86 BOOK REVIEWS BASOR 362

a reconstruction of a "Battering ram" without wheels. Defin-ing terms beforehand would have obviated such confusion.

When reviewing a book, I first look for a statement by theauthor in the preface or introduction about what his or hergoals are. Who is the intended audience: professionals, stu-dents, lay readers? What is the intended scope of the work:brief scholarly survey, extensive and in-depth treatment ofa broad subject, or narrowly focused analysis? It is only fairto judge an author based on what he or she set out to do, noton the reviewer's beliefs about what the author should havedone. But Eph'al's introductory material does not providesuch a statement. Beyond the general topic of siege warfare,the reader is given only the general chronological limits ofthe study—that is, the period prior to the arrival of Alexan-der the Great. There is not even an indication of the earliestintended limit of the study (e.g., did prehistoric sieges hap-pen?). Other than serving as a platform to discuss a variety oftopics related to siege warfare, it is unclear what the specificgoals of the work might be. Similarly, the volume has nosummary or conclusion to tie together all the diverse mate-rial into some kind of synthesis. It simply ends. It is perhapsno wonder that three of the five chapters contain "Aspects"in their title, reflecting something of the ad hoc nature of thepresentation. It also would have been helpful if the authorhad specified why certain topics were left out of this analy-sis. Some examples are mentioned above. Another exampleof a curious omission is that, while various techniques ofbreaking through fortifications are discussed at some length,little is actually said about the nature of fortifications in theancient Near East, a topic about which archaeology and ar-tistic representation have provided much data. For the abovereasons, it is difficult to ascertain whether the author wassuccessful in what he set out to accomplish. If he intendedto canvas the complete subject of siege warfare in the an-cient Near East, then he was not successful. If his intent wasmerely to present a series of limited, but related, essays tiedto this general subject, then he was much more successful.

Despite the above caveats, the volume is a gold mine ofinformation and well worth the read, especially on some top-ics not covered by Yadin's seminal, but now dated, work, orby other more general works on siege warfare in the ancientworld, which primarily focus on the achievements of theHellenistic and Roman periods. The topics that Eph'al doesdiscuss are nicely supported by material from all three of thesources he employs. After reading Eph^al's book, it is quiteclear that, except for torsion-powered artillery, the Assyrianswere every bit as proficient at sieges as their more famousclassical successors. A volume covering the topic in depthacross the ancient Near East and eastern Mediterranean ismuch to be desired.

Jeffrey R. ZornCornell Universityjrz3@cornell.edu

REFERENCES

Ackermann, O.; Bruins, H.; and Maeir, A.2005 A Unique Human-Made Trench at Tell es-Sâfi/

Gath, Israel; Anthropogenic Impact and Land-scape Response. Geoarchaeology 20: 303-27.

Kern, P. B.1999 Ancient Siege Warfare. Bloomington: Indiana

University.Oredsson, D.

2000 Moats in Ancient Palestine. Coniectanea Biblica,Old Testament Series 48. Stockholm: Almqvist& Wiksell.

Yadin, Y1963 The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light

of Archaeological Study. Trans. M. Pearlman,from Hebrew. 2 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Resheph: A Syro-Canaanite Deity, by EdwardLipiñski. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 181; Stu-dia Phoenicia XIX. Leuven: Peeters Publishers,2009. 297 pp., 9 figures, 1 color photograph. Cloth.€75.00.

This volume is the latest in a long line of detailed schol-arly volumes by Lipiñski. According to the foreword,Lipiñski began collecting material on Resheph 30 years ago.The discovery of new tablets at Ebia and Emar, as well asother developments, delayed this work.

Chapter I addresses Resheph in the Ebla archives, whichshow that he is a very old deity. According to Lipiñski, thegod's name "must . . . be a derivative of the same Semiticroot as the Akkadian divine epithet rasbu, 'redoubtable','awesome', 'fearsome'" (p. 23). Lipiñski rejects any pu-tative etymological connection with "fire" or "plague." Inview of the varied proposals (see Xella 1999: 701), a cir-cumspect approach is perhaps advisable. A bilingual lexicaltext from Ebla identifies Resheph with Nergal, a war god.Lipiñski sees no evidence for the latter's chthonic attributesin the texts from Ebla and thus views such attributes as sec-ondary at this point. Lipiñski in turn cautions against attrib-uting the same features to Resheph (cf. Fulco 1976; Xella1999: 701). The argument is essentially one from silence inthe Ebla texts. The Ebla texts also identify the god accord-ing to places, most commonly Resheph of Adanl (over 85times), Resheph of Gunnu (about 50 times), and Reshephof Tunip (about 25 times). The first is a place not far fromEbla; the second is "Resheph of the enclosure," a sort ofexpression also known in the Ugaritic texts (and not Reshephplus a theophoric element, nor "Resheph of the garden," asentertained by others); and the third might be Tell Asharne.Befitting his nature as a war god, these forms of Reshephreceive weapons as offerings.

