George Athas-The Tel Dan Inscription - A Reappraisal and A New Interpretation (Journal For The Study of The Old Testment Supplement) (2006)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
360
Editors
David J.A. Clines
Philip R. Davies
Executive Editor
Andrew Mein
Editorial Board
Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay,
Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick,
Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller
COPENHAGEN INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
12
General Editors
Thomas L. Thompson
Niels Peter Lemche
Associate Editors
Mogens Millier
Hakan Ulfgard
Sheffield Academic Press

A Continuum imprint
This page intentionally left blank
The Tel Dan Inscription
A Reappraisal
and a New Interpretation
George Athas
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement Series 360
Copenhagen International Seminar 12

Copyright 2003 Sheffield Academic Press
A Continuum imprint
Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd

The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
370 Lexington Avenue, New York NY 10017-6550
www.continuumbooks.com+
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd, Midsomer Norton, Bath
ISBN 0-8264-6056-9
CONTENTS
List of Figures vii

Preface ix
Abbreviations xi
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION 1
Introductory Remarks 1
Methodology 1
Chapter 2
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE FRAGMENTS 5
Fragment A 6
Fragment Bl 13
Fragment B2 14
Synthesis of the Archaeological Data 15
Chapter 3
EPIGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS 18
Fragment A: Physical Characteristics
and the State of Preservation 18
Fragment A: Epigraphical Analysis 23
Fragment A: Assessment 72
Fragment B: Physical Characteristics
and the State of Preservation 73
Fragment B: Epigraphical Analysis 78
Fragment B: Assessment 92
vi The Tel Dan Inscription
Chapter 4
PALAEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS 94
Fragment A 96
FragmentB 137
Synthesis of the Script of Fragment A
and the Script of Fragment B 164
Summary of Script Analysis 165
Chapter 5
ARRANGEMENT OF THE FRAGMENTS 175
Evaluation of the Original Arrangement by Biran and Naveh 175
A New Arrangement 189
Chapter 6
TEXTUAL ANALYSIS 192
The Text 193
Commentary on Fragment A 194
Commentary on Fragment B 230
Language of the Inscription 245
Grammatical Survey 246
Glossary of the Inscription 252
Chapter 7
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY 255
Historical Considerations 255
Bayt-Dawid and the Quest for King David 298
Cultic Implications 309
Chapter 8
CONCLUDING REMARKS 316
Bibliography 320
Index of References 327
Index of Authors 329
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Fragment A 7

Figure 2.2. Plan of Structure A at the Tel Dan gate complex 7
Figure 2.3. Fragment Bl 14
Figure 2.4. Fragment B2 15
Figure 2.5. Fragment B, comprised of Fragment B1 (top) and
Fragment B2 (bottom) joined together 16
Figure 3.1. Facsimile of Fragment A highlighting area of
erosion on the right side of the written surface 20
Figure 3.2. Paradigmatic cross section of the written surface 22
Figure 3.3. Deep and shallow points on the incisions 24
Figure 3.4. Direction of individual letter strokes 24
Figure 3.5. Scribal posture 32
Figure 3.6. Position of the engraver 33
Figure 3.7. Gap preceding Fragment A, Line 1 36
Figure 3.8. Three chips below Line 1 38
Figure 3.9. The abraded edge of Fragment A 40
Figure 3.10. Beginning of Line 2 (left) and possible restoration 44
Figure 3.11. The deep scar (left) and its restoration 46
Figure 3.12. The remains of a stem belonging to a damaged
letter at the beginning of Line 2 46
Figure 3.13. Detail of the lacuna on Fragment A, Line 4 56
Figure 3.14. Electronically altered image (left) and a facsimile
(right) of a suggested restoration 57
viii The Tel Dan Inscription
Figure 3.15. Detail of the facsimile showing damaged letter in

Line 6, Fragment A, and electronically altered
image of the same area (right) 62
Figure 3.16. Facsimile of Fragments B1 and B2 joined together 74
Figure 3.17. Comparison of slope trends between Fragment A
and Fragment B. 77
Figure 3.18. Diagram of the angle between the written surface
and the newly exposed surface at the remnant of a
stem on Line B1 79
Figure 3.19. Location of possible remnants along the edge of
Fragment B2 89
Figure 4.1. Facsimile of Fragment A 97
Figure 4.2. Facsimile of Fragment B 137
Figure 5.1. The arrangement of the fragments proposed by
Biran and Naveh with Fragment B to the left of 176
Fragment A
Figure 5.2. The incongruence of line trends between Fragment
A (right) and Fragment B (left) 179
Figure 5.3. Facsimile of the fragments integrating the arrange-
ment proposed by Biran and Naveh 183
Figure 5.4. Reconstruction of the probable position of the
fragments in relation to the whole original stele 191
PREFACE
This work is essentially a reproduction of my doctoral dissertation sub-

mitted to the University of Sydney in 1999. The main difference to the
original dissertation is a reworking of the Historical Commentary as my
thoughts gelled a little more since submitting the work to the university.
This research originally began as an investigation into the scholarly
movements current in Biblical Studies at the end of the twentieth century.
The Tel Dan Inscription was chosen as a case study highlighting the spec-
trum of views and approaches amongst scholars. However, in the course of
the research it became clear to me that there were many unanswered
questions about the three Tel Dan fragments. There was more than enough
material to sift through to warrant a specialized study of the fragments
alone. This was confirmed in a major way when I had the opportunity to
study the fragments closely in Jerusalem. This close examination brought
new epigraphical evidence to light. The sheer volume of data gleaned from
looking at the fragments themselves was so great that, upon return to
Sydney, it took a full year simply to record and process the data. It then
took another year to frame the data and conclusions in a meaningful pres-
entation.
There are numerous credits I must make for the compiling of this research.
I am indebted to Avraham Biran and his staff at the Nelson Glueck School
of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem, especially for
permission to use photographic images within this work. Similarly, my
gratitude goes to Ada Yardeni of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, for her
facsimiles of the fragments and her willingness to discuss certain issues per-
taining to the fragments. Thanks also go to the staff of the Israel Museum,
Jerusalem, for their cooperation in aiding my research.
I must also express my gratitude to other scholars whose comments,
insights and driving encouragement were invaluable. In addition to
Avraham Biran and Ada Yardeni, I must mention the late Frederick Cryer
(formerly of Copenhagen), Niels Peter Lemche (Copenhagen), Thomas L.
Thompson (Copenhagen), C.H.J. de Geus (Grningen), Takamitsu
x The Tel Dan Inscription
Muraoka (Leiden), Reinhard Lehmann (Johannes Gutenberg Universitt,

Mainz) and Philip R. Davies (Sheffield). I am particularly indebted to Ian
Young (Sydney) for his constant and insightful feedback. His experience
and steady scholarly hand, particularly in the area of grammar and philol-
ogy, enabled me to produce this comprehensive study. It was also he who
first instilled in me a love for North West Semitic languages and inscrip-
tions. The preparation of the manuscript was carried out during a very
busy few years, and his persistent encouragement are much appreciated. I
also extend my gratitude to Sarah Norman of Sheffield Academic Press for
her painstaking copy-editing.
Extra-special thanks go to my wife, Koula, and my family, who have
given me tremendous support throughout the many years it took to com-
plete this research and the manuscript. Without their patience, encourage-
ment and generosity, this work would never have reached completion. This
work is dedicated to Koula who, in 1996, became wedded to a student-
scholar, as well as his library, and his inscription.
George Athas
Sydney, March 2002
ABBREVIATIONS
AcOr Acta orientalia

AfO+ +++++++++++++++++++
ANET James B. Pritchard (d.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1950)
ArOr Archiv orientlni
BARev Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BH Buried History
BN Biblische Notizen
CAD Ignace I. Gelb et al. (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago:
Oriental Institute, 1964-)
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
El Eretz Israel
IEJ+ ++++++++++++++++++
IstMitt+ +++++++++++++++++
JANES+ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNES+ ++++++++++++++++++++++
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series
JSS+ ++++++++++++++++++
NedTT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift
NorTT Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift
Numen Numen: International Review for the History of Religions
OTS Oudtestamentische Studin
PEFQS Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
RA Revue d'assyriologie et d'archologie orientale
RB Revue biblique
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
VT Vetus Testamentum
ZAH Zeitschrift fur Althebristik
ZA W Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palstina-Vereins
xii The Tel Dan Inscription
Grammatical Abbreviations
1+ +++++++++++
2. second person
3. third person
abs. absolute state
adj. adjective
coll. collective
com. common (gender)
conj. conjunction
cstr. construct state
del. deity
fem. feminine
gent. gentilic, of a people
impft. imperfect
inf. infinitive
juss. jussive
loc. location
masc. masculine
n. noun
nota ace. nota accusativa, object marker
pers. personal
pft. perfect
pfa+ +++++++
pi. plural
pr. proper
prep. preposition
pron. pronoun
sfx suffix
sg. singular
vb. verb
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Introductory Remarks
The Tel Dan fragments are three broken pieces of basalt rock with carvings
of ancient Semitic writing on them. The first fragment was discovered in
1993 during excavations at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel. The
second and third fragments were discovered separately in the following
year. In the few years since their discovery, these fragments have spawned
a veritable library of literature from scholars all over the world writing in
many different languages. The interest that these fragments have generated
demonstrates their value in the eyes of the scholarly community.
However, they have not gone without controversy. Indeed, such wide
and varying interpretations exist regarding the fragments that one can
easily get lost in the complexity of the issues. Most of the literature has
tended to concentrate on one or two principal issues regarding the frag-
ments. To date, no one has attempted a thorough and definitive analysis of
the fragments. I hope that this study will fulfil that need.
For the purposes of this study, I have chosen to follow the original
labels for the fragments, which the publishers, Biran and Naveh, first used.
This has been done in order to achieve a connection and easy reference
with the literature produced thus far. Therefore, the first and largest frag-
ment discovered is labelled Fragment A, the second is labelled Fragment
Bl, and the third is labelled Fragment B2.
Methodology+
The controversy that has ensued since the publication of the Tel Dan
fragments has highlighted the need to streamline a methodical approach to
studying the fragments. In 1995, Demsky proposed a five-step model in
2 The Tel Dan Inscription
special reference to the Tel Dan fragments.1 Demsky's article was mostly
written before the publication of Fragments B1 and B2 with only an adden-
dum making reference to these further discoveries. As such, his model was
produced with only Fragment A in mind. Nevertheless, Demsky aimed at
presenting a systematic model for studying all ancient Northwest Semitic
inscriptions. The five steps of his approach are:
1. To establish the archaeological context in which the inscription
was found.
2. To determine the type of inscription which is indicated by the
writing surface. This then allows the researcher to compare the
inscription with other known Northwest Semitic inscriptions of
the same genre.
3. A palaeographical analysis.
4. A linguistic analysis.
5. An historical synthesis.
While I agree with the general outline of Demsky's approach, I believe
there is room for improvement. Since the Tel Dan fragments have idiosyn-
cratic issues, such as what relationship each of the three fragments have to
each other, these have to be dealt with in an unbiased and systematic way
prior to final interpretation. The following is an outline of the approach
that this study will take:
1. To establish the archaeological context of each of the three
fragments discovered at Tel Dan. The purpose of this will be to
indicate whether the fragments were found in primary, secondary
or even tertiary usage. This involves examining the precise loca-
tion in which each fragment was found and determining a date
for the immediate context through the witness of pottery assem-
blages and structural remains. The ultimate aim of this first step
will be to provide a chronological bracket in which we may place
each fragment, if that is at all possible.
2. To conduct an epigraphical analysis in which the characters and
text on each fragment are itemized and clarified. An epigraphical
analysis will also serve to highlight how the text on each fragment
was produced. By comparing the results from each fragment,
I shall come to a preliminary conclusion on the relationship
1. See A. Demsky, 'On Reading Ancient Inscriptions: The Monumental Aramaic

Stele Fragment from Tel Dan', JANES23 (1995), pp. 29-35 (29-31).
1. Introduction 3
between the three fragments with regards to their epigraphical

characteristics.
3. To conduct a palaeographical analysis of the script on each frag-
ment. This will involve noting the shapes of each grapheme on
each fragment and comparing them to those of other relevant
Northwest Semitic inscriptions, as well as to each other. The
purpose of this will be to determine what influences were exerted
over the script of each fragment, to try to assign a chronological
bracket for the script of each fragment, and to determine whether
there is any relationship between the three fragments.
4. To produce a synthesis of the epigraphical and palaeographical
information gleaned from each fragment. The purpose of this
will ultimately be to determine whether there is any relationship
between any of the three fragments. In turn, this will also provide
a model by which to critique the arrangement of the fragments
currently proposed by the publishers, Biran and Naveh, and in
which the fragments are currently displayed at the Israel Museum
in Jerusalem. If any relationship is determined to exist between
any of the fragments, it will be possible to test to see if an ar-
rangement of those fragments can be proposed on the available
information. This will provide a framework with which to under-
stand the text(s) properly.
5. To undertake a textual analysis of the text(s). This will consider
grammatical, syntactical, philological and contextual considera-
tions of the text(s) in the arrangement(s) determined by the previ-
ous steps.
6. To provide a historical synthesis of the information gleaned from
all previous steps. This will involve interpreting the text(s) and
attempting to reconstruct the history behind the content, produc-
tion and destruction of the text(s). In the course of this reconstruc-
tion, the date(s) and author(s) of the text(s) will be determined as
precisely as the data allows. Inherent in this process will be the
incorporation of external data, namely, artifactual and textual
sources. It is important that this synthesis with external data is
reserved for the final step so as not to prejudice preliminary con-
clusions.
7. To provide a comment on key issues highlighted by the overall
synthesis of the available information.
It will become evident that Steps 6 and 7 will overlap significantly since
these two steps are effectively the goal of my research. Thus, the conclu-
sions from one of these steps will often be interspersed with those of the
other.
It cannot be stressed enough that this type of research demands an up-
close analysis of the actual fragments. Reliance on photographic images of
the fragments simply does not afford the researcher the necessary depth
for a comprehensive epigraphical analysis. Crucial aspects of a fragment
can be hopelessly confused, misportrayed or altogether missed by a two-
dimensional image in which only one configuration of light can be main-
tained. The same comments must be reserved for hand-drawn facsimiles of
the fragments, too. It is, therefore, vitally necessary that a close analysis of
the physical fragments themselves informs the researcher. Unfortunately,
the majority of scholarship on the Tel Dan fragments has proceeded on the
basis of the published photographs alone, and not on first-hand observation
of the fragments themselves.2
For this purpose, the epigraphical analysis of the three fragments was
conducted at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem where the fragments are
currently housed. Many hours were spent poring over the many physical
features of the actual fragments in great detail. As will be seen in the
presentation of this study, the results of this close and careful analysis
proved pivotal to a sound appreciation of the fragments and their meaning.
Indeed, many important aspects of the fragments have hitherto gone
undetected by many scholars for lack of such a careful analysis. I am con-
fident that this study will provide a coherent reappraisal and reinterpreta-
tion of the Tel Dan fragments.
2. See, e.g., V. Sasson, 'The Old Aramaic Inscription from Tell Dan: Philological,
Literary, and Historical Aspects', JSS4Q.I (1995), pp. 11-30 (13 n. 8).
Chapter 2
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE FRAGMENTS
For any inscriptional fragment it is important to first establish its archaeo-
logical context. That is, we must determine where and in what state or
usage the fragment was found. This information will prove invaluable for
determining the date of the fragment and then assessing its value in terms
of reconstructing a whole inscription and reconstructing the historical
background that gave rise to the inscription.
For the purposes of dating our three fragments from Tel Dan, we must
rely on the stratigraphy of the structural ruins at Tel Dan, as well as the
pottery assemblages found in the strata. The pottery remains will allow us
to date the strata and the various construction phases within these individ-
ual strata. The composition of structural walls will also aid us in discern-
ing phases. This will provide us with a chronological bracket in which to
place the fragments.
All three fragments were discovered in Area A of Tel Dan, located on
the southern slope of the mound. When the fragments were published, the
exact nature of the archaeological context for each was only partially
known. It is unfortunate that the conclusions of many regarding the dating
of the fragments were based on this partial knowledge. Indeed, Chapman
builds on the date for Fragment A proposed by Biran and Naveh and deter-
mines dates for Tel Dan's stratigraphy, rather than working the other way
around in a far safer and more methodical way. Chapman's reversed ap-
proach even leads him to reformulate the chronology of Iron II pottery.1
The dangers of pursuing such radical conclusions, or even more mundane
theories, before the archaeological context of an inscription is thoroughly
investigated is to 'jump the gun', so to speak. This can easily lead to dis-
1. R.L. Chapman, 'The Dan Stele and the Chronology of Levantine Iron Age Strati-
graphy', Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 13 (1993-94), pp. 23-29.
qualification of one's arguments. In this regard, the comments of Lemche

and Thompson regarding the 'premature' appraisal of Fragment A by
Biran and Naveh and its subsequent distorting effect find some relevance.2
In fairness to Biran and Naveh, they did certainly try to present a compre-
hensive analysis of the archaeological context for all three fragments.
However, in the euphoria which surrounded the find of the fragments, it
was not realized that the archaeological context of a fragment can only
really be fully understood once the entire area of the find site has been
excavated and the stratigraphy, pottery and structural remains thoroughly
examined. Thus, much of the scholarship surrounding the Tel Dan frag-
ments went ahead on shaky foundations.
Halpern was the first to notice that the context in which Fragment A was
found might not be as simple as had been first reported.3 Many of his
observations are pertinent to the present study. His keen observations also
set the tone for examining the context of Fragments B1 and B2 also,
though his study predated the publication of those fragments and so could
not deal with them. Although all three fragments were found in the same
general area of Tel Dan, analysis must proceed by examining the context
in which each individual fragment was found.
Fragment A
Fragment A (Fig. 2.1) was discovered on 21 July 1993, during the course
of regular seasonal excavations at the site of Tel Dan. The fragment was
located in the base of a wall (W.5073) that formed the western perimeter
of a complex of rooms (the location is marked 'A' in Fig. 2.2). Thus, the
fragment was found in secondary usage. This wall also marked the eastern
perimeter of a large paved piazza, approximately 400 m2 in area. These
constructions were all part of a massive gate complex at the southern
ramparts of Tel Dan, dated to Iron Age II.
Along the southern perimeter of the piazza, at the eastern extremity,
stood a gate. This is the outermost gate so far uncovered in this elaborate
complex. The find site of Fragment A was a little over 5 m north of this
2. N.P. Lemche and T.L. Thompson, 'Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the
Light of Archaeology', JSOT64 (1994), pp. 3-22 (5).
3. B. Halpern, 'The Stela from Dan: Epigraphic and Historical Considerations',
BASOR 296 (1994), pp. 63-80.
2. Archaeological Context of the Fragments 1
Figure 2.1. Fragment A (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem;
photograph: Z. Radovan).
Figure 2.2. Plan of Structure A at the Tel Dan gate complex, indicating the locations at
which the Tel Dan fragments were uncovered (TelDan Excavations, Hebrew Union
College, Jerusalem).
threshold at the base of the perimeter wall.4 At the northwest corner of the
piazza, in the fortifications at the western perimeter, stood another gate.
Inside this gate was an enclosed courtyard with a canopied platform, as
well as a shrine to five massebot (sacred stones; sg. massebah). Legal pro-
ceedings undoubtedly took place in this enclosed area with the presiding
administrator seated on the canopied platform. Along the western wall of
this courtyard stood the main gate of Dan. A processional pavement led
from this gate to the west before turning north and reaching the city at the
top of the tel.
Quite carelessly, Biran and Naveh contradicted their information about
the exact location of the fragment when it was first published at the end of
1993. After carefully locating the fragment at the base of a wall (W.5073),
the publishers surmised at the end of their article that Ahab was likely to
have been the one who destroyed the original inscription and whose 'build-
ers reused a piece of it in the paving of the piazza'.5 This confusion over
whether the fragment was found at the base of a wall or as part of the pav-
ing of the piazza attracted much criticism from leading scholars.6 Any
doubt was dispelled with the publication of Fragments B1 and B2 in which
Biran and Naveh unequivocally stated that Fragment A was found 'in a
wall built on the flagstone pavement of the square'.7
The location of Fragment A, however, was not the only point that
attracted controversy. Biran and Naveh's dating of the fragment also un-
leashed criticism. According to Biran and Naveh, the layer of debris
covering the wall in which Fragment A was found was datable to Tiglath-
Pileser Ill's conquest of northern Israel in 733 BCE.8 This provided a sound
terminus ad quern for Fragment A. This point went undisputed and was
borne out by both the stratigraphy and pottery. The terminus a quo given
by Biran and Naveh was based on the pottery collected from the level
beneath the wall and piazza, which was dated to the first half of the ninth
4. That is, Area A, sector P-3.

5. A. Biran and J. Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan', IEJ43
(1993), pp. 81-98(98).
6. E.g. F.H. Cryer, 'On the Recently-Discovered "House of David" Inscription',
SJOT& (1994), pp. 3-19 (5); T.L. Thompson, 'Dissonance and Disconnections: Notes
on the BYTDWD and HMLK.HDD Fragments from Tel Dan', SJOT 9 (1995), pp.
236-40 (237).
7. A. Biran and J. Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment', IEJ 45
(1995), pp. 1-18(2).
8. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 85.
century BCE.9 Biran and Naveh suggested that the original inscription had
been broken in the mid-ninth century BCE in accordance with the latest
pottery found in the lower level, thereby placing the terminus a quo in the
first half of the ninth century. This, however, does not equate well with the
stratigraphy of the area, a point noticed by Cryer10 and confirmed by later
reports of the complex east of the piazza.11
Cryer's objection was based on the fact that the wall in which Fragment
A was recycled must be younger than the paved piazza beneath it. Thus,
the original Tel Dan Inscription, while in its primary display position, was
contemporary with the piazza rather than the pottery found beneath it. The
original inscription, then, cannot have been destroyed at the same time as
the piazza was built. Rather, it was produced after the piazza was built
because it was not used as a flagstone in the paving, but as a part of the
younger wall.
These observations by Cryer do indeed call into question the dating of
the fragment's destruction proposed by Biran and Naveh. On the ceramic
evidence of the piazza alone, the mid-ninth century BCE is certainly too
early a date for the destruction and recycling of the Tel Dan fragments.
However, the stratigraphy of the building to the piazza's east is slightly
more complex than the equation drawn by Cryer.
A further factor to take into consideration here is the fact that much Iron
Age II pottery is not distinctive and, therefore, is only of limited value for
determining chronologies.12 Although this point was noted by Lemche and
Thompson, they do not hesitate to assign a date to the relevant stratum of
Tel Dan in the late eighth century BCE.13 Although the relative ambiguity
of some Iron II pottery is well known, in the case of Tel Dan there is
significantly less ambiguity. The reason for this stems from the well-docu-
mented invasion of the Galilee by Tiglath-Pileser III in 733 BCE, which
seems to have informed Lemche and Thompson's conclusion. Three
sources attest to this invasionnamely, the destruction layers in Upper
Galilean sites (such as Hazor and Tel Dan) and Transjordanian sites (such

10. Cryer, 'On the Recently-Discovered "House of David" Inscription', p. 5.
11. A. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques and the Hussot of Dan', IEJ49 (1999), pp.
43-54.
12. H. Weippert, Palastina in vorhellenistischer Zeit (Handbuch der Archologie,
Vorderasien, 2.1; Munich: Beck, 1992), pp. 510-17.
13. Lemche and Thompson, 'Did Biran Kill David?', p. 7.
as Ramoth-Gilead), the Assyrian texts of Tiglath-Pileser III14 and the bib-

lical text of 2 Kgs 15.29. This invasion, evidenced at Tel Dan by a layer of
debris over the gate complex, provides an anchor point for the pottery at
Tel Dan.15
In addition, Halpern's initial observations (see below) and Biran's later
excavations (see below also) highlight a number of phases in the strata
beneath this layer of debris. The nature of these phases allows us to gain a
cumulative picture of the structural development at Dan's gate. The pot-
tery associated with these phases, therefore, can be accurately placed in a
chronological order according to the order in which their associated struc-
tures were built. This order, in turn, can be confirmed by the geopolitical
climate of their respective eras, known from textual sources. This chrono-
logical progression of construction phases is augmented by Finkelstein's
recent redating of the Iron I-II pottery assemblages to a 'low chronol-
ogy'.16 The construction phases in question at Tel Dan date to the very end
of the period which Finkelstein wishes to readjust and are, therefore,
relatively unaffected by his chronological shift. Only some slight readjust-
ment of the dates downward is necessary with regards to these particular
construction phases at Dan's gates. Thus, there is very little, if any,
ambiguity about the pottery assemblage from Area A of Tel Dan.17 Noll
also realized this important factor of Finkelstein's chronological adjust-
ment.18 However, his treatment of the archaeological context for the Tel
Dan fragments preceded Biran's more detailed report of the construction
phases evident in the structure to the piazza's immediate east. As such,
Noll's dating for the archaeological context of the fragments remained
statically dependent on Biran and Naveh's report of the archaeological
14. Most notable among the texts are Layard 29b and III R 10,2 from Nimrud. For
further discussion, see J.K. J. Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-
Palestine (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 1995), pp. 167-82.
15. That this destruction layer is not attributable to the earthquake of the mid-eighth
century BCE (see Amos 1.1) is demonstrated by the fact that only the gate complex at
Dan appears to have been damaged. This is consistent with military attack rather than
natural disaster.
16. I. Finkelstein, 'The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative
View', Levant 28 (1996), pp. 177-87.
17. Biran has published some of the pottery found from these phases in 'Two
Bronze Plaques', Figs. 4, 7 and 11.
18. K.L. Noll, 'The God Who is Among the Danites', JSOT80 (1998), pp. 3-23 (4-
6, 19-20).
context as described in the initial publications of the fragments. The thrust

of his argument, however, was certainly in the right direction.
Halpern drew attention to the differing natures of the various walls abut-
ting the paved piazza, noting that there was 'no direct stratigraphie connec-
tion between the wall into which the fragment [Fragment A] was integrated
and the inner gate structure itself,19 As Halpern observed, the wall in which
Fragment A was used (W.5073) appears to have been constructed differ-
ently from those nearby. This wall measured c. 2.5 m in thickness and was
mostly composed of large stones. In contrast, the more northerly portions
of this same wall are considerably thinner, measuring c. 1 m in thickness,
and are composed of much smaller stones. The same observations may be
made for an adjoining wall that lies perpendicular to the northern extremity
of this first wall. This perpendicular wall lies c. 4 m south of the main city
wall. Thus, Halpern was correct in his assertion that these thinner portions
of the building on the piazza's eastern edge were certainly not meant to be
fortifications. They are far too weak to have served such a purpose. As
such, they cannot have been on the edge of the gate complex. Indeed, un-
less the gap between the main city wall and the building complex on the
piazza's perimeter was blocked off somehow, the entire gate complex
would have been rendered useless for both defense and control of traffic.
Also, the wall with Fragment A in it differed from most nearby walls in its
essential composition. By virtue of these facts, Halpern correctly concluded
that there were 'at least two, and possibly several, stages in the construction
of the structure as a whole'.20
Following publication of all the Tel Dan fragments, further excavation
of the building complex to the piazza's east was undertaken and a brief
report was published in Israel Exploration Journal by Biran.21 The exca-
vations revealed that this building complex had undergone three distinct
building phases. The earliest phase consisted of a large rectangular room
(5 x 10.5 m) with a smaller room on the east ( 3 > < 5 m).22 The pottery
found on the floor of this structure dated to the first quarter of the ninth
19. Halpern, 'The Stela from Dan', pp. 68-69. In his article, Halpern has mis-
takenly labelled the outermost gate as the 'inner gate'. This confusion undoubtedly
stems from the fact that the 'main gate' was further inside the complex, closer to the
city. Halpern seems to have understood the 'main gate' as being the outermost gate.
This, however, is not the case.
20. Halpern, 'The Stela from Dan', p. 69.
21. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques'.
22. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques', pp. 43-45, esp. Fig. 3.
century BCE, while the pottery beneath the floor was dated to the end of the
tenth century BCE.23 If we take Finkelstein's redating of Iron I strata, we
may bring these dates down slightly, so that the pottery on the floor of the
structure can be dated to the mid-ninth century BCE. This structure, termed
'Structure C', is therefore datable to approximately the second quarter of
the ninth century BCE, contemporary with the Omride Dynasty.24 On the
ceramic evidence, then, this structure is clearly earlier than the paved
piazza to the west. Biran suggested that the simple building in this phase
may have been used as a defensive outpost,25 a likely scenario since this
structure predates most of the gate complex in Area A.
The second phase of building saw the complex renovated and enlarged.
The western wall of the complex (W.5073) was extended 7 m northwards
during this phase. This extension was the thinner wall noticed by Halpern.
The complex itself consisted of three distinct chambers, at least one of
which had a paved floor. The pottery gleaned from this level dated to the
second half of the ninth century BCE,26 making it contemporary with the
paved piazza to the west. A scaraboid seal dated to the ninth century was
also found in one of the rooms,27 augmenting the date for this second
phase, termed 'Structure B'. Finkelstein's low chronology has virtually no
bearing on this date. We may assume, therefore, that Structure B, and the
paved piazza west of it belong to the same construction phase, begun in
the mid-ninth century BCE at the earliest. Thus, this phase may date to the
end of the Omride era or the beginning of Hazael's reign.
The portion of the western wall in which Fragment A was located was
not built until the third and final phase of building. In this phase, the
western wall was extended southwards and it was in this southward
extension of the wall that Fragment A was used as building material. This
phase is termed 'Structure A'. Cryer's observation that the stone's solid
composition and flat configuration led to its usage as a building material is
quite pertinent,28 particularly as the fragment was used as one of the base
stones of the wall. His statement that the wall in which Fragment A was
23. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques', p. 46, Fig. 4.

