Archæology and the Bible

To Babylonia and to Egypt mankind owes the working out of the initial problems of civilization, the processes of agriculture, the making of bricks, the working of stone, the manufacture and use of the ordinary implements of life, the development of elementary mathematics and astronomy, etc. These problems were by slow processes independently worked out in each country through long ages. The higher spiritual concepts which have now become the heritage of man neither Babylonia nor Egypt was fitted to contribute. These came through the agency of other peoples.

CHAPTER III

2. Hittite Monuments.—This civilization, it was seen, had left its monuments at Hamath in Syria, at Carchemish on the Euphrates, at various points in ancient Cappadocia, Lycaonia, and Phrygia, as well as near Smyrna in Asia Minor and on the Lydian mountains to the west of Sardis. In 1891 Prof. W. Max Müller, of Philadelphia, reached the conclusion from a study of the Egyptian inscriptions that the Hittites had come into Syria from the northwest, and that their main strength was in Asia Minor. Among the letters found at El-Amarna in Egypt in 1887-1888 were some from Dushratta, a king of Mitanni. A study of these made it clear that the Mitanni inhabited the region on both sides of the Euphrates north of Carchemish, and that they were of the same stock as the Hittites. Our sources of information indicate that the territory of the Mitanni lay east of the Euphrates, but scattered monuments of the Hittite type are found on the west of that river.

(1) Sendjirli.—From 1888 to 1891 a German expedition excavated at Sendjirli, near the head-waters of the Kara Su in northern Syria, and brought to light most interesting remains of a civilization that was fundamentally Hittite. Inscriptions found here dated in the reigns of Tiglath-pileser IV and Esarhaddon were in Aramaic. By this time there had been an influx of Aramæans, but the art shows that Hittites held the place at an earlier time, and there is reason to believe that one of the kings mentioned here had, about 850 B. C., joined in a Hittite federation.

(2) Boghaz Koi.—Among the monuments known to Prof. Sayce at the beginning of his brilliant studies of the Hittites, were some from Boghaz Koi, in Asia Minor. Different travelers had noted that here must have been a somewhat extensive city, adorned with several large buildings, all of which were ornamented with carvings of the peculiar Hittite type. In 1906 the late Prof. Winckler, of Berlin, excavating here in connection with the authorities of the Turkish Museum at Constantinople, discovered an archive of clay tablets inscribed in Babylonian characters. A group of similar tablets from Cappadocia had been previously purchased by the British Museum. Winckler’s discovery was important because he found some of the tablets inscribed in Hittite written in cuneiform characters. Of those written in the Babylonian language, one contained a copy of the great treaty between Hattusil, a Hittite king, and Ramses II of Egypt. There were also tablets containing Sumerian and Semitic equivalents of Hittite words. Owing to the long illness of Winckler which followed these discoveries, an illness that terminated in death, the results of this discovery are only now being given to the world.

In 1907 Winckler and Puchstein, in conjunction with Makridy Bey of the Turkish Museum, made a thorough examination of the remains of walls and buildings at Boghaz Koi. The results have since been published in a handsome volume entitled Boghaskoi, die Bauwerke, Leipzig, 1912; (see Figs. 23 and 25).

(3) Other Recent Excavations.—An American expedition consisting of Drs. Olmstead, Charles, and Wrench, of Cornell University, explored in Asia Minor in 1907-1908. The members of this expedition collated all the known monuments of the Hittites, but so far only their collation of the inscriptions has been published.

The Institute of Archæology of the University of Liverpool has also sent one or more expeditions to explore the Hittite country. In 1910 they excavated to some extent at Sakje-Geuze, not far from Sendjirli, but their results are not yet published.

Since 1911 the trustees of the British Museum have had an excavation in progress at the site of ancient Carchemish on the Euphrates. Here most important Hittite remains have been discovered, though again the details of the work have not been given to the public. The expedition has also made some minor excavations at several points in the neighborhood, and find that Hittite remains are numerous in that region. In addition to these places, Hittite remains have been observed at Yaila, Marash, Giaour-Kalesi, Karaburna, Kizil Dagh, Fraktin, Ivriz, Kara-Bel, Mount Sypilus, Tashji, Asarjik, Bulghar-Maden, Gurun, and Kara Dagh. One who will look up these places on a map of modern Turkey will see that Hittite monuments are distributed from near the shores of the Ægean Sea to the Euphrates at Carchemish and to Hamath in Syria. (For addition to this section, see Appendix.)

3. Hittite Decipherment.

(1) Sayce’s Early Work.—Prof. Sayce, whose insight first grasped the significance of the Hittite monuments, was also the first to attempt the solution of the riddle which the inscriptions present. In 1880 he thought he had found a key to the writing, such as the Rosetta Stone had been to Egyptian, in the so-called “Boss of Tarkondemos”; (see Fig. 26). This “boss” consisted of a round silver plate, in form like half an orange, which must have covered the knob of a staff or dagger. This had been described by Dr. A. D. Mordtmann, in the Journal of the German Oriental Society in 1872. The original was then in the possession of Alexander Jovanoff, a numismatist of Constantinople, who had obtained it at Smyrna. The “boss” bore in its center a figure of the peculiar Hittite form, flanked on both sides by writing in the Hittite characters, while around the whole was an inscription in the cuneiform writing of Assyria. From this Sayce tentatively determined the values of a number of Hittite signs. The results were, however, attended with considerable uncertainty, since the Assyrian characters were capable of being read in more than one way. Using the key thus obtained, Sayce enlarged his list of supposed sign-values and in 1884 and 1885 published as known the values of thirty-two Hittite signs. In the years that followed Ball and Menant took up the discussion of the Hittite signs, but with no decisive result.

In 1889 Winckler and Abel published in one of the volumes of the Royal Museum at Berlin the first instalment of the text of the El-Amarna letters, in which there were two from Dushratta, King of Mitanni, in the native language of that country, though written in Babylonian characters. In the following year, 1890, Profs. Jensen, Brünnow, and Sayce all published in the Zeitschrift für Assyriologie studies of this language, Sayce even venturing a translation of a part of the text. Each of these scholars had worked independently of the others, but none of them seems to have suspected that the language had anything to do with Hittite.

(2) Peiser.—In 1892 Dr. Peiser, then of Breslau University, published his book on the Hittite inscriptions, in which he essayed another method of decipherment. Layard had found four Hittite seals in the palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh. Peiser inferred that these must be seals of four Hittite kings mentioned in the inscriptions of that time, and proceeded to assign each seal to the name of a known Hittite king, and interpret the signs on the seal by the name of that king as spelled out in the cuneiform characters of the Assyrian inscriptions. Having obtained in this way tentative values for several signs, he proceeded by inference to guess at other signs, and so tentatively read some inscriptions.