2011 BOOK REVIEWS 87

Chapter 2 addresses the Ebla texts' association ofResheph with Adamma, a "mother-goddess" (p. 55), "re-lated to fertility and fertile soil" (p. 51). In view of this claim,it might not seem persuasive that her name is related (p. 70)not to the similar-looking words for "earth, ground" (e.g., BH'ädämäh), but to "blood" (e.g., BH dam). That Resheph isAdamma's consort is indicated, according to Lipinski, morethan a thousand years later in the Leiden Magical Papyrus(pp. 63, 68-69,217). It is to be noted that the Egyptian spell-ing of the name, not given by Lipinski, is itwm (see Fulco1976: 12). The difference of spellings should be addressed.

Chapter 3 turns to Resheph in the Middle and Late BronzeAge. The god is known from Akkadian names at Mad,Tuttul, and elsewhere. This god may also lie behind somespellings of the name of Nergal. Ugarit offers substantialevidence for the god. In the Ugaritic texts, Resheph is associ-ated with various places: Resheph of Mulukku and Reshephgn (both also in the Ebla texts), Resheph of Muhban, andResheph of Bibit. The god also bears the title "Resheph ofthe Army," an appellation with several parallels with otherdeities, including Yahweh. The latter components of thenames Resheph Idrap and Resheph Hgb (thought by Lipinskito mean "the Gatekeeper") are considered theonyms, as at-tested in PNs. Resheph also bears the title commonly takento mean "Lord of the Arrow" (though other possibilities arenoted on pp. 104-8; see also p. 230 for the putative Phoe-nician evidence for this title). Lipinski also addresses thesolar eclipse text, KTU 1.78, which had long been takento include a reference to Resheph as "her (Shapshu's) gate-keeper." However, Lipinski (p. 110) objects to this view ofthe text, since it would not provide a direct object for thepreceding verb "she entered." Lipinski would prefer thetranslation "the Sun-goddess entered her gate." The verb "toenter" {*'rb) is commonly associated with the sun for sunsetelsewhere (KTU 1.15 V 18, 1.46.9, 1.87.52,1.132.27), andadirect object does not appear particularly critical (the uses inKTU 4.634 also look intransitive, but the context is unclear).Lipiñski's translation also issues in an unusual compoundsubject of DN plus a common plural noun: "Resheph, andthe diviners will challenge the governor" (rsp w.bdm tbqrnskn). For the reference to Resheph at the opening of Kirta,Lipinski offers a fine parallel in EA 35: 13-14, 35-39. Inthese texts, Resheph deals in plague or pestilence. The chap-ter then surveys the clearer Emar and Ekalte evidence, whichis restricted to PNs. The Emar texts, as well as a cylinder sealinscription from Tell Ta'annak, contain spellings of the nameof Nergal that might harbor the name of Resheph. Missingfrom the discussion is Emile Puech's suggestion that thename of the god is to be reconstructed in the Lachish ewer(Puech 1986: 18).

Chapter 4 builds on—and offers a series of correctivesto—I. Cornelius's study of Resheph's iconography. A gooddeal of the iconography comes from Ugarit, and it mighthave been combined with the textual evidence surveyed inthe preceding chapter. The criterion of the shield invoked by

Cornelius as a characteristic distinguishing Resheph fromother warrior gods (such as Baal) is judged by Lipiftski tobe unconvincing. Despite some uncertain cases, the iconog-raphy of the "smiting god," according to Lipinski, can besafely attributed to Resheph, thanks to the Egyptian steleswith this figure depicted along with inscriptions containinghis name.