24. Whether or not the construction can actually be attributed to the Omride Dynasty
is another question altogether. It is, in fact, quite doubtful that it can. This question,
however, will be left for Chapter 7.
25. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques', p. 45.
27. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques', pp. 47, 49, esp. Fig. 8.
found is younger than the piazza adjacent to it, is correct only for this
extended portion of the wall built in the third phase of construction. The
pottery from this level dates to the first half of the eighth century BCE,29 a
date unaffected by Finkelstein's low chronology. This means that the origi-
nal inscription of which Fragment A was a part was broken just prior to
this phase of construction, some time at the end of the ninth century BCE
or, more probably, the beginning of the eighth century BCE.
We may surmise, therefore, that the original inscription was produced
sometime after the construction of Structure B and the paved piazza,
which occurred early in the second half of the ninth century BCE, but
before the third construction phase, represented by Structure A, in the
early eighth century BCE. The good condition in which Fragment A was
found suggests that the original inscription was destroyed before much
time had passed and before the stone had weathered any great deal. Thus,
from the archaeological context and the state of preservation of Fragment
A, we may surmise that the original inscription was produced towards the
end of this chronological bracket, and broken down not long after its
manufacture.
Fragment Bl
Fragment Bl (Fig. 2.3) was found on 20 June 1994, during excavations
along the base of Dan's Iron Age wall. After a Roman clay pipe from a
later stratum had been removed from this area, a small paved platform was
found, 4.5 x 2.5 m in dimension. This platform had served as a shrine to
three massebot found on the northern edge of the platform. The three mas-
sebot were arranged along this edge from left to right, largest to smallest.
Directly in front of the largest massebot which stood 117 cm tall, was a flat
base on which a decorated capital stood. A basalt bowl with traces of fire
inside it was found on this capital. Traces of ash around the stones con-
firmed the platform's use as a cultic shrine at which offerings were made.
This small shrine was built over debris dated to Tiglath-Pileser Ill's
conquest of northern Israel in 733 BCE. This debris also covered Structure
A, which represented the third phase of construction of the complex on the
eastern side of the paved piazza. In the course of clearing this debris, Frag-
ment B1 was discovered approximately 2 m south of the shrine's platform
(location 'Bl' in Fig. 2.2). The fact that Fragment Bl was found in this
debris suggests that it came from a later context than that of Fragment A,
which had been covered by this debris some 13m to the southwest.
However, this view had to be altered with the discovery of Fragment B2
just ten days later.
Figure 2.3. Fragment Bl (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem;
photograph: Z. Radovan).
Fragment B2
As excavations along the base of the Iron Age city wall continued east-
ward, five massebot were uncovered at the base of the wall. A probe
beneath the two easternmost massebot revealed that they had been laid
prior to the paving of the area with flagstones. The base of the massebot
was approximately 40 cm below the level of this pavement. The pottery
gleaned from beneath the flagstones dated to the end of the ninth century
BCE and the beginning of the eighth century BCE. Thus, this pavement at
the base of the wall, to the north and east of Structure A, was constructed
in the early eighth century BCE, probably during the Israelite revival under
Jehoash and his son, Jeroboam II. We may reasonably surmise, therefore,
that this area was paved at the same time that Structure A was built. There-
fore, this area to the north and east of Structure A is to be dated slightly
later than the paved piazza west of Structure A. The piazza was contem-
porary with Structure B (early second half of the ninth century BCE), while
the pavement along the city wall was contemporary with Structure A
(early eighth century BCE).
On 30 June 1994, Fragment B2 (Fig. 2.4) was discovered as a constitu-
ent part of this pavement, contemporary with Structure A. The builders of
this pavement had used Fragment B2 as a flagstone where the pavement

met the city wallapproximately 8 m north of where Fragment B1 had
been found, and just east of the shrine platform dated to after 733 BC
(location'B2' in Fig. 2.2).
The fact that Fragment B2 was found in this paved area makes it con-
temporary with Fragment A, as both these fragments were recycled as
building material during the same phase of construction in the early eighth
century BCE. Thus, both fragments had been on monumental display just
prior to this construction phase.
Figure 2.4. Fragment B2 (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College,

Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan).
Synthesis of the Archaeological Data

Although Fragment Bl was found in a later context than the other two
fragments, we have no choice but to see it as a contemporary of these two
other fragments. The reason for this is the unequivocal join between Frag-
ment B1 and Fragment B2. These two fragments fit together so closely and
the text on their surfaces match so well that there is absolutely no doubt
that they form an integral unit (Fig. 2.5). Since Fragment B2 has the
earlier provenance, we must amend our dating for Fragment B1 to match
that of Fragment B2. Therefore, the archaeological context in which Frag-
ment B1 was found must be considered tertiary, whereas Fragment A and
Fragment B2 were found in secondary contexts. We do not, therefore,
know how Fragment B1 was used in its secondary situation. It most prob-
ably was recycled as part of a structure that was destroyed in Tiglath-
Pileser Ill's invasion.
Figure 2.5. Fragment B, comprised of Fragment Bl (top) and Fragment B 2 (bottom)

joined together (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph:
Z. Radovan).
On the basis of this synchronism, we can date the fracturing of all three
fragments to the early eighth century BCE. This suggests that there is some
relation between all three fragments, even if it is only chronological in
nature. In other words, on the basis of the archaeological evidence, we can
say with some degree of certainty that all three fragments were broken at
the same time. The subsequent recycling of Fragment A and Fragment B2
as building matter should be dated to the revival experienced in Israel
during the reigns of Jehoash (c. 798-782 BCE) and Jeroboam II (c. 782-
753 BCE).30 The pottery assemblage found in the levels of this construction
phase spanning the first half of the eighth century BCE means we should
assign this construction phase to the reign of Jehoash (c. 798-782 BCE).
We can also surmise that Fragment B1 was also recycled in some way
during this construction phase, though the structure in which it was used
has not been preserved. This synchronic parallel between all the fragments
strengthens the connection between them. Only Fragments B1 and B2 (col-
lectively 'Fragment B') are clearly from the same inscription by virtue of
30. As calculated by Thiele, Jeroboam II shared an 11-year co-regency with his

father, Jehoash, from c. 793 BCE until his coronation as sole ruler in c. 782 BCE. See
E.R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
rev. edn, 1983), pp. 113, 116.
the join along a common fracture line. The archaeological context does
not, however, inform us as to whether Fragment A was also part of that
same inscription. What is clear, though, is that all three fragments are from
the same era.
Chapter 3
EPIGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
In the case of the Tel Dan fragments, epigraphical analysis is of paramount
importance. The issue of whether we have parts of one or two inscriptions
must be clarified if we are to have any hope of a sound historical appraisal.
A comprehensive epigraphic analysis of what we actually have will do
much to further our chances of assigning at least a modicum of meaning to
the fragments.
In this part of my analysis, I will make close and careful observations
regarding the physical fragments themselves, and the nature of the individ-
ual incised strokes, and so decipher each individual grapheme. Since there
is no doubt that Fragments B1 and B2 make up an integral unit, they will
be dealt with collectively as 'Fragment B'.
Fragment A: Physical Characteristics and the State of Preservation

Fragment A is made of basalt stone local to the area of Tel Dan. This was
confirmed by a mineral analysis conducted by Ariel Heimann very soon
after its discovery.1 Tel Dan itself lies barely a kilometre from the edge of
a belt of Neocene-Quaternary basalt, a volcanic rock that makes up most
of the regions of the Golan and the eastern Galilee.2 The actual mound of
Tel Dan is located beside the springs of 'En Leshem and 'En Dan on the
eastern bank of Nahal Dan, the main source of the Jordan River. The
basalt, being at such close proximity and possessing good durability, was a
natural choice for use in an inscription.
The right-hand edge of Fragment A is the only original edge of the
inscription still preserved. The other edges represent breakages of the

2. For a geophysical map of the area, see J.B. Pritchard (d.), The Times Concise
Atlas of the Bible (London: Times Books, 1991), p. 36.
3. Epigraphical Analysis 19
stone. This original edge, however, has undergone some slight erosion so
that it has dulled and become somewhat rounded. There are also clear
signs of scarification along the edge. The random nature of these lacera-
tions suggests that they were sustained during either breakage of the origi-
nal inscription, transportation, or simply as a result of wear and tear while
on display or in secondary usage.
A portion of the original side of the inscription has survived along this
particular edge of Fragment A. Here, the stone has been obviously wrought
smooth, though the surface is punctuated by abrasions and numerous pock
marks. The surface on which the writing is displayed is also smooth. A
very slight convex curvature of the written face is detectable when the frag-
ment is viewed from the side. It is difficult to say whether this curvature
along the face of the inscription was intentional since it is of such subtlety.
The smoothness of both the written surface and the right-hand side prompts
the logical conclusion that the original inscription was professionally fash-
ioned and smoothed. Of itself, this implies the inscription was of quite
some significance.
The fashioned smoothness of the fragment's right-hand side is also
critical for reconstructing the original appearance of the inscription and
how it was displayed. There are two possible reasons for why the side was
smoothed:
1. Structuralthe inscription was intended to be displayed in a
wall. Thus, the stone on which the inscription appeared had to be
uniformly shaped to sit evenly as an ashlar block within the struc-
ture of a wall; or
2. Aestheticthe inscription was intended to be a free-standing
stele, much like that of the Mesha Stele from Dhlbn in Moab.
As such, the stone had to be groomed in order to be aesthetically
pleasing from all angles.3 To this end, not just the written face
and right-hand side would have been smoothed, but all sides,
including the bottom.4
In order to assess which of these two possibilities is the more probable,
we must consider the stone's state of wear, as well as the wider archae-
3. Unlike the Mesha Stele, however, Fragment A does not have a rim bordering
the written surface.
4. The bottom face would have rested on the ground or on a plinth of some sort.
Despite not being visible, it would presumably have been smoothed for both structural
and aesthetic reasons. Compare the structure of the Mesha Stele.
ological context in which it was found. Differing patterns of erosion on the

extant faces may betray different levels of exposure to weather and thus
hint at how the stone was originally displayed. However, since the frag-
ment was not found in its original display position, we must factor in the
effects of breakage, movement and repositioning to the base of the eastern
piazza wall where it was uncovered.
First, the entire vertical length along the right-hand side of Fragment A
displays clear signs of gradual and smooth erosion. This belt of erosion
extends from the right-hand edge through to the approximate position of
the fourth letter of each line, but grows wider towards the bottom of the
inscription (see Fig. 3.1). Since there is a consistency to the deteriorated
area, it must be concluded that it is the result of natural weathering due to
consistent exposure to the elements.
Figure 3.1. Facsimile of Fragment A highlighting area of erosion on the right side
of the written surface(drawn by Ada Yardeni).
The oddity of this belt of erosion is that it is the only sign of consistent
natural weathering on the written surface of Fragment A. Similar areas of
erosion appear in other places across the written surface of Fragment A,
but they are so much smaller in size that we can only call them patches.
Also, the depth of erosion in most of these patches is far less than that of
the large eroded belt on the right-hand side of the fragment. The belt of
erosion is also more regular than the other smaller patches of erosion.
This means that this narrow area along the edge of the fragment was the
only part of the written surface exposed to the elements. Schniedewind
observes that this edge appears to narrow at the top of the fragment, sug-
gesting that the original whole inscription was rounded at the top in a
similar way to the Mesha Stele.5 However, a closer examination of the
stone at this point merely shows that there has been slightly more erosion
of the edge in this upper portion than in the lower portions. There is, in
fact, no sign that the edge was deliberately rounded. This does not, of
course, preclude the possibility that the original inscription was rounded at
the top. It is just that the portion of the inscription represented by Frag-
ment A shows no signs of this.
The incisions making the letters were quite stylistically done. A very
close analysis of them reveals that the actual channels of incision are, for
the vast majority, quite smooth and usually rounded (see Fig. 3.2). For
Biran, this prompted the response that the engraving instrument, which we
will label a 'chisel', had a round edge,6 presumably like the end of a match-
stick. However, such an instrument would be most curious since chisels
and other such engraving tools are made with sharp edges to promote
cutting. A round-edged chisel or 'stylus', as Biran terms it, is not an effec-
tive cutting tool, and the expert finish of the inscription suggests that fine
quality tools were used. As such, the nib of the chisel was likely to have
had a sharp edge, much like a flat-bladed screwdriver. Indeed, in experi-
ments conducted by the author, such a tool inevitably produced incisions
on stone that were comparable to those on Fragment A.
Biran also deduces that the engraving tool was probably made of iron.7
Certainly the material could not have been flint or stone since such mate-
rials are not given to being shaped into long, thin tools which are strong
enough to withstand hammering and carving into stone.8 Tel Dan definitely
5. W.M. Schniedewind, 'Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt',
BASOR 302 (1996), pp. 75-90 (78); W.M. Schniedewind and B. Zuckerman, 'A Possi-
ble Reconstruction of the Name of Haza'el's Father in the Tel Dan Inscription', IEJ
51.1(2001), pp. 88-91(88-89).
8. Knives made of flint, although fitting the description of being a long, thin tool,
were not used to carve or chisel stylistic incisions into stone.
Figure 3.2. Paradigmatic cross section of the written surface

showing the general roundness of incisions.
had a thriving metal industry, as is evidenced by the discovery of numer-

ous crucibles and tuyeres in Stratum IV of Area B, datable to the middle or
late tenth century.9 However, no iron slag was found in these metalwork-
ing installations.10 Yet, many iron implements, such as sickles, knives and
nails were found throughout Strata III, II and I, dating from the ninth to
the sixth centuries BCE,1' making Biran's suggestion quite plausible indeed.
The depth of the incisions never really exceeds 2-3 mm, but it varies
according to the relative positioning of the incision on the stone. Those
incisions made along the belt of erosion on the right-hand side of the writ-
ten surface are shallower than elsewhere. Thus, they have the appearance
of being flatter and having softer edges.
In addition to determining the exact nature of the original inscription
and how it was displayed, we must address the claims of forgery labelled
9. A. Biran, Biblical Dan (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), pp. 147-
57. Biran dates these fixtures to the early tenth century BCE. I have adjusted this date
downwards in light of the arguments proposed for a low chronology by Finkelstein in
The Archaeology of the United Monarchy'.
10. Thanks go to Sariel Shalev of the Weizmann Institute of Science, who con-
ducted mineral analyses of the metal slags found at these installations, and who
provided this information.
11. Thanks go to David Ilan of Tel Aviv University for this information.
against the fragments by Cryer.12 Since the argument for this claim rests
on evidence from the surfaces exposed in breakage, we will need to exam-
ine these surfaces as closely as the written surface.
Fragment A: Epigraphical Analysis

Mode and Method of Engraving
Every inscribed stroke provides vital information on how the inscription
was engraved onto the stone. A shallow point at the extremity of an inci-
sion is characteristic of the point at which the engraver started to chisel
that stroke. Similarly, a deep point at the other extremity of an incision is
characteristic of the point at which the engraver finished incising that
stroke. This theory has been borne out by numerous experiments conducted
by the author.13 In Line 1 all the inscribed strokes display clear shallow
points at the lowest extremities of the stems,14 and significantly deeper
points at the topmost extremities of the letters (see Fig. 3.3). Evidently,
then, the engraver of the inscription incised the letter strokes in an upward
direction (see Fig. 3.4). Due to the regularity of this directional informa-
tion, we can surmise that the engraver was restricted to this upward direc-
tion for reasons of comfort and control during engraving.
12. The first charges of forgery were made against Fragment A by G. Garbini in
'L'iscrizione aramaica di Tel Dan\Atti della Accademia nazionale deiLincei, Scienze
morali, storiche efolologiche, rendiconti 9.5.3 (1994), pp. 461-71. Cryer then raised
questions as to the authenticity of Fragment A in his article, 'On the Recently Discov-
ered "House of David" Inscription', though he stated that he did not believe the frag-
ment was a forgery. However, at some stage after the publication of Fragment B, Cryer
changed his opinion and regarded all three fragments as forgeries. Cryer privately com-
municated to me the nature of the evidence that led him to this conclusion. This evi-
dence will be dealt with below. I am indebted to Cryer for supplying this information.
13. The author conducted trials in which strokes of various shapes were chiselled
onto stone surfaces of varying types from rough, unhewn sandstone to smooth slabs of
concrete. The chisel was also held with many different grips. Invariably, the starting
point of each incision made was notably shallow, while the end point was character-
ized by a deep indentation.
14. This is true even after factoring in the patch of erosion in this area of the in-
scribed surface.
Figure 3.3. Deep and shallow points on the incisions indicating the starting point and
direction of engravingfor the individual letter strokes (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew
Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan [detail]).
Figure 3.4. Illustration showing the direction in which individual letter strokes were
inscribed (detail from facsimile drawn by Ada Yardeni).
The direction of carving is very important if we are to calculate where the

engraver was positioned in relation to the stone when he carved the inscrip-
tion. Knowing this piece of information will allow us to compare the mode
and method of engraving on the fragments and so aid us in determining
whether a relationship exists between Fragment A and Fragment B.
The natural posture for a craftsman is to grip the hammer with his
dominant hand. Thus, a right-handed craftsman would hold the hammer
with his right hand and the chisel with his left; a left-handed craftsman
would have the opposite grip. The grip does not pose any restrictions for
carving vertical strokes because the engraver can just as easily carve up-
wards as downwards. All that is needed is a change in the angle at which
the chisel is held. For downward strokes, the chisel is angled towards the
body, while for upward strokes, the chisel is angled away from the body.
Both postures are equally comfortable and afford the same amount of con-
trol during engraving because neither posture requires one arm to be

stretched across the other. However, for horizontal strokes, the engraver is
very much restricted in the direction in which he carves. An engraver will
not naturally carve a stroke with a grip that requires his arms to be crossed
while he swings the hammer and positions the chisel. Thus, a right-handed
craftsman will naturally carve horizontal strokes from right to left, while a
left-handed craftsman will naturally carve from left to right.
We expect, then, to find strokes viewed by the engraver as horizontal to
be carved in essentially one direction, while vertical strokes to be carved
in either of two directions (up or down). Assuming the engraver was right-
handed,15 the directional regularity of the letters in Line 1 allows us to pos-
tulate that the engraver was positioned to the left of the inscription. This
means that the strokes which we view as vertical when reading the text
would have been seen as horizontal by the engraver positioned at the left
edge of the inscription.
When we examine the horizontal stroke on the head of the res h in Line
1, we find a deepening at the extreme right. The tell-tale sign of an actual
deep finishing point, however, has been carved over by the stem of the
resh, but the evidence nevertheless points to the stroke having been carved
from left to right. Again, assuming the engraver was right-handed, it would
be extremely difficult to have carved these letters while positioned at the
bottom edge of the inscription, which is the most natural position for read-
ing the inscription. Indeed, this would require the engraver's arms to have
been crossed, greatly diminishing both precision of chiselling and control
of the hammer. As such, we would not expect the letters to have been
carved as neatly as they have been.
Furthermore, since the stem of the resh was evidently the final stroke of
the letter chiselled, we have further support for advocating the engraver's
position at the left edge of the inscription. The 'nose' of the figure resh
(the leftmost apex) appears to have been the starting point for carving the
letter. Thus, both strokes forming the 'head' of the letter emanate from this
point out towards their respective deep finishing points along the stem,
which was evidently the last stroke of the letter engraved. Thus, we ob-
serve the tendency to start engraving letters from the leftmost strokes and
15. This assumption has been made purely on the basis of probability. In our day,
the great majority of people are right-handed. In the text of Judg. 3, Ehud is noted as a
left-handed man in a way that suggests that left-handedness was uncommon. Therefore,
we can assume that in antiquity, just as many, if not more, people were right-handed.
move towards the right. This would, indeed, be the most natural order of
carving the letters if the engraver was situated along the left edge of the
inscription.
This particular position of the engraver in relation to the stone also tells
us that the inscription was certainly written and engraved prior to being
placed in its final display position, not afterwards. Indeed, it overwhelm-
ingly points to a scenario in which the stone of the inscription was laid flat
with the written surface facing upwards as the craftsman engraved the
letters. It is fair to presume that the inscription was eventually displayed
with the written surface perpendicular to the ground.16 If the inscription
had actually been in this display position when the letters were being
carved, we would expect different data in regards to the direction of carv-
ing and the order of strokes carved.17
A further implication of knowing the position of the engraver is that the
text of the inscription must have been chalked or marked out before any
chisel was put to the stone. It is an implausible suggestion that the engraver
carved the inscription straight onto the stone without some sort of guide or
stencil. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine the engraver composing the inscrip-
tion while carving it from the stone's left edgea position that would not
afford him readability. Rather, the fact that the engraver seems to have
worked from a flanking edge of the inscriptions means that he need not
have been literate at all. Since literacy was very limited in antiquity,18 it is
plausible that a scribe, specially commissioned with the composition of the
inscription, chalked the text onto the stone. The engraver would then have
traced out with a chisel what to him were not necessarily legible letters,
but simply strokes and curves marked on a stone.
16. No other monumental lapidary inscriptions seem to have been displayed in any
other way.
17. E.g., we would probably expect the vertical strokes to have been generally
carved in a downward direction as opposed to upwards. We would also expect
horizontal strokes to have been carved from right to left, as opposed to left to right.
18. Harris estimates that only 10 per cent of the Athenian population in the fifth-
fourth centuries BCE were literate and that this was an exceptionally high rate because
of the nature of Athenian society. See W.V. Harris, A ncient Literacy (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 114. We expect that the rate in other earlier soci-
eties was much less. See also D.W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monar-
chic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach (JSOTSup, 155; The Social World
of Biblical Antiquity, 9; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991); I.M. Young, 'Israelite Liter-
acy: Interpreting the Evidence. Part I', PT48 (1998), pp. 239-53; idem, 'Israelite Lit-
eracy: Interpreting the Evidence. Part IF, FT 48 (1998), pp. 408-22.
Significance of the Slope of Each Textual Line

An analysis of the slope of each textual line in Fragment A bears this theory
out. One of the peculiarities of Fragment A is that the first few lines of text
appear to slope considerably down towards the left-hand side. However, one
notices the lines becoming gradually flatter and more level with the horizon-
tal towards the end of the inscription. Table 3.1 lists the average slope of
each line in comparison to the horizontal. The axis is the imaginary line
from which each letter is hung, starting at the visible beginning of each line
as we have it and taking the right edge of the fragment as being vertical.
Since the beginning of Line 1 and Line 2 are no longer extant, the slope
of these two lines may appear to be statistically misleading. However,
comparison with the same portion of more complete lines beneath these
two lines indicates that this portion of each line actually represents the
average slope of the line, thus validating their figures. This does, however,
mean that the slopes of the last two lines may be statistically misleading
since the portion of the slope representing the average is no longer extant
on them. Hence, they are shaded in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Slope of each line in Fragment A 19
Fragment A Degrees:
+ above the horizontal
below the horizontal
Line 1 -11+
Line 2 -10+
Line 3 -8
Line 4 -5
Line 5 -4
Line 6 -3
Line 7 -2
Line 8 0
Line 9 0
Line 10 0
Line 1 1 0
Line 12 +2
Line 13 +4
19. These figures are the average angles of the lines between their extant starting
and finishing points. It should be noted that there are variations of angles within each
line. For example, Line 3 starts seemingly straight but then slants down after the first
word, IO2H. Also, in Line 5, the slope of the word "Tin is straighter than every other
word in that line.
These figures demonstrate the very real trend of the lines coming closer
to the horizontal further down the inscription, with the possibility that they
begin to slope upwards in the last two lines of the fragment.20
When this information is combined with that of the angles of each
incision of each letter, a picture emerges of the letters being gradually
rotated clockwise throughout the inscription. That is, after factoring in the
slope of each line of text, the letters which appear in the top portions of
Fragment A have a slight leftward slant, but in the bottom portions, they
have straightened up.
Since the data point to the engraver being positioned at the left edge of
the inscription during carving, it is unlikely that the slanted lines and let-
ters in the top part of Fragment A are attributable to the process of engrav-
ing. First, we have established that it is highly unlikely the engraver wrote
the original text as he engraved it since his stance did not afford readabil-
ity and comprehension of the text. Second, even if the engraver could have
produced the original inscription from this position, no posture could have
made him slant the lines as they have been. As such, if the slanted lines
and letters are attributable to the craftsman during engraving, then it was a
purely random force that exerted itself on him which caused this result.
However, the figures of the line slants indicate that it was not a random
factor at work herethere is a certifiable trend for the lines to become
more horizontal, and as such, there must have been a consistent factor
behind it.
As has been suggested, it is likely that the text of the inscription was
originally chalked onto the writing surface and subsequently etched out by
an engraver. With this suggestion, we can posit a consistent factor as a
cause of the slanted lines and letters. Writing is logically carried out in one
posture, namely, one that not only allows the scribe to write text, but also
to be able to read what he is writing. We have confirmed that the stone of
the inscription was originally laid flat with the reverse side on the ground.
Therefore, the scribe must have been positioned at the bottom edge of the
inscription when he wrote it, and would have been limited to this spot in
order to be able to write and read the text. Since the extant Line 1 is almost
certainly not the first line of the original inscription (see discussion of Line
1 below), the scribe must have written at least one or two lines of text
above the extant Line 1. Also, the extant Line 13 is almost certainly not
20. Since the slopes of Line 12 and Line 13 are statistically ambiguous, this remains
only a possibility that cannot be confirmed.
the final line of the original inscription.21 Thus, the original inscription
would have stood taller, and with more lines of text, than the current sam-
ple from Fragment A.
With these considerations, we can then note that the lines slope away to
the left in a way that is consistent with writing from right to left with an
outstretched arm and without the aid of ruled lines. In other words, it
appears that the scribe who first chalked the inscription onto the stone had
to stretch his arm forward in order to write the upper portions of the origi-
nal text, thus limiting his freedom and ease of movement. With this posture
and the lack of marked lines to keep the text level, the text naturally sloped
downwards to the left.
This is also evidenced by the somewhat cramped nature of the letters in
these upper portions of Fragment A, and the gradual improvement of gen-
eral neatness towards the bottom of the fragment. This is consistent with a
gradual freeing of movement and improved precision in writing as the arm
is stretched less and brought closer towards the body further down the
inscription. In short, the steadiness of the hand increases and less volatility
is likely in the script.
We should ask whether any other factors could have caused the improve-
ment in the inscription's neatness. However, when we do, we find no
theory offering a consistent explanation for the trend visible on Fragment
A. It is unlikely that the disparities in both line slopes and letter neatness
are the result of multiple hands; that is, that more than one scribe chalked
the text onto the stone. If this had been the case, we would expect a more
abrupt change in the appearance of the letters since there would be one, or
possibly more, definite transition points. However, as the appearance of
the letters changes gradually throughout the inscription, oscillating at times
between steep and flat but generally becoming flatter towards the end, the
theory of posture is a more likely explanation.
It could perhaps be argued that the difference in multiple hands was
essentially eradicated by the conventions of one engraver. However, the
consistent improvement in line slopes still indicates that one hand is behind
the writing of the text, and that one consistent, enduring and natural force
resulted in the steady improvement of scribal quality. Similarly, this last
21. The clean breakage at the bottom of Fragment A suggests that the piece of
stone which was broken here (and which is no longer extant), was heavy in weight. As
such, we can expect this piece to have had numerous lines of text. The content of Line
13 also suggests that there was considerably more text after it. This will be discussed at
a later point.
factor undermines any suggestion that the scribe was initially careless with
the straightness of his lines but was more careful in the lower lines of the
text. In fact, all things being equal, a scribe is more likely to become more
careless rather than more cautious throughout the writing of a text.
Having gleaned such information about the writing and carving of the
inscription, we must also mention the limitations of our evidence, though
these are of minor consequence. Though we can calculate where the en-
graver stood, the direction and order of the strokes in which he carved, and
in what position the stone was during carving, we have no way of telling
whether the engraver started carving the top lines of the inscription first, or
the bottom lines. As has been noted, to an engraver, the order in which the
figures and lines of text are carved is not dependent upon how the text is
read; it is not the written text that matters, but the incising of individual
strokes. Thus, there would have been no restriction as to which lines of
text were to be carved first and which last. Since close examination of the
carved strokes has revealed that the engraver worked individual letters
from left to right, it is only reasonable to assume that entire rows of text
were worked from left to right also (or, from the engraver's point of view,
from bottom to top). However, we have no way of knowing whether the
lines of text were carved in their rows, or whether individual letters on
successive lines were carved. Neither do we know whether the engraver
worked from Line 1 down to Line 13, or in the opposite direction, or in a
completely random order.
Dimensions of the Original Inscription

We can now tie together all the discernible data in an attempt to calculate
the dimensions of the original inscription. Bearing in mind that the stone
lay flat during the writing and engraving processes, it must be noted that
the decided slant in the first few extant lines tapers off at approximately
Line 8. In accord with the theory of the scribe's posture offered above, it
can be deduced that at Line 8 of Fragment A, the scribe's arm was not
overstretched, hence the noted improvement in the fragment's general
neatness. However, for the lines above Line 8, the scribe's arm appears to
have been extended, quite probably with the scribe himself leaning for-
ward over the stone. Assuming that the scribe's arm was between 60-70 cm
long,22 we can surmise that Line 8 of Fragment A was at least 60-70 cm
22. This is the average length of a modern man's arm. Ancient people were slightly
smaller in size than the average person today, so the calculation is probably closer to
60 cm than 70 cm. Skeletal remains found at various sites in the Mediterranean basin
above the original bottom edge of the whole inscription.23 We can average
this out to 65 cm.
Furthermore, there is a length of 15 cm of the written surface above
Line 8 that can be added to this approximate length. However, the newly
exposed parts of the stone indicate that Line 1 of Fragment A was not the
uppermost line of the original inscription. Thus, we may confidently add
the extra 5 cm of the fragment's height above Line 1 to our estimations.
These extra 20 cm yield us a minimum approximate height of 85 cm.
Yet, we must also factor in the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that the
scribe did not only stretch his hand out over the stone, but that he also
leaned part of his body over the stone as he wrote. It would be peculiar if
the scribe could have rectified the line slopes and neatness of his letters by
just leaning forward a little and yet failed to do so. As such, he almost
certainly leaned part of his body forward over the stone as he wrote (see
Fig. 3.5). This would add a considerable amount to the length of stone. I
propose adding a further 25 cm to the height of Line 8 in addition to the 65
cm already calculated above. These extra 25 cm are in accordance with the
results of simple experimentation with this posture.24 Thus, I posit Line 8
being approximately 90 cm above the bottom edge of the inscription. This
gives us 110 cm as the approximate minimum height of the original inscrip-
tion stone when it stood in tact. Since neither Fragment A nor Fragment
B1 show any trace of the inscription's original top edge, there is no way of
suggesting a maximum height for the inscription.
attest that the average adult male was approximately 165 cm tall, factoring in shrink-
age. See, e.g., U. Gaus, V. Von Grave and M. Kerschner, 'Milet 1990: Vorbericht iiber
die Arbeiten des Jahres 1990', IstMitt+++++++++++++++++++++
23. This, of course, reasonably assumes that the bottom edge was very close to, or
touching, the scribe's body.
24. The author conducted a very simple experiment in which the arm was extended
fully forward (with a pencil in hand) and the body leaned forward over a writing
surface, with the writing surface being at the level of the waist. The distance was then
measured between the edge of the writing surface at the waist and the point on the
writing surface over which the shoulder of the extended arm was situated. This yielded
a result of 28 cm. This was then rounded down to the nearest significant integer on the
basis that human remains from the Iron Age indicate that adult males were of smaller
and shorter build than adult males today.
Figure 3.5. Illustrations demonstrating the scribe's outstretched arm and forward-
leaning posture during plotting of the upper portions of the text (left) and the more
comfortable posture attained during plotting of the lower portions of text onto the
inscription surface (right).
It must be noted, however, that this estimation is for the height of the
stone itselfnot the area of actual written text. We must consider the
possibility that text did not cover the full length of the stone. The Mesha
Stele, which measures a comparable 115 cm in height, originally had a
base or plinth carved into the stone as a relief.25 A similar convention may
have been employed for the Tel Dan Inscription. Similarly, we must also
mention the possibility of pictorial reliefs carved into the stone either
above, below, or to the side of the text. Though nothing of the sort has
survived among the fragments, we have neither the uppermost, lowermost,
or leftmost portions of the original inscription. This fact, coupled with the
relatively small sample of the whole inscription that has survived means
we must not discount this possibility. The plausibility of such pictorial
reliefs is demonstrated by other inscriptions, such as the stele of Kilamuwa
and the Nerab Stelae.
As we turn to the task of deriving an approximate width for the inscrip-
tion we find that none of the three fragments discovered thus far preserves
the original left edge of the inscription. However, we can make certain
observations about the individual engraved strokes and the posture of the
engraver to arrive at an estimate.
25. This relief base was destroyed when the Mesha Stele was sabotaged in the
nineteenth century. For an account of the drama, see A. Lemaire, ' "House of David"
Restored in Moabite Inscription', BARev20.3 (1994), pp. 30-37 (31-34). The base has,
however, been reconstructed for display purposes. The inscription is currently kept at
the Louvre Museum in Paris.
First, as was noted previously, the individual letter strokes point towards
the engraver having been situated along the++++++++++++++++++++++
will see that this position is further confirmed by the evidence of all the
other letters on Fragment A, including those on the rightmost edge of the
fragment. Thus, taking the most likely view that the engraver was right-
handed, the strokes demonstrate that the engraver's position allowed him
to carve the letters on the far side of the inscription (along the right edge)
with relative ease and precision. As such, the inscription's width at the
latitudes represented by Fragment A was no more than 105 cm across, in
keeping with the results of a posture extended fully forward, as was seen
in discussion of the scribe's posture.
However, it was noted that the scribe demonstrated some difficulty in
writing the text of the inscription due to this posture. Whereas a scribe is
limited to one position in relation to the stone, namely, a position that
affords readability, an engraver is free to move about the stone. He is not
limited to a position that affords readability of the inscriptionjust a
position that affords visibility of individual strokes composing the letters,
and comfort in engraving these strokes with a chisel and mallet. Such posi-
tions exist all around the perimeter of the writing surface. Thus, it is telling
that the engraver inscribed all the letters of Fragment A from only one
edge of the perimeter, namely the left edge (see Fig. 3.6). It tells us that
from this one edge there was no discomfort or lack of precision during
carving, especially considering the fine quality of the carving (as opposed
to the handwriting of the scribe).
Figure 3.6. Illustration showing the position of the engraver

in relation to Fragment A and the inscription as a -whole (not to scale).
Grip and control of a chisel with the simultaneous swinging of a mallet,

whether swung from a high or low position, is best carried out with the
elbows slightly bent. If the arms are kept straight, precision of the chisel is
lost and the accuracy of aiming at and hitting the chisel with a mallet
decreases significantly. It is also natural to lean the forearm or elbow of
the arm controlling the chisel on the writing surface, reducing fatigue and
improving wrist leverage for guiding the chisel. With such a posture and
the considerations that it allowed easy control of carving on the far right
edge, the width of the inscription is likely to have been no more than the
approximate length between the elbow and fingers of the engraver.26 This
is almost identical to a classic unit of measurement, the cubit, which meas-
ured approximately 45 cm. If the width had been greater than this, we
would expect the engraver to have carved at least some of the letters, espe-
cially those along the right edge, from another edge around the stone's
original perimeter for greater ease. Of this, we have no evidence.
There is one more clue which permits us to refine this approximation
even further, and that is the large semi-circular recess along the left edge
of Fragment A, between the latitudes of Line 6 and Line 10. Part of this
recess is filled with a small wedge-shaped fragment of stone that was found
with the entire fragment. I will call this fragment the 'micro-fragment'.
Oddly enough, the micro-fragment is missing from its place in a photo-
graph which Biran and Naveh published in their first article announcing
the find of Fragment A (up to that time, the only fragment discovered).27
This oddity drew sharp criticism from Cryer at Copenhagen University,
who then questioned Biran and Naveh's reporting of Fragment A's place
within the archaeological context of Tel Dan.28 What is even more peculiar
is that neither Biran nor Naveh, nor indeed any other scholar connected
with the debate over the Tel Dan fragments, tendered an explanation for
this recess and its significance.
Despite this gap in critical evaluation, the nature of the recess and the
micro-fragment within it tells us what caused it. First, the recess is semi-
circular in shape and we may reasonably deduce that the entire recess was
roughly circular. Thus, the recess has been artificially made. It is not the
result of a natural fissure in the rock or of weathering. Nor indeed could it
have resulted from the transference of the fragment to its secondary place
26. The fist is clenched so as to grip the chisel.

