the kingdom of geshur in history and memory..pdf

7/17/2019 The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory..pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-kingdom-of-geshur-in-history-and-memorypdf 1/15

This article was downloaded by: [Tel Aviv University]On: 31 August 2012, At: 02:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of the OldTestament: An International

Journal of Nordic TheologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sold20

The Kingdom of Geshur in History

and MemoryNadav Na'aman

a

a Department of Jewish History, Tel Aviv University

Version of record first published: 31 Aug 2012

To cite this article: Nadav Na'aman (2012): The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory,

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: An International Journal of Nordic Theology,26:1, 88-101

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2012.704198

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. Theaccuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently

verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising outof the use of this material.


http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2012.704198




Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Vol. 26, No. 1, 88 101, 2012

© Taylor & Francis’ 2012 10.1080/09018328.2012.704198

The Kingdom of Geshur in History

and Memory

Nadav Na’aman Department of Jewish History, Tel Aviv University Email: [email protected]

“Whoever declares others invalid … with hisown flaw he invalidates” (Talmud Bavli, Qidushin, 70,1)

ABSTRACT: The article re-examines the biblical, extra-biblical and archaeo-logical sources for the history of Geshur and the way it was memorialized in biblical texts. It demonstrates that archaeological research is the key to estab-lishing the location of the kingdom’s capital, its territory, population, econo-my and commercial relations. The written sources complement and corrobo-rate the archaeological data. Evidently―contrary to the conclusions reachedin a recently published article―we know quite a lot about this marginal

Aramean kingdom.Geshur was located on the northern border of the Kingdom of Israel, far

away from Jerusalem; and yet late Judahite scribes, who operated hundreds ofyears after it disappeared from the political arena, still remembered that it wasa separate entity, on par with Maacah, and different from all other neighbour-ing districts enumerated side by side with it. What was unclear to the scribesis the geographical reality in the far north. Hence, their geographical depic-tion of Geshur ’s (and Maacah’s) location was inaccurate.

Key words: Geshur, Maacah, Israel,

In a recently published article, Juha Pakkala (2010) surveyed the writtensources that refer ―or are assumed to refer ―to the Aramean kingdom ofGeshur. He first discussed the biblical texts, then the extra-biblical sources,and briefly surveyed the scholarly discussion of Geshur. His article aimed todemonstrate how little we know of this kingdom, as is clearly expressed byhis conclusions (2010:172):

“We know basically nothing substantial about the area, the political unit, the people or their culture. We do not even know whether there was a people whocalled themselves Geshurites and, if so, whether they spoke a Semitic or someother language …. We do not have more evidence about Geshur than that itseems to be connected to an early monarchic period and to the approximate

–

D o w

n l o a d e d b y [ T e l A v i v U n i v e

r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory 89

area of the Golan …. Geshur may or may not have been politically united at

some point, but we do not know when and how, and we do not know what theextent of this possible kingdom was.”

1

Pakkala went so far as to compare the Geshurites to “groups of people,like the Hivvites, Girgashites and Perizzites, whose identity and existence issimilarly debatable.” Significantly, the archaeological evidence is left out ofhis discussion, probably because he assumed that it contributes little to ourunderstanding of the kingdom’s history.

In what follows, I will revisit the documentary sources― both biblical andextra-biblical―and the archaeological evidence in an effort to show what wereally know about Geshur in the early First Millennium BCE. I will suggestthat Pakkala’s discussion of the sources is inadequate, his acquaintance withthe scientific literature is insufficient, and he neglected the most importantsource available for the study of the Aramean kingdom.

Geshur in the Bible

Albright (1956: 12) suggested that Gether (LXX Γαθερ) listed in Gen 10,23 “reflects the original Aramaic pronunciation of the name that appears asGe

šūr in MT.” Other scholars supported the assumption that the two namesare variants of a single Old Aramaic place name (Lipiński 1993:202; 2000:336; Halpern 1997:312 and n. 3; Hendel 2005:111). Lipiński (1993:202)

pointed out that the two toponyms were derived from the root *g ṯ r (“etre trèsfort”), and hence the place name means “stronghold, fortress.” Hendel (2005:

111) concluded that “the etymology from *g ṯ r indicates that Ge šūr representsthe orthography and phonology of the Old Aramaic period.” The analysis ofthe name corroborates the commonly held opinion that Geshur was an earlyfirst millennium Aramean kingdom (contra Pakkala 2010:156-159, 172-173).