(3) Jensen.—Prof. Jensen, of Marburg, wrote in that same year an unfavorable review of Peiser’s work. When reading the proofs of his review he added a postscript to say that he believed he had himself discovered the key to Hittite. Two years later, 1894, he published in the Journal of the German Oriental Society his method of solving the problem. Jensen’s starting-point was gained from inscriptions from Jerabis, the site of ancient Carchemish, Hamath, and other places. He inferred that a certain sign was the determinative for city, and that the names preceding this sign were names of places. Gaining in this way some values for signs, he read the names of some kings. He found that these names had nominatives ending in s and accusative cases ending in m; he accordingly leaped to the conclusion that the Hittite language was a member of the Indo-European group of languages, as this is the only known group of tongues in which this phenomenon occurs. This inference later research has in part confirmed. Jensen, however, went further and endeavored to show that the Hittites were the ancestors of the Armenians of later time. This theory led to the publication in 1898 of his book, Hittiter und Armenier. Of the correctness of this view he has not been able to convince other scholars. By this time Jensen and others had begun to see that the Mitannians and the Hittites were kindred peoples and worshiped the same gods. It is now recognized that Jensen correctly ascertained the value of some signs, though many of his guesses, like those of his predecessors, have proved incorrect.

(4) Conder.—In 1898 Lieut.-Col. C. R. Conder published The Hittites and Their Language, a work in which he presented still another decipherment of the inscriptions. Conder’s decipherment was based on a comparison of the Hittite characters with the Sumerian pictographs on the one hand and the syllabary which was used by Greeks in Cyprus, Caria, and Lydia on the other. He assumed that if a picture had in Sumerian a certain syllabic value, and if the Cypriotic syllabary presented a character somewhat resembling it which had a similar value, the Hittite character which most closely resembled these must have the same value, since the Hittites lived between the two peoples who used the other syllabaries. This system of decipherment has attracted no adherents because it is based on a fallacious inference. It does not follow because a nation lives between two other nations, that its institutions are kindred to those of its neighbors. One could not explain writings of the Indian tribes of Arizona, for example, by comparing them with books printed in English in St. Louis and in Spanish in Los Angeles! In 1899 Messerschmidt, who was collecting in one body all the known Hittite inscriptions for publication, published a study of the language of Mitanni,[18] which advanced our knowledge of the language of the letters of Dushratta. Messerschmidt’s later publication of the Hittite inscriptions[19] made it far easier for scholars to study the subject.

(5) Sayce’s Later Work.—Stimulated by Jensen’s efforts, Prof. Sayce returned to the study of Hittite in 1903, and published in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology of that year (Vol. XXV) a new decipherment. He followed Jensen’s method, accepting a number of Jensen’s readings as proved, and with the originality and daring that characterize so much of his work, launched many new readings. Some of these have commended themselves to his successors.

In 1909 Ferdinand Bork returned to the problem of the language of Mitanni, and published a pretty complete decipherment of the Mitannian tablets in the El-Amarna letters. In 1911 Dr. B. B. Charles, the philologist of the Cornell expedition to Asia Minor, published as Part II of Volume I of Travels and Studies in the Nearer East, which is to embody the results of the Cornell expedition, his collation of the Hittite inscriptions. This publication added some new texts to those previously known. In 1912 Prof. Clay, of Yale, rendered the subject of Hittiteology a distinct service by including in his volume of Personal Names from Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Cassite Period a list of Hittite and Mitannian proper names, and a list of the nominal and verbal elements which enter into the composition of such names.

(6) Thompson.—The latest attempt on a large scale to unravel the mystery of the Hittite inscriptions is that of R. Campbell Thompson, “A New Decipherment of the Hittite Hieroglyphs,” published in Archæologia, second series, Vol. XIV, Oxford, 1913. Mr. Thompson was a member of the British expedition which excavated Carchemish, and gained the idea which gave him the starting-point for his decipherment from an inscription excavated by that expedition. This inscription contained many proper names, and, after passing it and looking at it every day for a long time, it occurred to Mr. Thompson that a certain elaborate sign which frequently occurred in it might be a part of the name of the Hittite King Sangar, who is frequently mentioned by Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmeneser III of Assyria. In seeking proof for this Mr. Thompson was led into a study of the texts which resulted in a new interpretation of the Hittite signs. His work is logical at every point, he makes no inference without first examining all the occurrences in the known texts of the group of signs in question, and he tests his inferences wherever possible by the known results of a study of Mitannian and cuneiform Hittite. It is too soon to pronounce a final verdict, but it looks as though Thompson had materially advanced the decipherment of Hittite.

(7) Delitzsch.—After the death of Prof. Winckler, the cuneiform tablets which he had discovered at Boghaz Koi were turned over to Ernst Weidner for publication. That publication is soon to appear, but Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch, under whose general direction Weidner is working, published in May, 1914, a study based on twenty-six fragments of lexicographical texts which are to appear in Weidner’s work. These texts defined Hittite words in Sumerian and in Assyrian. Although the texts are very fragmentary, Prof. Delitzsch has been able to gain in this way a vocabulary of about 165 Hittite words, the meanings of most of which are known, and to ascertain some facts about the grammar of Hittite.

We are, it would seem, just on the eve of a complete mastery of the secrets of the Hittite inscriptions. The more our knowledge of the Hittites grows, the less simple seems the problem of their racial affinities. Some features of their speech clearly resemble features of the Indo-European family of languages, but other features would seem to denote Tartar affinities. In a number of instances the influence of the Assyrian language can clearly be traced. The same confusion presents itself when we study the pictures of Hittites as they appear in Egyptian reliefs. Two distinct types of face are there portrayed. One type has high cheek bones, oblique eyes, and wears a pigtail, like the peoples of Mongolia and China; the other has a clean-cut head and face which resemble somewhat the early Greeks. These may well have been Aryans. That there was a strain in the Hittite composition that came from Turkestan or that came through that country is also indicated by the fact that the Hittites were the first of the peoples of western Asia to use the horse. Evidence of the use of the horse as a domestic animal by the people of Turkestan at an early date was brought to light by the excavations of Prof. Pumpelly[20] in that land, so that the presence of horses among the Hittites naturally suggests some connection with that region. Among the Hittite allies Semitic Amorites are also pictured. These have receding foreheads and projecting beards.