27. The photograph is Figure 6 of Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment',
p. 86, Fig. 6.
of usage as building material for a wall. The shape of the recess is far too
regular for this to have been the case. It is clearly the result of deliberate
human activity.
Second, crucial to our analysis of this recess is the micro-fragment
inside it, which contains portions of letters belonging to Line 8 and Line 9.
The micro-fragment fits neatly along the line of breakage that runs down
the left side of Fragment A from Line 5 to the bottom of the fragment.
This tells us that the micro-fragment was fractured at the same time this
large break was sustained. Furthermore, since the micro-fragment is also
an inherent part of the recess, of which only half is on Fragment A, the
recess and line of breakage must also have been sustained simultaneously.
The best explanation accounting for these facts is that some kind of instru-
ment was used on the inscription to destroy it, perhaps a hammer, mallet
or other such piece of equipment. The blow of this hammer caused this
area of the stone to fracture and in the subsequent fall of the inscription,
some of the fractures were widened to complete breakages.
Presumably, the hammer was struck against a central position of the
inscription. This is only to be expected for an act of deliberate maximum
damage. This being the case, the recess would represent the approximate
centre in the width of the total inscription. In keeping with the action of
swinging a hammer, the recess also probably represents the approximate
height of a man's elbow or waist: about 85-90 cm. This matches perfectly
with the calculated height of Line 8, which intersects the recess.
Thus, measuring from the estimated centre of this blow to the right edge
of the inscription, a figure of 17 cm is returned, and hence a total approxi-
mate width of 35 cm. Such a figure is within the suggested maximum
width of about 45 cm (a cubit). This correspondence between the figures
suggests that the proposed theory on the cause of the recess is indeed
correct. Therefore, the calculated dimensions for the written surface are
approximately 110x35 cm. We must remember, however, that 110 cm is
a minimum height. The true height of the original inscription is unlikely to
have been much more than that. References to the author's father are
likely to have been made at the beginning of the inscription rather than
later. As a result, the first few lines of Fragment A are probably within the
first few lines of the original inscription.
Line 1
The first line extant on Fragment A preserves only four letters. By com-
parison with better preserved lines (e.g. Line 5), it is calculated that there
is room for eight, or possibly nine, letters before the first extant letter on
Line 1. The breakage of the inscription, however, has lost these letters to
us. It is doubtful whether Line 1 is the original first line of the whole
inscription because the stone is large enough to have had at least one or
two lines of text before Line 1. This is evident after considering the height
of the newly exposed29 face at the upper left portion of the fragment since
it is the exact same space required for two lines of text (see Fig. 3.7).
Figure 3.7. Illustration showing enough roomfor at least two lines of text before Line 1
of Fragment A (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph:
Z. Radovan [detail]).
Biran and Naveh understood the first visible strokes at the extant begin-
ning of Line 1 as forming the figure of a mem.30 As such, the long vertical
stroke was understood as the stem of the mem, joining the rest of the figure
at a point above the line of breakage. At a cursory glance, this seems plau-
sible, even probable. However, we must find strong objection to it. Tropper
was first to note the possibility that the jagged construction understood by
Biran and Naveh as the head of the mem, may actually be a sin.31 As such,
Tropper understood the preceding vertical stroke as the remains of a
probable taw. This possibility was noted by Schniedewind, who rejected it
on the basis that the taw and sin would be too close together.32 However,
such is not the case. At the end of Line 8, we see the remains of a taw and
lamed occurring much closer together than the vertical stroke and jagged
construction here in Line 1. Indeed, there is far less space between the let-
ters in Line 8 than there is here in Line 1. Thus, there is ample evidence to
allow the reconstruction of a taw and sin here.
29. That is, newly exposed when the original whole inscription was broken.
30. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', pp. 87, 90.
31. J. Tropper, 'Bine altaramaische Steleninschrift aus Dan', UF'25 (1993), pp.
395-406 (401-402).
32. Schniedewind, 'Tel Dan Stela', p. 79.
3. Epigraphical Analysi+ ++
Yet, despite the room for this reconstruction, we must test to see if it
actually is the case. Schniedewind's initial observations are invaluable
here, though I am surprised that he rejected their import. Schniedewind
noted the difference in slant between the strokes of a sin and the strokes on
the head of a mem. The key stroke to consider is the leftmost stroke of the
figure. On all the attestations of mem in Fragment A, the leftmost stroke
leans to the right. On the other hand, all the attestations of sin invariably
show the leftmost stroke leaning decidedly to the left. When we examine
the leftmost stroke of the figure here in Line 1, we see that it too leans
markedly to the left. Since the evidence is unanimous that such a trend
indicates a sin, we must inevitably conclude the same for this figure. This
is also confirmed by closely comparing the long vertical stroke which
Biran and Naveh understood as the stem of a mem with the next stroke
which Biran and Naveh thought joined it. These strokes are seen to be
parallel and show no signs whatsoever of converging above the line of
breakage. Thus, we must understand the jagged construction as a sin.
This leaves us with the vertical stroke preceding this sin. Tropper's
suggestion of taw is the most probable because of the space involved. The
only other letters that show a comparably angled stem are kaph, mem, nun
anpeh. A mem is automatically ruled out for lack of space. Similarly, all
instances ofkaph, nun andpeh in Fragment A (and Fragment B) are too
large to fit in this narrow space. We have no such problems with accom-
modating a taw. Therefore, Tropper's suggestion of a taw followed by sin
at the beginning of Line 1 is to be retained.
The incisions of both the taw and sin are clearly not as deep as those of
most other letters. This can be attributed to two factors. First, it appears
that the engraver did not chisel these letters very deeply,33 and second,
there is a slight patch of erosion that covers most of these letters. A slight
chip is also visible along the shallow stem of the taw. This chip is quite
anomalous to the formation of the letter since it has obliterated part of the
incised stem. As such, it cannot have been on the stone's prepared surface
before the inscription was engraved. Neither can it be the result of an
accidental slip of the engraver's chisel. Rather, it must have been sustained
after the engraving. However, this chip has also suffered some erosion.
Thus, the chip was made before the erosion in this area of the stone
occurred.
33. We can only speculate as to why this was the case. Of course, it is impossible
without modern machinery to keep the depth of incisions exactly the same. As such,
the shallowness of this letter might be partly attributable to chance.
The question we must then ask is when exactly the chip was made. Was
it inflicted on the stone when it was in its original display position, or
during the breakage of the stone and subsequent recycling as building
material? Two similar chips further to the left provide a clue that will help
us answer this question. Figure 3.8 shows the position of these two chips
in relation to the first chip on the stem of the letter taw.34 They are on the
approximate same latitude as this first chip and have also undergone
similar erosion. All three chips are of a similar nature, being wide and flat
in shape. Their proximity to each other and similar characteristics suggest
they have a similar or even common cause.
Figure 3.8. Three chips below Line 1 with the area of abrasion caused by breakage of
the stone (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z.
Radovan [detail]).
The leftmost chip ('Chip 3' in Fig. 3.8) provides the vital clue. At the
leftmost extremity of this chip, we observe an abrasion that is clearly asso-
ciated with the breakage of the stone; it continues over the broken edge
onto the newly exposed face, as well as further down to intrude upon a
partly destroyed letter in Line 2 (see Fig. 3.8). The leftmost point of Chip
34. Curiously, the facsimile of Fragment A drawn by Ada Yardeni and published
by Biran and Naveh on p. 89 of 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', does not detail these
three chips. Neither were they shown when the facsimile of Fragment A was coupled
with a facsimile of the two joined B fragments in Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan
Inscription', p. 12.
3 appears to have been scored into this abrasion, and must therefore have
been sustained after the inscription was broken. Since Chip 1 and Chip 2
bear the same characteristics as Chip 3, we can reasonably deduce that
these too were made after the stone was broken. As a result, we can con-
clude that the patch of erosion which covers the first two letters, taw and
sin, and a small area around it was not sustained while the inscription was
in its original display position, but after the inscription was broken. Subse-
quently, the three chips were sustained during the transfer and reuse of the
fragment as building material.
After the taw and sin we see a fully preserved resh. In contrast to the
preceding two letters, the incisions of this resh are quite deep. In fact, so
notably deep are they that a small part of the stone within the area of the
triangular head has been chipped off during the chiselling of the lines. This
chip runs along the length of the left vertical incision such that it appears
to be part of the incision, though not quite in harmony with it. It is not
anomalous to the incised stroke, unlike the chip along the stem of the taw
two letters before. However, like the taw, the stem of the resh is quite
shallow in depth due to the small patch of erosion in this area of the stone.
Following the resh on Line 1 is a word divider. It is in the shape of a
simple dot and has been carved extremely well. Indeed, it presents to the
reader a very neat circle and the indentation into the stone itself is almost
perfectly hemispherical. This suggests that the engraver first chiselled a
rough mark, which he then ground out, probably without the use of a
hammer, giving the neat circular effect.
The final letter extant on Line 1 is an 'ayin. The letter is almost fully
preserved with only the very left side of the figure damaged in the in-
scription's breakage. No other incised strokes give any indication that this
is possibly a qoph, and the possibility of a lamed is dispelled by the fact
that the letter appears to be a closed circle.
We may decipher the inscribed characters on Line 1, therefore, as:
[...]unoi[...].
Line 2
The beginning of Line 2 is very difficult to decipher. The broken edge
where the written surface meets one of the newly exposed faces (the upper-
most) has been significantly abraded such that there is no clear distinction
between where the written face ends and the newly exposed face begins
(see Fig. 3.9). This poses significant problems for deciphering the first few
letters of Line 2 as the abraded edge cuts through them. Consequently, the
first legible letters of Line 2 are quite a way along the line. The first clearly
legible character in Line 2 is a word divider. Like the word divider in Line
1, it is a very round figure that appears to have been hollowed out after it
was initially chipped into the stone.
Written face Newly exposed face
Figure 3.9. The abraded edge between the -writtenface and the uppermost exposed face
(Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan
[detail]).
However, there are still some traces of the damaged letter immediately
preceding this word divider. We must consider whether this letter, and
indeed any letter preceding it on Line 2, can be reconstructed. In neither of
their two publications do Biran and Naveh offer any suggestion for these
letters. Yardeni's facsimile of Fragment A offers no reconstruction either,
though she shows that some unclear markings are present on the face of
the stone.35 A careful examination of the actual fragment shows what
appears to be the bottom left portion of a letter etched into the stone. The
visible remnant of this damaged letter is fairly rounded. It does not appear
to have a low stem or tail as the written surface is clearly legible where we
would expect it to be. This being the case, we cannot consider beth, heh,
kaph, mem, nun, samekh,peh, sadhe, qoph, resh or taw as possibilities for
restoring the letter. Therefore, in order to reconstruct the letter, we must
look for letter shapes that display roundness in the bottom left portion and
which have no low stem. As such, we may suggest teth, yodh, lamed and
'ayin, each of which must be dealt with on their own merits.
The difficulty in proposing a teth here is that neither Fragment A nor
Fragment B contain any examples ofteths.Thus, we have to turn to the
35. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 89, Fig. 8.
evidence from other similar monumental lapidary inscriptions that do

attest the letter teth. The Amman Citadel Inscription36 has one instance of
teth as a right-leaning elipse with a score across its width at the centre.
This would indeed be a suitable match for the relevant etched marks on
Fragment A. The Sefire Treaties37 attest a similar left-leaning teth. The
Mesha Stele38 attests the letter teth as a circle with two interior radii
forming a sector inside the circle.39 The inscription from Tell Fakhariyah40
attests a similar teth as a circle with two intersecting diameters, as do
Azitawadda's inscription from Karatepe41 and Panammu I.42 Indeed, from
the Ahiram Inscription43 to the Eshmun'azar Sarcophagus,44 the letter teth
is attested as round and therefore a candidate for consideration as the
damaged letter here in Line 2.
There are two problems, however, with identifying this letter as a teth.
First, from the remnant of the damaged letter, there appears to be no
36. For the text of the Amman Citadel Inscription and an analysis, see S.H. Horn,
'The Amman Citadel Inscription', BASOR 193 (1969), pp. 2-19.
37. The definitive edition of the Sefire Treaties is J.A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic
Inscriptions of Sefire+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
38. For the text and facsimile of the Mesha Stele as well as a treatment of
numerous issues arising from it, see A. Dearman (ed.), Studies in the Mesha Inscription
andMoab (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
39. These radii appear at vastly different angles inside the circle among the attesta-
tions on the Mesha Stele.
40. For a treatment of this inscription, see A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil and A.R.
Millard,La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-arameenne
(Recherche sur les civilisations, 7; Paris: ADPF, 1982); S.A. Kaufman, 'Reflections on
the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh', Maarav 3 (1982), pp. 137-75;
J.C. Greenfield and A. Shaffer, 'Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual Statue from
Tell Fekherye', Iraq 65 (1983), pp. 109-16; A. Spycket, 'La statue bilingue de Tell
Fekherye', RA 79 (1985), pp. 67-68.
41. For the text of Azitwadda, see H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und
Aramdische Inschriften (3 vols.; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964), 26. A facsimile
of Text A can be found in J. Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to
the West Semitic Epigraphy andPalaeography (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982), p. 56.
42. The Panammu I inscription is also known as the Hadad Inscription. For
treatment of this inscription, see J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions
(3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), II, 13, PL 13.
43. See Donner and Rollig, Kanaandische und Aramdische Inschriften, I, 1; J.B.
Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East in Pictures (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1954), pp. 456-59.
44. M. Lidzbarski, Handbuch derNordsemitischen EpigraphiknebstAusgewdhlten
Inschriften++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
evidence of any strokes inside the rounded portions (i.e. the letter's inte-
rior). This means that if we are to understand this letter as a teth, the
interior stroke characteristic of a teth must be similar to the teth in Line 10
of the Mesha Stele (in the word mfrtf). This sees the interior stroke as
resembling two radii extending from the centre point out to the letter's
circumference on the top right quarter of the letter (similar to the hands of
a clock reading the time 2.15). This is indeed a very peculiar teth and one
that is rare and not consistent even within the Mesha Stele. The other pos-
sibility is to consider a shape similar to the teth in the Amman Citadel
inscription.
However, the second problem has to do with the placement of the
damaged letter on Line 2. If we follow the slant of the letters in Line 2 and
consider the damaged letter to be a teth, we find that it is placed well below
the normal writing base line for Line 2. Even if we allow for a change or
curvature of slant as we see in Line 3 directly below, we still find that a
teth would be very oddly placed. For this reason, and the one stated above,
we must have serious reservations about suggesting teth as the damaged
letter here.
We find similar problems with the suggestion of an 'ay in being the dam-
aged letter. Since both teth and 'ayin are of comparable height and shape in
other monumental lapidary inscriptions, the placement of the letter is trou-
blesome. Since we do have other attestations of 'ayin in Fragment A, we do
not need to appeal to other inscriptions for clarification of the letter shape.
It is quite clear that the 'ayin in Fragment A closely resembles a simple
closed circle. Although this accords well with the shape of the remnant of
the damaged letter, our main trouble is its placement well below the writing
base line. However, it is more plausible than a teth.
Another candidate for the damaged letter is lamed. We have numerous
examples within Fragment A with which to work. They present curvature
at the bottom left portion of the letter that fits well with the letter remnant
here in Line 2. In particular, the lameds of Lines 6-8 provide us with good
templates. The advantage of suggesting a lamed is that we have no prob-
lem with the letter's placement. Since lamed is a tall letter, the added
height fills the displacement with the writing base line (see Fig. 3.10). As
such, lamed must be considered a logical choice for reconstruction of this
damaged letter.
Schniedewind also reconstructs this letter as a lamed, but he does so on
the basis of'computer enhancement and imaging' and the assumption that
the letters reconstruct a name (as opposed to common noun, verb, and so
on).45 In fact, in his initial transcription of the fragments as he arranges

them, Schniedewind deals with this letter as though the letter was not in
doubt but only slightly damaged. Furthermore, he reconstructs an 'aleph
before this lamed, though with slightly less certainty. A perusal of the
published photographs and facsimiles of the fragments may seem to give
Schniedewind some backing. However, as with all inscriptions, facsimiles
and, in particular, photographs can be and often are misleading. Nothing
may substitute for an at-hand examination of the fragments.
Schniedewind's proposal to read ^^[...] before the word divider is
fraught with difficulties. First, he understands these letters to form a theo-
phoric element of a personal name, specifically the name of the author's
father. Schniedewind proposes Hazael as the author. The problem, which
goes unaddressed in Schniedewind's article, is that we do not know who
Hazael's father was. He is known in the Bible as a usurper. As such, his
royal predecessor, Hadad-idri,46 was not his father. If Hadad-idri had been
Hazael's father, then either Schniedewind has misread the damaged strokes
at the beginning of Line 2, or the letters ^K are not part of the name of
Hazael's father. The other possibility is that the name of Hazael's actual
father ended with the theophoric element ^K-. In his later article with
Zuckerman, Schniedewind goes for this option, reconstructing the name as
^Kp"l!l (Baraq'el)++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
cerns with these letters that preclude Schniedewind's suggestionnot to
mention historical concerns48 and the fact that Schniedewind and Zucker-
man assume that these initial letters on Line 2 form a name. There is no
reason to assume that the letters form a name, and to do so unnecessarily
jeopardizes our objectivity with regard to these letters. In Schniedewind
and Zuckerman's study, this is precisely the case as the identification of a
lamed immediately before the first word divider on Line 2 leads them to
construct the theophoric element bfc-. Furthermore, Schniedewind and
Zuckerman's study uses only computer imaging; it does not examine the
actual physical fragments themselves. Had such an examination taken
45. Schniedewind, 'Tel Dan Stela', p. 77; Schniedewind and Zuckerman, 'A Possi-
ble Reconstruction', p. 89.
46. The biblical text portrays a certain Ben-Hadad (i.e. Bar Hadad) as Hazael's
predecessor. However, there is considerable doubt as to the reliability of this informa-
tion. This issue of the succession of Damascene kings will be dealt with in Chapter 7.
47. Schniedewind and Zuckerman, 'A Possible Reconstruction', pp. 90-91.
48. These issues will be discussed further in Chapter 7.
place, Schniedewind and Zuckerman would have realized that lamed is not
'the only letter that fits the spacing, orientation and line height'.49
Figure 3.10. Beginning of Line 2 (left) and possible restoration oflamedfor damaged
letter (right). The restored lamed is modelled on the lamed in Line 11 (detail of facsi-
mile drawn by Ada Yardeni).
Epigraphically, the suggestion of restoring a lamed before the word

divider has immense problems. Figure 3.10 illustrates how the restoration
of lamed in the position of the damaged letter leaves a considerable gap to
the word divider that follows. This is quite uncharacteristic of Fragment A,
and even Fragment B. This problem must cast further doubts on our previ-
ous suggestions of teth and 'ayin, also.
Furthermore, a careful analysis of this area of the stone, from many dif-
ferent angles, reveals that there is scarification on the surface of the stone
between the damaged letter and the word divider. This was presumably
caused by breakage of the original inscription. Yet, one particular scar is
deeper than the rest, prompting the likelihood that this scar is in fact the
remnant of a deliberately chiselled stroke belonging to a letter.
We may now posit three different possibilities regarding this area of the
stone in light of the data:
1. All the scarification was wholly sustained during breakage of the
inscription. Thus, there is a large gap between the damaged letter
we have been trying to restore and the word divider that follows.
2. The scarification represents a thin individual letter originally
between the damaged letter we have been trying to restore to the
right and the word divider to the left.
49. Schniedewind and Zuckerman, 'A Possible Reconstruction', p. 89.

3. The scarification represents a deliberately chiselled stroke that

belongs to the damaged letter we have been trying to restore.
As we noted, the first possibility would be quite uncharacteristic within
Fragment A. As such, it has little support. The second possibility is also
difficult because of the nature of the deep scar in question. The scar is rela-
tively short and protrudes down to the left from the rough line of breakage.
If we are to consider this an individual letter, then we can find no letter
that matches. The only possible candidate would be a taw. However, the
other attestations of taw that we have in Fragment A make this a very
remote possibility. From these other attestations, we see that the taw was
written as a relatively long letter with its diagonal stem extending well
below the writing base line.50 The deep scar in Line 2, however, finishes
well above the writing base line. It is also on a considerably flatter angle
than the stem of a taw. Furthermore, the size of a taw would impinge on
the preceding damaged letter, which we have been investigating. A taw
would be too wide to accommodate. The only possibility is of a very thin
letter. However, the nature and placement of the deep scar in question
makes the possibility of it being an individual letter very tenuous.
This leaves us with the third alternative, that the deep scar forms part of
the damaged letter. This means we must search for a letter that displays
some curvature towards the bottom as well as an arm that extends diago-
nally to the left. The only letter that could fit this description is yodh.
Figure 3.11 illustrates how we may indeed restore the deep scar and the
damaged letter together as a yodh. Such a yodh would display slightly
more curvature than most other yodhs in Fragment A. However, such a
form is certainly not beyond the scope of Fragment A. Indeed, numerous
yodhs attested in Fragment A do display curvature. A very comparable
form may be found at the beginning of Line 10.
We may make further observations about the damaged beginning of
Line 2. To the right of our restored yodh, we find the definite remains of
the stem of a letter (see Fig. 3.12). The rest of this letter has been
obliterated in the breakage of the inscription, apart from one small
engraved point which has survived to the left of it (see Fig. 3.12 for its
position). The angle at which this stem lies and the small point near it
means that we can narrow down the possibilities for restoring the letter.
The plausible options are 'aleph, heh, waw, samekh, sadhe, qoph and resh.
We must consider the merits of each of these letters.
50. Compare examples of taw in Lines 8, 9 and 10.

Figure 3.11. The position of the deep scar (left) and its restoration together with the
damaged letter as a yodh (right) (detail of facsimile drawn by Ada Yardeni).
Figure 3.12. The remains of a stem belonging to a damaged letter at the beginning of
Line 2 (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z.
Radovan [detail]).
Restoring this stem to an 'aleph is probably the least likely option. It

would require the 'aleph to possess an inordinately long stem, far longer
than any other 'aleph attested in Fragment A or Fragment B. It would also
require us to view the engraved point as part of the horizontal stroke on
the head of the 'aleph. However, as the point of intersection between this
stroke and the stem is not extant, it must be placed at quite a high point.
This means that the stem of the 'aleph would have to be even longer than
is currently visible. Neither the 'alephs of Fragment A, nor those of Frag-
ment B, have scope enough to incorporate the usage of such an irregularly
shaped 'aleph. Thus, we may safely dismiss it as an option.
The letter heh, however, fits better. It would require us to see the en-
graved point to the left as part of the lowest horizontal stroke of the letter.
This, however, would see the stem as longer than the usual form attested
in Fragment A. The letter waw has similar problems in that we would need
to posit a longer stem than is usual. The size of the waw in Fragment A is
far from regular. A comparison of the waw at the beginning of Line 3 with
the waw in Line 5 demonstrated this. However, if we are to restore this
particular letter here in Line 2 as a waw, it would need to have the longest
stem of all waws attested in Fragment A.
A more plausible suggestion is the letter samekh. As in the case ofheh,
we would need to see the engraved point as part of the lowest horizontal
stroke. However, unlike the heh, the other attestation of samekh in Frag-
ment A indicates just how high on the stem this horizontal stroke actually
appears. As such, the samekh is a very suitable candidate for restoration.
Less can be said for the letter qoph. Although the engraved point that is
still visible to the left of the stem remnant is just one point, it would have
to be part of the round head of the letter qoph. If this was the case, we
might expect to find more of the head of this letter still extant on the
written surface because of the fact that it is round.51 However, the nature
of breakage and erosion along this portion of the stone means we cannot
maintain this expectation without doubt. Thus, it must not preclude us
from considering a qoph as an option for restoring the letter, especially
considering that the stem would be the right height.
We may also suggest the letter resh. Like the qoph and samekh, the stem
is of appropriate height. The main problem with resh, however, is seeing
the engraved point as the horizontal stroke of the letter's head. Examina-
tion of the other reshs on Fragment A reveals that this horizontal stroke
tends to weigh down on the right. As such, we would expect to be able to
see more of this stroke on the extant surface. Yet, as was the case with the
letter qoph, the damage inflicted on the stone at this point leaves enough
room for doubt, making resh another possible option.
In order to restore this figure as a sadhe, we would have to consider the
small engraved point to the left of the stem as irrelevant to the figure. Since
this engraved point is a deliberately carved stroke, we cannot regard it
simply as a scarification mark. Rather, it would need to be accounted for in
another waynamely, as part of another letter.
At this point, it must be noted that these two damaged letters before the
first word divider on Line 2, whatever the first of them is, appear to be
wider spaced than most other letters we observe on Fragment A. Through-
51. My previous suggestions have regarded the engraved point as part of a straight
line.
out the fragment we do find the tendency for two letters to be wider spaced
if the second letter is ayodh. For example, the first full word of Line 2,
"OK, has significantly more distance between the beth and yodh than
between the 'aleph and beth. The reason for this idiosyncracy is the tail of
the yodh which occupies a low part of the letter and which extends out to
the right. We find a similar phenomenon in the first word of Line 3, DZDCTl.
The first two letters of this word, waw and yodh, are more widely spaced
than the other letters because of the yodh's tail. This is certainly not a
universal peculiarity which shows itself in every instance of the letter yodh
on Fragment A. However, we may note that it does occur and why it
occurs. This would indeed lend more impetus to the suggestion that the
damaged letter immediately before the first word divider on Line 2 is in
fact ayodh.
However, we would still need to maintain an abnormally large space
between the restored yodh and the long-stemmed figure preceding it. To
whichever letter we restore the long-stemmed figure before the yodh, the
gap is still very large. We cannot propose a word divider in this gap because
we cannot supply an adequate meaning to a singular yodh as an independent
lexeme. Therefore, it is not a viable option to have such a large gap between
these letters.
Our only other alternative is to place another letter between the long-
stemmed figure and the yodh preceding the word divider. This means that
the engraved point can be accounted for if the long-stemmed figure is a
sadhe. This extra letter would by physical necessity have to be thin. It
must also have no long stem since no such stem is visible on the stone.
The only candidates for this letter are daleth, heth and 'ayin. The thinnest
letter in Fragment A, waw, is ruled out as a possibility because we can see
no traces of the stem. The very bottom part of the stem would still be visi-
ble on the stone. Therefore, we cannot consider it here.
One way of discovering what letter should be placed here is to test the
various possible combinations of letters. In doing this, we are testing two
particular points. First, the letters must fit physically beside each other
without any overlap. Second, the letters must make lexical and contextual
sense.
The only combinations of letters which fit into this space and align with
the carved strokes are "HD, HU, TID, TTH, *VD and TiJ. This means that the
long-stemmed letter can only be a samekh or a sadhe. Physically, the letter
following can be either of our three candidates (daleth, heth or 'ayin).
From these six combinations, three make lexical and contextual sense.
These are:
1. '[l]D[n]: 'pious acts of or 'my piety'.
2. <?[n]iJ[]]: 'triumphs of or 'my triumph(s)'.
3. s[U]D[ft]: 'journeys of or 'myjourney(s)'.
With these possibilities, we must note that the second and third options
require the addition of another long-stemmed letter before the figure that
has left part of its stem on the fragment. Option 2 requires the addition of a
nun and option 3 requires a mem. The difficulty with both of these is that
the bottom portion of these letters' stems should still be visible on the
stone. The line of the stone's breakage is such that we would expect to see
part of the bottom of a long-stemmed figure if one was originally there.
Therefore, the second and third options are unlikely and I suggest recon-
structing the text to read in accordance with the first option, "'[!]&[PI].
Before this heth, there is room enough for two letters or, alternatively, one
letter and a word divider. Since no word dividers appear as the first char-
acter on any line of Fragment A, and since this does not occur in other
monumental lapidary inscriptions, we can plausibly say that a word di-
vider may be placed directly before the heth of ''[lib [PI]. Thus, a single
letter may have been the first character of Line 2, carried over from a word
at the end of Line 1. Equally plausible, however, is the prefixing of two
letters to the word ''[Tib[PI], such as a waw conjunction and a prefixed
preposition. This is the more plausible option contextually as will be seen
in our textual commentary on the text. We propose the prefixing of-31 to
* [~f ]D[PI ] in order to gain the reading * [~I]b[PQl ] ('and because of the pious
acts of or 'and because of my piety').
We move on, then, past the first word divider to a fully preserved
'alephthe first letter of the word "OK. The incisions of this 'aleph are
quite deep so that the walls of the incisions are quite sheer as opposed to
the round incisions seen previously (see Fig. 3.2). The vertical spine of the
'aleph appears to have been the final stroke of the letter etched into the
stone since it makes a decisive dissecting cut across the other two strokes,
rather than being dissected by these two strokes. The bottom horizontal
stroke also has a notable kink, close to the leftmost point of the letter.
Following the 'aleph comes the figure of a beth. The tail of this letter is
very curved and a chip has been sustained right at the point where the cur-
vature starts. Since it occurs at precisely this point, the chip may be indica-
tive of a finishing point which was hammered slightly too vigorously. Thus,
the tail of the beth was not carved as one stroke with the spine of the letter.
Rather, the figure was initially carved like a daleth with the tail being the
last stroke added. The evident direction of carving displayed by the strokes
suggests that this letter was also carved with the engraver situated along the
inscription's left edge. One curious point about this particular letter is that
the spine of the figure does not quite meet the diagonal stroke of the 'head'
at the topmost point. The outermost contours of the strokes meet, giving the
impression from a distance that the bottom of the incision channels also
meet. However, two deeply chiselled points are clearly visible at the top of
each respective stroke, showing that the bed of the incisions did not meet.
This highlights the fact that, at the time and place in which the inscription
was carved, the letter beth was clearly written with a pointed, rather than
rounded, headan important epigraphical datum.
The third extant letter on Line 2 is a yodh. It is quite difficult to ascer-
tain how this letter was carved, but it is clear that the top and bottom hori-
zontal strokes were not carved as one continuous stroke along with the
letter's vertical spine.
Following this yodh is another word divider that is not as round as those
seen previously. There is a clear deep point in the incision, indicative of
the single stroke of the engraver's chisel. This is telling for, since the word
divider is but one small chip, it highlights the direction of the engraver's
chisel. As an engraver hammers the final portion of a stroke into the stone,
an impression of the chisel's point is left at the deep point. In this case, the
impression is in the uppermost part of the word divider, indicating that the
chisel was aimed in an upward direction and angled slightly to the right.
This further strengthens the suggestion that a right-handed engraver was
positioned at the left edge of the inscription while carving.
Another yodh marks the beginning of a new word. This yod++++++
from the preceding one in that it appears to be more angular. Oddly, the
top horizontal stroke has not been carved smoothly and straightly. It
appears somewhat crooked, almost like a squat circumflex accent.
The next letter is a samekh. The stem of this letter seems to be carved
slightly deeper than the three horizontal strokes that it intersects, marking
it out as the final stroke carved in this letter. It is clear that this vertical
stem was also carved in an upward direction, due to a deep point at the
topmost extremity. This deep point has resulted in what looks like a bump
along the top horizontal stroke. This top horizontal line has evidently been
carved from left to right, while the deep point of the bottom horizontal line
indicates that it was carved from right to left. There is also some minor
erosion along the right half of this bottom horizontal stroke. It is, however,
quite difficult to determine the direction in which the middle stroke was
carved. This fact may indicate that it was carved with much more care, and
so slightly shallower, than the other two horizontal strokes of the samekh.
We thus seem to have a scenario in which the engraver carved the top and
bottom strokes first, after which the middle stroke was engraved carefully
so as not to make any careless chips in the confined space which it occu-
pies between them.
What this samekh demonstrates, along with the letters already observed,
is that the engraver was restricted in carving vertical strokes upwards, but
that no similar restrictions governed the direction in which he carved hori-
zontal strokes. Thus, the suggestion that the engraver carved from one of
the flank edges of the inscription is confirmedthat is, the left edge assum-
ing a right-handed craftsman.
The line of breakage along the left side of the fragment has damaged
half of the next letter. What has remained is the right sector of a circular
stroke, with a stem extending below it. This is enough to identify the letter
as a qoph without any doubt. Some abrasions on the surface of the stone
have also been inflicted with the stone's breakage.
Therefore, we may decipher Line 2 as: [.. .]pD'''OK4[~T]b[rQ'l].
Line 3
The beginning of Line 3 has been preserved with the right edge of the
inscription intact. At this latitude of the stone, the right edge is severely
eroded, considerably more than it is at the level of the final line (Line 13)
of Fragment A. Some of this erosion has impinged upon the first letter, a
fully preserved waw, particularly over its stem. However, the erosion to
the letter strokes is still slight and does not hinder its identification. A deep
point is visible at the top extremity of the stem of this waw, indicating the
upward direction of vertical strokes we have come to expect. Furthermore,
two deep points along the 'hook' of the wawone at the apex and another
at the topmost pointare consistent with our theory of the engraver's
position during carving. It also suggests that the stem was the first stroke
of the letter carved into the stone since the 'hook' has been carved away
from it. One further aspect of this letter is that it is spaced slightly further
away from the next letter than is usual. This is probably due to the fact that
the next letter is ayodh and the scribe who chalked the text onto the stone
appears to have distanced his yodhs from the preceding letter in order to
accommodate the tail.
After the fully preserved and quite angularyodh, we see a clearly legible
sin. Directly above the midpoint of this sin is a pock mark that appears
quite regular in shape. It bears resemblance to a large word divider. How-