When examining the references to the land of Geshur in theDeuteronomistic (Dtr) literature, two different viewpoints of its place vis àvis the Israelite territory may be observed. According to one, Geshur was lo-cated outside the inherited Israelite territory of Og, the king of Bashan (Deut3,13-14; Josh 12,4-5), and according to the other it was included in Og’s

kingdom, and thus “the Geshurite and Maacahthite still live among Israel tothis day" (Jos,13,11-13). The latter viewpoint is similar to that of other“'remaining” cities that were included within the boundaries of the PromisedLand but not conquered and thus “remained” within the inheritance of thenamed tribes (Josh 15,63; 16,10; 17,11-13; Judg 1,21.27-35). The kingdom ofOg was located within the Israelite tribal territories, and the non-conqueredlands of the Geshurites and Maacahthites “remained” within its confines. Ac-cording to the other viewpoint (Deut 3,13-14; Josh 12,4-5), Geshur and

1. Hafpórsson (2006:235-236) reached similar conclusions: “We cannot becertain when Geshur existed, in what form, and what contacts it had withAram-Damascus. In the case of Israel, there seem to have been contacts in thetime of David, a time presented in the Bible so entwined with narratives ofliterary character that it is difficult to separate history from legend.”

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2



Nadav Na'aman9

Maacah were located outside the boundaries of the conquered territories andtheir border adjoins the boundary of the tribal inheritances.

Wüst (1975:39-44) analyzed in detail the three Dtr texts delineating thescope of Og’s kingdom in similar ways.2 The district of Mount Hermon is thenorthernmost among the enumerated territories and encompassed the areas of

the Golan and the Upper Jordan Valley. Evidently, the scribes who composedthe descriptions had only a vague notion of the reality in the north and treatedthe area between Mount Hermon and Bashan as an extension of the mount.Moreover, in the account of Josh 13,11-13, the district of Mount Hermon andthe territories of Geshur and Maacah were included within the confines ofOg’s kingdom, whereas Josh 12,4-5 excluded Geshur and Maacah from thekingdom’s territory (see above). The inconsistency indicates once again howunclear the configuration of these remote northern regions was for the Dtrscribes who lived in far-away Jerusalem.3 Surprisingly, Pakkala (2010:156-159) kept repeating the term “the Golan tradition" for the assumed sources ofthe Dtr scribes. It goes without saying that no “Golan tradition” was availablefor the scribes. Rather, they held a stock of territorial designations and com-

bined them in different manners in the texts they produced. Among these des-ignations of northern regions were Geshur and Maacah, which, according tothe Dtr scribes, were located outside the borders of the northern Gilead andBashan (Deut 3,13-14) and close to the district of Hermon (Josh 12,5; 13,11).

The land of Geshur probably appears once again in 2 Sam 2,9. Accordingto the massoretic text, five districts are listed in the territory over whichIshbaal son of Saul reigned: Gilead, ’šwry, Jezreel, Ephraim and Benjamin.The overall territory is defined as “Israel in its entirety.” The inclusion ofGilead, Ephraim and Benjamin in the district list is self-evident, whereas theappearance of the ’šwry and Jezreel evokes serious problems. Since I alreadydiscussed the text in detail elsewhere (Na’aman 1990) I will analyze it hereonly briefly.

Instead of ’šwry, the Syriac and Vulgate versions read ges(s)uri, “the

Geshurite.” On the basis of several Dtr geographical lists (Deut 3,14; Josh12,5; 12,5), I suggest rendering the text of 2 Sam 2,9 as follows: wymlkhw ‛lhg1‛d <‛d gb>wl ? h gšwry w’1 yzr‘ ’l w‛l ’prym w‛l bnymn w‛l yśr’l klh; “and

he made him king over Gilead <up to the boun>dary? of the Geshurite and(the border of) Jezreel, and over Ephraim and over Benjamin, that is, overIsrael in its entirety.” The reconstruction, admittedly uncertain, indicates thatthe land of Geshur bordered the district of northern Gilead, in accord withJosh 13,11. The presentation of Geshur on the border of Ishbaal’s kingdomfits nicely the kingdom’s place in the story of David’s rise to power. Whilereigning in Hebron and fighting Ishbaal, David has married Maacah, daughter

2. Wüst’s detailed discussion of the sources' history of tradition is beyond thescope of this article.3. For a detailed discussion of the meagre acquaintance of the Jerusalemitescribes with the reality of remote regions, see Lissovsky- Na’aman 2004:302-316, 320-321.

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2




of Talmai king of Geshur (2 Sam 3,3), thereby obtaining an ally on his rival ’s northern front.

The district list of Ishbaal’s kingdom is no less Dtr than the three othertexts discussed above. The four texts illustrate the way that scribes operatingin the late seventh-fifth centuries grasped the pre-monarchic and early mo-

narchic reality in the far north and the way they integrated the northern dis-tricts in the compositions they produced.

Very little can be said of the historicity of the story of Absalom in Geshur(2 Sam 13,37-38; 14,23.32; 15,8). The historical evaluation depends on thedate we assign to the so-called “succession History” in which the story is in-cluded and the overall estimate of its potential for historical research (for de-tailed discussion, see Ma‛oz 1992:996; Hess 2004:56-58; Dietrich 2007:210,224; Pakkala 2010:156-157). Since my discussion is not dependent on thehistorical authenticity of the story, I will avoid analyzing its authenticity indetail.4 However, the reference to a king of Geshur in the context of the Unit-ed Monarchy, namely, the tenth century, is significant and will be evaluated

below.