4. Hittite History.

(1) First Appearance.—The earliest reference to the Hittites which we have in any written record occurs in a Babylonian chronicle, which states that “against Shamsu-ditana the men of the country Khattu marched.”[21] Shamsu-ditana was the last king of the first dynasty of Babylon. His reign terminated in 1924 B. C. Khattu land, as will appear further on, was the name later given to the Hittite settlement in Cappadocia. One would naturally suppose that the name would have the same significance here, but of this we cannot be certain. The tablet on which this chronicle was written was inscribed in the Persian or late Babylonian period, but there is evidence that it was copied from an earlier original. If its statement is true, the Hittites had made their appearance in history and were prepared to mingle in that mêlée of the races which occurred when the first dynasty of Babylon was overthrown. Nothing is said in the chronicle as to the location of the land of Khattu, but there can be no doubt that the Hittites approached Babylonia from the northwest. Their seat must have been in the region where we later find the Hittites, or Mitanni. At what period the Hittites came into this region we can only conjecture. The excavations at Sakje-Geuze reveal a civilization there extending back to about 3000 B. C., which resembled that found at Susa in Elam belonging to the same period. This civilization may not have been Hittite in its beginnings. Mr. Woolley, a member of the British expedition which has excavated at Carchemish, in a study of the objects found in tombs at Carchemish and at other places near by, thinks it possible that the coming of the Hittites is marked by a transition period in the art—a period the termination of which he marks by the date of the fall of the first dynasty of Babylon. It may well be that Indo-Europeans followed by Mongols came about 2100 or 2000 into this region, or that the Mongols were there earlier and that the Indo-Europeans then came. In the resultant civilization it would seem, from the information that we have, that there was a mingling of the two races; (see Fig. 24).

(2) Hyksos Possibly Hittites.—Since the Hittites were able to help overthrow the first dynasty of Babylon, some scholars have recognized the possibility that those invaders of Egypt who established the dynasties called Hyksos may have been Hittites, or may have been led by Hittites. There is much evidence that many Semites entered Egypt at that time, but as Syria and Palestine were peopled with Semites earlier than this, such an invasion would naturally have had many Semites among its camp followers, if not in its armies, even if the leaders were Hittites. At present, however, this is but a possibility. Some slight evidence in favor of the possibility may be found in the name of the king of Jerusalem who was a vassal of Amenophis IV, and who wrote the letters from Jerusalem which are in the El-Amarna collection. (See Part II, p. 345, ff.) His name was Abdi-Hepa, and Hepa was a Hittite and Mitannian deity. Abdi-Hepa had grown up a trusted subject of the Egyptians. His ancestors must, therefore, have been in Palestine for some time. A settlement of Hittites there in the Hyksos days would account for this. The twenty-third chapter of Genesis represents the city of Hebron as in the possession of the Hittites when Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a place of burial for his dead, and, though many scholars regard Genesis 23, which gives this account, as a late composition, its representation would receive some confirmation from archæology, if the Hyksos were Hittites.

There is a possibility that the Hittites were in southern Palestine earlier than this. Brugsch[22] thought that he found in an inscription in the Louvre, written by an officer of Amenemhet I, King of Egypt, 2000-1970 B. C., a statement that this officer had destroyed the palaces of the Hittites near the Egyptian frontier of Palestine. This reading is still defended by Prof. Sayce,[23] though other Egyptologists, such as W. Max Müller[24] and Breasted,[25] claim that the word that was thought to be Hittites is not a proper name, but a common noun meaning nomads. The text of the passage is uncertain, and no important inference can in any case be made from it.

During the period when we obtain glimpses of the history of the Hittites, they were never united in one empire. Different kingdoms flourished here and there, such as that of the Mitanni in Mesopotamia, the Hittites at Boghaz Koi, the kingdoms of Carchemish, of Hamath, and Tyana. These flourished at different times all the way from 1400 to 700 B. C., and there were doubtless other kingdoms also, for the Hittite sculptures near Smyrna and Manissia cannot have been made by any of these, unless possibly the great Hittite kingdom at Boghaz Koi may once have extended its power to the Ægean.

(3) The Mitanni.—The earliest of these kingdoms which we can trace is that of the Mitanni. When Thothmes III of Egypt extended his conquests to the Euphrates in 1468 B. C., he came into contact with the Mitanni. The king of the country is not named, but it was claimed that her chiefs hid themselves in caves.[26] There is some reason for believing that their chief city was at Haran[27] in Mesopotamia, the city where Abraham sojourned for a time (Gen. 11:31; 12:4). If this be true, it gives a new meaning to Ezek. 16:3: “The Amorite was thy father and thy mother was a Hittite.” Thothmes evidently touched the kingdom of Mitanni on its western border. He did not penetrate its heart or overcome its king. Although he took tribute, he does not tell us the name of the king of the Mitanni whose armies he fought.

Half a century later the king of the Mitanni was Artatama I. He was a contemporary of Thothmes IV of Egypt, who ruled 1420-1411 B. C. Perhaps it was their mutual fear of the rising power of the Hittite kingdom at Boghaz Koi that led Artatama and Thothmes IV to form an alliance. At all events, such an alliance was made, and Thothmes married a daughter of Artatama, though Artatama’s grandson says that the Egyptian king sent his request for her hand seven times before Artatama yielded to his solicitations. Artatama I was succeeded by Shutarna I, whose reign overlapped a part of that of Amenophis III of Egypt, 1411-1375 B. C. Among the queens of Amenophis III was a daughter of Shutarna I. Before the reign of Amenophis III had ended Shutarna I had been succeeded by Dushratta, who continued the friendly relations with Egypt. Dushratta’s reign also overlapped in part that of Amenophis IV of Egypt, 1375-1357 B. C., and Dushratta wrote several letters to both of these Egyptian kings. It is from these letters that we gain most of our information about Mitanni.

Meanwhile the great kingdom of the Hittites at Boghaz Koi had entered upon its era of expansion under Subbiluliuma, who pushed his conquests first eastward and then southward. Dushratta feared to meet the Hittite in battle and retired to the eastward, allowing much of his country to be overrun. This land Subbiluliuma gave to one of his allies, and Dushratta was murdered soon afterward by his son, Sutatarra, who usurped the crown. Soon after this the Assyrians invaded the lands of the Mitanni from the east, and the land, already distracted by its internal divisions, was thrown into a worse confusion. At this juncture Subbiluliuma crossed the Euphrates again and entered Mitannian territory. He was accompanied by settlers who brought cattle, sheep, and horses to remain in the country. Advised by an oracle, he deposed Sutatarra and placed upon the throne Mattiuaza, a son of Dushratta, who had been heir-apparent and who had fled when his father was murdered. To Mattiuaza Subbiluliuma gave his daughter in marriage, and Mitanni became a vassal state of the Hittite realm. After this our sources tell us no more of its history.