Chapter 5 turns to second-millennium Egyptian evi-dence. West Semites with Resheph as the theophoric ele-ment in their names begin to be attested in the 18th century.In the reign of Amenhotep II (1425-1400 B.C.), Reshephwas considered the counterpart to Egyptian Montu. Lipinski(pp. 170-71 ) also notes the pairing of Resheph with Astartein one of Amenhotep's inscriptions and on a private vo-tive stele from Tell el-Borg. This pairing of warlike deitieswith horses seems also to underlie their juxtaposition inKTU 4.790.16-17, as well as their general pairing in KTU1.91.10-11 and 4.219.2-3, a point overlooked in the dis-cussion of the Ugaritic evidence. The survey of evidenceshows Resheph as a beneficial, military god and "lord of thesky," but he is not associated with fertility, the sun, or theunderworld.

Chapter 6 examines the god in first-millennium Syria-Palestine. The name appears in the Panamuwa inscription(KAI 214:3) followed several lines later by 'rqrsp (KAI 214:11). The latter is viewed as a compound DN consisting ofRuda and Resheph, which for Lipifiski implies the identifi-cation of the two gods (p. 226); both were divine warriors.Resheph of sprm in the Phoenician Karatepe inscriptionsis debated; Lipifiski concludes that the latter element is a"micro-toponym, probably Semitic" (p. 229). Resheph onCyprus was identified with Apollo—not the Greek Apollo,hut the great god worshipped on Cyprus since prehistorictimes (p. 231), as suggested by the "smiting god" iconog-raphy of this figure. Resheph is absent from western Phoe-nician and Punic sources; inscriptions thought to reflectResheph are read differently (pp. 236-39). In contrast, bib-lical texts reflect the background of the god, as do "smitinggod" figurines found in Canaan and the biblical place-nameResheph ( 1 Chr 7:25), to be identified with Hellenistic Apol-lonia and the Arab village of 'Arsuf (pp. 239-48). In view ofits location near Tel Qasile, Yadin (1985: 270) viewed thiscoastal site as evidence for the survival of Resheph amongthe Philistines. The reading of the name of the god in one ofthe Ekron inscriptions has been entertained (Hadley 2000:183), unmentioned by Lipifiski.

Chapter 7 deals with first-millennium Egyptian sourcesand Jewish Greek sources. Representations in the LXX are"probably influenced by Resheph's assimilation to hawk-likedeities" (p. 263). This idea spread then to other Jewish texts.

The one page of Conclusions offers a general profile ofResheph as a military god. In the Late Bronze Age, he isalso a god who can inflict disease and plague. This aspectof the god's profile is considered due to the introduction ofthe bow and arrows in his weaponry, "assuming of course

BOOK REVIEWS BASOR 362

that poisoned arrows were then used" (p. 263; defended byappeal to poisoned arrows outside of the ancient Near East,on p. 243). These "darker features" of the god are not at-tributed to sin on the part of the god's devotees; accordingto Lipiftski, the texts do not indicate how these features areto be reconciled with his role as protective deity. However,several deities show a complex profile that combines ben-efieial and destructive features. When it comes to a militarydeity, the force that protects against enemies may exhibitthe same capacity for destruction of enemies. That sueh di-vine foree can extend further to other destructive aspeets oflife might not appear surprising (e.g., Anat). This would beall the more explicable if Resheph were a "ehthonic" de-ity (as older studies argued and Lipiftski rejects), but apartfrom the identification with Nergal (see above), the evi-denee marshaled by others for this view is weak. Lipiftskinotes that the "negative side" of Resheph subsists in biblicalpoetry and the LXX.

The volume eloses with indices for personal names; geo-graphical places and ethnicities; divine and mythical names;glossary of words in the ancient languages; subjects; sourcescited and modern authors.

Overall, the work is a welcome addition to the study ofResheph. In a limited review, it is difficult to do justice to thewealth of primary evidence presented.

The book has four problematic aspects. First, there areomissions of relevant primary data. Eor example, the dis-cussion of the Ugaritic texts is incomplete (assuming theindex correctly lists the Ugaritic texts). 1 was unable tofind discussion of the following; "15 ¿¿/-measures for thehorses of Resheph" in KTU 4.790.16; Resheph in the deitylist RS 1.017 [= KTU 1.47].27 and Akkadian ^GiR.UNU.GAL, in RS 20.24 (together showing the correspondence ofRashap and Nergal at Ugarit), and also in the deity list RS92.2004.16; the reference to the god in the snake-bite textof KTU 1.107.40; the apparent mention of the god in thecontext of the feast headed by rp'u in KTU 1.108.15; andthe PN bn rsp in KTU 4.170.9.