The Amarna Letters

In an article published in 1961, Benjamin Mazar discussed the scope of theland of Gari mentioned in an Amarna letter and the identification of its vil-lages (EA 256,22-28). After a detailed analysis of the location of the listedtoponyms, he concluded that “the land of Garu … was a large tract of territo-

ry in the Golan … stretching southward as far as the Yarmuk and identicalwith the biblical Geshur ” (Mazar 1961:18-21). This is the basis for his sug-gested rendering of the land’s name Ga-ri as Ga-<š u>-ri, “Geshur .”

Mazar did not present evidence for his claim of an overlap in territory be-tween Gari and Geshur. I already analyzed the biblical references of Geshurand demonstrated that its place might generally be determined, but its territo-rial scope cannot be established on the basis of the biblical data. Hence, theterritories of the lands of Gari and Geshur should be studied separately.

Unfortunately, Mazar ’s hasty conclusion was uncritically accepted by

some scholars, who on the basis of the reconstructed territory of the land ofGari established the borders of biblical Geshur (Ma‛oz 1992: 996; Epstein

1993: 83-90; Arav 2004: 3-5). Pakkala (2010: 167) was aware that “the iden-tification of Garu and Geshur is largely based on the hypothetical and disput-ed assumption that the author accidentally omitted one syllable", and yet ded-icated almost half of his paper to an investigation of the location of the landof Gari’s villages (pp. 159-167). Not only did he not advance the research

beyond what was already suggested by other scholars, but he ignored theworks of Edel (1966:13, 90-91), Weippert (1971, 12 n. 28), Galil (1998: 375-

376) and Liverani (1998: 125 n. 55). Liverani’s reading ya-bi-š i-ma in EA

4. It seems odd that Absalom’s mother, who was a Geshurite princess, iscalled by the name of Maacah, Geshur ’s northern neighbouring kingdom.Thus, the authenticity of the princess' name might well be questioned.

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2



Nadav Na'aman

256:28 and his suggestion to identify it with biblical Jabesh-gilead (Tell el-Maqlūb) is notable.

In sum, the territory of the fourteenth century BCE land of Gari should besought in the area between the cities of Ashtaroth and Pihilu. Its extent, how-ever, is irrelevant for the study of the Aramean Kingdom of Geshur in the

early first millennium BCE.

Shalmeneser III ’s Campaign in 838 BCE

An inscribed fragmented royal statue of Shalmaneser III’s was unearthed atCalah and published in part by Laessoe (1959). It includes the most detailedaccount known so far of the king’s campaign in his 21st year of reign (838BCE). The statue fragments remained in Iraq, and an unpublished copy was

prepared by Peter Hulin. Grayson consulted Hulin’s copy while preparing hisedition of Shalmaneser ’s inscriptions (1996:72-84), and his edition formed

the basis for Yamada’s discussion of the campaign (2000:27, 205-209, 285-286). Later, Yamada (2000b) published and discussed Hulin’s copy, leadingto what is today considered the edition priceps of the text.5

What path did Shalmaneser III take en route to arrival in his 21st year atthe Phoenician Coast? After he crossed the Euphrates, Shalmaneser advancedsouthwards along Mount Lebanon and crossed Mt. Anti-Lebanon eastwards,apparently along the route of Baalbek-Zabedani-Damascus (Yamada 2000a:207). In his 841 BCE campaign, after besieging Damascus for a short timeShalmaneser advanced southward along the eastern side of Mt. Anti-

Lebanon, arrived at Mount Hauran, probably proceeded along the Darb el-Ḥawarneh road (Oded 1971:193; Lissovsky- Na’aman 2004:306-307)6 andreached Mount Carmel (Ba’li-rāsi), on the border between Israel and Tyre. In838, he again proceeded southward along the east route of Mt. Anti-Lebanonand conquered four of Hazael’s fortified cities, the names of two of them(Danabi and Malaḫa) and the initial syllable of a third (Ia[…]) survived in thefragmented text.

Where should we search for the four cities? Pakkala presented a catalogueof suggested identifications (168-169 notes 69-70; also Hafpórsson 2006:

132-135), aimed at demonstrating that the location cannot be established.However, the “catalogue approach,” which mixed together all site identifica-tions suggested so far, cannot help solve the problem. Rather, we should lookfor a solution that combines the mentioned cities with the possible route ofthe Assyrian campaign. Indeed, Lemaire (1991: 100-101) has pointed out thatDanabi and Malaḫa are mentioned in an Egyptian topographical list of citieslocated in the area of Bashan (Malaḫa = m-ri-ḥw ; Danabi = tw-n-bw) (see

5. Surprisingly, Pakkala did not consult Yamada's new edition (2000b), andhis analysis rests only on Grayson's (1996) and Yamada's (2000a) works.6. The Darb el-Ḥawarneh road passed from the Hauran/Bashan to the Jordanvalley, crossed the river south of the Sea of Galilee, continued along NaḥalJabneel (Wādi Fejjas) to Mount Tabor, passed along the foot of the Hills of

Nazareth to Tell el-‘Amr and reached the southern side of the Acco plain.