Near the Mitanni were the Harri, who were probably of the same race, for in the time of Subbiluliuma they were ruled first by Artatama II, a brother of Dushratta, and then by Sutarna II. This state also became a part of Subbiluliuma’s kingdom.

(4) Kingdom of “Hittite City.”—The wave of migration from the northeast which brought the Mitanni into upper Mesopotamia had swept on westward into Cappadocia, where the greatest Hittite state afterward developed. The monuments erected by the Hittites were nearly all of a religious character. In the earlier time they wrote few historical inscriptions. Such inscriptions as we have in Hittite hieroglyphs seem to come from the later periods and to record alliances. It is probable that in the development of the Hittite state in Cappadocia first one city and then another had the upper hand. The Hittite monuments at Eyuk are of a more primitive character than those at Boghaz Koi, and it is natural to suppose that a Hittite state flourished here before the rise of the one at Boghaz Koi. Be that as it may, the most powerful Hittite monarchy of which we know arose at Boghaz Koi, which they called “Hittite City.” This monarchy emerged about 1400 B. C. Its first king was Hattusil I, of whom we know no more than that he was the founder of the great dynasty which ruled from the “Hittite City” for two hundred years.

The king who laid the foundations of the greatness of this dynasty was Subbiluliuma, the next king, whose conquests over the Mitanni and Harri we have already traced. He conquered also a number of neighboring states, and compelled them to sign with him treaties of alliance which made them his vassals. Chronicles of these events were discovered by Winckler among the clay tablets found at Boghaz Koi. Subbiluliuma also turned his armies southward and conquered Syria down to the confines of Palestine. These conquests were in progress when some of the El-Amarna letters, written to Amenophis IV of Egypt and translated in Part II, p. 344, ff., were written. Here he pursued the same policy that he had pursued in Mesopotamia, and compelled the conquered countries to enter into treaties with him, which subjugated them to his will. Among the kings so treated was the Amorite King Aziru, who at that time ruled Amorites living in the southern part of the valley between the Lebanon mountain ranges and in the region afterward occupied by the tribe of Asher. They also held some of the southern Phœnician cities. This represents the most southerly extension of Subbiluliuma’s power.

Whether Subbiluliuma also extended his conquests to the west of Asia Minor, we have no means of knowing. Some scholars suppose that he had done so before he began the conquest of Mitanni. Certain it is that Hittite rock sculptures of gigantic size exist in the mountains near Smyrna and Manissia, to the west of Sardis. These sculptures represent the great Hittite goddess. Near Smyrna there are also the remains of great buildings. We know of no Hittite monarch who would be so likely to have carried Hittite power to these parts as Subbiluliuma. If he did so, possibly in later time the Hittites here became independent. At all events, some centuries later they were known to Ionian Greeks in this region, for Homer’s Odyssey, Book XI, line 521, records the tradition that some Hittites were killed with Eurypylos.

When Subbiluliuma died he was succeeded by his son, Arandas, whose occupation of the throne was brief, and who seems to have been without effective power. After a short time he was replaced by his brother, Mursil, who appears to have enjoyed a long reign. Subbiluliuma, called by the Egyptians Seplel, was reigning when Amenophis IV of Egypt came to the throne in 1375 B. C., for he sent an embassy to congratulate him, and Mursil appears to have reigned until after the year 1320 B. C. The two reigns, therefore, covered more than half a century. The first years of Mursil’s reign were apparently passed in peace, but soon after 1320 Shalmeneser I invaded the countries in the eastern part of the Hittite confederacy, conquering all the territory east of the Euphrates, and a considerable territory to the west of that river. Meantime, Mursil had renewed the treaty with the Amorites of Syria, whose king at this time was Abbi-Teshub, or Abi-Adda. Ere long, however, trouble arose for him on his southern border. Seti I of Egypt came to the throne in 1313 B. C., and began a series of vigorous campaigns for the conquest of Palestine. In time he came face to face with the Hittite power in Syria.

At this juncture Mursil died and was succeeded by his son, Mutallu, who soon met Seti I in battle and convinced that monarch that it was unwise to attempt to extend Egypt’s empire in Asia to the Euphrates, as Thothmes III had done. Owing to internal troubles in Assyria the eastern border of the Hittite realm was left undisturbed for a considerable time, during which Mutallu could devote himself to other matters. In 1292 B. C. Ramses II succeeded Seti I as king of Egypt and soon began vigorously to push Egyptian conquests into northern Syria. Mutallu recognized the importance of the struggle and collected a large army from all his allies. These forces were drawn from all parts of Asia Minor; even the countries of the extreme west contributed their quota. Aleppo and states in that region also contributed their share. A great battle was fought at Kadesh on the Orontes in 1287 B. C., in which Mutallu, by surprising his foe, disorganized a part of the Egyptian forces and endangered the life of Ramses himself. By the opportune arrival of reinforcements the Egyptians escaped entire defeat, so that the result was a drawn battle.

The battle had, however, cost the Hittites much. The slaughter of their forces had been enormous. Among the slain were many chieftains, including the king of Aleppo. The Amorites at once threw off their allegiance to the Hittites, and many of the other troops mutinied. Mutallu was assassinated. He was succeeded by Hattusil II, the Khetasar of the Egyptian inscriptions.

Assyria had become weak, so that Hattusil was no longer pressed upon his eastern border. After a little he reduced the Amorites once more to submission, and compelled them to take back their king, Put-akhi, whom they had driven out at the time of their rebellion against Mutallu. He gave Put-akhi a Hittite princess for a wife. Later, about 1271 B. C., Hattusil concluded an offensive and defensive alliance with Ramses II of Egypt. The treaty which guaranteed this alliance has come down to us, and is the first international treaty the details of which are known to us. (See Chapter I, p. 30.)

Hattusil II must have enjoyed a long reign, but we do not know the date of his death. He had two successors, Dudkhalia and Arnuanta, whose reigns are known to us, and who continued the sway of the dynasty down to about 1200 B. C. They were respectively the son and grandson of Hattusil II. An edict of Dudkhalia concerning the vassal states has survived, in which the name of Eni-Teshub, King of Carchemish, appears. Carchemish would seem to have been the chief of the allied states. Of Arnuanta we have no details, though two fragments of royal edicts and a seal of his have come down to us. He was called “the great king, the son of Dudkhalia.” After him our sources fail, and the story ends in darkness. We know, however, that the days of the power of this dynasty were over. Egyptian sources tell us that tribes from western Asia Minor and from beyond the sea swept over Cilicia and northern Syria soon after the year 1200 B. C., and there was then no Hittite power there to restrain them.