Second, the consideration of the evidence cited is some-times meager. For example, Lipiftski (p. 104) mentions ina single sentence Resheph gn being attested on a elay rhy-ton in the form of "a face of a lion" (as mentioned in theinscription on the object). Yadin (1985; 266-68, 271) hadsuggested that the form of the lion was selected because thismay have been the god's emblem animal. This representa-tion is perhaps analogous to the lioness as the emblem of acorresponding warrior goddess, perhaps Astarte; this is sug-gested by her representation as a lioness in a new Ugaritictext, RS 98/02 (see Pardee 2007). Similarly, the various plu-ral Reshephs noted at various points (pp. 89, 220, 236, 240,244-46) eall for further study and comparison with similardivine plurals.

Third, the study offers opinions that are not particularlywell supported. The phrase sm b'l is not to be translated"name of Baal" according to Lipinski (p. 171), despite therelative rarity of the attestation of the alternative in Ugaritic.

Late Bronze Egyptian Qud(a)shu is understood following W.Helck to be originally an amulet or "holy object" that sec-ondarily became a goddess (pp. 181, 198-203), despite thelater date for this meaning' in the Semitic languages (eighthcentury and later). Biblical Sheol is said to be the underworldgoddess Shuwala as known at Emar (p. 246), despite the dif-ference in spelling. The underworld nature of the goddess isbased by Lipiftski solely on her pairing with Nergal in oneritual text that also mentions Ereshkigal three lines afterward(Emar VI/3, text 385, lines 23 and 26). More evidence forthis goddess would be welcome.

Fourth, the use of secondary literature ean tend towardthe minimal. Lipiftski omits a number of relevant works, in-cluding some discussions specifieally concerning Resheph(e.g., Xella 1979-1980; 1999; Yadin 1985; Niehr 2003; seealso Blair 2009; Tazawa 2009). In the coverage of sometopics, there is little or no interaction with scholars whohave made important contributions—for example, DennisPardee on Ugaritic ritual texts. Indeed, the study is lacking insecondary literature on Ugaritic ritual texts after 1980. Simi-larly, Lipiftski also does not clearly indicate whose overallnotions about Resheph he agrees or disagrees with. Despitethese issues, the book offers a rieh listing of data, which willmake it a standard work on the subject for years to come.

Mark S. SmithNew York University

mssll@nyu.edu

REFERENCES

Blair, J. M.2009 De-Demonising the Old Testament: An Inves-

tigation of Azazel, Lilith, Deber, Qeteb andReshef in the Hebrew Bible. Forschungen zumAlten Testament, Series 2; 37. Tübingen; MohrSiebeck.

Euleo, W.1976 The Canaanite God Resep. American Orien-

tal Series 8. New Haven; American OrientalSociety.

Hadley, J. M.2000 The Cult ofAsherah in Ancient Israel and Judah:

Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. University ofCambridge Oriental Publications 57. Cam-bridge; Cambridge University.

Niehr, H.2003 Zur Entstehung von Dämonen in der Religions-

gesehichte Israels; Überlegungen zum Weg desResep dureh die nordwestsemitische Religions-geschichte. Pp. 84-107 in Die DämonenlDemons, ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger,and K. F. Diethard Römheld. Tübingen; MohrSiebeck.

2011 BOOK REVIEWS 89

Pardee, D.2007

Puech, E.1986

Tazawa, K.2009

Xella, R1979-19801999

Yadin, Y.1985

Preliminary Presentation of a New Ugaritic Songto 'Attartu (RIH 93/02). Pp. 27-39 in Ugariticat Seventy-Five, ed. K. L. Younger, Jr. WinonaLake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

The Canaanite Inscriptions of Lachish and TheirReligious Background. Tel Aviv 13: 13-25.

Syro-Palestinian Deities in New Kingdom Egypt:The Hermeneutics of Their Existence. BAR In-ternational Series 1965. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Le dieu Rashap à Ugarit. Les annales archéo-logiques arabes syriennes 29-30: 145-62."Resheph." Pp. 700-703 in Dictionary of Deitiesand Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn,B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2nd exten-sively rev. ed. Leiden: Brill.