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2




Edel and Görg 2005:51-52, 66). In light of his observation, we may suggestthat up to the area of the Hauran/Bashan, the marching line of the 841 and838 campaigns was roughly identical (Dion 1997:198-199). Establishing theexact location of the cities is of secondary importance for reconstructing theroute of Shalmaneser ’s campaign toward the Phoenician Coast.

Following the conquest of the four cities, Shalmaneser related that Ba’il of[KU]R Z/G[i-x-(x)-r ]a-a-a submitted to him and paid the tribute. He then

placed his royal statue in the temple of Laruba (or Lašubba), Ba’il’s fortifiedcity, and received the tribute of the men of Tyre, Sidon and Byblos (Grayson1996, 79 lines 159b-162a; Yamada 2000a:206-209; 2000b:80). As such,Ba’il’s kingdom must be sought between the area of Bashan and the Phoeni-cian Coast.

The stronghold of LaRUba is mentioned nowhere else. Yamada (2000a:207, 209, 285) suggested transcribing the LA-sign as MA and rendering thecity’s name as Ma-ru-ba, which he identified with the Sidonian city of Ma-a’ -ru-ub-bu (Ma’rubbu). However, the “improved” rendering of the sign isarbitrary and Ma’rubbu belonged to Sidon, which is certainly not Ba’il’s kingdom (see Bagg 2007: 171). Moreover, the kingdoms and cities of thePhoenician Coast are well known from ancient Near Eastern texts, and nei-ther the kingdom of Z/G[i-x-(x)-r ]a nor the city of LaRUba was ever men-tioned. This may indicate that the toponyms should be sought outside thePhoenician Coast.

How should we read the name of the fragmented land in line 160? In lightof Hulin’s copy, Grayson’s rendering of the broken name as Tyre is definite-ly incorrect (Yamada 2000b: 80). Lipiński (1999: 242b) suggested restoring

it Ṣí -mir-r ]a-a-a (Ṣimirra). However, Ṣimirra always appears as a city andnot as a land, and its name is consistently written with the Ṣ I -sign, never withthe ZI -sign (Bagg 2007: 231-232; also Marín 2001: 251-252). With all duecaution, I suggested restoring the land’s name G[i- š u-(ú)-r ]a-a-a, Geshur(Na’aman 2002: 205-207). As we shall see, Geshur ’s capital is identified atet-Tell, northeast of the Sea of Galilee. In this light, I suggest that at a certain

point southeast of the Sea of Galilee, the Assyrian campaign of 838 BCE de-viated from the Darb el-Ḥawarneh road and proceeded northward along theshore of the lake, and near the city of Hazor or Dan crossed westward andreached the Phoenician Coast.7

7. After he received the tribute of Tyre, Sidon and Byblos, Shalmaneser III proceeded to KUR Muṣurūna. I suggested that this land/mountain should be

identified with the ridge of Nahr el-Kalb, where a relief of a royal image wasdiscovered – possibly representing Shalmaneser III (Na’aman 2002:207). The

references to the gods Athar of Muṣurūna and Dagan of Muṣurūna (Bagg2007: 180) may refer to deities represented on the reliefs curved at Nahr el-Kalb by ancient Near Eastern kings. Furthermore, the small ninth centurykingdom of Muṣur/Meṣri, which is mentioned beside Byblos in the monolithfrom Kurkh and beside Tyre and Sidon in the Calah throne base ofShalmaneser III, also occupied the territory between the borders of Byblos

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2



Nadav Na'aman

It goes without saying that the suggested restoration of Geshur ’s name isuncertain. Provided that it is acceptable, it indicates that as late as year 838,Geshur was still an independent kingdom and was annexed to the Kingdomof Aram Damascus at a later time, as explained below.

The Archaeological EvidenceA large mound of about eight hectares was discovered northeast of the Sea ofGalilee. Its Arabic name is et-Tell, and it was identified with the SecondTemple village of Beitsaida. The site is located two and a half kilometers offthe lake and rises 25-30 meters above its surroundings. It is divided into ahigher mound in the north and a lower mound in the south. To date, only theformer was excavated.

The site was fortified by a heavy wall of between six and eight meterswidth, with four chambered gate on its southeastern side. Impressive archi-

tecture was unearthed within the walls, including a large palace, a cult placeand a storehouse (Arav 1995; 1999a; 2004; 2008:1612b-1615a; 2009;Arav―Bernett 2000). The most remarkable find discovered in the site is a

basalt stele with a curved representation of the Moon God (Bernett―Keel1998). This was found near the gate and has close parallels to steles discov-ered in other Aramean centres. Other small finds are four short alphabeticalinscriptions, a clay bulla, figurines and clay vessels.