ever, since it lies between two lines of text, it cannot be a word divider.
We must, therefore, view this mark as either a natural chip in the stone per-
haps sustained during smoothing of the writing face, or as a chip inflicted
during breakage and reuse of the inscription.
After the sin we encounter a neat kaph. Once again, we find the stem of
the letter carved from bottom to top as evidenced by the shallow and deep
points at the respective extremities. The middle 'finger' of the kaph also
appears to have been carved from bottom to top, but it is difficult to ascer-
tain the direction of carving for the left horizontal 'finger'. Interestingly,
these two 'fingers' do not meet the stem of the letter at one common point.
This suggests that the horizontal stroke had probably been carved from left
to right since the engraver would probably have started from a point com-
mon to the other 'finger' if he had carved in the opposite direction.
This letter is followed by a very neatly carved beth. A word divider
comes after this, but it has been significantly eroded. The following word
begins with an 'aleph. The triangular area enclosed by the three strokes of
this 'aleph has been mostly chipped away, probably through an accident of
the engraver. The leftmost point of the letter is clearly the starting point
for the two cross-strokes. The vertical spine of the letter repeats the method
already demonstrated by other letters of carving from bottom to top. The
starting point of this stroke is actually very shallow and the finishing point
quite deep. As was also seen with the 'aleph of Line 2, this stroke was the
last stroke of the letter to be carved.
After this 'aleph we find another regular beth which is in turn followed
by ayodh. The strokes of this yodh are relatively shallow, especially at the
point where the spine bends into the top horizontal stroke. This suggests
that the top horizontal stroke had been carved first from right to left, after
which the spine was carved as expected from bottom to top. The tail of the
letter was carved from the bottom of the vertical spine out to the right.
We encounter another yodh after a word divider. The oddity of this yodh
is that the top horizontal stroke is abnormally long. The spine curves into
both this top horizontal stroke and the tail at bottom right, giving us a prece-
dent for the rounded yodh proposed for restoration immediately before the
first word divider of Line 2. The incisions of this letter are also fairly shal-
low due to some erosion.
Next we find our first extant heh. The stem of this heh is fairly long
below the bottom horizontal stroke. The lower two horizontal strokes are
carved very shallow and barely manage to meet the letter stem. Beyond
this heh we have a very deeply carved kaph. The left 'finger' of the letter
has some slight chipping at its extremity. All the 'fingers' however do
meet at one point on the stem. A very deep word divider comes after this,
which confirms our theory of where the engraver was positioned. The en-
graver's tool has left its mark quite well in the single chip needed to carve
the word divider. It demonstrates that the nib of the tool was shaped
exactly like a flat-bladed screwdriver. Yet, in addition, this mark of the
engraver's tool is aimed upwards to the right, demonstrating the angle at
which the tool was struck into the stone. This is the most natural angle at
which to aim the tool if one is situated along the left edge of the inscrip-
tion. It would be an unnatural angle from anywhere else.
Following this word divider, only two letters are still extant. The first is
an 'aleph that shows some signs of erosion along the top right diagonal.
Again, the vertical stroke forming the spine shows evidence of having been
carved from bottom to top. This stroke is also quite shallow. The second
letter is a lamed carved on a notable right slant. This could perhaps be
accounted for by the scribe's outstretched posture when chalking the text
onto the stone. The stone is slightly damaged in the middle of the letter,
almost lending it an appearance as a small Latin 'b'. The line of breakage
of Fragment A impedes on this lamed at the point where the 'shank'
begins to hook right. This being the case, we cannot see any shallow point
where we expect the two strokes of this letter to have started. However, we
may reasonably expect the 'shank' of the lamed to have been carved from
bottom to top, after which the hook of the letter was carved. Since the
extremities of these two strokes are visibly deep, we would be right in
surmising this.
Thus, we can decipher the characters on Line 3 as: ~[!T''3KO;DEn
[...]^.
Line 4
Line 4 begins with a neatly carved resh. The stone is slightly eroded here
because of the belt of erosion that encompasses the entire right edge of the
fragment. As with the 'aleph that follows, the vertical stroke again has
been carved from bottom to top. The spine of the following 'aleph is also
quite shallow. Very close to the leftmost point of the 'aleph is another
lamed. This lamed stands more upright than the one at the end of Line 3,
and we can see that the strokes were indeed carved outward from where
the 'shank' bends into the hook. Another word divider follows this letter
which again clearly shows the direction and position in which the engraver
carved his strokes.
Beyond this word divider is our first/w//y preserved attestation ofqoph.52

As expected, the stem of the letter has been carved in an upwards direction.
Furthermore, the round head of the qoph was evidently started at the bot-
tom left. This is to be expected as it would be the logical and most natural
point to start carving such a rounded head for someone situated at the left
edge of the inscription. This starting point is observable as a distinct bump
or corner with shallow points. The stem seems to have been the last stroke
of the letter carved and it protrudes through and above the round head.
After the qoph we find our first instance of the letter daleth. It is similar
in shape to the top of a resh but characteristically it lacks the full stem.
Again, vertical strokes have been carved upwards. The bottom horizontal
stroke barely meets the right diagonal suggesting that this diagonal was the
last stroke carved. Next to this, we see a mem, the top left portion of which
is slightly eroded. Nevertheless, we can observe the trend to carve up-
wards in all three vertical strokes. It is, however, impossible to tell which
stroke was carved first and which last. Yet, we can reason that it was
carved from left to right as most other letters seem to have been.
Following the mem is a word divider made shallow by some erosion.
This patch of erosion imposes on the next letter, another beth, making its
strokes also shallow. After this beth we come across another 'aleph. As has
been the case with previous instances of 'aleph, the leftmost point appears
to have been the starting point of the letter. However, the bottom horizontal
stroke appears carved from right to left because of a deep point at the left
extremity. This would explain why these two strokes do not appear to merge
at a common point. The spine, though, has again been carved upwards and
because of its depth is obviously the final stroke of the letter.
A resh follows the 'aleph. Its incisions are quite smooth. Once more we
observe the upwards direction of the vertical strokes. Next to this we have
another qoph, the head of which is uniformly rounder than the one occur-
ring earlier in the line. Once again, however, we can see that the head was
carved starting from the bottom left where we observe shallow points and
a bump in the roundness of the head. Unlike the earlier qoph in the line,
however, this qoph'?, stem barely protrudes above the head. It is the last
stroke of the letter to have been carved and is in fact fairly crooked.
A word divider occurs after this, positioned quite close to the qoph.
Because of another patch of erosion, this word divider is quite shallow.
After this, we have an 'aleph that has undergone a good deal of damage.
52. A partially preserved qoph was observed at the very end of Line 2.
Presumably this was caused during the inscription's breakage, as was the
erosion which impinges on the preceding word divider. The enclosed tri-
angular area of the 'aleph has been chipped completely out in a way simi-
lar to that of the first 'aleph in Line 3. However, the leftmost portion of
this 'aleph has been totally damaged because of a very deep lacuna in the
stone. There is no difficulty, though, in identifying this letter as an 'aleph.
This lacuna presents an interesting problem that received only cursory
attention from Biran and Naveh, and none from any other scholar con-
cerned with the fragment. The problem is the size of the lacuna and the
gap between the 'aleph just mentioned and the beth which emerges clearly
(albeit slightly damaged) at the end of the lacuna. Biran and Naveh suf-
ficed to say that this gap did not warrant the restoration of a letter in
between the 'aleph and the beth. Rather, they suggested that a small
blemish already existed on the stone prior to the engraving of the inscrip-
tion and it was this which accounted for the larger than usual gap. This
blemish, they claim, then became larger over time.53
However, Biran and Naveh have denied two crucial pieces of evidence
in saying this. First, the lacuna is quite deep; it is not superficial. Only a
significant force concentrated onto this small portion of the stone could
have made the lacuna. Its depth suggests that it had not been caused by an
originally smaller chip that had been unwittingly enlarged over time. Had
this been the case, we would expect the edges of the lacuna to be quite
shallow with probable patches of erosion blurring the edges. This is cer-
tainly not the case. In fact, one could almost mistake the lacuna as the
result of deliberate chiselling. The edges are not shallow; they are quite
deep. Also, there is no blurring around its edges to suggest that it is the
result of natural erosion. As such, there is no reason why the 'aleph and
the beth should be so far apart.
In fairness to Biran and Naveh, this could simply be an accidental wide
spacing of the letters. However, the second piece of evidence dismisses
this possibility. Protruding from the top of the lacuna, midway between the
'aleph and the beth, is the remnant of a definite carved stroke. This stroke
extends upwards and to the right, almost touching the bottom of the stem
belonging to the kaph in the line above (see Fig. 3.13). It comes as no
surprise that this stroke was not observed by any other epigrapher because
the photograph of Fragment A published by Biran and Naveh is mislead-
ing. The lighting in this photograph, taken by Radovan,54 gives the impres-
53. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 87 n. 6.

54. This is the photograph reproduced here.
sion that two scars protrude from the lacuna. This is not quite the case with
the real fragment. There is some slight scarification leading into the lacuna,
but this is very shallow, unlike the impression given by the Radovan pho-
tograph. The 'scar' to the right of this, however, is a deliberately carved
stroke and we must conclude that it is the remnant of an extra letter that
has hitherto gone unnoticed by the scholarly community. A more con-
trasted image of the fragment shows the depths of the scar and deliberately
carved stroke a little more clearly (see Fig. 3.13).
Figure 3.13. Detail from the Radovan photograph (top) of the lacuna on Fragment A,
Line 4, in which the scarification appears overly accentuated. A facsimile (bottom)
labels the lacuna, scarification and the deliberately carved stroke representing the
remains of a letter (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photo-
graph: Z. Radovan [detail]; facsimile drawn by Ada Yardeni [detail]).
Having observed this carved stroke, we must now identify it with a let-
ter for restoration. The slant and positioning of the letter leave only one
possible candidate: a lamed. The only other letter that could possibly fit is
a taw, but it has numerous problems. First, no other taw in either Fragment
A or Fragment B sits quite so high. Even allowing a concession for this,
we would need to posit a taw with a significant downward bend in the

stem for it to even fit. The slant of the stroke protruding from the lacuna
means that a straight stemmed taw would run into the next letter, beth.
Yet, such a form of taw with the stem bent downwards is not attested
among the fragments. We find forms in which the stem curves upwards,55
but this would pose greater problems here. As such, we must reject taw as
a possible restoration.
The lamed, however, fits perfectly. The visible remnant forms part of
the 'shank' of the letter which would have curved underneath itself to the
right in order to form the hook (see Fig. 3.14). This accords perfectly in
shape and position with all other lameds attested in both Fragment A and
Fragment B. Although this gives the three letters over which the lacuna
impinges a slightly crammed appearance, it is nothing extraordinary to
Fragment A. On the contrary, we observe many similar examples of clus-
tered letters.56 Most notably, from Line 6, the word "^Q provides an
excellent example of a lamed being squashed close to the preceding letter.
Therefore, lamed is the letter that we must restore here.
Line 4 should, therefore, be deciphered as: [...pH^pnNIlD""[pv?Kl.
Figure 3.14. An electronically altered image (left) showing the possible original
appearance of the damaged letter and a facsimile (right) of the suggested restoration
(Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan
[detail]; facsimile drawn by Ada Yardeni [detail]).
Line 5
The fifth line of Fragment A begins with a smoothly eroded 'aleph. This
erosion is part of the belt of erosion that covers the right edge of the entire
fragment. Following the 'aleph, we come to our first attestation of the
letter nun. Because of the erosion along the inscription's edge, this letter is
55. E.g. in Line 8.

56. Compare the letters of the word 3DET1 in Line 3; ~[i"H in Line 5; and the last
extant letters of Line 7.
also quite shallow. Nevertheless, we can make out the deep and shallow
points at the extremities of the stem. Once again, these indicate that the
letter was carved from bottom to top. Similarly, the vertical hook of the
stroke was carved in an upward direction. The direction of the hook's
horizontal stroke is harder to discern.
The nun is followed by a heh, the stem of which is fairly short.57 As we
have seen with other occurrences+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the letter to be carved, and it was carved upwards. A word divider follows
very closely, almost touching the top 'bristle' of the heh. It is quite small
and shallow due to the smooth belt of erosion.
After this comes a waw that is also quite shallow due to erosion. How-
ever, this letter shows quite distinctly the starting and finishing points of
both the stem and the vertical stroke of the hook, again confirming the
upwards direction of carving. This is followed by an odd looking yodh;
odd because of its cramped appearance. The tail of the letter is relatively
shorter than those of other yodhs in the fragment, but it also bends up-
wards quite significantly. After this is a heh which is also shallow. Yet, in
keeping with previous letters, the stem was inscribed upwards and was
evidently the final stroke carved. The bottom two 'bristles' of the letter
barely join the stem. A kaph follows this heh, which sees the bottom part of
the stem damaged because of a pock mark in the stone. Yet, since we have
the top of the letter, we can see deep points at the top extremity of every
stroke. This suggests, once again, that the vertical strokes were carved up-
wards and the horizontal 'finger' was carved leftwards. The top of the stem
also comes very close to touching the top 'bristle' of the preceding heh.
A deep word divider comes next which is unaffected by the pock mark
damaging part of the kaph. As was the case in a previous word divider, we
can observe the definite shape of the nib of the engraver's tool in the upper
right part of the indentation. Again, the engraver was evidently situated at
the left flank of the inscription.
Another heh follows this word divider. The very bottom of the stem has
been damaged by the pock mark which intrudes over the stem of the kaph.
This heh follows the exact same pattern of carving as all the preceding
hehs: an upward direction with the stem carved last.
Two daleths are seen after this heh. The first daleth has been slightly
damaged along the bottom horizontal stroke. This is due to a small but
quite deep pock mark on the surface of the stone which must have been
57. The Radovan photograph of Fragment A gives the false impression of a long
stem.
sustained during or after breakage of the inscription. The bottom horizon-

tals of these two daleths are different from each other in that the first slants
slightly upward on the right whereas the second slants downwards. On
both forms, however, the two upright strokes forming the 'roof of the
daleth have been carved from the bottom up. Because of the chip along the
bottom horizontal of the first daleth, it is difficult to see in which direction
this stroke was carved. However, we can discern from the second daleth
that its horizontal was carved from left to right.
Another shallow word divider follows the two daleths. Again, we can
observe clearly the direction of carving, suggesting the engraver's position
at the left flank of the inscription. A fully preserved qoph follows this. As
has been the case with previous attestations of qoph, we can observe the
point at which the engraver started carving the rounded head of the letter
in the bottom left portion. Again, this is distinguishable by a slight bump
in the roundedness of the head. This is followed by another neat daleth
that displays similar characteristics to the first daleth encountered earlier
in the line. A mem follows that, which is quite neat and regular. We ob-
serve once more the upward direction of carving in each vertical stroke.
The final extant letter of the line is undoubtedly ayodh that has been dam-
aged by some chips in the stone in the lower portions of the letter. The
interesting feature of this yodh is that it is quite curved when compared
with some of the other more angular forms in Fragment A. It closely
resembles the Arabic numeral '2' with an extra horizontal in the middle.
From the shape of the chipping over the letter, it appears that the engraved
strokes facilitated the damage.
Beyond this is the leftmost extant point of the written surface on Frag-
ment A. At the extremity are the minute remains of another character.
However, this is virtually impossible to decipher on its own because there
is hardly anything to work with. We may, however, say that since the pre-
ceding letters form a coherent word, ''Dip, a word divider is to be ex-
pected. Indeed, the small inscribing is in the perfect position for a word
divider. As such, I suggest restoring this small carving to a word divider.
We may, then, decipher Line 5 as: [...]' 1 Qlplin~[T>H]N.
Line 6
The first letter of Line 6 is ayodh that has been smoothly eroded. It bears a
great resemblance to the yodh mentioned above at the end of Line 5. After
this is an extremely shallow word divider. It appears that the engraver did
not inscribe this word divider very deeply to begin with and the effects of
erosion have weathered the depth of the engraving down even further. So
shallow is it, in fact, that were it not placed in a gap between the preceding
yodh and the following letter, we could surmise that it was an accidental
blemish on the stone.
The letter that follows is another mem, made shallow because of erosion
along this flank of the inscription. In turn, this is closely followed by a very
neat lamed which appears almost pressed up against the mem. A shallow
kaph follows next which again displays evidence of having been carved
upwards, with the horizontal 'finger' being carved outwards from right to
left. A yodh follows this, which is of the more angular form, followed by
another word divider showing clear evidence of the engraver's position
during carving.
A waw is seen next which has undergone some erosion and very slight
chipping along the carved strokes. The deep points at the top extremities
of the vertical strokes again testify to the letter being carved upwards. An
'aleph follows after this, which is very regular and displays all the normal
characteristics of previous 'alephs. There has been some slight abrasion of
the stone across the bottom of the letter.
Next to this we find a qoph similar to previous examples. The letter is
carved upwards and the head was started from the bottom left corner. This
is followed by a taw which has been carved so well that it is impossible to
tell whether the upright or cross-bar of the letter was carved first. What is
discernible, though, is that the upright was carved from the bottom upwards.
To the immediate top left of this taw begins a pock mark which spreads
across to the 'shank' of a following lamed. Inside the pock mark we can
observe a slightly hollow pocket within the actual stone showing that the
surface of the stone here collapsed under great impact to form the pock
mark now visible. That is, this was a natural weak point in the stone due to a
hollow bubble. Despite this damage, the lamed is easily discernible.
Following this is a word divider that shows the angle at which the
engraver hammered the stroke quite distinctly. This angle, however, is
slightly more upright than most others before or below it. Nevertheless, it
is clear that the engraver was still situated along the left flank of the
inscription when he carved this character.
After the word divider, we have the remains of what is clearly a mem.
The bottom of the letter has been damaged and destroyed by the semi-
circular recess which we previously suggested was caused by a hammer
used to deface and destroy the original inscription. The remaining portion
of the stem on this letter precludes it from being a sin.
The recess, however, has almost completely obliterated the next letter.
The only portion of this letter still visible is a stroke protruding up from
the recess and leaning to the right. In their publication of Fragment A,
Biran and Naveh proposed restoring this as a nun.58 This seems a plausible
suggestion at first, but there are certain difficulties with it. First, it would
require us to see this stroke as the upper left portion of a nun. The forms of
nun attested in Fragment A (and Fragment B) show that having this upper
left stroke on such a decided slant is irregular. We do find such a form in
Line 11 of Fragment A but it is unique among the attested forms. How-
ever, we cannot dismiss the possibility of a nun on that basis alone. Yet, a
second objection appealing to the position of this visible stroke must be
raised. If this letter was actually a nun, we must say that it is abnormally
close to the preceding mem. In fact, when we superimpose the images of
other nuns from both Fragment A and Fragment B over this position, we
find that they either overlap with the preceding mem, or are placed so close
as to make the mem and nun look connected. It is as though they were
strokes of one wide and incomprehensible letter. Furthermore, the visible
stroke above the recess is carved in a very high position for a nun. It is to
be noted that it sits higher than the topmost point of the mem before it.
Again, this would be an irregular placement for a nun. Therefore, if we are
to maintain that this letter could be restored as a nun, we must say that it is
irregularly thin and irregularly high. The number of objections that may be
raised against this, however, means that restoration of a nun is theoreti-
cally possible but highly unlikely.
We did, however, observe a similar stroke protruding from the top of the
lacuna in Line 4 where it was concluded that a lamed needed to be restored.
Its placement so close to the preceding 'aleph in that line posed no serious
problem for restoring a lamed because of the nature of the lamed's shape.
We inevitably must come to the same conclusion here since both remnants
are for all intents and purposes identical. Thus, we should opt for restoring
a lamed'here as the most plausible candidate for this damaged letter. In their
second publication which annnounced the discovery of the B fragments,
Biran and Naveh changed their opinion to also restore this letter as a
lamed.59 However, this was evidently not based on comparison with the
stroke protruding above the lacuna in Line 4. Rather, it was based on their
arrangement of the fragments and the subsequent reading of the text that
they offered.

59. Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription', pp. 12-13, 16.
Unfortunately, the recess covers over most of the remaining letters of

the line on the fragment. However, the edge of the recess is in such a
position that if any of the letters it covers were a lamed, we would still be
able to see the top portion of the 'shank'. We do not find any such strokes
beyond the one just dealt with, so there must be no other lamed on the rest
of the extant line.60
We do, however, still find the remnant of a character at the very end of
this line as it is extant on Fragment A. This letter remnant is situated along
the broken edge precisely at the point where the recess breaks off com-
pletely with the edge of the fragment. The remnant consists of three strokes
that closely resemble the top of a waw. Unfortunately, the photograph by
Radovan does not highlight these strokes well enough.61 Also, the facsimile
by Yardeni does not show the strokes in their entirety.62 A thorough exami-
nation of the actual fragment, however, shows these three strokes quite
distinctly (see Fig. 3.15).
Figure 3.15. Detail of thefacsimile drawn by Yardeni (left) showing the damaged letter
at the edge of Line 6, Fragment A, and an electronically altered image of the same
area (right) showing a more accurate representation of the damaged letter.
We cannot find any other letter fitting this shape, besides waw. Yardeni
suggested that this was the tip of a nun.63 However, this has only taken
into account the rightmost of the three strokesa misperception that
obviously influenced the drawing of the facsimile. The letter nun also does
not attest to a form with the main stem extending above the 'hook'.
60. This does not preclude a lamed occurring elsewhere along this line in the
original inscriptiononly on the rest of the line as it appears on Fragment A.
62. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 89, Fig. 8. In this facsimile,
the edge of the recess covers more of the strokes than actually is the case and only the
rightmost of the three strokes has been drawn.
63. Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription', p. 16.
Dijkstra, who also noticed only one stroke, suggested that it was the rem-
nant of a sin. He used images of the fragment to transpose letters over this
stroke and concluded that 'the small stroke almost exactly coincided with
the rightside of the letter, sin ofysr+++++++++++++++++++++
case and neither does it take into account the exact nature of the strokes. In
his extravagant reconstruction of the text of Fragment A, Puech restored
this letter as an 'aleph. In the facsimile published with his article, we ob-
serve that Puech noticed more than one stroke at the edge of the fragment
here.65 However, he misconstrued the precise nature and orientation of
these strokes, and so came to a faulty conclusion.
The only letter we may restore here is a waw. Indeed, we find almost
identical forms of waw elsewhere among the fragments. The waw occur-
ring earlier in Line 6 shows a form where the stem displays a notable kink
at the junction with the 'hook'. The letter remnant at the edge of the frag-
ment displays this exact same feature. The second waw in Line 9 also
shows similar characteristics. Even closer is the form of waw in Line 3 of
Fragment B. This waw not only shows a kink in the stem, but a much more
open 'hook', also. This compares almost exactly with the remnant we find
at the edge of Line 6 in Fragment A. As such, we must restore this letter as
a waw.
This has implications for restoring the letters that would originally have
been carved between this restored waw and the lamed that we also restored
a little earlier. There is room enough for two very closely compacted let-
ters or for one uncramped letter and a word divider. The contours of the
recess at the edge of Fragment A show just enough of the written surface
to suggest that the latter is the case. If there were two letters in this gap,
they would be so close to each other and the enclosing letters that we
would expect to see remnants of at least the second letter preceding the
final waw. This would be the case even if one or both of the letters were
thin in shape, like a waw or nun. However, even allowing a concession for
this, a waw or nun would pose considerable philological problems for
reading the text. Yet, we must allow for the possibility of two very small
and closely compacted letters. On the other hand, having one letter and a
64. M. Dijkstra, 'An Epigraphic and Historical Note on the Stela of Tel Dan', BN
74 (1994), pp. 10-14(11).
65. E. Puech, 'La Stele Arameene de Dan: Bar Hadad II et la coalition des Omrides
et de la maison de David', RB 101-102 (1994), pp. 215-41 (218-19, 224-25); see
especially p. 219, Fig. 1. Puech also considered the possibilities of a lamed, yodh or
kaph, but dropped these in favour of 'aleph.
word divider poses little difficulty in terms of spacing or philology. Thus,