(5) Carchemish.—Of the other Hittite kingdoms far less is known. Carchemish, which, as we have just seen, played an important part in the federation of the great Hittite power, continued its existence for several centuries. In the time of Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmeneser III the kingdom of Carchemish entered into alliance with these kings and preserved its existence by becoming their vassal. Judging from the meager reports hitherto published of the British excavation at Carchemish, this was a flourishing period in the history of the city. A hundred years later, in the reign of Sargon, Pisiris, who was then king of Carchemish, defied the Assyrian, who brought the kingdom to an end in 717 B. C. (Cf. Isa. 10:9.)

(6) Samal and Yadi.—When the Aramæans swept westward about 1300 B. C. they apparently dislodged the Hittites from a number of their sites and occupied their country. Among the places so occupied was the site of Sendjirli mentioned above. All the carvings found among its architectural remains reveal the influence of Hittite art, but the inscriptions found there are in Aramaic. These inscriptions show that there were in that region two petty kingdoms named, respectively, Samal and Yadi. The names of several kings of these monarchies who ruled between 850 and 730 B. C. have been recovered. They are all Aramæan.

(7) Hamath.—Farther to the south, at Hamath on the Orontes, a Hittite kingdom existed in the time of David. Its king was then called Toi or Tou, who made an alliance with David (2 Sam. 8:9, f; 1 Chron. 18:9, f.). This kingdom was probably the outgrowth of the earlier occupation of the Orontes valley, three hundred years before, by the Hittites of the great empire. It continued until the time of Ahab. Its king was then Irhulina, who along with Ahab, Ben-Hadad of Damascus, and several other kings made an alliance to resist the encroachments of Shalmaneser III of Assyria in 854 B. C. (See Part II, p. 360, ff.) Irhulina caused several inscriptions to be made on stone, which survived at Hamath until our time. According to Mr. Thompson’s interpretation of them they are all records of his various alliances. By the next century, however, the Aramæans had captured Hamath, for in the reigns of Tiglath-pileser IV (745-727) and of Sargon (722-705 B. C.) the names of its kings were Semitic. These names were, respectively, Enu-ilu and Yau-bidi, or Ilu-bidi.

We gain glimpses also of a number of other Hittite states. There was, for example, the state of Kummukh, which lay to the west of the Euphrates, and another in western Cilicia, that had its center at Tyana, the modern Bor. These states appear to have reached their zenith after the fall of the great Hittite dynasty which had its capital at Boghaz Koi. Doubtless as time goes on we shall learn of the existence of many other small Hittite kingdoms which flourished at one time or another. At some time, either when the Hyksos were making their way into Egypt or when Subbiluliuma was pushing southward into Syria, the Hittites mentioned in the Old Testament must have made some small settlements in Palestine. Here the Hebrews came into contact with them. They were really an unimportant outlying fringe of the great Hittite people, but they had the good fortune to have their names preserved in the most immortal literature in the world, the Bible, and so their memory was ever kept alive, while that of their more illustrious kinsmen was utterly forgotten. It is only archæological research that has restored something of the original perspective.

CHAPTER IV

Rainfall.—This land, with all its variety of form, is redeemed from the desert by the moisture which the west winds drive in from the Mediterranean Sea. These winds in the winter months bring clouds, which, when they come into contact with the colder air over the elevated hills, deposit their moisture in rain. The Jordan valley is so warm that little rain falls upon it, but it drains the water from the rainfall on both sides of it. Just so far back as the clouds reach before their moisture is exhausted, just so far the fertile land extends; beyond that is the Arabian Desert. When the rainfall during a winter is good, bountiful crops are raised the following season; when it is scant, the harvest fails and famine follows. In Egypt and Babylonia a man could water his garden by kicking a hole in a dyke; they were lands which were watered “with thy foot” (Deut. 11:10); Palestine was dependent on heaven for its life, and we cannot doubt that this fact was one of the instruments for the training of the Israelites for their great religious mission. In a land of such variety—a land in which for nine months in the year snow-capped Hermon may be seen from many an elevated point and from the whole stretch of the tropical Jordan valley, where oleanders are blooming and mustard seeds are growing into trees—it was possible to think of God in a way that was at least more difficult in Egypt or in Mesopotamia.

Here in this marvelous land, which formed a bridge between the two oldest civilizations of the world, the men lived to whom God committed the task of writing most of the Bible. This was the earthly home of the Son of God.

Even before the Hebrews came into it, many had crossed this bridge and some had paused long upon it. Living here they had left the remains of their homes, their cities, and their civilizations. Archæology is now recovering these. After the time of Christ various races and civilizations continued to pass over the bridge. Their remains buried those left by earlier men. The story of the recovery of these earlier remains is, accordingly, not only of great interest, but often of great value to the reader of the Bible.

2. Early Exploration.—The misfortunes which overtook Judæa in the years 70 and 132-135 A. D., in consequence of the Jewish rebellions against Rome, led to the paganizing of Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews from Judæa. At this period Christianity was a struggling and a persecuted religion, too busy working its way to take an active interest in the land of its birth. When Constantine early in the fourth century made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire, all this was changed. Both Constantine and his mother, Helena, took the deepest interest in identifying the holy places in Jerusalem, and a stream of pilgrims began at once to visit the land. The earliest of these to leave us an account of his travels was a pilgrim from Bordeaux who visited Palestine in 333 A. D. As he was anxious to see the principal places hallowed by the bodily presence of Christ and the heroes of Scripture, he visited places in different parts of the country. He was followed by many others. The stream has been almost continuous down to the present time. As the aim of these travelers was devotional and they possessed little scholarly training or critical faculty, their works are of secondary value to the modern student. They did, however, prevent that loss of knowledge of the country to which Babylonia was subjected for so many centuries.

Place Names.—At the very beginning of this period Eusebius of Cæsarea, a contemporary of Constantine, compiled a list of the place names of Palestine which are mentioned in the Bible. The names were arranged in alphabetical order, the events for which the places are celebrated were given, in many instances identifications with places existing in the fourth century were proposed, and the distances from other well-known places mentioned. In the next century this work was translated into Latin by Jerome, who lived many years at Bethlehem and traveled extensively in Palestine, and who died in 420 A. D. It is called the Onomasticon.