The monumental buildings uncovered at et-Tell were attributed to StrataVI-V, the latter stratum being destroyed by Tiglath-pileser III in 733-732

BCE. Radiometric dates measured on grain from a granary under the StratumV gate and hence attributed to Stratum VI were dated to the tenth centuryBCE (1000-930 results in 68%) (Boaretto et al. 2005:49; Sharon et al. 2007:7, 34, 44). These dates corroborate Arav’s suggestion that Stratum VI wasfounded in approximately the mid-tenth century BCE. Unfortunately, veryfew floors with complete vessels have been unearthed at the site, whereasonly broken sherds have been found on the floors of all the other buildings.The date of construction of the city wall and the main structures (gate, palaceand cult place) remains uncertain.8

The Iron II eight hectare, massively fortified mound of et-Tell is by far thelargest and strongest site in the east of the Jordan Valley area between theJarmuk River in the south and Tel Dan in the north. Similar large and forti-fied sites are known only from the territory of the Kingdom of Israel west ofthe Jordan, from north Transjordan and from the Bashan. No wonder that thesite’s excavators identified it as the capital of the Kingdom of Geshur, and

and Sidon (Na’aman 2002: 207; for Muṣur/Meṣri see Bagg 2007: 305-307).The small kingdom of Samsimurūna, bordering on the north with the king-dom of Byblos, probably inherited Muṣur's territory in the late eighth-seventhcentury BCE (Na’aman 1995:108-109).8. For architectural synchronisms between et-Tell and North Israelite sites,see Finkelstein 2000:125; 2011:237-238.

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2




their suggestion was accepted by other scholars (Ma‛oz 1992:996; Na’aman2002:205-207; Hess 2004:49-59; Finkelstein and Silberman 2006:110).

Before proceeding to analyze the site and its environment, I shall examinein brief the site of Abel-Beth-Maacah, the capital of the Kingdom of BethMaacah (see 2 Sam 10,6) mentioned side by side with Geshur in Dtr texts

(Deut 3,14; Josh 12,5; 13,11.13).The city of Abel is commonly identified at Tell Abil al-Qamḥ, a large

mound located about seven kilometers northwest of Tel Dan.9 The 14 hectaresite lies on a high plateau overlooking the northern Huleh Valley near theBareight River (Naḥal ‛Ayoun), a tributary of the Jordan River (Dever 1986).

Eran Arie’s recently published analysis of the pottery and history of TelDan (2008) provides the key for clarifying the history of the Kingdom ofBeth Maacah. In light of the archaeological material published so far fromthe Tel Dan excavations, he demonstrated that the site was poorly settled inthe early Iron IIa (mid-10th-mid 9th centuries BCE, according to the “modifiedconventional chronology”) and was rebuilt by Hazael, King of Aram, after heconquered the area. Hazael erected his stele at Tel Dan in order to commemo-rate his victories and inaugurate the centre he built in the place (Arie 2008:34-36).10 According to his analysis (Arie 2008:34-38), it was Hazael whoconquered and annexed the two Aramean neighbouring kingdoms of Geshurand Beth Maacah. In his words: “Hazael may have constructed Dan as a newcentre for the former area of the southern Aramaean kingdoms of Geshur andMaacah, which he united and annexed to his new kingdom of Aram Damas-cus.”

In light of this study, the coupling of the kingdoms of Geshur and (Beth)Maacah in biblical historiography becomes clear. Tell Abil al-Qamḥ and et-Tell are the most prominent Iron IIa mounds located in the ninth centuryBCE east of the Kingdom of Israel’s border. The strength and prosperity ofthe latter was demonstrated by the site’s excavations, whereas the state ofaffairs in the former site cannot be established. The two sites were the seatsof local Aramean dynasties that ruled their respective kingdoms and wereconquered and annexed by Hazael in the third quarter of the ninth century.The memory of the two westernmost Aramean kingdoms situated along theeastern border of the Kingdom of Israel was memorized for a long time.When the history of Israel was composed in writing, the two former Aramean

9. Contrary to the commonly held opinion, Lipiński (2006: 256-265) identi-fied ancient Laish/Dan at Abil al-Qamú and Abel-Beth-Maacah at Tell el-Qāḍi (Tel Dan).10. Line 2 of Hazael’s stele may be restored as follows (Biran and Naveh

1995: 12-15; Lemaire 1998:3-4; Na’aman 2000: 96): “[…] my father went up[against him when] he was fighting at Ab[el?] ([bh]tl ḥmh b’b[l ]).” The text possibly refers to an attack of Hazael’s father on the king of Israel when thelatter besieged Abel. Provided that the restoration (admittedly uncertain) iscorrect, it indicates that until this date, Abel-Beth-Maacah was an independ-ent city.

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2



Nadav Na'aman

kingdoms were integrated into the description as separate, non-conqueredentities, located near the border of the Israelite tribal inheritances.