we suggest the restoration of one letter and a word divider in this gap. In
the context of the inscription, to be discussed in a later chapter, I contend
that we should restore a kaph and a word divider here. This fits not just the
written context, but the physical epigraphic evidence, also.
We can restore Line 6, then, as: [...]"i[~[]^QLTlpKV:DL>Q''.
Line 7
Due to the gradual erosion on the right side of the stone, the strokes of the
first few letters on Line 7 are found to be shallow. The first letter is a
regular kaph, followed by a very neat beth and a word divider that shows
evidence of the engraver's position along the left edge. A waw follows
this, which has been eroded even more than the other letters around it.
This lends the contours of the strokes a very soft edge. In contrast, an
'aleph follows this waw which has significantly sharper edges and con-
tours due to less erosion across the surface of the stone. Next to this we
encounter a rather angular lamed in which the curves of the expected
shape have been sharpened almost to corners.
Our first attestation of the letter peh follows this. It is simply in the shape
of an upside-down lamed. In contrast to the shape of the preceding lamed,
this peh is well curved but is fairly shallow because of some erosion. A
deep point in the incision is observable at the topmost point of the letter
where it begins to curve downwards. This suggests that the letter had been
carved in two stages. The first stroke appears to have been the short curve
at the top of the letter, after which the hanging stem was carved from the
bottom up. Thus, the two strokes met at the one point, resulting in one
common deep point.
A nicely curved yodh comes after this peh. The tail of this yodh almost
imposes upon the space of the preceding peh. We should also note that its
uniform curvature provides a good template for thQyodh restored immedi-
ately before the first word divider on Line 2.
After another word divider, we encounter our second example of the
letter peh. It is very similar to the peh encountered two letters before, the
only difference being that the curve appears slightly more open. It has been
skilfully carved to give the impression of one fluid stroke. However, as
with the previous peh, a deep point is apparent at the top of the letter indi-
cating it was carved with two strokes meeting at one point.
Following closely after the peh is a regular resh. The only noteworthy
point of this resh is that the stem ends very close to the bottom of the peh.
A regular sin follows this, after which we observe a fairly deep word
divider. At this point, the line has been broken by the large recess. There is,
however, a minute trace of the next letter. It is a very small portion of a
stroke that is situated along the actual edge of the recess at the same latitude
as the word divider. Since it is such a tiny sample, it is impossible to sug-
gest any restoration for this letter based solely on the physical evidence.
We can, therefore, decipher Line 7 as: [...]^ns''SLWin.
Line 8
Line 8 begins with a shallow mem that has an odd slant when compared to
other mems in the fragment. This is followed by an angular lamed which is
similar to the lamed in Line 7, though rotated significantly in a clockwise
direction. The third letter of the line is a very neat kaph that displays all
the regular features of previous examples.
After this, we encounter a word divider notable for its placement. It
occurs higher up than most other word dividers, but it also sits directly
above the tail of theyodh that follows. That is, it imposes upon the space
of theyodh. In fact, if the word divider was to be removed, we could read
the first two words of Line 8 as if they were one word, for there is no
noticeable gap in which the word divider is placed. Nevertheless, the word
divider is a deliberately carved stroke. We cannot suppose that it is a chip
in the surface of the stone. It must, then, be registered as an inscribed
character of the text.
The yodh that follows is actually quite small. It is both thin and short
when compared with other attestations of the letter in Fragment A. The top
horizontal of the letter has also been eroded slightly. It is the first letter of
the word ^fcdEF, of which all the letters appear regular.
After the lamed of ^N"IET comes a word divider that has been made
shallow by a small patch of erosion. This eroded area extends across the
top of the next letter, a wow. After this waw we have half of a qoph. The
edge of the large recess follows precisely down the length of the qoph"?,
stem so that only the right half of the letter is still preserved. However, at
this point we encounter the micro-fragment that sits inside the large recess.
We can actually still observe the point from which the head of the qoph
was carved on this micro-fragment. This point is represented by a small
mark on the very edge of the micro-fragment in the same relative location
we have seen it in other examples oi'qoph.
After this qoph, we find the lower portions of two letters that are
preserved on the micro-fragment. The first is obviously a taw and the
second is a curved stroke that can only be the bottom of a lamed. To the
lower left of this lamed we do see signs of some abrasion on the stone
surface which, in the Radovan photograph, could be misinterpreted as a
word divider.66 However, the lighting in this photograph has simply
exaggerated the depth of the abrasion. At this point, the line breaks off.
We can decipher Line 8, therefore, as: [...]^flp>L'^~l^~[bQ.
Line 9
The first letter of Line 9 is a kaph that shows signs of wear due to con-
tinued erosion. The 'fingers' of the kaph show the most erosion. Inter-
estingly, the 'fingers' of this kaph do not meet uniformly at one point. It is
the last letter of a word which originally began on the previous line, the
end of which is no longer extant.
After a shallow word divider, we encounter a beth which is smaller in
size than other beths in Fragment A. The strokes which form the 'nose' of
the beth do not actually meet, though the wider contours of the incisions
appear to do so from a distance. After this we find a yodh which is quite
jagged in shape. This is followed by a taw situated under a small patch of
erosion that affected the yodh directly above it in Line 8.
Following this we have a daleth with a very short tail, a regular waw and
another daleth with a more regular tail. There is a slight gap between the
waw and the second daleth, which comes very close to the word divider
that follows. After this word divider we find a waw. The 'hook' of this waw
appears at an odd slant, lending it a 'heavy' appearance. An 'aleph follows
this, which possesses a rather long stem.
After this 'aleph, we have only the right portion of a letter damaged by
the large recess. It consists of an angled stroke that is consistent with the
rightmost stroke of a sin. A very close examination of the point of break-
age confirms this, for we find the slightest trace of a stroke angling up
from the bottom of the stroke still extant. We could argue for the restora-
tion of ayodh, but this would require us to see the visible stroke as the tail
of the yodh. Yet, none of the yodhs in the fragments displays such an
upwardly angled tail. The only yodh that comes close is the first yodh of
Line 3, Fragment B. However, each yodh attested in the fragments has a
spine which either stands upright or leans to the right. The slight trace of a
stroke at the point of breakage here shows that this stroke leaned to the
left. As such, we must posit a highly irregular form of yodh if we are to
consider one at all. A sin, however, has no such problems and is therefore
to be preferred.
Beyond this damaged letter we have the remains of another letter on the
micro-fragment inside the large recess. The remnants of this letter consist
of a jagged shape equating with either a mem or a sin. Since we do not
have the rightmost point of this letter, we cannot appeal to the presence or
absence of a stem to help us distinguish between a mem or sin. However,
the preceding comparison of these two letters in Line 1 showed that the
leftmost stroke of all sins always leans to the left. In contrast, the leftmost
stroke of all mems leans to the right. With this knowledge we can safely
say that this damaged letter is a mem because the leftmost stroke leans to
the right. We cannot argue for an irregularly shaped sin here because the
evidence from the available sample of fragments is unanimous in this
difference between sin and mem. After this restored mem, we see a word
divider. At this point, the line breaks off.
We can decipher Line 9, therefore, as: [...]b&K>TnrV!>~[.
Line 10
The beginning of Line 10 has a shallow yodh, followed by a taw and a
very eroded word divider. This is followed by an 'aleph, the top of which
is also eroded. After this we see a resh. The stem does not actually meet
the diagonal stroke at the top of this resh, though from a distance one
gains the impression that the strokes do meet. There is also some erosion
at the 'nose' of this resh, affecting the following letter, a qoph. Interest-
ingly, the head of this qoph has a double crown unlike other attestations.
Another shallow word divider appears after this.
Next we find a heh and a mem, followed by yet another shallow word
divider. The last legible letter on the line comes after this in the form of a
lamed. There is some gap after the lamed before the line breaks off. Unfor-
tunately, the line of breakage occurs before the next letter.
Line 10, then, should be deciphered as: [...] L >Dnp"IKrr.
Line 11
A shallow 'aleph begins Line 11. After it we encounter our first instance
of the letter heth. The bottom 'rung' of the heth has been damaged by
erosion, but it otherwise appears to have been carved very neatly. The
vertical 'runners' of the letter have been carved from the bottom up while
the top two 'rungs' have been carved from left to right. Due to erosion, it
is impossible to tell in which direction the bottom 'rung' was carved. We
may notice, though, that the middle 'rung' is shallow in comparison with
the other strokes, suggesting that it was the last 'rung' carved with extra
caution.
After this heth we see a regular resh, followed by a wide, irregular nun.
The irregularity is that the top left stroke is on a considerable slant. After
another shallow word divider, we see a waw. The 'hook' of this waw is
fairly round rather than angular. The lamed that follows, though, is actu-
ally fairly angular. After it, there is a considerable gap to the next letter, a
heh. Oddly, the bottom of the stem bends to the left. The line breaks off at
this point, leaving only the tiny trace of another letter on the edge at the
same approximate latitude as the top of the heh. The portion must be the
very top right part of another letter. The nature of the incisions allows us
to narrow the candidates for this letter down to three letters: nun,peh and
qoph. The letter qoph is the least likely of these three, but the visible inci-
sions do not permit us to identify the letter more accurately than this.
We can decipher Line 11, then, as: [...?]nb>pnN.
Line 12
Very close to the edge on Line 12 we find a small indentation which could
pass as a word divider. It is much closer to the edge than any other inci-
sion along this right flank of the inscription. There are also numerous other
chips and abrasions in this corner of the fragment. Since we also have no
other evidence of a word divider beginning a line, we are justified in
regarding it simply as a blemish on the stone.
The first letter on Line 12 is a very angular lamed. There is considerable
erosion over this entire corner of the fragment, so the lamed is fairly
shallow. The kaph that follows shows significant signs of wear, particu-
larly around the 'fingers' of the letter. The nature of this damage suggests
that it had been sustained during breakage of the inscription as we also see
similar chipping immediately below the kaph on the next line.
After a very shallow word divider, we encounter a regular 'ayin. After
this we see another lamed which sits a good deal higher than the other
lamed at the beginning of the line. Like that lamed, it is of the angular
variety rather than the rounded variety. Continued erosion has worn away
the following word divider. A yodh appears after this, displaying curved
features rather than angular features. There are also some abrasions and
chipping surrounding this yodh. Last on the line, we find the greater part of
a sin. Only the bottom left portion of the sin has been broken off so its
identification is not in doubt.
We may decipher the extant characters on Line 12, therefore, as: ~[L>
[.. .]ET v?^. Reconstruction of some of the non-extant letters will be left for
the textual analysis.
Line 13
The last line of Fragment A is quite short and is totally enveloped in the
belt of erosion along the right flank of the fragment. The line begins with a
mem of which the greater portion of the stem has been destroyed by break-
age of the stone. Immediately to the left of this is an area of concentrated
abrasion. This impinges on the next letter, which should be identified as a
sadhe. The stem of this sadhe is almost entirely visible and the first two
strokes off the stem are still visible. The rest, however, has been damaged
by the abrasions to the stone. As such, we cannot make out with any cer-
tainty the right-hand side of the letter. Its identification as a sadhe, though,
is not in doubt since no other letter in Fragment A compares with it, and the
sadhe of other inscriptions is comparable with what is still visible.
The next letter is a very upright resh. Between it and the preceding
sadhe, we find miniscule chips that must have been sustained during
breakage of the inscription. The entire stem is still extant. After it, we have
a considerably eroded word divider, followed by a regular 'ayin. Some
erosion has affected the top of this letter. The last letter extant on this line
is a lamed. Only the bottom left-hand portion of this lamed has been
broken off; it is still easy to identify. At this point, the fragment breaks off
completely. Some of the written surface below Line 13 is still extant, but
the fragment breaks off before the next line.
Line 13 can, therefore, be deciphered as: [...jÛOHQ.
Preserved Side
Some of the right side of the original inscription has been preserved on
Fragment A. The actual edge has been considerably weathered. The
preserved side is very smooth but shows numerous abrasions which should
be attributed to the inscription's breakage. There are, however, also signs
of smooth erosion similar in nature to the belt of erosion along the right
flank of the written surface. This suggests that the side of the inscription
was exposed to the elements in a similar way to the written surface. This
could have been sustained either during the time the inscription was on
display, or during its time as building material in a wall on the edge of the
piazza at the outer Israelite gate of Tel Dan. Since the weathering is con-
centrated near the edge, as it is in the written surface, it was most probably
sustained during its secondary usage as building material. We would

expect a broader spread of smooth erosion over both the written surface
and this preserved face if the erosion was sustained while the inscription
was in primary display.
There is no sign of any writing or pictographic carving of any kind on
this preserved side.
Newly Exposed Surfaces and Claims of Forgery

Due to the stone's breakage, many new faces of the stone have been ex-
posed. In some places, chipping of these exposed faces has occurred. The
most notable appears in the surface exposed at the top of the fragment and is
clearly visible from the side of the fragment. These chips were understood
by Cryer to denote deliberate chisel marks. As a result, Cryer denounced the
fragments as a forgery at a postgraduate seminar for students of Copen-
hagen University.67 His reasoning was that if the fragments were genuine,
there would have been no reason to use a chisel on the newly exposed sur-
face after its breakage and during its transference to its secondary position
in a wall at the outer edge of the piazza. Therefore, a chisel mark could only
have been made during the carving of the inscription and so the stone must
have been broken prior to the carving of the text. Inevitably, this would
mean that the fragment could not claim to be part of an original whole in-
scription, thereby rendering it a forgery.
Cryer came to this conclusion of questionable authenticity after having
published four articles on the Tel Dan fragments.68 Prior to his claim of
forgery, Cryer had advocated seeing the fragments as two separate inscrip-
tions. His opinion was swayed after seeing the fragments on display at the
Israel Museum, Jerusalem. According to Cryer, the nature of these chips
as chisel marks was confirmed by an independent engraver who looked
over them.69
Unfortunately for Cryer, there is nothing about the chips in question
which requires us to see any of them as the result of chisel blows. Very
close examination of these chips on the exposed surfaces demonstrates
that there are no telling traces of a chisel at their deepest point. This would
be expected if, as Cryer claims, the chips had been made by a chisel.
Rather, most appear to be naturally made chips, while the deepest of them
had probably been created by collision with some type of jagged edge,
67. Unfortunately, Cryer never published the evidence for these claims.
68. See Bibliography.
69. This was communicated personally to me.
probably that of another rock. Thus, we expect them to have been sus-
tained when the stone was destroyed or, more likely, when it was reposi-
tioned in the wall at the perimeter of the piazza.
In addition to the physical evidence, it is hard to imagine why a poten-
tial forger would deliberately carve a stroke into the broken surface. It
would require the engraver to have been positioned behind the fragment or
for the fragment to have been lying face down on the ground. It is cate-
gorically impossible for such a stroke to have been inflicted accidentally
while carving the text on the written surface. We are, therefore, hard
pressed to find any logical reason to account for how a chisel mark came
to be on an exposed surface at any time.
Furthermore, we have to contend with the pattern of smooth erosion on
the right side of the written surface as well as the preserved side that meets
it. This weathering can only have been sustained over a long period of
exposure to the elements. Since Fragment A was recycled in the base of a
wall, it was located at a runoff point for rainwater. We may deduce that
this is how the belt of erosion along the right edge was made. That this is a
slow process testifies to the age of the fragment. It would have to have
been in this position in the wall at the perimeter of the piazza for many
years. Yet, the piazza at the outer gate of Tel Dan was only fully exposed
by archaeologists in 1992 and 1993. Fragment A was discovered in July of
1993. If Fragment A is a forgery, the forger must have weathered the stone
over many years for it would be impossible to accomplish this type of ero-
sion by artificial means. Such a situation is too incredulous to be legitimate.
The only reasonable explanation for the weathering on the stone is that it
was exposed to elements in antiquity prior to the piazza being buried by
debris and subsequent strata. We can therefore be assured of the authen-
ticity of Fragment A.
Cryer's claims of forgery also call into question the integrity of the
excavation team at Tel Dan, led by Biran. If the fragment was a forgery,
we must posit one of two theories. Either the forgery was the work of the
excavation team itself who have since falsified information in order to
uphold an image of authenticity, or the fragment was planted at Tel Dan
by an individual (or individuals) with exceptional epigraphical, palaeog-
raphical, philological and historical expertise.
Neither of these positions can be maintained with any sense of sobriety.
Not only would it require someone of such skill and expertise to forge an
inscription such as Fragment A (and indeed Fragment B), they must also
have had easy access to the find site at the entrance to the Israelite outer
gate at Tel Dan. Thus, if Fragment A were a forgery, it would have to have
been planted in 1992 at the earliest. Fragment A's position of discovery in
the base of a wall also means that anyone who planted the fragment would
have had to undertake extra excavation in order to remove some stones,
replace them with the fragment and then restore the area to make it look
untouched. Thus, in addition to being an inscriptions expert of the highest
calibre, the individual must also have been in league with, or actually been,
a skilled archaeologist. Such a person (or persons) are likely to have been
a senior member of the excavation team at Tel Dan. That is, we expect the
individual to have been part of the active scholarly community. However,
the integrity of Avraham Biran as an archaeologist cannot be questioned.
His many years of research and excavation into the archaeology of the
Levant stand him in good stead as an archaeologist with absolute integrity.
Similarly, we can label none of his excavation team during 1992-93 with
such unscrupulous behaviour.
Cryer advocated that all three fragments must be seen as part of the
same forgery. Indeed, if Fragments B1 and B2 represent a separate inscrip-
tion, Cryer's accusations fall through. Yet, Fragments Bl and B2 were
both discovered a year after Fragment A in 1994. It was not until that year
that the find sites of both these fragments were exposed. If Fragments Bl
and B2 are also forgeries, we must suggest that they were planted in the
year of their discovery (1994) after the exposure of their find sites and
after the discovery of Fragment A. Such inconsistency does not allow us to
maintain any of the three fragments as forgeries. In short, the accusation of
forgery against the Tel Dan fragments is groundless and should be sum-
marily dismissed.
Fragment A: Assessment
Fragment A is shown to be in extremely good condition. The signs of wear
on the written surface are mostly to be attributed to the breakage of the
stone and the subsequent transference of the fragment to a new location
for use as building material. The consistent smooth erosion along the
entire right edge of the fragment, however, can only be attributed to weath-
ering during antiquity. Since this weathering is confined to one edge of the
fragment, this edge must have been exposed to the elements more than any
other area on Fragment A. Furthermore, since the weathering can be seen
on the side of the fragment, we cannot maintain that weathering occurred
while the inscription was part of an ashlar block in a wall. This erosion
must have occurred when the fragment was in secondary usage in the base
of the wall at the perimeter of the piazza.
We may compare the state of the written surface with those of other
monumental lapidary inscriptions. A picture then emerges of just how well
preserved the written surface of Fragment A is. Other inscriptions, such as
the Melqart Stele, the Mesha Stele and the Zakkur Stele, all show a greater
degree of wear.70 This leads us to either of two conclusions. First, the in-
scription which Fragment A represents may have been shielded from the
elements in its original display position. Our second possibility is that the
original inscription was not on display for very long at all before its
destruction and reuse as building material, and that it was in its secondary
stage of use that most of the weathering occurred.
From the large semi-circular recess along the left edge of Fragment A,
we may glean that the original inscription was a free-standing stone. Since
this recess is the result of a deliberate hammer blow, the original inscrip-
tion must have been able to topple or be easily damaged by such a hammer
stroke. Thus, the inscription's nature as a stele is confirmed.
Fragment B: Physical Characteristics

and the State of Preservation
Unlike Fragment A, when Fragments B1 and B2 were discovered, they
were not subjected to a mineral analysis.71 No explanation has yet been
offered for this. From an external examination, however, the rock of both
fragments does appear to be identical to the Neocene-Quarternary basalt of
which Fragment A is comprised. Only a proper mineral analysis may con-
firm this, though. Together, Fragments Bl and B2 compose part of eight
lines of text. Fragment Bl, the larger of the two fragments, is in a better
state of preservation than Fragment B2. Both fragments, however, are
punctuated by numerous tiny pockmarks which are similar in size and
shape to word dividers.
Neither Fragment B1 nor B2 preserve an outer edge of the original
inscription of which they were a part. As such, their relative position to the
70. Half of the Mesha Stele on display at the Louvre, Paris, is stone replica. This is
because much of the original stone inscription was destroyed in the nineteenth century.
The original parts of the inscription still in existence today show signs of considerable
wear.
71. This was stated by Avraham Biran in personal correspondence with me. Special
thanks go to Biran for his assistance here.
original inscription is difficult to discern. Both fragments easily fit together

with Fragment Bl placed above Fragment B2 (see Fig. 3.16). Despite a
lacuna on the bottom edge of Fragment B1, the written surfaces of both
fragments line up in all aspects. This being the case, we will refer to the
two fragments collectively as 'Fragment B'. The terms 'Fragment B1' and
'Fragment B2' will be used only when necessary for clarification or for
specific address.
Figure 3.16. A facsimile of Fragments Bl and B2 joined together

(drawn by Ada Yardeni).
Significance of the Line Slopes

With Fragment A, the existence of the right edge provided a good line of
reference for which to determine the slope of each line of text. Unfortu-
nately, we cannot do this with Fragments Bl and B2. What we can do,
however, is compare the slope of the lines within Fragment B to each
other, and thereby deduce a comparison with the trends of the lines ob-
served within Fragment A.
Since there is no point of reference to give the real slope of each line in
Fragment B, it is appropriate to measure the slope of the lines relative to
the border of the photograph by Radovan in Fig. 9 of Biran and Naveh's
article publishing Fragment B.72 The right edge of Fragment A as it
appears in this photograph is not used as a point of reference since there is
a fair modicum of doubt as to the position of Fragment B relative to

Fragment A.73 The position of Fragment B relative to Fragment A sug-

gested by Biran, Naveh and their three independent restorers74 has yet to
be confirmed in the present analysis, not to mention the issue of whether
both fragments even belong to the one piece of stone. Determining the
slope of the lines in Fragment B is part of the process of determining the
relationship between Fragment A and Fragment B. Thus, any point of
reference for Fragment B originating in Fragment A will reflect a bias that
a relationship necessarily exists. It would, therefore, be unwise to insist on
using Fragment A as a reference point since the purpose of the exercise is
to determine if a relationship exists at all.
The slope of the lines in Fragment B relative to the borders of the photo-
graph by Radovan, are listed in Table 3.2. This table shows the tendency
for the lines in Fragment B to fall. The only line that breaks this tendency
is Line 3, which rises above the slope of the preceding line. Lines 5 and 6
are not of the exact same slope. However, the difference between them
is so minute that they both round to the same integer. Nevertheless, the
minute difference that does exist is in accordance with the tendency of the
lines to fall. The same can be said of Lines 7 and 8.
Table 3.2. Slope of each line in Fragment B

relative to the borders of Radovan's photograph.
Fragment A Degrees:
+ above the horizontal
- below the horizontal
Line 1 +1
Line 2 -1
Line 3 +1
Line 4 -1
Line 5 -2
Line 6 -2
Line 7 3
Line 8 -3
73. 'Fragments A and B cannot be joined in an obvious, unequivocal way', is how

Biran and Naveh state the dilemma in 'The Tel Dan Inscription', p. 11. This inkling of
doubt is sufficient to prompt the use of a reference point other than Fragment A for the
slopes of the lines in Fragments Bl and B2.
74. The three restorers who independently suggested the position which is repre-
sented by in Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription', pp. 10-11, Fig. 9, were Nili
Cohen (Hebrew Union College), A. Weiner and Ruth Yekutieli (both of the Israel
Museum).
These line slopes for Fragment B display a markedly different tendency

to those of Fragment A. As Fig. 3.17 demonstrates, not only are the slopes
opposed in their general directions, but the trends are of a different nature.
Fragment A displays the clear trend for the lines to rise but eventually
flatten out. A notable feature of Fragment A is the deviation above and
below the horizontal displayed in Lines 12 and 13. It is unfortunate that
the fragment breaks off at this point so that we are precluded from
observing whether this deviation continued further into the inscription.
Fragment B, however, displays a simple trend for the lines to drop, with
no sign of flattening.
A weakness of this comparison is the relative sample of lines. Because
Fragment B is so much smaller than Fragment A, the statistics it yields are
not as significant. Indeed, if we had only a similarly small sample from
Fragment A, such as the first eight extant lines, we would not necessarily
observe the trend for the lines to flatten. It could therefore be misleading to
attribute equal weight to the statistics of Fragment B as to those of
Fragment A.
The trend of Fragment B is linear. The deviations above and below the
trend line (as shown in Fig. 3.17) eventually deplete. The continuation of
the trend line beyond Line 8 (the last extant line of Fragment B) indicates
the expected slope of subsequent lines that are no longer extant. If this
were indeed the trend in subsequent lines, we would expect further deple-
tion of deviation and the eventual conforming of the slope of each line to
the actual trend line. This means that there would be a constant lessening
in the slope of each line after Line 8 of Fragment B.
This trend alerts us to the fact that the scribe of Fragment B was
generally prone to lifting the slope of his lines. This indicates that the
scribe did not rule lines across the written surface to guide his writing of
the text. I noted the same fact for the writing of the lines in Fragment A.
With some extra observations of the script in Fragment B, I posit a
plausible reason for this 'lifting' tendency of the scribe.
First, we note that the letters of Fragment B are all very neat. The ease
with which curves are written (e.g. lamed and peh), small flourishes are
added (e.g. kaph) and the accuracy of straight lines (e.g. heh and resh)
suggest that the scribe had good control over his hand while writing this
part of the inscription. Thus, the scribe could not have had his arm
outstretched very far. Rather, it appears that this part of the inscription,
which Fragment B represents, was fairly close to his body.
Figure 3.17. Comparison of slope trends between Fragment A and Fragment B.
When this datum is coupled with the scribe's tendency to lift the lines,
we have a picture of the scribe nearing the end of the text. This is also
confirmed by the fact that many of the letters almost encroach on the
letters of the next line as though there was only a short space still available
on the written surface and the scribe needed to put as much writing as
possible in the last few lines. This is most noticeable in Lines 4 and 5 of
Fragment B.
The tendency to lift the slope of the lines is consistent with a right-
handed person writing while positioned slightly to the left of the centre
line of a writing surface. This is the most convenient position to take when
writing from right to left in order to avoid crossing the right hand and arm
across the body too far. This is especially desirable when the written
surface is fairly close to the body as Fragment B appears to have been.
Thus, we have a situation that sees Fragment B as the lower portion of
an inscription, though not the very bottom portion. This is confirmed by
the neatness of the letters, the encroaching of some letters onto the line
below, and the tendency to lift the slope of the lines.
Fragment B: Epigraphical Analysis

Line 1
The first letter of Line 1 is a fully preserved waw. It bears much resem-
blance to the waw of Fragment A, Line 11. From a distance, the 'hook' of
the letter looks fairly rounded. However, there is some erosion over the
'hook' at the point where it bends. As such, it is difficult to tell whether
the 'hook' is in fact round or angular. Nevertheless, we may observe the
clear markings left by the engraver which indicate the letter was carved in
an upward direction.
The second letter we encounter is a gimel, consisting of two strokes
meeting at a common point. Both strokes have been carved in an upward
direction as may be evidenced by a common deep point at the top extremity
of the letter. The entire letter is surrounded by numerous pockmarks, some
of which have impinged on the more vertical stroke on the right.
The next letter is what must be a zayin. We can identify this by com-
parison with the zayins of other monumental lapidary inscriptions. The top
horizontal has clearly been carved from left to right, though it is harder to
establish the direction in which the bottom horizontal and the connecting
diagonal were carved. To the immediate top right of the letter is one of the
more obvious round pockmarks that are characteristic of Fragment B. It is
difficult to determine whether these small pockmarks were original blem-
ishes in the stone or the result of erosion.
After the zayin we find the remnant of a stem. The remainder of the
letter has been broken off. The angle at which the fragment has been
broken here gives the impression that the stem has been carved into the
face of the stone exposed by the breakage along the upper left edge. This
would mean that the incision was made after the stone was broken into
fragments, thereby calling into question the authenticity of Fragment B
and possibly Fragment A also. The photograph of Fragment B1 published
by Biran and Naveh certainly fuels this impression.75 It was also noticed
by Thompson.76 However, the photograph is deceiving in two ways. First,
the photograph gives the impression that this newly exposed surface meets
the edge of the written surface at a considerable angle. The exposed face
looks almost perpendicular to the written surface. This impression is fos-
tered by the surface exposed along the right edge of Fragment Bl, which
75. Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription', p. 5, Fig. 4.

76. Thompson, 'Dissonance and Disconnections', pp. 237-38.
also appears perpendicular to the written surface. In the two dimensions of

the photograph, the eye is tricked by this exposed surface and one gains
the impression that the surface exposed at the upper left is on a similar
angle. As such, the incision of this stem at the end of Line 1 looks to be
very deep.
However, such is not the case. The angle between the written surface
and the newly exposed surface is actually very small. Due to the limita-
tions of a two-dimensional photograph taken from a front-on view, the
observer finds it hard to appreciate the subtlety of this angle. In other
words, the broken surface slopes away from the written surface only mar-
ginally at a very slight angle.
The second way the photograph deceives is in the lighting. The angle at
which the light hits the fragment in the photograph gives the written surface
significantly less light than the face exposed at the upper left. This creates
the false impression that the angle between the two surfaces is significantly
different. An actual examination of the stone allows the observer to see the
fragment from all angles. Such an examination reveals that this particular
incision is not significantly deeper than any other on Fragment B. In fact, it
is shown to be quite shallow. Nor is the stem inscribed onto the exposed
surface. The subtle angle between the two surfaces means the letter was
'shaved off in breakage rather than suddenly and decidedly 'chopped off
(see Fig. 3.18).
Figure 3.18. Diagram of the angle between the written surface and the newly
exposed surface at the remnant of a stem on Line Bl (not to scale).
We must now find a letter to which we can restore this stem. Since the
stem is situated close to the preceding zayin, and since it stands quite
upright, we can posit only four letters as candidates: gimel, heh, waw and
resh. When we compare the stem with the shape of gimel two letters
earlier, we see that the stem here is slightly longer than the right stroke of
the gimel. However, it is not so much longer as to make correspondence
impossible. The difficulty with restoring this stem to a gimel is philologi-
cal, as we would be hard pressed to interpret the word.
The heh is an unlikely candidate on epigraphic grounds. When we com-
pare the form of heh that occurs in Fragment B with the stem, we find that
the stem stands too upright to be considered a heh. Also, we would expect
to see a trace of at least the bottom 'bristle' of the heh on the extant written
surface. Thus, the stem is too anomalous to the form of a heh to be restored
as one.
A waw is more plausible, as the stem is on a comparable angle and in
the right position. The only factor of doubt is the length of the stem.
Although it is not outside the plausible scope of a waw, the stem of a waw
tends to be shorter rather than longer. The stem would require us to iden-
tify this as a long-stemmed waw.
The only letter that does not present such difficulties is resh. It is com-
parable with the forms of resh seen in Fragment B2. It also is philologically
easier to restore a resh here than a waw. As such, I recommend restoring
this stem as a resh.
The clear evidence gleaned from the vertical strokes of Line 1 suggests
that we have the engraver of this fragment in a comparable position with
that seen in Fragment Athat is, along the left edge of the original inscrip-
tion. The bottom of the restored resh is quite shallow, in keeping with an
engraving starting point. Thus, all the vertical strokes, with the exception of
the connecting diagonal in the zayin, show signs of having been carved
from bottom to top. The diagonal of the zayin is inconclusive. This can be
attributed to the shape of the letter in which the two horizontal strokes are
carved over the extremities of the diagonal connecting them. However, the
evidence of the other letters in Line 1 suggests this diagonal was also carved
upwards, probably as the first stroke of the letter.
Therefore, we may decipher Line 1 as: [...]iT^l[...].
Line 2
The first letter of Line 2 has been destroyed except for the remains of a
long stem that curves slightly upwards at the end. The stem is too close to
the next letter to restore it as a mem. A kaph or peh could possibly be
crammed in, while a nun or taw would fit with more ease. There is the
slightest evidence of a second stroke right on the edge of breakage. This
stroke is too irregular in shape and position to allow for a peh or nun. It
does, however, comport well with either the left 'finger' ofakaph or the
leftmost part of a crossbar on a taw. Philologically, a taw is easier to
restore than a kaph. There is also slightly less room for a kaph than for a
taw, so I recommend restoring this stem as a taw.
Following this is the greater part of a lamed. Only the well-rounded
'hook' and the bottom half of the 'shank' have been preserved, making its
identification secure. After this, we find a heth. There is some slight chip-
ping along the middle 'rung', probably inflicted accidentally during carving.
Both vertical 'runners' have been carved from the bottom up. Following this
we have a mem and a heh which both display signs of having been carved
upwards.
A very small word divider follows next. There is some erosion on the
surface of the stone here, as well as a chip. After it, we see a very neat
angular beth. The spine does not curve into the tail as was the case with
most beths in Fragment A. Rather, the spine bends into the tale at a defi-
nite angle. Following this we have a neat 'aleph. Both diagonal strokes of
this letter have been carved upwards.
Next to this, we have the remains of a letter that has been almost totally
destroyed. The remaining part consists of a stroke running along the line
of breakage. A good candidate for this letter is beth as there may be a
slight bend upwards at the top of this stroke indicative of the bend between
the tail and the spine of the letter. Biran and Naveh observed that if this
letter is a beth, it sits abnormally high up on the line. They suggested apeh
with the note that it is abnormally straight for apeh.17 The roundness and
length of the letter peh means we should dismiss it as a possible candidate
for restoration.
The suggestion of beth, however, is not as troublesome as it first seems.
First, when considering this stroke as part of a beth, one is instinctively
drawn to comparing it to the beth two letters earlier. It must be said, how-
ever, that this preceding beth sits slightly lower than is usual for the beths
of Fragment B. The spine and tail of this beth also hang lower than the
other beths of Fragment B. As such, we must see this preceding beth as
extraordinary. When we examine the other beths of Fragment B, we see
that this stroke remnant in Line 2 is not sitting much higher than is to be
expected, though we must still regard it as slightly high. We may note a
parallel case in Line 12 of Fragment A where the two lameds sit at vastly
different heights on the line. In that case also, the first instance of the letter
was extraordinary and the second was more typical.

