in India
Letter from Turkey
Archaeologists conduct the first-ever survey of the legendary WWI battlefield at Gallipoli
Ceramic figurines were part of a cache of objects found at an Iron Age temple uncovered at the site of Tel Motza outside Jerusalem
The First Vikings
Miniature Pyramids of Sudan
Salt and the City
A Future for Icons of the Past
From the Trenches
Chilling Discovery at Jamestown
Seeds of Europe's Family Tree
Did the “Father of History” Get It Wrong?
Apollo Returns from the Abyss
In Style in the Stone Age
Portals to the Underworld
The first evidence of cooking pots in Japan, Indonesia’s earliest farmers, a 600-year-old Chinese coin found on a Kenyan island, and how El Niño plagued South America’s Moche people
Letter from China
Looting reaches across the centuries—and modern China’s economic strata
A 13th-century limestone sundial is one of the earliest timekeeping devices discovered in Egypt
The Everlasting City
Wolf Rites of Winter
An Extreme Life
Tomb of the Vulture Lord
From the Trenches
No Changeups on the Savannah
Small Skirmish in the War for Freedom
Sifting Through Molehills
Animal Offerings of the Aztecs
Spain's Lost Jewish History
Samson and the Gate of Gaza
An Ohio brewery tries its hand at Sumerian beer, English archaeologists expose one of the world's oldest railway tunnels, sediments from Lake Malawi contradict a past "volcanic winter," and the oldest evidence of humans consistently eating meat
Letter from Norway
The race to find, and save, ancient artifacts emerging from glaciers and ice patches in a warming world
A tablet bearing a birthday party invite includes the earliest Latin script penned by a woman