Establishing the location of Geshur ’s capital at et-Tell enables us to positgeneral outlines for its territory, population, economy and commerce. Geshurwas a city-state whose territory spread along the Sea of Galilee up to the

Jarmuk River in the south and up to an unknown location south of Tel Dan inthe north. Its territory included a narrow strip of plain on its western side andvast highland areas, including the Golan plateau on its east. Tel Dover (Khad-Duweir), located southeast of the Sea of Galilee near the Jarmuk River,where an Iron I-IIa small settlement was unearthed, might have marked thesouthern border of the kingdom (Wolff 1998:775a; Rapuano 2001:19*-20*).The surveys conducted in the Golan Heights (see Epstein―Gutman 1972)show that, side by side with et-Tell, there were only a few other settlementsin Geshur ’s territory―among them Tel ‛En Gev (Mazar et al. 1964; Kochavi1996:192-193; Kochavi and Tsukimoto 2008; Hasegawa 2010:97-101) andTel Soreg (Kochavi 1989:6-9; 1996:188-189). Geshur ’s economy was mainly

based on a combination of agriculture, pasture and fishing. Two east-westroutes passed near the kingdom’s borders, Darb el-Ḥawarneh in the south andthe road leading to the Acco plain in the north. Commerce must have playedan important role in the economy of the kingdom. Internal and external trans-

portation was carried out by land and sea.11 What was the name of the city located at et-Tell? To answer this question,

we must first clearly distinguish between Aramean kingdoms that are called by the name of a real or legendary ancestor (e.g., Beth Rehob, Beth Maacah,Bīt Agusi, Bīt Adini, Bīt Gabbari) and kingdoms called by other names.Aram Damascus and Aram Zobah are called by the names of their respectivecapitals, Damascus and êubat/êubiti (Na’aman 1999; Fales 2002; Bagg 2007:233-234). In this light, I suggest that Geshur was the name of the city locatedat et-Tell and that given the city’s prominence, the kingdom was called by itsname.12 The derivation of the kingdom’s name from the root *g ṯ r (“to bestrong”) and its meaning “stronghold, fortress” fits nicely the exceptionalstrength of the city walls (between six and eight meters width). LaRUba,Ba’il’s stronghold, was possibly the ancient name of Kh. el-‛Ashiq/Tel ‛En

Gev, the fortified settlement located about 13 kilometers south of et-Tell(Na’aman 2002:206).

11. An illuminating example of et-Tell’s commerce is the name zkryw writtenon a jar handle discovered in the excavations (see Hess 2004:55). Accordingto Arav (1999b:88), the stamp is identical to an eighth century stamp on a jardiscovered at Tel Dan (Biran 1994:255). Petrographic analysis may demon-

strate whether the jar was made and stamped in one of these cities, or ratherwas made in a third place and exported to both of them.12. Contrary to the commonly held opinion, Lipiński (2006:238-243, 252-253) suggested that Leshem was the ancient name of et-Tell (Behsaida) andthat Geshur and Maacah were interchanging names of the kingdom locatedeast of the Sea of Galilee.

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2




Conclusions

The article demonstrates that―in marked contrast to the conclusions ofPakkala―we do in fact know quite a lot about the Aramean Kingdom ofGeshur. The main source for this analysis is the archaeological excavationsand surveys conducted in the Golan Heights and the coastal strip of land eastof the Lake of Galilee. Pakkala ignored this source, apparently because headheres to the obsolete idea that history is what can be learned from the writ-ten sources alone. In reality, archaeological research is the key for establish-ing the location of the kingdom’s capital, its territory, population, economyand commercial relations. The written sources complement and corroboratethe archaeological data.

The Kingdom of Geshur was probably established in about the mid-tenthcentury BCE and existed through the third quarter of the ninth century, when

it was annexed by Hazael, king of Aram. It was a city-state of the kindknown from Late Bronze Age documents. The small entity was ruled by aking who lived in his capital city, Geshur, where all civil and sacred institu-tions were concentrated (as indicated by the excavations). The territory underhis domain included a few villages and hamlets, as well as agricultural and

pastural lands and a strip of coast suitable for fishing and naval transporta-tion.

The way Geshur (and Maacah as well) was memorialized in biblical histo-riography and how it was integrated into the early history of Israel is an ex-

emplary case of the ways late Judahite scribes have memorialized the ancientreality hundreds of years after it disappeared from the political arena. Geshurwas located on the northern border of the Kingdom of Israel, far away fromJerusalem, and yet the late scribes still remembered that it was a separate en-tity, on par with Maacah, and hence differed from other neighbouring dis-tricts enumerated side by side with it. A Judahite scribe integrated Geshurinto the history of David―a description that might have had a germ of au-thentic historical memory, although there is no way to verify it. What wasunclear to the Jerusalemite scribes is the geographical reality in the far north.

Hence, they integrated Geshur (and Maacah) in an inaccurate geographicalmanner.Pakkala (2010: 173) concluded his article by emphasizing that many his-

torical works deal inadequately with the biblical texts. His article on Geshuris a case in point.

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2



Nadav Na'aman

BibliographyAlbright, William Foxwell. 1956. The Biblical Tribe of Massa’ and Some Con-geners. In R. Ciasca (ed.), Studi Orientalistici in Onore di Giorgio Levi DellaVida (Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto per l’Oriente 52; Rome: Istituto per l'Oriente), pp. 1-14.

Arav, Rami. 1995. Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1987-1993. In R.Arav―R.A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the Northern Shore of the Sea ofGalilee, vol 1 (Kirksville: Truman State University Press), pp. 3-63.