Having said this, however, we must observe that there are other candi-
dates for restoration of this letter. Biran and Naveh neglected to consider
yodh and sin. We note that the yodhs of Fragment B are of the angular
variety so that the tail of the letter is straight and mostly on a considerable
angle. They also tend to sit low as they do in Fragment A. A sin is equally
plausible. A less likely, but still possible, candidate is lamed. This option
requires us to view the 'barb' on the 'hook' of the lamed as fairly straight,
but it is within reason. Therefore, I suggest either beth,yodh, lamed QV sin
as possibilities for restoration, but we cannot choose between them on
purely epigraphic grounds.
The visible strokes on this line are carved in the same manner as those
of Line 1 and all the lines in Fragment A. That is, the vertical strokes were
all carved from the bottom upwards.
We can, therefore, decipher Line 2 as: [.. .?]K!>nEnl?n[...].
Line 3
The third line of Fragment B begins with the remains of a heh. Only the
very edges of the three 'bristles' are still extant. The only other possibility
for this letter is a samekh. However, we observe from Line 6 below that
the three crossbars of the samekh are a good deal closer to the horizontal
than the 'bristles' of any heh. For this reason, the crossbars of a samekh sit
fairly high on the line, whereas the 'bristles' of all hehs tend to droop low.
We observe the same tendency in Fragment A also. Therefore, we are
justified in rejecting this letter as a samekh and considering it as a heh.
Next to this we have what appears to be a word divider. It is so shallow,
however, that we may have doubts as to whether it is in fact a word
divider. It actually bears more resemblance to one of the small pockmarks
that fleck the stone of Fragment B. However, since it occurs in a position
where a word divider is expected, we may reasonably assume it to be one.
We then find the first fully preserved letter of this line, a waw. The
upward direction of carving is very noticeable on this letter. The 'hook' of
the waw is angular and fairly open. Next to this we have an angular yodh
that, due to erosion, is quite shallow. However, immediately above the tail
of the yodh is a small chip. This is presumably one of the characteristic
pockmarks on Fragment B. However, it comes close to passing as a word
divider. It occurs in the exact same latitude as the word divider preceding
the waw. However, since a word divider was identified before the waw, it is
highly unlikely that this is a word divider after the waw. Since both mark-
ings are similar, however, we must decide which is likely to have been the
intended word divider. We could place the waw at the end of a word or at
the beginning of the next word with equal plausibility. A decision must
come down to the fact that there is more of a gap between the restored heh
and waw than between the waw and subsequent yodh. Thus, we should
maintain our view that there is a word divider before the waw and dismiss
the marking near the tail of the following yodh as a small pockmark or an
engraver's error. A similar pockmark is observable between this yodh and
the heth in the line above it.
Following the yodh is a neat 'ayin. Some erosion has blurred the con-
tours of the letter towards the upper right. Next to this we have a lamed,
followed by a small word divider. The next word begins with a mem that
displays a gently curving stem like the mem in Line 2. Following this is a
lamed and a very neat kaph. There is a slight gap to the last extant letter of
Line 3, ayodh. Some of this character has been broken off at the edge of
the fragment, but there is no doubt about its identification. From what is
visible of this yodh, it appears to be of the rounded variety rather than the
angular.
Again, the engraver appears to have incised the individual strokes in the
same manner as previous linesnamely, in an upward direction.
Line 3 can, then, be deciphered as: [...fDÊ-ÎH !![...].
Line 4
There has been much debate over what exactly lies at the beginning of Line
4 on Fragment B. When Biran and Naveh published Fragment B, they recon-
structed a yodh as the first letter, before the first fully legible letter, a heh.18
Indeed, their brief commentary took for granted that a yodh was easily
restored in this place for they drew no attention to their restoration what-
soever. From the photographs and facsimile of Fragment B, it became clear
that Biran and Naveh had based their restoration on two small markings on
the very edge of the fragment at Line 4. However, their confident recon-
struction provoked criticism from both Cryer and Thompson who main-
tained that there was no evidence of any yodh before the first heh on Line
4.79 They appealed to the photograph in Figure 4 of Biran and Naveh's pub-
lication as showing no traces of ajW/z.80 They therefore accused Biran and
Naveh of having 'added' a yodh to the beginning of Line 4.
78. Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription', pp. 9, 12-15.
79. F.H. Cryer, 'King Hadad', 5/079(1995), pp. 223-35 (232); Thompson, 'Dis-
sonance and Disconnections', p. 238.
A careful examination of the area in question, however, does clearly

reveal two markings. The upper marking appears at the same latitude as
the junction between the stem and middle 'bristle' on the following . The
second marking occurs at the approximate same latitude as the left
extremity of the lower 'bristle' on the same . It is possible that the upper
marking is simply the result of the stone being broken into fragments.
However, two points may be mentioned against this suggestion. The first
is that we find no other such chipping along the edge of Fragment B1. This
edge of the fragment is a very clean break. Therefore, unless we had other
similar chips along the edge, it is unlikely that this marking is an acciden-
tal chip. Against this it may be argued that the marking is simply one of
the many small pockmarks flecking the surface of Fragment B. However,
our second point is that the marking occurs in a place where we would
expect to find traces of a legible character, be it a letter or a word divider.
There is a suitable gap between the marking and the following to suggest
that the marking is part of a character. As such, it is unlikely to be a chip
or pockmark, but very likely to be the deliberate incision of a legible
character.
The second marking below this is without doubt the deliberately carved
stroke of a character. Judging by the shape of this marking, it appears to be
the extremity of a stroke which angled up to the right at a similar angle to
the 'bristles' of the following .
The suggestion of Biran and Naveh to restore a yodh here does have
problems, though. It would require us to see the two markings as the left-
most points of the horizontal strokes that form the head of the yodh. Yet,
such a yodh would appear to be placed fairly low on the line. This is evi-
denced by comparing the position of the first yodh in Line 3 with that of the
remnant of a that occurs two letters before it on the edge of the fragment.
Such a difference in position is not beyond reason.81 However, another point
that may be raised is that the gap between the two markings is fairly large if
the markings represent the horizontal strokes of a yodh. The markings are,
therefore, unlikely to be the remains of a yodh.
We should then ask whether any other letters would be suitable for
restoration here. The answer must be 'yes'. One option is to see the upper
marking as the remains of a word divider and the lower marking as the
remnant of a gimel, or samekh. From the gimel encountered in Line 1
above, we see that the left stroke of the letter is on a comparable angle to
81. Cf. the difference in positions of the he and two daleths at the end of this line.
the lower marking here in Line 4. Comparison with the preceding shows
the plausibility of suggesting a , also. The bottom marking would be the
remnant of the lowest 'bristle' of the with the other 'bristles' broken off
during fracture of the stone, but leaving the word divider partly preserved.
The same observations may be made for a samekh. Since there is nothing
requiring us to see the two markings here as parts of the same letter, it is
reasonable to suggest that one marking is a word divider and the other is
part of a letter. Indeed, if the upper marking is a word divider, it is cer-
tainly in a suitable position.
Another possibility is that the upper marking is a word divider and the
lower marking represents the end ofapeh.++++++++++++++++++
well as Fragment A that the peh begins on a similar angle to that on which
the lower marking here sits. One difficulty, however, is that for two of the
three clear instances ofpeh appearing on the Tel Dan fragments, the lower
extremity of the figure occurs further left than the starting point of the
figure.82 This being the case, we would expect to see some of the tail of the
peh still visible here on the fragment. No such remnant of the tail exists,
however. It is, therefore, only with great difficulty that we may suggest
restoring a peh here. We may also rule outazayin, for although the lower
marking is in an appropriate position for a zayin, the angle of the stroke
makes it highly unlikely.
As such, we see that Biran and Naveh's suggestion ofyodhis improb-
able. It is far more likely that the upper marking is a word divider83 and the
lower marking is the remnant of a gimel, or samekh.
As was mentioned previously, the first fully legible character on Line 4
is a . Interestingly, the incisions of the bottom two 'bristles' barely touch
the stem of the letter. The stem has also been carved a good deal deeper
than the other strokes. After this we have a mem with a stem so long that
it almost touches the qoph directly beneath it on Line 5. This is followed
by a lamed, kaph and a small word divider.
The next word begins with a that sits unusually low when compared
with the two daleths which follow. On the first daleth we observe a small
pockmark at the bottom right junction which makes the figure look as
though the horizontal stroke has extended past the right diagonal towards
the . This is not the case. The second daleth is somewhat squashed at the
leftmost point. At this point, the fragment breaks off. However, the con-
tour of the shape of the breakage here still leaves the remnant of one more
82. The only exception is the second peh on Line 7, Fragment A, in the word EHS.
83. Cf. Cryer, 'King Hadad', p. 232.
letter. The remnant consists of two strokes in the form of an 'X', which
can only be identified as the topmost portion of an 'aleph. Unfortunately,
all other markings on this line have been destroyed.
Consistent with the method of carving seen in other lines and in Frag-
ment A, the vertical strokes of this line have been carved upwards. This
confirms that the engraver was positioned on the left side of the original
inscription.
We may, therefore, decipher Line 4 as: [.. .]& "["!!"[ ~[u?Qn*[?...].
Line 5
Line 5 of Fragment B1 is the first to match up with a line in Fragment B2.
The first letter is clearly an 'aleph, followed by apeh, qoph and a very deep
word divider. After this divider, we have the most part of a mem. This let-
ter appears somewhat crowded and approximately half of the stem has
been destroyed by a lacuna in the stone. This lacuna imposes over almost
all of the following letter and extends downwards to the edge of Fragment
B1 along the join with Fragment B2.
The letter, which the lacuna almost completely covers, has only the
slightest remnants left. Along the left edge of the lacuna may be seen faint
traces of a vertical line between the same latitudes as the leftmost stroke of
the preceding mem. There is also some scarification next to this faint line,
giving the false impression that this line is connected to the word divider
which follows. This impression is not helped by the fact that the word
divider is not well carved and appears to have undergone slight chipping
to make it appear like a vertical line rather than a dot. Some of this letter's
stem is visible below the lacuna on Fragment Bl. These remnants are
enough to confirm the letter as a nun.
Following the elongated word divider is a sin. The line of breakage runs
diagonally across this letter from top left to bottom right. However, the
lower portion has been preserved on Fragment B2 and is therefore entirely
visible. Some abrasion and minor chipping has affected the letter slightly,
but not so much as to put its identification in doubt.
After the sin is a beth. This is the first letter contained wholly on Frag-
ment B2. We note that this beth is considerably smaller in size to the beth
encountered in Line 2 above. After this letter we have the right half of a
fairly eroded 'ayin. The left half has been destroyed by the breakage as
Fragment B2 ends here. We may discount the possibility of a qoph here
because we would expect still to see most of the stem on Fragment B2.
This, however, is lacking. Between the beth and the 'ayin is a small pock-
mark that could easily be mistaken for a word divider. Only close exami-
nation reveals that it is an irregular shape for one. In addition, the fact that
there is no substantial gap between the beth and restored 'ayin counts
against it being a word divider.
No change to the engraver's position is seen in the nature of the strokes
of this line. Once again, the vertical incisions have been carved from the
bottom upwards.
Line 5, then, should be deciphered as: [.. .]iDC>jQpSK[...].
Line 6
The beginning of Line 6 starts on Fragment B1. The line of breakage here
has left only the smallest trace of a letter. It consists of one slightly curved
stroke that lies closer to the horizontal axis than the vertical. Biran and
Naveh took this for the edge of an 'ayin+++++++++++++++++++++
anything different. Indeed, the photograph of Fragment Bl would seem to
confirm this as a sensible suggestion.85
However, once again we find that the photograph is a little deceiving.
Oddly enough, the photograph of Fragment B1 exaggerates the axis of this
curved stroke so that it looks more vertical than it actually is on the stone.
The photograph of all three fragments arranged by Biran and Naveh exag-
gerates it even more so.86 The eye is also prompted to exaggerate the axis
by the broken edge of the fragment. Yet, this curved stroke is a good deal
more horizontal than the photographs suggest.
This gives the impetus to suggest more than just an 'ayin as a possible
restoration of this letter. Similar in shape would be the corresponding por-
tions of a teth, apeh or the head of either a qoph or ayodh. Epigraphically,
all these letters are just as plausible as an 'ayin. It is, however, on phi-
lological grounds that we must restore this letter as an 'ayin.
Following this restored 'ayin, we have the top half of a nun. Most of the
stem has been destroyed by breakage. Yet, the portion still visible reflects
a form of nun that is some way between the nun restored at the lacuna in
Line 5 and the nuns of Fragment A. The visible portion shows the con-
necting horizontal stroke of the nun curving significantly up to join with
the top of the stem. The only other reasonable alternative is to consider
this letter as a waw. However, this poses more epigraphical difficulties
than a nun.
84. Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription', pp. 12, 16.
After this letter we see a word divider. The next letter is an 'aleph which
has its 'nose' broken off in the lacuna on Fragment Bl. The edge of the
lacuna follows the line of the letter's 'spine'. The next letter, a samekh,
occurs on Fragment B2. A small portion of the top two crossbars has been
eliminated by the breakage of the stone and the lacuna in Fragment B1.
Following this samekh we observe a resh and a yodh. After another
shallow word divider, the last extant letter on the line is an 'aleph, the
'nose' of which has been destroyed in the stone's breakage.
Despite the narrowness of the line, we may still discern the upward
direction of carving on individual strokes. Thus, the engraver was posi-
tioned at the left edge of the originally whole inscription during carving.
We may decipher Line 6, then, as: [.. .]K'HDfcj[...].
Line 7
The last two lines of Fragment B occur entirely on Fragment B2. The
beginning of both these lines is marked by significant abrasions and chips
over the surface of the stone. The first letter of Line 7 is a resh. It is
unfortunate that no characters before this resh on Line 7 have been
preserved, as the breakage of the stone here is quite shallow. The depth of
breakage before the resh is more typical of a lacuna than the edge of a
fragment. In depth, it compares with the lacuna of Line 5 on Fragment B1.
Thus, a thin segment of the stone's surface was chipped off in the
breakage of the stone, but it has not survived.
After this resh we see a mem, the head of which is quite cramped in
itself. The stem is very long and passes over an area of significant scari-
fication. A word divider follows, after which we see a beth and a resh. The
bottom tip of the beth runs into a pockmark and between it and the resh is
another characteristic small pockmark. A word divider follows the resh.
After the word divider we have what might be the possible remains of a
letter on the very edge of the fragment. The edge of the fragment is oddly
cut here, perhaps facilitated by the contours of this next letter's strokes.
This is certainly possible as the fragment itself is not very thick at this
point and is susceptible to chipping and breakage along any previous mark-
ing on the stone's surface. However, the nature of breakage here does not
allow us to distinguish whether there is in fact the smallest part of a stroke
here, or whether it is just part of the broken edge.
Schniedewind, however, maintains that there are two markings along
the edge of the fragment (see Fig. 3.19). Furthermore, he claims that these
two markings match exactly with the right extremity of an 'aleph, con-
firmed by electronic imaging.87 Yet, I must contend with Schniedewind on

a number of fronts. First, a very careful examination of the stone itself
shows only one possible point on the edge of Fragment B2 that may pass
as the remnant of a carved stroke, not two as he claims. This single possi-
ble stroke occurs at the same latitude as the 'nose' of the resh just to the
right. The only possibility of another stroke along this edge occurs a little
further up where the edge makes a sharp and jagged turn to the right. This
occurs directly above the word divider at a point higher than the topmost
extremity of the preceding resh. It could be argued that at this point, the
edge follows the contour of a deliberately carved stroke that is no longer
extant. Yet, the sharp and pointed nature of the edge here makes this un-
likely, especially because the stroke would have to be viewed as perpen-
dicular to the line of breakage. If the stroke followed the line of breakage
closer, it would be more plausible.
Figure 3.19. Location of a possible stroke remnant (marked '1') andSchniedewind"s

proposed second mark (marked '2') along the edge of Fragment B2 (Tel Dan
Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan [detail]).
Yet, even conceding this as a possible stroke, Schniedewind's proposal

still runs aground very quickly. If this jagged point along the edge is what
Schniedewind claims is the remnant of a stroke, he is correct in claiming
the distance between the two points is suitable for an 'aleph. However, it
would require the diagonal stroke of the 'aleph, which forms the top stroke
of the 'nose', to extend further right than the horizontal stroke of the letter.
87. Schniedewind, 'Tel Dan Stela', pp. 79-++

This phenomenon is not seen in any 'aleph attested on any of the three
fragments. Even among the straighter-sitting examples, the diagonal stroke
of every 'aleph invariably ends further left than the end of the horizontal
stroke. Thus, the only way Schniedewind can maintain the restoration of
an 'aleph is by massive clockwise rotation of the letter. Using electronic
imaging, it was found that a typical form of 'aleph as found in Fragment B
requires a clockwise rotation of a full 40 in order to match the contours of
the jagged edge at the end of Line 7.88 Even then, the letter sits abnormally
high on the line. Such quantitative reconfiguration cannot have any author-
ity. Schniedewind here would appear to be unduly influenced by con-
firming a match between the inscription's content and the biblical text.89
Schniedewind's proposal of two markings along the edge of the frag-
ment would better comport with a lamed. In such a case, there is no need
for repositioning or rotation of the letter. The fact that this more likely
possibility was not discussed by Schniedewind perhaps highlights the aim
of his reconstruction. Yet, it must be maintained that any restoration of a
letter after the word divider at the end of Line 7 is competely elusive. It
would be purely speculative to suggest any letter for consideration. We
must, therefore, decline any restoration here because the context is epi-
graphically too ambiguous.
It is abundantly clear that the vertical strokes of the letters on this line
have been carved from the bottom upwards. Deep points at the upper
extremities of these strokes confirm this, giving further confirmation to the
notion of the engraver being situated along the original inscription's left
edge.
Line 7, therefore, should be deciphered as: [.. .]~DD"l[...].
Line 8
The breakage along the bottom of Fragment B2 impinges upon the first
few extant letters of Line 8. The first letter is undoubtedly ayodh. Only the
'head' of the yodh remains extant and it is comparable to theyodh encoun-
tered in Line 6. The angle at which these strokes lie precludes the figure
from being a . After this yodh, the broken edge rises up slightly and
88. The computer-aided facsimile of the fragments in Fig. 2 of Schniedewind's

article does not accurately portray the angle of the 'aleph required to fit the jagged
edge of the fragment. See Schniedewind, 'Tel Dan Stela', p. 77.
89. Schniedewind's restoration of 'aleph leads to his conclusion that it was the first
letter in the name of Ahab, king of Israel. As such, he concludes the full name here was
that of'Jehoram, son of Ahab'. See Schniedewind, 'Tel Dan Stela', pp. 79-80.
occupies the space between the yodh and a that follows. This has been
broken off below the bottom 'bristle'. There is, however, quite a
considerable gap between this and the preceding yodh. In fact, the gap is
so telling that we could reasonably expect a word divider to have been
here. However, no markings have been preserved between the two letters
because of the contours of the stone's breakage. As such, we must mark
the possibility of a word divider but cannot confirm one on epigraphic
grounds alone.
Following the is an odd figure that could be interpreted as either of four
letters: waw, kaph, nun or taw. Biran and Naveh understood this letter as a
waw without any comment as to its unusual form.90 It consists of a short
horizontal stroke joined to a vertical stem that kinks slightly at the
junction. Not all of this vertical stroke has survived. It would appear to
match a waw well except for the puzzling absence of a vertical stroke on
the 'hook'. We find such forms of waw in some Ammonite seals and bullae
from the seventh century.91 Yet, such a form is anomalous within the
epigraphic context of Fragment B because a distinctly Aramaic style waw
has already been observed in Line 3.
This leaves the figure open for interpretation. If it may be understood as
a waw with a missing stroke, we could similarly posit a kaph with a
missing 'finger'. The main objection to this would be the angle on which
the character sits. Likewise, if it were a taw with only half a crossbar, the
angle troubles us again. If we posit an incompleted nun, we must contend
with the fact that the stem does not appear to curve at all.
It appears that Biran and Naveh accepted this letter as waw to accommo-
date their reading of this line as part of a personal name with a theophoric
element, -yahu. However, a kaph would also make good grammatical sense
as part of the verb ~[iT, followed probably by the subject.92 In order to
derive a letter for restoration with any amount of certainty, though, we
should ask whether we can account for the fact that a stroke appears to be
missing without appealing to an Ammonite style of waw. Indeed, such an
appeal would appear out of place for fragments found at Tel Dan.
91. E.g. the seals of 'Anamawt and Manahham. See W.E. Aufrecht, A Corpus of
Ammonite Inscriptions (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989), 44, 48, respec-
tively.
92. This, of course, presumes that there is no word divider between the initial yodh
and at the beginning of this line.
The only letter for which we can discern such a reason, however, is in
fact waw. After this figure appears a word divider. However, between the
figure and this word divider is a small pockmark that occupies the approxi-
mate position where we expect the missing stroke of a waw to have been.
As such, it may have been the case that this pockmark in the stone existed
prior to the carving of the inscription. In that case, carving an entire 'hook'
may have led to further chipping or jeopardized the aesthetic integrity of
these figures. It may also have been the case that the engraver deemed this
pockmark adequate in itself for representing the vertical part of the 'hook'.
Indeed, when the inscription is viewed from a distance, this pockmark
does appear to act as such a stroke, albeit slightly detached. Thus, we have
good reason to presume this letter was intended as a waw. Although the
same arguments may be employed for seeing this figure as a nun, the prob-
lem of no curvature in the stem still remains, as well as the oddity of an
extended main stem. Therefore, we may recommend a waw for restoration
here.
After the word divider we encounter a slightly eroded beth that has
more in common with the beths of Fragment A than any of the other beths
in Fragment B. Despite the erosion, it is clearly visible that the 'tail' of
this beth is uniformly curved rather than bent. Following this is a resh. The
'nose' of the resh and the very bottom of the stem have been broken off.
Fragment B2 ends at this point.
Despite the paucity of full figures in the line, deep points are still obser-
vable on the majority of vertical strokes at the upper extremities. Only the
first letter, yodh, is ambiguous due to erosion. Thus, as was the case with
all the lines in Fragment A, the engraver of Fragment B appears to have
been situated along the left edge of the inscription.
We can decipher Line 8, therefore, as: [...]"D1!T[...].
Fragment B: Assessment
The identical carving characteristics of the inscribed characters on both
Fragment B and Fragment A suggest a strong connection between the two
fragmentary unitsnamely, that they were part of the same inscription. In
both Fragment A and Fragment B, clear signs that the engraver was
positioned along the original left edge of the inscription during carving can
be observed. However, some of the characteristics of Fragment B suggest
that it should not be placed to the immediate left of Fragment A. Rather,
since the letter neatness, the close lines of text, and the tendency to lift the
slope of the lines all suggest that Fragment B was towards the end of an
inscription, there is a case to be made for Fragment B being placed below
Fragment A.
In accordance with the data calculated during the epigraphical analysis
of Fragment A, the dimensions of the original written surface of Fragment
B must be the same as that of Fragment A. That is, the original front face
of the inscription measured at least 110 cm in height and approximately 35
cm in width.
Having established that there is a very real epigraphical connection
between Fragment A and Fragment B, I turn now to a palaeographical
analysis of the script on each fragment. This analysis should elucidate any
connection even further.
Chapter 4
PALAEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Having undertaken an epigraphical analysis of both Fragment A and Frag-
ment B, we are now in a position to examine the script. The epigraphical
analysis will have alerted us to the idiosyncrasies of the engraver. A palae-
ographical analysis will now allow us to explore the handwriting on the
inscription and place it within an approximate chronological bracket. From
this point, we will be able to offer a tentative date for the inscription to cor-
roborate with the archaeological context in which Fragment A was found.
Joseph Naveh, being an epigrapher and palaeographer, was criticized by
Cryer for not offering a full analysis of the script on the Tel Dan frag-
ments.1 Cryer was indeed justified in his remarks, for a script analysis is
fundamentally necessary before we can make any conclusions about any
inscription. Yet, Cryer's own examination of the letter types in Fragment
A is often very superficial,2 and his analysis of Fragment B is far from
comprehensive.
Cryer, however, was not the first to attempt a palaeographical analysis
of the script. In 1993, immediately after the publication of Fragment A,
Josef Tropper of Berlin offered an analysis of the script and included an
excellent table comparing the script of Fragment A with six other inscrip-
tions.3 However, his analysis of the script was confined to just nine letters.
Thus, a comprehensive analysis of the script of both fragments has not
been undertaken to date. It is my task to fill this notable void.
1. Cryer, 'King Hadad', p. 224.

2. Cryer, 'On the Recently-Discovered "House of David" Inscription', pp. 6-9.
3. Tropper, 'Eine altarmaische Steleninschrift aus Dan', pp. 399-401. Tropper
defended his analysis in a subsequent article, 'Palaographische und linguistische
Anmerkungen zur Steleninschrift aus Dan', UF26 (1994), pp. 487-92.
4. Palaeographical Analysis 95
Before starting the analysis, however, I must make some preliminary

observations of practical worth. The surface of writing greatly affects the
appearance of a script. Since inscriptions carved into stone are usually
meant for display, we expect they represent a more polished and stylistic
script than do inscriptions written on other less durable surfaces. That is,
the surface of writing indicates not only the purpose of writing, but also
dictates our tolerance for odd forms and conventions. Thus, the only scripts
which may be used for direct comparison with the Tel Dan fragments are
those which occur on monumental lapidary inscriptions. Writing on other
surfaces may only suffice for casual comparison without having great bear-
ing on the script of Fragment A.
We must, however, note that both the ivory inscription of Hazael found
at Arslan Tash4 and the ivory plaque from Nimrud5 do suffice for compari-
son. Since they appear to be dedicatory inscriptions for display purposes
we should include them in our corpus of comparable inscriptions.6 On the
other hand, writings such as the Samaria Ostraca7 can only be mentioned
with peripheral significance for our discussion of the script of the Tel Dan
fragments. Since the Samaria Ostraca are notes written with ink on pot-
sherds, they may represent less conventional scripts. Furthermore, ostraca
texts are a good degree less public than monumental inscriptions. For this
reason, we expect the scripts to vary greatly between different hands and
for scribal conventions to shift more rapidly than for monumental lapidary
inscriptions. Thus, it is with only minor significance, if any at all, that we
may compare ink texts with the Tel Dan fragments.
The Gezer Calendar8 appears to fall somewhere between monumental
lapidary inscriptions and ink texts. The calendar does not appear to be a
monumental lapidary inscription, yet it is inscribed on limestone (like the
4. F. Thureau-Dangin, A. Barrens, G. Dossin and M. Dunand, Arslan Tash (Paris:

Paul Geuthner, 1931), pp. 135-36.
5. A.R. Millard, 'Alphabetic Inscriptions on Ivories from Nimrud', Iraq 24 (1962),
pp. 45-49.
6. Despite being found in Assyria, the Nimrud Ivory is clearly of Palestinian
provenance. As such, whenever the Nimrud Ivory Plaque is mentioned as a match, its
provenance will be given as Palestine rather than Assyria.
7. G. A. Reisner, C.S. Fischer and D.G. Lyons, Harvard Excavations at Samaria (2
vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964), I, pp. 227-46; D. Diringer, Le
iscrizioni antico-ebraiche Palestinesi (Florence: Le Monnier, 1934), pp. 21-68, 71-73.
8. Diringer, Le iscrizioni antico-ebraiche Palestinesi, pp. 1-20; Taf. [Plates] I-II;
Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet, p. 63, Fig. 54.
Amman Citadel inscription). For this reason, it has relevance for compari-
son with the Tel Dan fragments by virtue of the writing surface. However,
we must not be too hasty in giving it a great degree of authority because of
the nature of the handwriting. First, the text appears to have been etched
straight onto the limestone without a pre-written template. Also, the indi-
vidual letterforms within the text vary greatly from each other and are
actually quite messy. Thus, it is only with caution that we may compare the
script of the Tel Dan fragments with the letter forms in the Gezer Calendar.
Scripts gleaned from various seals and bullae, however, are of more
relevance. Although they are not public monumental inscriptions, they do
represent a type of formalized script. This being the case, they do parallel
the scripts of monumental lapidary inscriptions in writing conventions.
However, seals are physically very different from monumental lapidary
inscriptions. Thus, the scripts of seals and bullae are to be regarded with
greater significance than those of ink texts, but we must stop well short of
according them equal significance with other monumental lapidary inscrip-
tions.
The course of the present investigation will be to offer a thorough palae-
ographic analysis of each alphabetic letter attested in the fragments. Frag-
ment A will be examined independently of Fragment B in order to gain as
objective a picture of the script as is possible. Following this, I will exam-
ine the script of Fragment B,9 during which I will note any similarities or
differences with the script of Fragment A. By doing this, we will be able
to establish whether a plausible connection exists between Fragment A and
Fragment B in terms of palaeography.
Fragment A
A facsimile of Fragment A was drawn by Ada Yardeni soon after the
fragment's discovery (Fig. 4.1).
9. Both Fragment B1 and B2 will be treated together because of the certainty of

the join between these two fragments.
Figure 4.1. Facsimile of Fragment A (drawn by Ada Yardeni).
Analysis of Individual Letters

'Aleph. There are 13 instances of the letter 'aleph in Fragment A. Table
4.1 contains images of each of these in sequential order.
Table 4.1. Occurrences of aleph in Fragment A.

No. Image Location Occurring Word
A-l Line 2 '3
A-2 Line 3 '3fc
A-3 Line 3 [../fa
A-4 Line 4 ^1
A-5 Line 4 pn^n
A-6 Line 4 [...r^

A-7 Line 5 ma
A-8 Line 6 bnpsi
A-9 Line 7 'S^^l

A-10 LineS b&"l2T
A-ll Line 9 D&&1
A-12 Line 10 pn&

A-13 Line 1 1 inns
The form is typically similar to a Latin 'A' fallen on its left side. The stem
extends beyond the two legs.10 The leftmost tip of the figure is generally
quite sharp and the triangular space enclosed by the three lines is quite
large and distinct. Common to each attestation is the slant of the stem, the
top leaning towards the left. There is also a tendency for the latter 'alephs
to bend the stem slightly leftwards above the highest point of intersection.
A further difference between the forms is the bottom horizontal stroke.
The angle of this stroke varies from the steepest of 17 to the horizontal
('aleph A-4), down to the flattest of only 2 ('aleph A-13)quite a large
disparity. The average slant is 11, corresponding to 'aleph A-8. The
stroke becomes generally flatter towards the end of the inscription. In
qualifying this, we must remember that each line of the fragment also
becomes flatter towards the end of the inscription. When this information
is combined with the angles of each incision of each 'aleph, a picture
emerges of the letters being gradually rotated clockwise throughout the in-
scription, in keeping with the general tendency of the lines to flatten. That
is, the rotation of the strokes in each 'aleph is very much influenced by the
slope of the line on which it appears. The first few 'alephs of Fragment A
appear rotated anti-clockwise because the lines slope considerably in that
direction.
The basic shape of the figure is observable in the ninth century BCE at
Tell Fakhariyah. However, not until the late ninth century BCE do we see
an attestation of 'aleph with a slant comparable to Fragment A. A prece-
dent for this form is seen in the Melqart Stele.'! There, we see a form with
10. 'Aleph A-6 has been slightly damaged near the left tip because of a vacuity in
the surface of the stone.
11. This is also known as the Bar Hadad Stele or the Bureij inscription. The precise
deciphering of the characters on the second line of this inscription has been a subject of
debate since its discovery at Bureij (near Aleppo) in 1939. A good summary of the
various interpretations can be found in W.T. Pitard, Ancient Damascus: A Historical
essentially the same configuration and a comparable leftward slant. How-

ever, the 'nose' of the figure shows hints of curvature and the stem is quite
long. The Mesha Stele, although comparable in shape, does not display the
desired slant.
The 'alephs of both Kilamuwa's Stele12 and Scepter13 represent a slightly
earlier stage in the development of the 'aleph by virtue of the stem being
placed very close to the 'nose' of the figure. This is a feature of the tenth-
century Byblian inscriptions.14 However, Kilamuwa's inscriptions employ
the slanted stem. As such, they stand on the threshold of the style used in
Fragment A. Thus, we may posit the time of Kilamuwa (c. 825 BCE) as the
earliest possible date for the 'aleph of Fragment A.
Our first significant matches come just after Kilamuwa with the Amman
Citadel Inscription, the Archaic Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus15 and
the Nora Stone.16 These forms are similar in all respects to the form in
Fragment A. The Zakkur Stele17 in the early eighth century BCE is similar
to the Melqart Stele in preserving a slightly rounder 'nose'. However, the
form of Zakkur indicates that the stem had achieved proportions closer to
Fragment A than the Melqart Stele. Thus, the slightly rounded 'nose' on
Study of the Syrian City-State from the Earliest Times until its Fall to the Assyrians in
732 BCE (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), pp. 138-44. Since Pitard's analysis
stems from an examination of the stele itself, I have taken his facsimile as the most
reliable, though it too has certain difficulties. See W.T. Pitard, 'The Identity of the Bir-
Hadad of the Melqart Stela', BASOR 272 (1988), pp. 3-22. For a photograph of the
inscription, see P.M. Cross, 'The Stele Dedicated to Melcarth by Ben-Hadad of Damas-
cus', BASOR 205 (1972), pp. 36-42.
12. See Donner and Rollig, Kanaandische und Aramdische Inschriften, I, 24.
13. P. von Luschan, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. V. Die Kleinfunde von Send-
schirli: Herausgabe undErgdnzung besorgt von Walter Andrae (5 vols.; Mittheilungen
aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen, Konigliche Museen zu Berlin, 15; Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 1943), Taf. [Plates] 47.f, g; K. Galling, 'The Scepter of Wisdom: A Note on
the Gold Sheath ofZenjirli and Ecclesiastes 12:11', BASOR 119 (1950), pp. 15-18.
14. This archaic style is also seen in the later Azitawadda Inscription. However,
since we see the same type of 'aleph used in the Nora Stone, a Phoenician inscription
contemporary to the Kilamuwa Stele and Kilamuwa's Scepter, we can safely call this
an early style. Later Phoenician inscriptions do not use this type of 'aleph, further testi-
fying to its 'early' label.
15. W.F. Albright, 'New Light on the Early History of Phoenician Colonization',
BASOR 83 (1941), pp. 14-22 (15, Fig. 1).
16. Albright, 'New Light on the Early History', p. 18, Fig. 2.
17. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II, 5.
the figure from Zakkur is probably just idiosyncratic of the scribe rather
than the script as a whole.
Similar forms are also observed in Panammu I, the Sefire Treaties, the
inscribed bricks from Hamath18 and the Nerab Stele.19 By the end of this
period (the late eighth century BCE), different forms come into vogue. There
is a brief period of revival of the relevant form, though, in the late sixth and
early fifth century BCE in Phoenicia, when we observe comparable forms on
the sarcophagi of Tabnit20 and Eshmun'azar.
This information gives us a chronological horizon for the form of 'aleph
in Fragment A between the late ninth century BCE and the early fifth cen-
tury BCE. The form is attested in Sardinia, Cyprus, Southeast Anatolia,
Syria, Transjordan and later in Phoenicia.
Beth. There are 7 instances of the letter beth in Fragment A.21 Table 4.2
contains images of each of these in sequential order.
Table 4.2. Occurrences o/beth in Fragment A.
No. Image Location Word Occurrence
A-l Line 2 '^
A-2 Line 3 332T1
A-3 Line 3 "2*
A-4 Line 4 P"I*C
A-5 Line 4 [../TtfK
A-6 Line 7 23
A-7 Line 9 -inn's
18. H. Ingholt, Rapport preliminaire sur la premiere campagne des fouilles a