3. Early American Explorations.—As the reader approaches modern times he finds the works of some of the pilgrims assuming a more scientific character. To some extent, too, these works were supplemented by those of travelers like Châteaubriand,[28] Burckhardt,[29] and Lamartine.[30]

(1) Robinson and Smith.—The scientific study of the localities and antiquities of Palestine was, however, begun by an American, the late Prof. Edward Robinson, of Union Seminary, New York. Robinson was fully equipped with Biblical knowledge, and was thoroughly familiar with Josephus and other works bearing on his subject. He possessed the critical faculty in a high degree, and combined with it a keen constructive faculty. In 1838 and again in 1852 he traveled through Palestine with Eli Smith, a missionary. They were equipped with compass, telescope, thermometer, and measuring tape. His knowledge of history enabled Robinson to look beneath many traditions. With keen penetration he discerned under the guise of many a modern Arabic name the form of a Biblical original, and accomplished more for the scientific study of Biblical Palestine than any of his predecessors. As he traveled he also noted and briefly described such remains of antiquity as could be seen above ground. The results of Robinson’s first journey were embodied in his Biblical Researches, New York, 1841. In the second edition, London, 1856, the results of the second journey were embodied, and the number of volumes increased to three. The impetus given to the exploration of Palestine by the labors of Robinson was continued by Tobler, Guérin, Renan, and many others.[31]

(2) Lynch.—Meantime, another American, Lieut. W. F. Lynch, of the United States Navy, rendered an important service by the exploration in 1848 of the Dead Sea. In April and May of that year about three weeks were spent in exploring that body of water. Lieut. Lynch was accompanied by Dr. Anderson, a geologist. The party traversed the sea back and forth in two metal boats that had been launched on the Sea of Galilee and floated down the Jordan. The fact that the Jordan valley is lower than the level of the sea had never been recognized until 1837, and, until the visit of Lynch and Anderson, the depth of the depression was only a matter of conjecture. By this expedition it was scientifically determined that the surface of the Dead Sea is 1,300 feet lower than that of the Mediterranean.[32]

(3) American Exploration Societies.—The work of American exploration was later continued by the American Exploration Society, founded in 1870. Under its auspices, Rev. John A. Paine, of Tarrytown, New York, visited the Holy Land. One of the results of his visit was the identification of Pisgah.[33]

Later an American Palestine Exploration Society was organized. This Society employed Mr. Rudolph Meyer, an engineer, to make a map of Palestine, and from 1875 to 1877 also employed Rev. Selah Merrill, who afterward was for many years the U. S. Consul at Jerusalem, as explorer. Dr. Merrill gathered much archæological information, especially in the country east of the Jordan.[34]

4. Palestine Exploration Fund.—As a result of the interest engendered by the work of Robinson, Lynch, and others, the Palestine Exploration Fund was organized in London in 1865. By this act a permanent body was created to foster continuously the exploration of the Holy Land, and to rescue the work from the fitful activities of individual enterprise. Such enterprise could supplement the work of the Fund, but could no longer hope to compete with it.

Within six months from the organization of the Palestine Exploration Fund its first expedition was sent out. This was led by Capt., now Gen. Sir Charles Warren, who had just completed a survey of Jerusalem as part of a plan for bringing water into the city. The chief object of this expedition, which was in the field from December, 1865, to May, 1866, was to indicate spots for future excavation. It made a series of sketch maps of the country on the scale of one inch to the mile, studied some synagogues in Galilee noted by Robinson, but not fully described by him, and laid bare on Mount Gerizim the remains of a church built on a rough platform which may once have supported the Samaritan temple.

(1) Warren’s Excavations at Jerusalem.—A second expedition under Lieut.-Col., now Sir Charles Warren, made considerable excavations on the temple-hill at Jerusalem. He sank a remarkable series of shafts to the bottom of the walls enclosing the temple area, and proved that in places these walls rest on foundations from 80 to 125 feet below the present surface. He laid bare solid masonry, which bore what are apparently Phœnician quarry-marks and which he believed to go back to the time of Solomon. On the west side of the temple enclosure he found 80 feet below the present surface the ruins of a bridge, which Robinson had conjectured crossed the Tyropœon Valley from the temple enclosure at this point from an arch, the base of which is still visible outside of the temple wall.[35] Among many other discoveries made by Warren were a part of the ancient city wall south of the temple area and an underground passage leading up from the ancient spring of Gihon, which was probably the “gutter” (R. V., “watercourse”) of 2 Sam. 5:8.

(2) The Survey of Palestine.—After this the Palestine Exploration Fund undertook a survey of Palestine, the object of which was to make a complete and authoritative map of the country on the scale of one inch to a mile, and also a description of all archæological remains of antiquity which were above ground. The work was undertaken in 1871 and the survey of western Palestine was completed in 1878. Owing to an outbreak of cholera, the work was interrupted from 1874 to 1877. Among those who took part in it were Capt. C. R. Conder (now Lieut.-Col.), who was in charge of the work from 1872 to 1874, and Capt. Kitchener (now Lord Kitchener). The great map was published in 1880, and covers an area of 6,000 square miles, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan and from the Egyptian desert to a point near Tyre. The completion of this map was a monumental accomplishment, and must form the basis for all similar work. The archæological remains noted on the map are described in three volumes of Memoirs, also published by the Exploration Fund.

In 1881 Capt. Conder was sent out to make a similar survey of the country east of the Jordan. He endeavored to work under the old permit from the Turkish government, but to this the Turks objected. After working for ten weeks, during which he surveyed about 500 square miles of territory, he was compelled to desist. The results of his work, however, fill a stout volume entitled The Survey of Eastern Palestine, London, 1889. The work undertaken by Conder has since been carried on by other agencies. Dr. Gottlieb Schumacher, an engineer residing at Haifa, who was employed in surveying the railway to Mecca, has published authoritative volumes on the region to the east of the Sea of Galilee.[36] On a larger scale is the work of Brünnow and Domaszewsky on the Roman province of Arabia,[37] a work which includes ancient Edom as far as Petra. The last-mentioned remarkable city has been described also in two excellent volumes by Gustaf H. Dalman, Director of the German Evangelical Institute in Jerusalem.[38]

In 1873-1874 the Palestine Exploration Fund entrusted an archæological mission of a general nature to the French scholar, Clermont-Ganneau, who several years before had been French Consul at Jerusalem. Clermont-Ganneau was embarrassed by the failure of the Turkish government to grant him a firman, but made numerous archæological discoveries in the country between Jaffa and Jerusalem. These were published by the Fund in two large volumes,[39] although they did not appear until 1896 and 1899, respectively.

In the winter of 1883-1884, a complete geological survey was made of the valley of the Dead Sea and the region to the south (Wady el-Arabah) by Prof. Edward Hull, who afterward published a volume on the subject.[40] Hull was accompanied by Major Kitchener, who made a complete triangulation of the district lying between Mount Sinai and the Wady el-Arabah.