Arav, Rami. 1999a. Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1994-1996. InR. Arav―R.A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the Northern Shore of the Seaof Galilee, vol 2 (Kirksville: Truman State University Press), pp. 3-113.

Arav, Rami. 1999b. Bethsaida. Qadmoniot 32: 78-91 (Hebrew).

Arav, Rami. 2004. Towards a comprehensive History of Geshur. In R.Arav―R.A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the Northern Shore of the Sea ofGalilee, vol 3 (Kirksville: Truman State University Press), pp. 1-48.

Arav, Rami. 2008. “Bethsaida (et-Tell).” In E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclope-dia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land , vol. 5 (Jerusalem: IsraelExploration Society and Carta), pp. 1611-1616.

Arav, Rami. 2009. Final Report on Area A, Stratum V: The City Gate. In R.Arav―R.A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the Northern Shore of the Sea of

Galilee, vol 4 (Kirksville: Truman State University Press), pp. 1-122.

Arav, Rami―Bernett, Monika. 2000. The bī t ḫil āni at Bethsaida: Its Place inAramaean/Neo-Hittite and Israelite Palace Architecture in Iron Age II. IEJ 50, pp. 47-81.

Arie, Eran. 2008. Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeologi-cal and Historical Implications. Tel Aviv 35, pp. 6-64.

Bagg, Ariel M. 2007. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit .

Teil I: Die Levante (Repertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 7/1;Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B Nr. 7/7/1; Wiesba-den: Ludwig Reichert).

Belmonte Marín, Juan Antonio. 2001. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Texteaus Syrien im 2. Jt. V. Chr. (Repertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes12/2; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B Nr. 7/12/2;Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert).

Bernett, Monika―Keel, Othmar. 1998. Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor. DieStele von Betsaida (et-Tell) (OBO 161; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag―Göttingen:Vandenhoek & Ruprecht).

Biran, Avrahan. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Biran, Avrahan― Naveh, Joseph. 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Frag-ment. IEJ 45, pp. 1-18.

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2




Boaretto, Elizabetta―Jull, A.J. Timothy―Gilboa, Ayelet―Sharon, Ilan. 2005.Dating the Iron Age I/II Transition in Israel: First Intercomparison Results. Radi-ocarbon 47, pp. 39-55.

Dever, William G. 1986. “’Abel-Beth-Ma‘acah: Northern Gateway of Ancient

Israel.” In L.T. Geraty―L.G. Herr (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan and OtherStudies Presented to Siegfried H. Horn (Berrien Springs: Andrew UniversityPress), pp. 207-222

Dietrich, Walter. 2007. The Early Monarchy in Israel. The Tenth Century B.C.E. (Biblical Encyclopedia 3; Atlanta: Society of Bilical Literature).

Dion, Paul Eugene. 1997. Les Araméens à l’ age du fer: Histoire politique et structures sociales (Études Bibliques, Nouvelle Série. No 34; Paris: J. Gabalda).

Edel, Elmar. 1966. Der Ortsnamenlisten aus dem Totentempel Amenophis III .

(BBB 25; Bonn: P. Hanstein).Edel, Elmar ―Görg, Manfred. 2005. Die Ortsnamenlisten im nördlichenSäulenhof des Totentempels Amenophis' III. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).

Epstein, Claire. 1993. The Cities of the Land of Garu-Geshur Mentioned in EA256 Reconsidered. In M. Heltzer ―A Segal―D, Kaufman (eds.), Studies in Ar-chaeology and History of Ancient Israel in Honour of Moshe Dothan (Haifa:Haifa University Press), pp. 83-90 (Hebrew).

Epstein, Claire―Gutman, Shmaryahu. 1972. The Golan. In M. Kochavi (ed.), Judaea, Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967-1968 (Jerusalem:Archaeological Survey of Israel), pp. 243-295 (Hebrew).

Fales, Frederick, M. 2002. Central Syria in the Letters to Sargon II. In U. Hüb-ner ―E.A. Knauf (eds.), Kein Land für sich allein. Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65.Geburtstag (OBO 186; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag―Göttingen: Vandenhoek &Ruprecht), pp. 134-152.

Finkelstein, Israel, 2000. Omride Architecture. ZDPV 116, pp. 114-138.

Finkelstein, Israel. 2011. Stages in the Territorial Expansion of the NorthernKingdom. VT 61, pp. 227-242.

Finkelstein, Israel―Silberman, Neil Asher. 2006. David and Solomon. In Searchof the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (New York:Free Press).

Galil, Gershon. 1998. Ashtaroth in the Amarna Period. Israel Oriental Studies 17, pp. 373-385.

Grayson, A. Kirk. 1996. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II(858-745 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Period, vol. 3;Toronto: University of Toronto Press).

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2



Nadav Na'aman099

Halpern, Baruch. 1997. Text and Artifact: Two Monologues?. In N.A. Silbermanand D. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpret-ing the Present (JSOTS 237; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), pp. 311-341.