Hama (Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, 1934), pp. 115-16; Donner and Rollig,
Kanaandische undAramaische Inschriften,203-13.
19. Donner and Rollig, Kanaandische und Aramaische Inschriften, I, 225-26.
20. Donner and Rollig, Kanaandische und Aramaische Inschriften, I, 13.
21. This is not included the beth restored in the damaged word at the beginning of
line A2.
4. Palaeograph ical A nalys is 101
A distinguishing trait of all these beths is their tail. The top of the stem
leans to the left and its tail curves uniformly underneath the head of the
figure. Beths A-1 and A-5, however, hint at the possibility of a form with a
vertexed tail. The tail is short, not protruding further left than the 'nose' of
the left-facing head. The head itself consists of straight strokes creating an
isosceles triangle that verges on the equilateral. As such, the head is of an
angular variety rather than a rounded one.
The beths of Northwest Semitic inscriptions may be put into two classes
according to the form of the letter's tail. The first form, under which we
may classify the beths of Fragment A, has a stem which curves neatly and
uniformly into a tail without any sign of a vertex between the stem and
tail. The second type, though, does display a vertex so that a definite point
can be assigned to where the stem ends and the tail begins. The tail of this
second type also displays little to no curvature. This second type is the
more common among monumental lapidary inscriptions. Examples of it
can be found at Tell Fakhariyah, in the Mesha Stele and Panammu I.
Although the curved-stem beth is attested earlier than the vertexed-stem
beth in Phoenician inscriptions of the tenth and early ninth century BCE,
there is a significant chronological overlap of both forms spanning centu-
ries. This is demonstrated well by Sefire Stele I A in which both styles
appear side by side. The fact that the vertexed-stem beth is the most com-
mon form beyond the tenth-century BCE Phoenicia, while both forms do
appear concurrently, suggests that the curved-stem beth is a variation of
the vertexed-stem form outside Phoenicia. In early Phoenician inscrip-
tions, however, the curved-stem beth prevails. This may suggest a definite
influence of Phoenician style over Fragment A since there is an almost
exclusive preference for curved-stem beths. In geographical terms, the
watershed of the Lebanon Mountain Range is all that separates Tel Dan
from Phoenicia, so it is certainly plausible. However, such a suggestion
would require Fragment A to be dated in the late tenth or early ninth cen-
tury BCE. From our examination of the archaeological context, we have
seen this cannot be the case.
Nevertheless, we must advise caution. It must be remembered that we
are dealing with only afragmen+++++++++++++++++++++++++
As such, what may appear to be a universal trend in a fragment might not
necessarily be a universal trend in a whole inscription. Thus, with regard
to the style of beth employed in an inscription, we should turn once again
to Sefire Stele I A. There, we see that not only are both styles of beth
employed side by side, but each style also occurs in a different place in the
inscription. In the lower portion of Stele I A, we see a large pocket of text,

which uses exclusively curved-stem beths. This pocket runs for several
lines in the upper half of this lower portion and uses 12 curved-stem beths
before reverting to the vertexed-stem form. This is almost double the
number of beths in Fragment A, alerting us to the limitations of dealing
only with a fragment rather than a whole inscription. The danger would be
to search for matches with the Fragment A beth in inscriptions with only
curved-stem beths. In so doing, however, we could unwittingly exclude
inscriptions with vertexed-stem forms which are also appropriate matches
within the same chronological framework as the script of Fragment A.
Sefire Stele III also demonstrates the concurrent use of both styles, par-
ticularly evident in the left half of the inscription.
One important characteristic of the beth used in Fragment A permits us
to dismiss direct early Phoenician influence, in addition to the archaeologi-
cal context. This is the overall slant of the letter. All early Phoenician
beths lean to the right, whereas the beths of Fragment A all lean to the left.
This is a very important factor for it precludes a tenth-century BCE dating
of the script of Fragment A. Rather, a left-leaning beth is characteristic of
Syrian or Aramaic styles in the ninth and eighth centuries. There is also a
brief revival of the left-leaning beth in Phoenicia during the late sixth and
early fifth centuries, seen on the sarcophagi of Tabnit and Eshmun'azar.
Thus, despite the seemingly universal usage of curved-stem beths in
Fragment A, we must conclude that the original whole inscription also con-
tained the more common vertexed-stem form. As was already mentioned,
such a form is hinted at by beths A-l and A-5. Beth A-l in Line 2 pos-
sesses characteristics from both types of beth. There is a definite vertex
where the tail bends away from the stem, but the tail itself is slightly
curved. On the slightly damaged beth A-5, we can see that the remnant of
the tail is quite straight and in an acute position. This appears in keeping
with the traits of a vertexed-stem beth, rather than a curved-stem type.
The form of beth in the Kilamuwa Inscription shows comparable fea-
tures with the beths of Fragment A. Although the Kilamuwa beth tends to
be of the vertexed-stem form rather than the curve-stem form, the letter is
on the desired slant, typical of Syrian forms. Likewise, we can note the in-
scriptions of the Amman Citadel,22 Zakkur, Panammu I, Panammu II23 and
22. The inclusion of the Amman Citadel Inscription as a 'Syrian' form affirms
Naveh's theory that Ammonite script was under the influence of Syrian conventions.
See J. Naveh, 'The Scripts in Palestine and Transjordan in the Iron Age', in J.H. Sand-
ers (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of
Bar Rakib.24 Both the sarcophagi of Tabnit and Eshmun'azar must also be
mentioned. To a lesser degree, we may mention the Sefire Treaties, the
Eqron Inscription25 and the stele from Tema.26 The figures in these three
inscriptions, although displaying similarly shaped forms, stand more up-
right than the beths of Fragment A.27
Thus, our chronological bracket for the beth of Fragment A ranges from
the late ninth century BCE right down to the mid-fifth century BCE. The
most meaningful matches derive from Southeast Anatolia, Syria and Trans-
jordan, though comparable forms are also found in Phoenicia and North-
west Arabia.
Gimel. No gimel is attested in Fragment A.
Daleth. Fragment A contains six instances of the letter daleth.2* Table 4.3
contains images of each in their sequential order.
The letter is the form of a triangle with the right diagonal extending a
little past the point where it meets the horizontal stroke. This horizontal
stroke is slightly curved and at first glance appears to vary considerably in
slant among the attestations, making it difficult to ascertain a typical form.
The differences are most obvious when comparing daleth A-3 with daleth
Nelson Glueck (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), pp. 277-83 (277-79); idem, Early
History of'the Alphabet, ^. 107.
23. This inscription is also known simply as the Panammu inscription. We have
chosen the label 'Panammu II' in order to distinguish it from the Panammu I inscrip-
tion. For treatment and photographs of the Panammu II inscription, see Gibson, Text-
book of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II, 14.
24. There are numerous fragmentary texts that we may ascribe to Bar Rakib. These
are referred to collectively here as 'Bar Rakib'. The label 'Bar Rakib Stele' will refer
to the first inscription of this small corpus, namely Bar Rakib A. See Donner and
Rollig, Kanaandische und Aramdische Inschriften, I, 216-21; Gibson, Textbook of
Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II, 15-17,191, Fig. 11; Lidzbarski, Handbuch der Nord-
semitischen Epigraphik,+++++++++++++
25. S. Gitin, T. Dothan and J. Naveh, 'A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron',
IEJ41 (1997), pp. 1-16.
26. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II, 30.
27. Along the with the Sefire Treaties, the Eqron Inscription is a good example of
both the curved-stem and vertexed-stem beths appearing concurrently in one inscrip-
tion.
28. This is not including the daleth reconstructed in the damaged word at the begin-
ning of Line 2.
A-6. However, daleth A-2 has a slight chip at the horizontal stroke making
it look slanted down to the right in a way similar to daleth A-3, which is
immediately next to it in the inscription. Closer inspection, however,
reveals the point at which the horizontal stroke of daleth A-2 meets the
right-hand stroke to be higher than at first appears. It is, therefore, compa-
rable to daleth A-6. This means that daleth A-3 is anomalous and the rest
are quite similar to each other. Also of note is the leftmost tip, which
comes to a definite point. The characteristic feature is the rotation of the
entire letter such that it appears to lean towards the left.
Table 4.3. Occurrences of daleth in Fragment A.

A-l Line 4 Dip
A-2 Line 5 ~nn

A-3 Line 5 lin
A-4 Line 5 'anp
A-5 Line 9 nnrrs
A-6 Line 9 Tnrrn
Prior to the mid-ninth century BCE, a very upright form of daleth pre-
vails. In the mid-ninth century BCE, however, a rotation of the letter takes
place. This is observed in the contemporary inscriptions of the Mesha
Stele, which still preserves the upright form, the Melqart Stele and Amman
Citadel Inscription, which display the later rotated form, and the Archaic
Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus, which appears midway between the
two forms. Since Ammonite script shows definite influence from its more
northerly neighbours in Syria, this small survey shows that the rotated
daleth is a typically Syrian form. The idiosyncratic script of Tell Fakhari-
yah also displays a slanted daleth, but the shape of the letter differs in that
it has no tail at the bottom right vertex.
We notice another particular feature that is helpful in defining our time-
frame and area of influence for Fragment A. Whereas the form of Frag-
ment A displays a clear vertex at the bottom left of the figure, the Melqart
Stele shows definite curvature. The slightly later Amman Citadel Inscrip-
tion does display the vertex. The Horse's Ornament of Hazael, found on
the Aegean island of Samos,29 displays the vertex but no rotation. Although
this particular inscription is not a monumental lapidary inscription, it is
useful in determining the nature of the form used in the third quarter of the
ninth century BCE. It appears that the rotation of the letter daleth occurred
during this time in the northern Levant so that by c. 825 BCE we see the
rotated form with vertex in the Kilamuwa Inscription. That this is defi-
nitely a Syrian form of daleth is furnished by evidence from the contem-
porary Nora Inscription, which still uses the Phoenician style of an upright
daleth, and the Syrian-influenced script of the Amman Citadel Inscription.
Thus, the Amman Citadel and Kilamuwa Inscription represent our terminus
a quo in c. 825 BCE.
The persistence of the curved daleth from the Melqart Stele is seen in
the eighth century BCE with the Zakkur Stele through to the Nerab Stelae
at the very end of the eighth century BCE. However, at the end of this cen-
tury BCE, we see a comparable form to that of Fragment A in the Siloam
Tunnel Inscription30 in Palestine. Among the Syrian forms, only the in-
scribed bricks from Hamath and the stele of Bar Rakib suffice for reason-
able matches in this century. After the eighth century BCE, other forms
dominate the register.
In addition to these observations, we may also note the conventions
used in non-dedicatory inscriptions. The Samaria Ostraca are particularly
useful here. Despite the convention to slant most of the letters to the right,
the ostraca preserve a form of daleth that is identical to that of Fragment
A. Ostracon 4 is a particularly good example.
Thus, this slanted daleth with three vertices and a tail has a fairly short
life between the late ninth century BCE and the end of the eighth century
BCE. The closest forms, however, occur between c. 825 BCE and c. 770 BCE.
This accords well with the approximate date gleaned from the archaeologi-
cal context of Fragment A. The form is attested in Southeast Anatolia,
Syria, Transjordan and Palestine.
Heh. The letter heh occurs six times in Fragment A. Table 4.4 contains
images of each in their sequential order.
29. I. Eph'al and J. Naveh, 'Hazael's Booty Inscriptions', IEJ39 (1989), pp. 192-
200.
30. S.A. Birnbaum, The Hebrew Scripts. II. The Plates (2 vols.; London: Palae-
ographia, 1954-57), 14; Lidzbarski, Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik,II,
Taf. [Plates] XXI: 1.
Table 4.4. Occurrences o/heh in Fragment A.

A-l Line 3 liT

A-2 Line 5 I13N
A-3 Line 5 ITT
A-4 Line 5 ~nn
A-5 Line 10 on
A-6 Line 1 1 [...?]nî
As with the other letters of the inscription, the heh sits on an anti-clockwise
slant. The figure is a type of'brush' or, as Cryer styles it, a 'comb'.31 The
three 'bristles' or 'teeth' project from the stem at an acute angle and tend
to be slightly shorter in length the further down the stem they are.32 The
stem is not particularly long either. Heh tends to be a long letter where the
stem extends quite low, but here in Fragment A, it is quite short. Some of
the stems also betray a minute curvature (see hehs A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-6).
The earliest match we have with this slanted form is the Melqart Stele of
Bar Hadad. The Nora Stone and the Archaic Phoenician Inscription from
Cyprus also display this form. In the Mesha Stele, the Azitawadda Inscrip-
tion and the Panammu II Stele, the heh is quite upright and the 'bristles'
are of equal length, although occasionally in Mesha, the middle 'bristle' is
shorter than the other two. As is to be expected, and in keeping with the
individual style of Mesha, the stem of the heh is also longer than that of
Fragment A. However, some hehs in the middle left of the Mesha Stele,
particularly between lines 15 and 26, show a clear affinity with the form in
Fragment A. Thus, it qualifies as a match. A slightly better proportioned
figure is seen in the Amman Citadel Inscription, though the stem is also
slightly longer than the stem in Fragment A.

32. Cryer, 'On the Recently-Discovered "House of David" Inscription', p. 7, ob-
serves the 'teeth' as 'of fully equal length'. However, closer observation and measure-
ment reveals that the 'teeth', or 'bristles' (as we will call them), do grow shorter further
down the stem.
Kilamuwa's inscription is also similar in that the figure is slanted and

the 'bristles' become shorter further down the stem. Some of the Sefire
Treaties present good parallels. The inscription on Hazael's Horse Orna-
ment from Samos is an excellent match, particularly with regards to the
length of the stem. Similar comparisons can be made with Zakkur, the in-
scribed bricks from Hamath, Bar Rakib, the Nerab Stelae and the Eqron
Inscription.
Of all these inscriptions, by far the most meaningful matches are Kila-
muwa, the Amman Citadel Inscription and the Archaic Phoenician Inscrip-
tion from Cyprus. In Kilamuwa and the Amman Citadel, not only is the
figure on the desired slant and the 'bristles' of the correct proportion, but
the stem displays the slight curvature prevalent in the form of Fragment A.
The inscription from Cyprus, although not displaying the subtle curvature
of the stem, preserves the length more faithfully.
Thus, with this palaeographic information, the heh of Fragment A con-
forms with mid-ninth century BCE to early seventh century BCE figures in
the areas of Sardinia, Cyprus, Southeast Anatolia, Syria and Transjordan.
Wow. There are nine occurrences of waw in Fragment A.33 Their images
appear in Table 4.5 in sequential order.
The waw is slightly slanted, as we have come to expect from Tel Dan.
The 'hook' part of the figure, which juts out from the top portion of the
stem, is comprised of two straight lines perpendicular to each other, simi-
lar to a Latin 'L'. However, in waw A-5 and waw A-7, the apex of the
'hook' is quite rounded. That portion of the stem that extends above the
'hook' is roughly of equal length to the parallel stroke of the 'hook'. The
stem is straight, although in some instances there is a decided kink at the
junction with the 'hook' (waw A-3 and waw A-8). This 'hook' style is typi-
cal of Aramaic or Syrian scripts as opposed to the open 'cup' style of more
southern scripts such as Phoenician and Moabite.
The distinctiveness of the waw allows us to make quite precise matches.
Our earliest attestations of the 'hook' form are the Archaic Phoenician
Inscription from Cyprus and the Kilamuwa Stele. The inscription from
Cyprus, though, shows traces of an earlier open 'cup' style, and so repre-
sents a terminus a quo. The waws of Kilamuwa tend to stand quite upright,
but the shape of the figure corresponds very closely to that of Fragment A.
The 'hook' of the figure is distinctively pointed and the variations of the
33. This is not including the reconstructed waw in the damaged word at the begin-
ning of Line 2.
figure throughout Kilamuwa's stele mirror the same variations that appear
in Fragment A. The same may be said for the stelae of Panammu I,
Panammu II and Bar Rakib.
Table 4.5. Occurrences o/waw in Fragment A.

A-l 34 Line 3 3D2T1
A-2 Line 5 TTI

A-3 Line 6 ^npNi
A-435 Line 6 [...]i

A-5 Line 7 "S^Kl
A-6 Line 8 [...^npl
A-7 Line 9 inn" 3
A-8 Line 9 ntbi
A-9 Line 1 1 [...?]nbi
Zakkur's stele maintains a similar shape, although the 'hook' tends to be

more rounded at the apex, like waw A-5. Nevertheless, Zakkur's waws
have the distinct hook of the Aramaic style, rather than the open 'cup'
style of more southern inscriptions, such as Ahiram's Sarcophagus, the
Mesha Stele and the El-Kerak Fragment.36 Azitawadda and the Sefire
Treaties also maintain the 'hook' form of the waw, but the 'hook' is quite
curved. The waw in Line 6 of the Gezer Calendar is comparable to the
waw of Fragment A. However, because the Gezer Calendar contains
numerous capricious forms of individual letters, it is difficult to attribute
34. This waw is clear on the stone but the image here is unfortunately unclear.
35. This waw is only partially preserved and not clear on the photograph. Thus, a
facsimile of the image has been employed instead.
36. W.L. Reed and F.V. Winnett, 'A Fragment of an Early Moabite Inscription
from Kerak', BASOR 172 (1963), pp. 1-9.
correspondence here. Furthermore, it is easily argued that the Gezer

Calendar \vaw is a variation of the open 'cup' style of southern regions.
Thus, we can see the waw of Fragment A as of a distinctly Syrian style
from the late ninth to late eighth centuries BCE. The closest forms are
found in Cyprus, Southeast Anatolia and northern Syria.
Zayin. There are no instances ofzayin in Fragment A.
Heth. There is only one instance of the letter heth in Fragment A.37 The
image appears in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6. Occurrence q/heth in Fragment A.

A-l Line 1 1 pN
Again, the figure is slanted anti-clockwise. It is in the form of a 'ladder'

with three 'rungs'. Of particular note are the two 'risers' of the 'ladder'. At
the foot of the figure, they protrude only minutely below the bottom 'rung',
and the right 'riser' seems to be slightly longer than the left. Above the
first 'rung', however, the right 'riser' barely protrudes, while the left 'riser'
extends quite obviously upwards. The area enclosed between the two
'risers' and the top and bottom 'rungs' is fairly square.
The three-'runged' form of heth is the most commonly attested form in
the entire Levant, from Southeast Anatolia to Palestine. It ranges chrono-
logically from the sarcophagus of Ahiram in c. 1000 BCE, to the sarcophagi
of Tabnit and Eshmun'azar in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE. Thus, we
cannot base our dating for the form in Fragment A on just the number of
'rungs' that the form possesses. Rather, our analysis must concentrate on
comparing the 'risers' of the figure with those from other three-'runged'
forms, as well as the overall slant of the figure.
When we examine the spread ofhethsamong comparable inscriptions,
we find a great variety of forms, even within individual inscriptions. Rea-
sonable matches can be made with Tell Fakhariyah, the Hazael Ivory,
Kilamuwa, Zakkur and the Siloam Tunnel. Yet, each of these has their
problems. To start with, the heths of the Tell Fakhariyah inscription dis-
play little uniformity. The appearances of the 'risers' come in numerous
37. This is not including the reconstructed heth in the damaged word at the begin-
ning of Line 2.
matrices. The one heth in line 7 and the last heth of line 17 are the com-
parable examples. The two heths in the Hazael Ivory are quite different
from each other. The first one affords some comparison in that the left
'riser' extends upward and the right 'riser' extends downward. The diffi-
culty with the heths of Kilamuwa is that they too vary in appearance. The
most common form has both tips of the left 'riser' extending considerably
beyond the 'rungs' while the right 'riser' extends beyond the 'rungs' only
at the bottom. Thus, it presents a similar, albeit disproportionate, shape to
that of Fragment A. The same may be said for the Siloam Tunnel.
The Zakkur Stele also has fewer constraints and yields the best matches
of all. The final heth of line 10 and the first of line 15 are perhaps the clos-
est figures. A good match with the 'risers' and slant of our heth is also
seen in the Amman Citadel Inscription. However, it represents a two-
'runged' form of heth, rather than the required three-'runged' form. This
two-'runged' form is characteristic of a southern style, so the variation is
attributable more to region than time. We do, however, find a two-'runged'
heth in Bar Rakib, but the slant and 'risers' of the Bar Rakib heth are not
comparable to the heth of Fragment A. Yet, since we see the two-'runged'
form as contemporary with the more common three-'runged' form, the dif-
ference cannot be chronological. Thus, the Amman Citadel must be in-
cluded as the best comparison to the heth of Fragment A.
All this data yields a date for our heth between the mid-ninth century
BCE and the early eighth century BCE, though we can plausibly posit a
spectrum down to the very end of the eighth century BCE. Topographically,
Syria and Transjordan afford the best comparisons, though a comparable
form is found in Palestine.
Teth. There are no instances of the letter teth in Fragment A.
Yodh. The letteryodh occurs 16 times in Fragment A, more than any other
letter. Table 4.7 contains the images of all these yodhs in their sequential
order.
The yodh resembles a slanted Latin 'Z' or an Arabic numeral '2', with a
dash branching to the left from the vertical 'spine'. The dash is shorter in
length than the parallel top stroke. The vertices on the two ends of the
'spine' vary between angular (e.g. yodh A-3) and curved (e.g. yodh A-12).
The significant features of the yodh, however, are the angle and length of
the figure's 'tail' and the overall slant of the whole letter.
4. Palaeographical Analysis Ill
Table 4.7. Occurrences o/yodh in Fragment A.

A-l 38 Line 2 inP [mi]

A-2 Line 2 13B
A-3 Line 2 [...]pl

A-4 Line 3 3DET1
A-5 Line 3 ins

A-6 Line 3 T-
A-7 Line 4 [...]^
A-8 Line 5 T:T
A-9 Line 5 IQlp
A-10 Line 6 -
A-ll Line 6 l^Q
A-12 Line 7 IS^^l
A-13 Line 8 ^nî

A-14 Line 9 mn:n
A-15 Line 10 n:
A-16 Line 12 [.]rai
We note that curved and angular styleôJfe are contemporaries of each

other. However, angular style yodhs are the predominant style in the
38. Thisyodh has been reconstructed since it is mostly damaged.

southern regions of Palestine and Transjordan. Further north, we see both

styles side by side, so we may see some northern influence over Fragment
A here.
Corresponding examples to Fragment A include the Melqart Stele, the
Phoenician Governor's Bowl from Cyprus39 and the Nimrud Ivory Plaque.
In these inscriptions, the angles are acute, but the figures are quite tall and
thin, and the strokes are quite straight.40 Theyodhs of the Amman Citadel,
the Archaic Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus, Kilamuwa, Zakkur, Panam-
mu I, the Sefire Treaties, Bar Rakib, Azitawadda, the Nerab Stelae and even
the Eqron Inscription are the closest matches. All of them display the ten-
dency to curve the angles while maintaining the straight appearance of the
lines, as in Fragment A. This gives us a date between the mid-ninth century
BCE and the early seventh century BCE, with the style spread from Cyprus,
through Southeast Anatolia, Syria, Palestine and Transjordan.
Kaph. The letter kaph occurs eight times in Fragment A.41 Table 4.8
contains their images in sequential order of their appearance.
A telling feature of the kaph is its stem. It slopes down to the left, and
the bottom shows little or no curvature. A rotated ' V shape branches off
to the left from a point along the top half of the stem. This gives the figure
the appearance of three 'fingers' (the top part of the stem being one 'fin-
ger'). All three of these 'fingers' are of approximately equal length. The
angles between them are also approximately the same. This branching ' V
construction is most helpful in assigning a date and style to the form, as
there are numerous forms of kaph used in Northwest Semitic inscriptions.
It is, therefore, a distinguishing trait to aid our analysis.
The Phoenician Governor's Bowl from Cyprus has a very good match to
the kaph of Fragment A. Earlier, however, we see a comparable form in
the Nora Inscription, in which the ' V branches out from the mid-point of
the stem. Although the stem is considerably shorter and not at all curved,
the 'fingers' are of equal length, as in Fragment A. The kaph of Kilamuwa
39. Lidzbarski, Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik, II, Taf. [Plates] II: 1.
40. The facsimile of Pitard in The Identity of the Bir-Hadad of the Melqart Stela'
reproduces the yodh of Line 4 as curved. However, a closer inspection reveals the yodh
to be quite straight and pointed, as reproduced by Cross in 'The Stele Dedicated to
Melcarth'.
41. Strangely, Cryer counts only six instances. See his 'Of Epistemology, Northwest-
Semitic Epigraphy and Irony: The "bytdwdftiouse of David" Inscription Revisited',
JSOT69 (1996), pp. 3-17 (14).
is similar, except that the stem is notably curved. This is an occasional fea-
ture of the kaphs on the Mesha Stele. However, most of the forms in the
top half of the inscription are good matches. Kilamuwa's Sceptre is a bet-
ter match, being similar to the Nora Inscription. A votive inscription from
Kuntilet 'Ajrud42 also displays comparable characteristics.
Table 4.8. Occurrences o/kaph in Fragment A.
No. Image Location PForJ Occurrence
A-l Line 3 332T1
A-2 Line 3 }
A-3 Line 5 }
A-4 Line 6 <^Q
A-5 Line? 32
A-6 Line 8 ^Q
A-7 Line 9 3
A-8 Line 12 *>
The Zakkur kaph is slightly different in that it incorporates not a 'V,

but a ' Y' shape branching from the stem. Both the Amman Citadel Inscrip-
tion and the inscribed bricks from Hamath contain this ' Y' shaped branch,
but they also have some figures with the ' V shaped branch, very similar
to kaph A-6. It is difficult to tell, however, which form was intended as
typical, but we may permit a match to be made, nonetheless.43 The kaphs
of Panammu I approach the form of Tel Dan, but the leftmost 'finger'
slopes notably downward. Kaph A-4 features this, but it seems to be the
exception rather than the rule. Bar Rakib also displays this heavy 'finger'.
42. Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet, p. 66, Fig. 57.

43. There is a noted similarity between the scripts of the Amman Citadel and the
Hamath bricks, even with other letters (e.g. heth).
The slightly later figures from the Siloam Tunnel and the Eqron Inscrip-
tion have the left 'finger' slightly higher, as in kaphs A-l and A-2.
Thus, we have comparable examples for the Fragment A kaph dating to
between the mid-ninth century BCE and the early seventh century BCE from
Sardinia, Cyprus, Southeast Anatolia, Syria, Transjordan, Palestine and
even the Negev. This wide geographical spread is offset by the narrowness
of the assigned date, which spans a little over a century.
Lamed. The letter lamed occurs 15 times in Fragment A. Table 4.9 con-
tains the images of these instances in their sequential order.
Table 4.9. Occurrences o/lamed in Fragment A.
A-l Line 3 [...]!

A-2 Line 4 !3n
A-344 Line 4 [...n^
A-4 Line 6 <v
A-545 Line 6 !2PpK1
A-646 Line 6 HJ^Q
A-7 Line 7 "S3l2^1
A-8 Line 8 -t
44. The 'barb' and half the 'shank' of lamed A-3 have been damaged by a lacuna.
45. The top of lamed A-5 has been damaged.
46. Only the top part of lamed A-6 is visible on the inscription. The bottom portion
has been damaged. However, there is no other letter that could have a similar stroke.
The kaphs do not extend as high as this stroke suggests, the top stroke of the mem does
not have such an incline, and the taw never reaches as high. The lamed is easily the
tallest of all the letters and this visible stroke accords well with the attributes of the
Fragment A lamed.
A-9 LineS ÔET
A-1047 Line 8 [...fenpi
A-ll Line 10 [...fe
A-12 Line 1 1 [...?]n!zi
A-13 Line 12 1^2
A-14 Line 12 ^
A-1548 Line 13 [...feu
The lamed is the tallest of all the letters appearing in the fragment. The
shape is a right facing 'fish hook'. The 'shank' of the 'hook' is on a signi-
ficant slant (between 32 and 43 right of the vertical) and the 'barb' curls
back up slightly. The actual curve of the 'hook' is not uniform. It bends
hyperbolically, sometimes achieving a quasi-vertex as in lamed A-8. The
'shank' is not completely straight, but rather displays a very subtle curve
and, sometimes, a slight kink as in lameds A-8 and A-ll.
The first matches may be made with some of the Phoenician inscriptions
of the tenth century BCE, such as the Ahiram Sarcophagus, and the inscrip-
tions of Yehimilk49 and Shipitba'al.50 In the ninth century BCE, the Mesha
Stele and El-Kerak Fragment contain lameds that have a comparably
slanted 'shank'. However, the curve of the 'hook' is quite regular and the
'barb' curls up towards the vertical. The Nora Inscription and the Archaic
Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus provide us with good parallels to the
lamed of Fragment A. They feature the hyperbolic curve that is charac-
teristic of Fragment A. The 'shanks' are also on a notable slant, and the
'barbs' curl up above the horizontal.
47. The top half of this letter has been damaged. The curved stroke is easily identi-
fiable as a lamed and fits the context best as a lamed.
48. A small portion of the lamed is missing due to the breakage of the stone.
50. K. Jaros, HundertInschriften aus Kanaan und Israel (Fribourg: Verlag Schweiz
erisches Kamolishces Bibelwerk, 1982), 12.
The lameds of Kilamuwa are quite like those of Fragment A in all

respects, except that the 'barb' is longer and usually on a higher angle. The
significant hyperbolic curve is present, and the 'shank' is mostly curved or
kinked. Zakkur contains lameds that have a regular curve, but the 'barb' is
not as accentuated as the Mesha lamed. Lamed A-9 is quite comparable to
Zakkur. The lameds attested in the Sefire Treaties display the hyperbolic
curve of Fragment A in all its variations. A minor difference is that the
Sefire lamed tends to have a shorter 'shank', but not always. An eighth
century BCE ceramic decanter from the Lebanon displays this style also.51
The Amman Citadel also yields a lamed that is similar except for a shorter
'barb'. The inscribed bricks from Hamath and the Azitawadda Inscription
have lameds which display the hyperbolic curve, but with a slightly shor-
ter 'shank'. Panammu I provides an excellent match in all respects, as do
Panammu II and Bar Rakib. The Nerab Stelae also display some com-
parable forms.
The evidence for this style of lamed does not end at this point, though.
We notice that the same form of lamed is attested on seals and bullae, as
well as ostraca, sherds and papyri from Palestine and the Negev in the early
eighth century BCE through to the early sixth century BCE. For example, the
same essential form of lamed is attested on stone and ceramic wares from
Kuntilet' Ajrud52 and Beersheba,53 on ostraca from Tel Qasile,54 Khirbet el-
Qom,55 Samaria and Jerusalem,56 on seals and bullae from Lachish,57 Ramat
51. Because this is only written in fired ceramic, it does not carry as much weight
for comparison with Tel Dan as do stone inscriptions. However, it does alert us to a
Phoenician style that undergirds the script of Fragment A. The decanter contains the
inscription binDrtib ('belonging to Natanba'al'), written on the shoulder of the decan-
ter, just below the neck. See R. Deutsch and M. Heltzer, New Epigraphic Evidence from
the Biblical Period (Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publications, 1995), pp. 39-40.
52. Jaros, Hundert Inschriften,30.
53. Jaros, Hundert Inschriften++++
54. B. Maisler, 'Two Hebrew Ostraca from Tell Qasile', JNES10 (1951), pp.
265-67.
55. A.Lemaire, 'Les Inscriptions de Khirbet el-Q6m',/?5 84 (1977), pp. 595-608.
56. The Ophel Ostracon. See S.A. Cook, 'Inscribed Hebrew Objects from Ophel',
PEFQS 56 (1924), pp. 183-86; Jaros, Hundert Inschriften,50.
57. H. Torczyner, Lachish. I. The Lachish Letters (4 vols.; The Wellcome Archaeo-
logical Research Expedition to the Near East, 1; London: Oxford University Press,
1938); O. Tufnell, M.A. Murray and D. Diringer (eds.), Lachish. III. The Iron Age (4
vols.; The Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East, 3;
London: Oxford University Press, 1953), pp. 21-23, 331-39.
4. PalaeographicalAnalysis+ +++
Rahel,58 Tell en-Nasbeh59 and Shechem,60 as well as a papyrus from Wadi

Muraba'at.61 The consistency in the form on both monumental lapidary
inscriptions and smaller texts implies that the form of lamed seen in Frag-
ment A also belongs to the time after the Nerab Stelae (end of the eighth
century BCE). Furthermore, the form of lamed attested on the Tema Stele
(mid-fifth century) and a bulla from Yesha'yahu ben-Sanballat, Governor
of Samaria, found in the Wadi ed-Daliyeh (mid-fourth century)62 indicate
just how long this form persisted. In these latter cases, there is a clear
archaic, rather than contemporary, style at work. However, since the form
is accurately matched with the form in Fragment A, we must include them
in our corpus of matches.
For these reasons, we may place the form of lamed in Fragment A to the
time between the mid-tenth century BCE and the mid-fourth century BCE
a huge bracket of some six centuries. The results of our analysis of the
archaeological context for Fragment A falls well within this bracket. The
style of lamed is attested from Sardinia, Cyprus and over the entire Levant
from Southeast Anatolia in the north to the Negev and Northwest Arabia
in the south.
Mem. The letter mem occurs eight times in Fragment A.63 Table 4.10 con-
tains their images in sequential order of their appearance.
The form of the mem resembles a Latin ' W, weighed down on the right
by a stem. The strokes of this jagged head are of approximately equal
length and the stem curves under it slightly. The most significant feature of
the figure is the jagged head. The leftmost stroke always leans to the right.
On some figures, this stroke appears almost perfectly vertical. However,
this can be attributed to the slant of the line on which the particular letter
occurs. Thus, the jagged head is characteristically slanted to the right and
is quite large in proportion to the whole letter.
58. Jaros, Hundert Inschriften,48.