(3) Exploration of Lachish.—In 1890 the Exploration Fund entered upon a new phase of work or, rather, resumed one that had been interrupted for twenty years,—that of excavation. The services of Prof. Petrie, the Egyptian explorer, were secured and the attempt to wrest from the soil of Palestine some of the buried secrets of the past was renewed. The site chosen was Tell el-Hesy, where stood in ancient times the city of Lachish (Josh. 10:3; 2 Kings 14:19; 18:14, etc.). This mound rose about 120 feet above the bed of an intermittent stream. About 60 feet of this height consisted of accumulated débris of the ancient city. The water in the course of centuries had so exposed some of the potsherds that Petrie was confident before he began digging that rich discoveries awaited him. He worked here only about six weeks, running trenches into different parts of the mound, but he found and classified such a variety of pottery that he felt confident that he had unearthed a city which had been occupied from a time anterior to the Hebrew conquest of Canaan down to about 350 B. C.[41]

In 1892 the work was continued under the direction of Dr. Frederick J. Bliss, who cut away a considerable section from the northeast corner of the mound, and found the stratified remains of eight different cities, one above the other.[42] In the third of these cities from the bottom a cuneiform tablet was found, which mentions one of the men who figure in the letters found at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt. This tablet would indicate that this third city was flourishing during the period 1400-1350 B. C. The two cities below this must, accordingly, belong to an earlier period. Bliss supposed that the first city was built about 1700 B. C. Above the remains of the third city was a bed of ashes of some thickness, which shows, in Petrie’s opinion, that after the destruction of this city the mound was used for a period of perhaps fifty years as a place for burning alkali. Near the top of the débris of the fourth city a glazed seal was found similar to those made in Egypt in the time of the twenty-second dynasty (945-745 B. C.). This city, then, belonged to the early part of the kingdom of Judah. In the seventh and eighth cities pottery of polished red and black types was found. This class of pottery is of Greek origin, dating from 550-350 B. C. These occupations of the mound must, then, be of that period. The fifth and sixth cities would, accordingly, fall between 750 and 550 B. C. This excavation thus shows how the stratification of the mounds of Palestine reveals the march of the peoples across the country; (see Fig. 28).

(4) Bliss’s Excavation at Jerusalem.—From 1894 to 1897 Dr. Bliss was engaged in excavations at Jerusalem.[43] Here he devoted his attention to an endeavor to recover the line of the ancient wall on the south side of the city. This he did, following it from “Maudsley’s Scarp”[44] at the northwest corner of the westernmost of the two hills on which Jerusalem is situated across the slope to the eastward and then across the Tyropœon Valley. This was the wall rebuilt by Nehemiah on lines then already old (Neh. 3-6). It was destroyed by Titus in the year 70 A. D., and afterward rebuilt by the Empress Eudoxia in the fifth century A. D.

(5) Excavation at Azekah.—From 1898 to 1900 Dr. Bliss excavated for the Fund at several sites in the Biblical Shephelah,[45] the low hills which formed the border-land between ancient Judæa and Philistia. The work began at Tell Zakariya, the Biblical Azekah, situated above the lower part of the Vale of Elah. Azekah was fortified by King Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:5-10). Here an important citadel or fortress was uncovered. While the masonry of the top part was similar to that of Herodian buildings at Jerusalem, the pottery found about the foundations indicated that the beginnings of the structure go back to early Israelitish times. It may well be one of Jeroboam’s fortresses. Underneath it were remains from late pre-Israelitish times. It appears that the hill was occupied as the site of a city only shortly before the Hebrew conquest. The fortress was not, however, built at the time of this earliest occupation.

(6) At Tell es-Safi (Gath?).—Next the excavation was transferred to Tell es-Safi, which was situated on the south side of the ancient Vale of Elah at the point where it sweeps into the Philistine plain, and which was thought to be the site of the Biblical Gath (Josh. 11:22; 1 Sam. 5:8; 17:4; 2 Kings 12:17). Here in 1144 A. D. the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem established by the Crusaders built a fortress, which they called Blanche-Garde, as an outpost against Ashkelon. It was hoped that the excavation of Dr. Bliss would determine whether or not this was really the site of Gath, but owing to the occupation of the tell by a Mohammedan cemetery and a wely, or sacred building, this was not possible. The outline of the city walls was, however, traced, the foundations of Blanche-Garde examined, and here and there trenches were sunk to the rock. These trenches revealed in the various strata pottery and objects, first, of the period of the Crusaders; secondly, of the Seleucid period (312-65 B. C.); thirdly, of the Jewish period, 700-350 B. C., and two pre-Israelite strata. The mound had, then, been occupied from about 1700 B. C. to the Seleucid times, and again in the period of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

The most interesting discovery at Tell es-Safi was that of an old pre-Israelitish high place, which contained three pillars such as are denounced in Deuteronomy. (See Deut. 7:5; 12:3, etc.) At the time of this discovery no similar discovery had been made. The foundations of this high place were near the bottom of the last pre-Israelite stratum, so that it was clearly constructed by the Amorites, or Canaanites, or whoever occupied this city before the Hebrews arrived.

(7) Tell el-Judeideh.—The excavations next moved to Tell el-Judeideh, a mound some distance to the south of Tell Zakariya. Here they traced the outlines of the city wall, found the remains of a Roman villa, and sunk a number of shafts to the rock. From the pottery found in these shafts they inferred that the mound had been occupied in the earliest period, but deserted for a considerable time before the Hebrew conquest. It was then reoccupied in the latter part of the Judæan monarchy, and was finally fortified in the Seleucid or Roman period. It seems to have been deserted soon after the Roman period. It is not known what was the ancient name of the city that stood there.

(8) At Marash (Moresheth-Gath).—The last mound excavated in this region was Tell Sandahanna, situated a mile to the south of Beit Jibrin. The mound takes its name from a church of St. Anne, the ruins of which may still be seen near by. It occupies the site of the city of Marissa of the Seleucid period, and of the older Jewish Marash. It is probably the site of Moresheth-Gath, the home of the prophet Micah. (See Micah 1:14.) Here considerable portions of the Seleucid stratum of the mound were excavated, and a smaller portion of the Jewish stratum. The Jewish stratum rested directly on the rock; the site seems, therefore, not to have been inhabited in pre-Israelite times.

(9) Gezer.—The next undertaking of the Palestine Exploration Fund was the excavation of Gezer. This work was entrusted to the direction of R. A. Stewart Macalister, who had been Dr. Bliss’s assistant from 1898 to 1900 and who is now Professor of Celtic in the University of Dublin. Work was begun on Tell el-Jazar, about six miles southeast of the town of Ramleh, which Clermont Ganneau[46] had, in June, 1902, identified as the site of Gezer. (Josh. 10:33; Judges 1:27; 2 Sam. 5:25.) It continued, with such interruptions as winter weather and an outbreak of cholera made necessary, until August, 1905. It was renewed in the spring of 1907 and carried on until early in 1909. During this time more than half of the mound was excavated. No other mound in Palestine has been so fully explored. Naturally, therefore, Gezer has furnished us with more archæological information than any other excavation; (see Fig. 30).