Hasegawa (Sekine), Shuichi. 2010. Aram and Israel during the Jehuite Dynasty

(Ph.D. Thesis; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University).Hendel, Ronald. 2005. Remembering Abraham. Culture, Memory, and History inthe Hebrew Bible (Oxford: University Press).

Hess, Richard. 2004. “Geshurite" Onomastica of the Bronze and Iron Ages. In R.Arav―R.A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the Northern Shore of the Sea ofGalilee, vol. 3 (Kirksville: Truman State University Press), pp. 49-62.

Kochavi, Moshe. 1989. The Land of Geshur Project. Regional Archaeology ofthe Southern Golan (1987-1988 Seasons). IEJ 39, pp. 1-17.

Kochavi, Moshe. 1996. The Land of Geshur: History of a Region in the BiblicalPeriod. Eretz Israel 25, pp. 184-201 (Hebrew).

Kochavi, Moshe―Tsukimoto, Akio. 2008. ‛En Gev. In E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land , vol. 5 (Jerusalem:Israel Exploration Society and Carta), pp. 1724-1726.

Laessoe, Jørgen. 1959. A Statue of Shalmaneser III, from Nimrud. Iraq 21, pp.147-157.

Lemaire, André. 1991. Hazaël de Damas, roi d’Aram. In D. Charpin―F. Joannès(eds.), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Études sur la civilisation Mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civi-lisations), pp. 91-108.

Lemaire, André. 1998. The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography. JSOT 81, pp. 3-14.

Lipiński, Eduard. 1993. Les Sémites selon Gen 10,21-30 et 1 Chr 1,17-23. ZAH 6, pp. 193-215.

Lipiński, Eduard. 1999. Ba’il. In K. Radner (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, vol. 1 Part II: B-G (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text CorpusProject), p. 242b

Lipiński, Eduard. 2001. The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Reli- gion (OLA 100; Leuven-Paris: Peeters).

Lipiński, Eduard. 2006. On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age. Historical andTopographical Researches (OLA 153; Leuven: Peeters).

Lissovsky, Nurit―Na’aman, Nadav. 2004. A New Outlook at the Boundary Sys-tem of the Twelve Tribes. UF 35, pp. 291-332.

Liverani, Mario. 1998. Le lettere di el-Amarna, vol. I-II ( Testi del VicinoOriente antico; Brescia: Paideia Editrice).

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2




Ma‛oz, Uri Zvi. 1992. Geshur. In: Freedman, D.N. ed. The Anchor Bible Dic-tionary, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday), p. 996.

Mazar, Benjamin 1961. Geshur and Maacah. JBL 80, pp. 16-28

Mazar, Benjamin―Biran, Avraham―Dothan, Moshe―Dunayevsky, Immanuel.1964. ‛En Gev―Excavations in 1961. IEJ 14, pp. 1-49.

Na’aman, Nadav. 1990. The Kingdom of Ishbaal. BN 54, pp. 33-37.

Na’aman, Nadav. 1995. Province System and Settlement Pattern in Southern

Syria and Palestine in the Neo-Assyrian Period. In M. Liverani (ed.), Neo Assyri-an Geography (Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5; Rome: Sargon srl), pp. 103-115.

Na’aman, Nadav. 1999. Lebo-Hamath, êūbat-Hamath and the Northern Bounda-ry of the Land of Canaan. UF 31, pp. 417-441.

Na’aman, Nadav. 2000. Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. IEJ 50, pp. 92-104.

Na’aman, Nadav. 2002. In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbours. IEJ 52, pp. 200-224.

Oded, Bustenay. 1971. Darb el-Hawarneh―an Ancient Route. Eretz Israel 10, pp. 191-197 (Hebrew).

Pakkala, Juha 2010. What Do We Know about Geshur? SJOT 24, pp. 155-173.

Sharon, Ilan―Gilboa, Ayelet―Jull, A.J. Timothy―Boaretto, Elizabetta. 2007.Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting aLow Chronology. Radiocarbon 49/1, pp. 1-46.

Rapuano, Yehudah. 2001. Tel Dover. Hadashot Arkheologyot: Excavations andSurveys 113, pp. 19*-21*.

Weippert, Manfred. 1971. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 21; London: SCM Press).

Wolff, Samuel R. 1998. Archaeology in Israel. AJA 102, pp. 757-807.Wüst, Manfred. 1975. Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Textendes Alten Testament. I. Ostjordanland (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas desVorderen Orients. Reihe B [Geisteswissenschaften] Nr.9; Wiesbaden: LudwigReichert).

Yamada, Shigeo. 2000a. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A HistoricalStudy of Shalmaneser III (859-824 BC) Relating to His Campaigns to the West (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, vol. 3; Leiden: Leiden).

Yamada, Shigeo. 2000b. Peter Hulin’s Hand Copies of Shalmaneser III’s Inscrip-tions. Iraq 62, pp. 65-87.

D o w


r s i t y ] a t 0 2 : 2 7 3 1 A u g u s t 2 0

1 2

the kingdom of geshur in history and memory..pdf

Documents