New Gleanings on Resheph from Ugarit.Pp. 259-74 in Biblical and Related Stud-ies Presented to Samuel ¡wry, ed. A. Kort andS. Morschauer. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996, Volume3: The 13th-11th Century BCE Strata in Areas Nand S, edited by Nava Panitz-Cohen and AmihaiMazar. The Beth-Shean Valley Archaeological Proj-ect, Publication No. 3. Jerusalem: Israel Explora-tion Society and institute of Archaeology, HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem, 2009. XXIII + 790 pp., 197figures, 74 plates, 92 tables, 461 black-and-whitephotos, 7 color photos. Cloth. $92.00. [Distributedin North America by Eisenbrauns]

Beth-Shean 3 (TBS 3) is the- third of a planned seriesof four volumes reporting on the 1989-1996 excavationsconducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Instituteof Archaeology (HU) in cooperation with the Beth-SheanTourism Development Organization. This report focuseson the HU investigations in Areas N and S of the Egyp-tian garrison town of the Ramesside period of the 13th-11th centuries B.C.E. The rich occupation of this period wasfirst exposed in Levels VII, VI, and Late Vl/Lower V bythe excavations between 1921 and 1933 of the PalestineExpedition of the University Museum of the University ofPennsylvania (UME). Related HU exposures from Area Q(the "governor's building" of UME's Level VI) were previ-ously published in TBS 1 (pp. 61-172). The current volumeopens with usual front materials, introductions of the fieldstaff, the presentation of some technical details explainingthe system for recording locus and basket numbers, and afew notes on some additional Iron Age IIA finds from AreaS (pp. xxi-xxii).

The Ramesside era represents the height of Egyptianpresence at the site. The main text opens in chapter 1 with asynoptic introduction in which A. Mazar reviews, first, theexcavation's results as related to the Ramesside period itself(LB IIB-Iron IA) and then more briefly summarizes thoserelated to the post-Ramesside era (Iron IB). Each of thesesections provides an overview of the UME and subsequentexcavations and summarizes the main results of the HUwork. Table 1.2 (p. 13) provides a useful comparison of theHU stratigraphy in Areas N, S, and Q with the UME levels.

Mazar's discussion of the architecture and stratigraphy ofthe Ramesside era is supplemented by some observations onthe ethnicity, econotny, and society at the site as reflected inthe architectural decor, pottery, and other material remains.This section closes with a review of issues regarding chron-ological terminology, and with radiometric evidence sup-porting absolute dates. With respect to terminology. Mazaracknowledges the issues raised in recent discussions involv-ing the possible extension of the LB IIB period into the late12th century—that is, closing it ca. 1130 B.C.E. followingUME Level VI, i.e.. Strata N-3a and S-3a, when evidence ofEgyptian presence has fully disappeared, rather than at ca.1200 B.C.E between UME Levels VII and VI, i.e., after Stra-tum N-4. But he seeks to avoid confusion pending a betterconsensus on the terms to be used and chooses to retain thetraditional nomenclature, i.e., LB IIB (for Stratum N4) andIron IA (for Strata N-3a and S-3a), with their conventionaldates. Nonetheless, he then opts to use them sparingly, in factpreferring to use chronological references to the "Egyptian19th or 20th Dynasties," or to the "thirteenth or early twelfthcenturies," respectively (p. 24). While doing so, however,he emphasizes that the absolute dates for the related Beth-Shean levels and strata are quite secure. Radiocarbon assayson short-lived samples (charcoal and seeds) from destructionlevels in Strata N-4 (Level VII) and S-3a (Level VI) providesupport for late 13th- and late 12th-century terminal dates(p. 26). These supplement the Egyptian data from the site,which also clearly correlate these strata with the 19th and20th dynasties of the Ramesside era, respectively.

With regard to the post-Ramesside era (Iron IB), Mazaracknowledges that new data from HU work was limited, andthat understanding of the late 12th-llth centuries is stilllargely based on interpretation of data from UME Late VIand V levels. A confusing element involves the reestablish-ment of Ramesside-period monuments, including a statueof Ramesses III and stelae of Seti I and Ramesses II, in thecourtyard of the Level V (Iron IB) Northern Temple. Thisbears on the question of who exactly the inhabitants of Beth-Shean were during the post-Ramesside period. Were theyCanaanite descendants of the city, or new peoples? Mazarseems to suggest (pp. 29-30) that, as with other northernsites, a Canaanite enclave continued, and that these occu-pants still venerated the past glory of the city's earlier Ra-messide presence. He also notes that there is virtually noarchaeological evidence of any presence of the Philisfines orother Sea Peoples at Beth-Shean during this time. So there is

Copyright of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is the property of American Schools of

Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without

the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.