The results of this excavation convinced Mr. Macalister that the classification of the strata adopted by the excavators of Lachish and the mounds of the Shephelah was capable of improvement. He found that Gezer had been occupied at first by a non-Semitic people, remains of whose bones indicate that they were about 5 feet 6 inches high, who lived in caves, and whose implements were wholly of stone. He estimated that these people probably occupied the site from about 3000 to 2500 B. C. About 2500 B. C. a Semitic race, probably Amorite, took possession of the city and occupied it to the end of the Hebrew monarchy.

Four periods could be traced in the Semitic occupation, each represented by differences in walls, implements, and objects used. The first Semitic period ended with the fall of the twelfth Egyptian dynasty, about 1800 B. C. In this stratum scarabs of the period of the Egyptian “middle kingdom” were found. The second Semitic stratum continued until about the end of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, about 1350 B. C. The third Semitic stratum lasted till the establishment of the Hebrew monarchy, about 1000 B. C.; the fourth was contemporaneous with the Hebrew kingdoms, 1000-586 B. C. The mound was again occupied in the Hellenistic or Maccabæan period.[47] After the Maccabæan turmoils the inhabitants seem to have deserted the tell. Under the modern village of Abu Shusheh, on the southwest slope of the mound, a Roman mosaic has been found, but nothing from Roman times was discovered on the mound itself. There were likewise no remains from the period of the Crusaders.

In the course of this excavation many important discoveries were made. Many of these will be mentioned in subsequent chapters. We need only mention here an old Semitic high place, which had its beginnings in the first Semitic stratum before 1800 B. C., and was used down to the end of the fourth Semitic or Hebrew stratum, about 600 B. C. It began with two “pillars,” but others were added as time passed until there were ten in all.[48] In the third Semitic stratum (i. e., the one preceding the Hebrew occupation) a building was found which Mr. Macalister thought might have been a temple. In the middle of its largest hall were some stones which looked as though they might have supported wooden pillars, which, in turn, probably supported the roof. Mr. Macalister thought this was a structure similar to that which Samson pulled down at Gaza[49] (Judges 16:23-30).

One of the most important discoveries was a rock-cut tunnel leading down through the heart of the rock to a spring in a cave 94 feet below the surface of the rock and 120 feet below the level of the present surface of the ground.[50] This was to enable the people of the city to obtain water in time of siege. It was used for some 500 years and was apparently closed up about 1300-1200 B. C. Its beginnings go back accordingly to the first Semitic period. A palace of the Maccabæan time, apparently built by Simon the Maccabee, 143-135 B. C., was also discovered.[51] (Cf. 1 Macc. 14:34.)

Various walls were discovered, which at different times encircled the city. The most massive of these was apparently constructed during the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, and continued to be the city wall down to the Babylonian Exile. At some time after its construction towers had been inserted in the wall. These towers were shown to be a later insertion by the fact that their stones touched the stones of the wall on each side, but were not interlocked with them. Mr. Macalister thinks that these towers may have been inserted by Solomon when he fortified the city (1 Kings 9:15-19). At some later time the weakness of such a tower had become apparent, and a bastion had been built around it.[52] The excavation at Gezer was fruitful in many directions. Other aspects of it will be taken up in future chapters in connection with other topics.

(10) Beth-shemesh.—The next task undertaken by the Palestine Exploration Fund was the exploration of Ain Shems, the Biblical Beth-shemesh. (See Josh. 15:10; 2 Kings 14:8-14, etc.) Ain Shems, like Gezer, is situated in what was in Biblical times the Shephelah. It is near the station of Der Aban on the railway from Jaffa to Jerusalem. Excavations were carried on at this point in 1911 and 1912 under the direction of Dr. Duncan Mackenzie, who had had ten years’ experience on the staff of Sir Arthur Evans, the explorer of Crete. At the bottom of the mound the remains of a very early settlement were discovered.[53] Above this the ruins of a once prosperous city, which was for that time large, were found. It was surrounded by strong walls and one of its rugged gates was discovered on the south. In the upper strata of this city imitations of Cretan pottery were found. As it is probable that the Philistines came from Crete, or were intimately associated with people who were under Cretan influence, this pottery is doubtless Philistine. The city which was encircled by this wall had passed through two periods of history. The original wall was built before the domination of Palestine by Egypt. As this domination began about 1500 B. C., the earlier fortress of Beth-shemesh belongs to that period. The second period belongs in its earlier strata to the age of the El-Amarna letters, in which the city is called Beth-Ninib. The upper period of it belongs, as has been noted, to the Philistine period.

This city was destroyed by a siege which resulted in the burning of the city—a burning which left quite a bed of ashes. Dr. Mackenzie thought that this was the siege by which the Israelites gained possession of Beth-shemesh. The city was occupied by the Hebrews apparently until the invasion of Palestine by Sennacherib, King of Assyria, in 701 B. C. At all events, it was in the possession of Judah in the days of King Amaziah (2 Kings 14:8-14). Corresponding to this, Israelitish pottery was found in the stratum above the ashes. Dr. Mackenzie is of the opinion that during this Hebrew period the city was without a wall. Apparently after the time of Sennacherib the site was abandoned for several centuries, for next above the Israelitish stratum the remains of a monastery of the Byzantine period (325-636 A. D.) were found. This monastery apparently was not begun until just at the close of the Byzantine period, for it appears that it was not finished at the time of the Mohammedan conquest.

(11) Exploring the Wilderness of Zin.—The most recent service of the Palestine Exploration Fund was the sending of two explorers, C. Leonard Woolley and T. E. Lawrence, in the winter of 1913-14, to explore the wilderness to the south of Palestine. The results of their work have been published in the Fund’s Annual, Vol. III, under the title The Wilderness of Zin. The explorers identified a considerable part of the “Darb es-Shur,” or the “way of Shur” (Gen. 16:7, etc.). It was the caravan road from Palestine to Egypt. They also adduce strong evidence against the identification of Ain Kades with Kadesh-Barnea (Num. 32:8, etc.), and think that Kossima, which lies nearer to the Egyptian road and is surrounded by much more verdure, may have been Kadesh-Barnea. The identification of Ain Kades with Kadesh-Barnea was made by the late Dr. Henry Clay Trumbull, after a very brief visit to the spot, and it has been accepted by many others.