59. Jaros, Hundert Inschriften, 62.
60. Jaros, Hundert Inschriften, 64.
61. Jaros, Hundert Inschriften,++++
62. P.W. Lapp and N.L. Lapp, Discoveries in the Wadi ed-Ddliyeh (Cambridge,
MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1974), pp. 18-19; PI. LXI; Jaros, Hun-
dert Inschriften, 83.
63. Again, strangely, Cryer counts only five occurrences, six including the mem in
Line 13 which he labels 'an uncertain example'. See Cryer, 'Of Epistemology', p. 14.
Table 4.10. Occurrences q/mem in Fragment A.

A-l Line 4 Dip
A-2 Line 5 'Blp
A-3 Line 6 ^B
A-464 Line 6 nfta

A-5 Line 8 ^B
A-665 Line 9 QfrNl
A-7 Line 10 DH
A-866 Line 13 nijQ

The style of the figure is typical of the time between the late tenth and
late eighth centuries. A glance across contemporary inscriptions reveals
the similarities. The earliest comparable form is found in the dedicatory
limestone inscription of the Byblian king, Shipitba'al. In this inscription,
we observe the transition from a very vertical jagged head (as in the Ahi-
ram Sarcophagus and Gezer Calendar) to a more horizontal configuration,
as in Fragment A. Since Shipitba'al represents the earliest transitional
phase,67 the mem of Fragment A is to be dated later when the more hori-
zontal configuration started to be used.
Yet, the slant of the jagged head in Fragment A, particular of mem A-5,
demonstrates that the horizontal configuration was still not fully entrenched
64. The stem of this mem has been damaged by the major vacuity in the stone that
borders on the line of breakage.
65. This mem appears on the small extra fragment that fills part of the void in the
major vacuity. The stem has been completely damaged.
66. This mem begins the final extant line (13) of Fragment A. The lower portion of
the stem has been damaged in the stone breakage.
67. We may rightfully consider Shipitba'al the earliest example of a transition to
the horizontal head style since it is contemporary with other inscriptions still using the
vertical head style.
in writing conventions when Fragment A was written. There was certainly

some inertia in the ninth and eighth centuries to write the mem with traces
of a vertical style head. Of particular note are the inscriptions of Kila-
muwa, Panammu I, Panammu II and Sefire II C. All these mems display
slants matching the mem of Fragment A, as well as slightly curved stems.
Zakkur also provides a good parallel, but the stem is rarely curved at all,
and the vertices of the jagged head sometimes display curvature rather than
sharp points. Nevertheless, the inscription does yield some comparable
examples to stand alongside those of Fragment A. The inscribed bricks
from Hamath, and the Bar Rakib Stele, are also close examples, though the
mem in these inscriptions often tends to be messy, resulting in a jagged
head that appears squashed up against the stem. The clearer examples,
though, do show an affinity with Fragment A.
The Amman Citadel Inscription fits the criteria remarkably well. There
we observe a form of mem in which the jagged head is still somewhat
slanted within an angular range similar to Fragment A. The important left-
most stroke of the jagged head affirms the suitability of the match. The
Mesha Stele and El-Kerak fragment also deserve mention because they
display a style of mem with a slanted jagged head and a curved stem. This
demonstrates that the mem of Fragment A has a similar time frame to the
Mesha Stele (and El-Kerak fragment) and the Amman Citadel, close to the
second half of the ninth century BCE. The examples from Southeast Anato-
lia and northern Syria also show that we cannot discount a date in the eighth
century BCE either. After this time, the jagged head of the mem achieves the
horizontal configuration.68 Our style, then, is attested in Southeast Anatolia,
Syria and Transjordan.
Nun. There are only two instances of the letter nun in Fragment A, shown
in Table 4.11.
The two figures are a little different from each other in terms of the top
half of the letter. They both share a semi-curved stem on a significant
slant, but the cross and top strokes vary. In nun A-l, the cross stroke is
quite short and the top stroke leans to the left. Nun A-2 has a longer cross
stroke and a top stroke that leans to the right. The top stroke, in both
instances, is quite short relative to the stem and does not protrude below
68. A good example of this configuration is the Eqron Inscription. Bar Hadad's
Melqart Stele (mid-ninth century) is an early example of the horizontal configuration
of the jagged head. However, this configuration did not become the common style until
the seventh century.
the join with the cross stroke. Neither does the stem protrude above the
join with the cross stroke, which is almost horizontal. This gives it a 'zig-
zag' or 'lightning bolt' shape. Also, the join between the cross stroke and
the stem in nun A-2 appears to have a double vertex. Such a phenomenon
is quite unique among other attestations of nun in comparable inscriptions.
However, this double vertex is almost certainly a deviation from normal
style, rather than typical of it. Because it is such an isolated occurrence,
and nun A-l shows compliance with a major style, we can excuse the
double vertex as a 'mistake' by the scribe or engraver.
Table 4.11. Occurrences of nun in Fragment A.

A-l Line 5 HIK

A-2 Line 1 1 pns
Slight changes occur in the writing of nun through the centuries. These
variations, subtle though they are, permit us to date the form on Fragment
A with a fair degree of accuracy. A precedent for this particular form is
seen in the inscription of Shipitba'al in the late tenth century BCE. How-
ever, this inscription still preserves a very rigid style rather than the neater
and slightly fancier style of Fragment A.
Bar Hadad's Melqart Stele, though, contains two nuns that are strikingly
similar to nun A-1. The Mesha Stele yields a comparable figure except for
the fact that the cross stroke is on a considerable slant. The Amman Cita-
del nun is a good match, as are the inscribed bricks from Hamath. The
Kilamuwa inscription displays nuns that compare with both nuns of Frag-
ment A. For example, in the word pi (Kilamuwa line 2), the nun is very
similar to nun A-l. Similarly, the word ]Sb> (Kilamuwa line 9) contains a
nun akin to nun A-2. It is interesting to note that the Kilamuwa Inscription,
while displaying Fragment A type variations, yields a typical form that is
somewhere in between the two nuns of Fragment A. This suggests that the
scribe (or engraver) of the Kilamuwa text had similar stylistic deviations
to the scribe (or engraver) of Fragment A.69
The nuns of Zakkur undergo a strange transformation. In Zakkur A, the
nuns are similar to the style of Fragment A, until we come to line 10, when
69. There is, however, no attestation of a double vertex in Kilamuwa, as in nun A-2.
a different form begins to dominate. This form features a top stroke and
cross stroke that have merged into a significant curve, and it is this form
that Zakkur B displays. However, Zakkur still appears to be using the form
attested in Fragment A at Tel Dan. The Sefire Treaties also contain a wide
range of nuns, including forms similar to Fragment A.70 Panammu I,
Panammu II, and the Nerab Stelae also display similar forms.
Towards the end of the eighth century BCE, the styles of nun begin to
change slightly. The nun of Bar Rakib, for example, is similar to the form
in Fragment A, except that the cross stroke slopes downwards to the right.
This change is also evident in the Azitawadda Inscription and the Nerab
Stelae. Prior to this time, the form occurs only in the Phoenician influ-
enced enclaves of Cyprus and Sardinia, and so must be regarded as a
fringe form before the end of the eighth century BCE.
Cryer hesitantly suggested similarities with some of the Samaria
Ostraca.71 However, of all the Samaria Ostraca, only two or three examples
may be seen as comparable.72 All the other ostraca represent a style of nun
in which the stem extends above the join with the cross stroke, similar to an
open figure '4'a distinctly southern style of nun. Also, one of the com-
parable forms (from Ostracon 3) occurs with a more typical southern style
of nun, lending credence to the suggestion that the comparable nuns were
scribal 'errors'. Many of the inscriptions mentioned above also display
characteristic 'errors', but three things set them apart from the Samaria
Ostraca examples. First, Fragment A and the inscriptions mentioned above
do not display the southern style of nun at all. Their typical forms do not
project the stem above the cross stroke. A counter argument to this may be
that our sample of nuns in Fragment A is not large enough to be conclusive.
However, the second factor comes to bear on this point, namely, that the
Samaria Ostraca were written on sherds of pottery while Fragment A was
part of a stone stele. As was warned previously, pitting informal handwrit-
ing against formal handwriting can often lead to misjudgment. It is similar
to comparing one's own handwriting with typed or printed text. Different
implements are used, the writing surfaces differ, and the purpose of writing
and genre call for different styles of writing. Informal handwriting is more
likely to contain stylistic deviations than formal writing, which is carved
70. E.g. the two undamaged nuns in line 30 of Stele I, face B, lower portion, bear a
very close resemblance to Tel Dan nun A-l and nun A-2, respectively.
72. These are from Ostraca 3, 4 and 5.
and given more thought, care and time.73 The mean deviation from typical
styles in the stone inscriptions, as well as the ostraca, suggests different
typical forms. The implication is that the three examples from the Samaria
Ostraca are far from concrete matches to cite with regards to the nuns of the
Tel Dan fragments. Despite the fact that the Samaria Ostraca are contempo-
rary with some of the above inscriptions, they should not really be men-
tioned in reference to the letter nun.
Thus, when all aspects are analysed, our chronological horizon for the
nun of Fragment A ranges from the mid-ninth century BCE to the late
eighth century BCE. Topographically, the style is concentrated in Syria, but
also present in Southeast Anatolia and Transjordan.
Samekh. There is only one instance of the letter samekh in Fragment A,

shown in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12. Occurrences o/samekh in Fragment A.
A-l Line 2 [.-
The form of the letter is a single, slightly left-curved stem, intersected by

three straight cross strokes of equal length. The curvature of the stem
begins just below the lowest cross stroke, which intersects at the approxi-
mate midpoint of the stem, and extends upward. The stem intersects all
three cross strokes, not in their centres, but to the right of their centres, and
protrudes only minutely above the top cross stroke. Significantly, the head
of the figure (the three cross strokes) is on a leftward slant.
The fact we have but a single sample of samekh from Fragment A
proves no obstacle in the analysis and search for comparable forms among
other inscriptions. There are two reasons for this. First, we cannot say that
the single figure here is devoid of'normal' features. Otherwise, it would
not be recognizable as a samekh, or we would at least have had difficulty
in identifying it as one. Instead, we find very similar figures from other
inscriptions, which display the same characteristics as the form here in
Fragment A. The second reason is that the samekh of Fragment A is of a
73. Needless to say, each case must be judged on its own merits.
typically early style that separates the head of the figure into three individ-
ual crossbars. This style of figure is datable to between the tenth and
seventh centuries BCE. After this time, we see 'cursive' samekhs in use, in
which the three crossbars have evolved into one continuous 'zigzag'
construction. Yet, we may even refine this date for our samekh further by
virtue of the fact that the samekh of Fragment A has quite a long stem.
With these parameters, we can now look for comparable matches to our
samekh. The Mesha Stele provides excellent examples comparable to
Fragment A in all proportions. The stem, however, of Mesha is not slanted
at all and sits rather straight. The same may be said of the samekhs in the
Kilamuwa Stele. However, the samekh engraved on Kilamuwa's Sceptre
shows a definite slant. This slanted style of samekh has a short lifespan
mostly attested in scripts of a Syrian provenance or influence. In addition
to Kilamuwa's Sceptre, other accurate matches, such as the Amman
Citadel Inscription, Panammu I and the Azitawadda Inscription, demon-
strate this point. The samekhs of these inscriptions are proportionate to
Fragment A in their strokes and comparable in their slant. They are in all
respects excellent matches, which fall within a chronological bracket of
approximately one century. In the same time frame, the inscribed bricks
from Hamath may be mentioned. Though the crossbar there are much
shorter than those in Fragment A, the letter is on a comparable slant and so
constitutes a good match. Similar comments are reserved for Zakkur B.
Although we see the same slant in the form of samekh on the Silwan Tomb
Inscription,74 that samekh is disproportionately larger than the form in
Fragment A. It therefore cannot count as an accurate match.
By the end of the eighth century BCE, the form alters slightly, so that the
stem is only as tall as the bottom crossbar. With these data, we see that the
closest matching forms to the samekh of Fragment A are datable between
the second half of the ninth century BCE and the third quarter of the eighth
century BCE. However, we cannot discount a wider bracket between the
late tenth century BCE and the end of the eighth century BCE. The style is
attested over the entire Levant, as well as Cyprus.
'Ayin. The letter 'ayin occurs three times in Fragment A. Table 4.13
contains their images in their order of appearance.
74. N. Avigad, 'The Epitaph of a Royal Steward from Siloam Village', IEJ 3
(1953), pp. 137-52.
Table 4.13. Occurrences o/'ayin in Fragment A.
No. Image Location fFo/W Occurrence
A-l Line 1 [-
A-2 Line 12 ++
A-3 Line 13 [../fa
The form of the letter is a simple closed circle. What appears to be a char-
acteristic 'bump' in the bottom left segment is the starting point at which
the engraver began carving the letter. Thus, this 'bump' is not necessarily
indicative of the actual style employed. For all intents and purposes, the
figure is a round circle. Cryer observed the figure as 'a right-leaning slight
oval'.75 However, this lean is observable only in 'ayin A-2. The other two
'ayins display no such rightward lean. Thus, an attempt to date the form
used here in Fragment A based on the figure's lean could be misleading.
It is certainly easy to read too much data into such a simple figure. Due
to the very plain nature of the letter, a date and topography is very difficult
to assign. We can go back as far as the Proto-Canaanite script of the
thirteenth-twelfth centuries BCE to find a match, down as late as the fifth
century BCE Eshmun'azar Sarcophagus from Sidon, and as far afield as
southern Arabia with Proto-Arabic script. This would give us a palaeo-
graphical spectrum of eight centuries and a geographical spread across the
entire ancient Near East.
Yet, we must limit our search to Northwest Semitic inscriptions. Two
notable characteristics may be mentioned for the Fragment A 'ayin which
will aid us in narrowing our chronological spectrum for the letter. The first
is the lack of a pictographic dot at the centre of the figure.76 In the early
eleventh century BCE, we still find this central dot in use on a fragment
77 78
from Nora. However, inscribed arrow-heads found in the Lebanon,

76. This dot represents the pupil of the eye ('ayiri) in the pictographic evolution of
the letter.
77. This fragment is not to be confused with the better-known Nora Inscription,
which is dated over two centuries later and is written in Phoenician script. The Nora
Fragment should probably be classed as Proto-Canaanite script, not least because of the
boustrophedon technique employed (that is, each successive line reads in the alternate
direction to the previous line). For further details, see F.M. Cross, 'Leaves from an Epi-
graphist's Notebook', CBQ 36 (1974), pp. 486-94 (490-93); idem, 'Early Alphabetic
dating to later in the same century, show this pictographic style of dotted
'ayin dropping out of usage to be replaced by the simple circle 'ayin,
which we see used in Fragment A. By the tenth century BCE, the picto-
graphic 'ayin had virtually disappeared.79 Thus, a terminus a quo in the
tenth century BCE is appropriate. A terminus ad quern should be sought in
the fifth century BCE, in accordance with the script on the Eshmun'azar
Sarcophagus.
Our second notable characteristic allows us to slightly refine this wide
chronological bracket, and that is the overall size of the letter. The circle of
the 'ayin is actually quite small. It is no bigger than the heads of most other
letters. This feature starts to appear in the late tenth century BCE with the
Gezer Calendar. Byblian inscriptions still tend to produce large 'ayins at
this time, and even the Melqart stele displays large forms. It is only in the
mid-ninth century BCE, with the Mesha Stele, and the slightly later Amman
Citadel Inscription and Archaic Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus, that
we see the exclusive use of smaller 'ayins. Other inscriptions also employ-
ing the smaller form are Panammu I, Panammu II, the Nerab Stelae, the
Siloam Tunnel, the Silwan Tomb, the Eqron Inscription and the sarcophagi
of Tabnit and Eshmun'azar. Thus, although our terminus ad quern remains
in the early fifth century BCE, our terminus a quo has come down to the mid-
ninth century BCE, with the form attested over the entire Levant, as well as
Cyprus.
Peh. The letterpeh occurs twice in Fragment A. These instances are shown
below in Table 4.14.
The figure has no sharp anglesand that is its distinguishing feature. It
is a single curving stroke that faces concavely to the left. The top left of the
figure begins in an upward direction, but it then curves hyperbolically
downwards. It then straightens somewhat before beginning to curve sharply
Scripts', in P.M. Cross (ed.), Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the
Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (2 vols.; Cambridge, MA:
American Schools of Oriental Research, 1979), I, pp. 97-123 (103-104); Naveh, Early
History of the Alphabet, pp. 40-41.
78. P.M. Cross, 'The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet', 78 (1967), pp.
8-24 (21, Fig. 4); idem, 'Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoeni-
cian Script', BASOR 238 (1980), pp. 1-20 (4-6, Figs. 3, 5, 8); Naveh, Early History of
the Alphabet, pp. 38-40, Figs. 32-34.
79. There is the odd exception to this, the most notable being the Tell Fakhariyah
inscription. However, the script of Tell Fakhariyah is quite idiosyncratic.
again. It is at this point that the stroke finishes. It resembles the figure of a
lamed turned upside-down. The characteristic feature of this peh is the
concavity of the entire figure, and the fact that there are no vertices. Peh
A-l does almost reach a vertex at the top right, but it is still distinguish-
ably curved. Peh A-2 shows no signs whatsoever of a vertex, alerting us to
the certainty of an intentional curve.
Table 4.14. Occurrence of peh in Fragment A.

A-l Line 7 'fi'WI
A-2 Line? Kna
Numerous matches among other inscriptions are forthcoming, though none

are from southern regions. In the tenth century BCE, the letter peh had no
vertex. However, the figure was much less curved and much more open.
More appropriate matches can be seen from the ninth century BCE on-
wards. The Nora Inscription contains one peh almost identical to peh A-l.
Similarly, the Archaic Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus yields a good
match. Two pehs in Zakkur B are similar to peh A-2, though there is little
or no curvature at the bottom of the figure. The Sefire Treaties, however,
provide excellent matches, including the form deviations that we see in the
two examples of Fragment A. The Sefire examples, however, tend to be
rotated more clockwise. Nevertheless, they form appropriate matches, Stele
I providing the best examples. The Azitawadda Inscription yields a similar
peh, if not slightly shorter, but very much in keeping with peh A-2.
Panammu I is difficult to assess. In that stele, the peh changes form the
further along a line it appears. Thus, the right-hand side of the stele has pehs
which are generally rounded and without vertices. However, towards the
middle and onto the left-hand side, a vertex in the top right corner of the
figure becomes most distinct. Occasionally, such as in lines 1 and 17, apeh
with a vertex occurs early in the line. This fact, coupled with the distinct-
ness of a vertex in other pehs, suggests that the vertexed peh was a more
typical form. As such, Panammu I is a less appropriate match. Panammu II,
however, does provide us with comparable forms that are devoid of a ver-
tex, thus bridging the inapplicability of Panammu I. The few examples that
Bar Rakib affords us also seem very close. Even the sarcophagi of Tabnit
and Eshmun'azar have curved pehs, though the tail rarely curves at all.
Thus, the form ofpeh+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BCE and continues to the early fifth century BCE. Many inscriptions within
this time-frame are similar except for the curvature at the bottom of the
figure. The form is a distinctly northern style, attested in Sardinia, Cyprus,
Phoenicia, Southeast Anatolia and Syria.
Sadhe. There is only one instance of the letter sadhe in Fragment A. It is

however, very badly damaged. Table 4.15 has its image.
Table 4.15. Occurrences of sadhe in Fragment A.

A-l Line 13 "iSp
As Table 4.15 shows, the letter is quite damaged due to a vacuity in the
face of the stone. Nevertheless, certain strokes of the letter can be clearly
distinguished and, with the clues of context, form the letter sadhe without
doubt. Clearly definable are the top strokes of the letter, which form a 'zig-
zag' step that descends slightly towards the right. On the far left is a
vertical stem that the vacuity has only partially damaged. This stem ex-
tends above the join with the 'zigzag' strokes, but how far it extends down-
wards is impossible to say, for both the vacuity and the breakage of the
stone have severed it. Further detail on the 'zigzag' strokes cannot be
gleaned because of the damage. If another sadhe was extant in Fragment
A, then at least some comparison could be made. It is, therefore, unwise to
speculate about how the figure probably looked when we have no pre-
cedent to go by.
This also means that comparison with other inscriptional sadhes is
meaningless. Despite the certainty that the letter is a sadhe, too many
doubts about its form exist to be able to compare it with other forms. Any
comparison would only be speculative, so judgment must be reserved.
Qoph. There are seven instances of the letter qoph in Fragment A. Their
images are contained in Table 4.16.
The form consists of an oval-type ring that is cut in two by a long stem.
The oval ring is on a slant with its longer axis running from bottom left to
top right. The top of the oval shows a slight but distinct 'dip' in the regular
curve in most of the forms. This 'dip' occurs at the point where the stem
meets the oval and is most distinct in qoph A-7. Qoph A-3 shows no sign
of a 'dip', while qoph A-l and A-6 are too damaged to tell. The remaining
four qophs, however, each have this dip. The stem does not extend above
the oval and the midpoint of the stem is at approximately the bottom
puncture of the oval. The stem is also generally straight, qoph A-5 being
the only example to display curvature.
Table 4.16. Occurrences of qoph in Fragment A.

A-l Line 2 [...]j2P<

A-2 Line 4 C1J2
A-3 Line 4 (2183
A-4 Line 5 'Ql
A-5 Line 6 ^n(281
A-6 Line 8 [...]^npi

A-7 Line 10 J2HN
This basic shape of the figure is in keeping with an early stage in the
development of the letter qoph. The same shape is seen in the Yehimilk
Inscription. However, most significant for dating the form in Fragment A
is the overall slant of the letter. This leftward leaning figure is first seen in
the mid-ninth century BCE on the Melqart Stele of Bar Hadad. It is also
seen in the Archaic Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus, Hazael's Horse
Ornament from Samos, the Zakkur Stele and the Sefire Treaties. The qoph
of Mesha is quite different in that it stands upright and is 'bow and arrow'
shaped,80 rather than an oval with a stem. It is thus an inappropriate match,
despite Cryer's comments to the contrary.81 The inscriptions of Kilamuwa,
Panammu I, Panammu II, Azitawadda and the grave stele of Si'-gabbari
from Nerab, all display qophs of a subtle but discernable leftward slant
and so constitute matches. A very good comparison is gained from Kila-
muwa's Sceptre. In that small gold engraving, we even see the 'dip' at the
80. That is, the 'arrow' is represented by the stem and the 'bow' is represented by
the figure's head or top.
top of the figure. The Eqron Inscription is the last attestation of this form
with such a slant. This is surprising for Palestine had developed a different
form ofqoph that is otherwise used universally.
Thus, despite the attestation in the Eqron Inscription, the formofqoph
used in Fragment A is of a distinctly northern style. We may place it within
a time-frame ranging from the mid-ninth century BCE to the early seventh
century BCE, with matches found in Cyprus, Southeast Anatolia, Syria and
Palestine.
Resh. There are eight instances of the letter resh in Fragment A. Their
images are contained in sequential order in Table 4.17 below.
Table 4.17. Occurrences o/resh in Fragment A.

A-l Linel !*[...]
A-2 Line 4 ^1
A-3 Line 4 pziKn

A-4 Line 7 2O5
A-5 LineS ^Kier

A-6 Line 10 pis
A-7 Line 1 1 prm
A-8 Line 13 l^Q
The figure consists of a long, left-leaning stem with a triangular head. The
top portion of the stem forms one of the skeloi of the triangular head and
bends slightly to the left at the bottom right vertex of the head. The mid-
point of the stem is at the approximate position of the head's bottom right
vertex, or slightly lower. The angles within the triangular head vary con-
siderably from one example to the next. With this fluctuation, it is difficult
to tell whether the bottom stroke of the head was intended to be com-
pletely horizontal or sloping slightly down to the right. The far left vertex
of the head is somewhat rounded in some of the examples, such as in reshs
A-2 and A-7, as is the top vertex in reshs A-4 and A-6. In addition, the
area of the triangular head varies noticeably from the largest (resh A-3) to
the smallest (resh A-6).
Precedents for the resh of Fragment A can be seen in the tenth century
BCE with the inscriptions of Yehimilk and Eliba'al82 from Byblos, and the
Gezer Calendar. At this stage of development, however, the leftward slant
of the letter had not yet been achieved. It is not until the mid-ninth century
BCE with the Melqart Stele that we find our first appropriate match. The
Melqart Stele displays two very different forms of resh. The first has a
pointed head, as in the Amman Citadel Inscription, and the second has
a rounded head, as in Zakkur. The first pointed form is quite adequate as a
match. The reshs in both the Mesha Stele and Amman Citadel Inscription
possess slightly longer stems than those of Fragment A, and the heads
have no curvature whatsoever. The one undamaged resh in the Amman
Citadel Inscription has comparable rotation, and the other damaged resh,
from what is visible, appears to follow suit. The forms in Mesha stand
quite upright, though there are many figures with a comparable slant. Kila-
muwa's Stele and Sceptre, as well as the Archaic Phoenician Inscription
from Cyprus, also deserve mention. The Nora Inscription has comparable
forms, but the slant of the figures speaks against a match.
The Sefire Treaties contain a variety of reshs, many of which correspond
with the forms in Fragment A. The vast majority of the Sefire reshs,
though, are quite pointed, without curved vertices. The examples that do
curve do so in such a manner as to obliterate any vertex at all, usually the
leftmost vertex. Nevertheless, the Sefire examples are comparable. The
resh of Panammu I is quite narrow and the strokes of the head are prone to
curvature. However, there is a reasonable correspondence, as with Panam-
mu II and Bar Rakib. Some of the forms from the Siloam Tunnel Inscrip-
tion seem comparable, but they are anomalous within the inscription itself.
The Siloam resh possesses a very long stem and a very curved leftmost
vertex on the head, rendering it inappropriate as a match. This is the case
with all forms attested in Palestine. Only the Eqron Inscription shows a
form midway between the typically long figure of Palestine and the shorter
form attested elsewhere.
The terminus ad quern should be put in the mid-fifth century BCE with
the Tema Inscription. Just prior to this time, we see comparable forms of
resh on the sarcophagi of Tabnit and Eshmun'azar. Thus, our spectrum for

the date of the resh goes from the mid-ninth century BCE to the mid-fifth
century BCE. The form is attested in Cyprus, Southeast Anatolia, Syria,
Transjordan and Northwest Arabia.
Sin. There are six instances of the letter sin in Fragment A. Table 4.18
contains their images in sequential order of their appearance.
Table 4.18. Occurrences of sin in Fragment A.

A-l Line 1 "[...]
A-2 Line 3 3D2T1
A-3 Line 7 2PB
A-4 Line 8 ^tn2r
A-5 Line 9 nm-\

A-6 Line 12 [...]BT
The form of the sin is like that of a Latin ' W. The figure is wider than it is
tall and is on the slightest of clockwise rotations (6).83 All three vertices
are sharp and all four strokes are straight. None of the strokes overrun any
of the vertices. The figure also has two subtle nuances that will aid us in
dating it and comparing it to the handwriting of Fragments Bl and B2.
First, the right 'V of the figure is slightly larger than the left 'V. Second,
the left 'V of the figure tends to be rotated slightly more clockwise than
the right 'V. This is demonstrated by a comparison of the angles on which
the figure's 'parallel' strokes lean. The two right-leaning strokes are more
disparate than the left-leaning strokes. The right-leaning stroke on the right
' V stands more upright than the corresponding right-leaning stroke of the
left 'V'.84 Similarly, the left-leaning stroke on the left 'V stands more
upright than the corresponding left-leaning stroke on the right 'V, though
83. This is the average slant ofreshs A-2, A-3 and A-4. Reshs A-l, A-5 and A
are unable to be measured due to damage in the stone.
84. This phenomenon cannot be attested on sins A-1 and A-5 because of damage to
the stone.
only slightly.851 also noted in my epigraphical analysis that the leftmost

stroke of the letter always leans to the left.86
The figure's simplicity necessitates caution if we are to assign a
meaningful chronological bracket to it. Similar forms can be observed in
the tenth century BCE Byblian inscriptions. However, to be more precise,
we must take into consideration even the two particular nuances of the
Fragment A sin mentioned previously. Tell Fakhariyah shows correspon-
dence, especially with regard to rotation of the letter. The majority of
letters in the Tell Fakhariyah statue lean to the left, but the sin leans to the
right as in Fragment A (only twice does it not). Also evident is the dispa-
rate slant between the strokes of the two 'V halves. However, although
the right 'V of the Tell Fakhariyah sin is sometimes larger than the left
'V, it is generally not the case. Yet, despite the closeness of some Tell
Fakhariyah sins to Fragment A, the match does not carry much weight.
The huge differences between the other letters of Tell Fakhariyah and the
corresponding letters of Fragment A do much to deny any great signifi-
cance to the match.
The Mesha Stele sin is an inappropriate match as most sins in the stele
are rotated anti-clockwise, as opposed to the clockwise rotation in Frag-
ment A. Also the left 'V is generally larger than the right 'V. The El-
Kerak Fragment shows two rotations in its two examples, but otherwise
follows the Mesha Stele's form. In a similar vein to Mesha is the slightly
more untidy form of sin in Bar Hadad's Melqart Stele.
The Amman Citadel Inscription comes much nearer the mark. Its two
sins are both rotated slightly clockwise and the right 'V is larger than the
left 'V. The first sin of Amman is very similar to sin A-3, and the second
sin of Amman is almost identical to sin A-4.87 It is, in all respects, an excel-
lent match. Panammu I, the Phoenician Governor's Bowl from Cyprus, Azi-
tawadda, Panammu II, Bar Rakib and the Eqron Inscription are likewise
excellent matches. The Nora Inscription, Zakkur Stele, Sefire Treaties and
85. This phenomenon cannot be attested on sin A-5 because of the large lacuna. It
is also impossible to verify on sin A-6 because the breakage of the stone has left no
trace of the left-leaning stroke of the left 'V.
86. This was in distinction to the leftmost stroke of the mem, which leaned to the
right.
87. A very slight erosion of the stone has blurred the sharpness of some strokes in
the sin of the Amman Citadel inscription. Nevertheless, the superficiality of the erosion
and the depth of the stroke cuts has ensured our ability to confirm the figure's prop-
erties.
the Nerab Stelae all contain a number of sins of varying qualities. Some of
them do approach the form of Fragment A, allowing for respective matches.
The Kilamuwa Stele must be struck from a list of matches because it is a
tall and narrow figure that often displays curving strokes, especially in the
rightmost stroke. The Siloam Tunnel Inscription comes very close to Frag-
ment A in form, but not in rotation, whereas the Silwan Tomb Inscription is
close in rotation but slightly different in proportional form.
Thus, we observe a chronological horizon between the mid-ninth cen-
tury BCE and the end of the eighth century BCE for the Fragment A sin. The
matches are spread across Sardinia, Cyprus, Syria, Southeast Anatolia,
Palestine, Transjordan and even Mesopotamia.
Taw. There are five instances of the letter taw in Fragment A. Table 4.19
contains their images in sequential order.
Table 4.19. Occurrences o/taw in Fragment A.

00
A- 188 Line 1 -&[.. .
A-2 Line 6 ^npKi
A-3 LineS [...^npi
A-4 Line 9 -p-rrrn
A-5 Line 10 D"
The form is simply two strokes in the shape of a cross, rotated clockwise
between 58 (taw A-2) and 65 (taw A-3).89 The cross stroke is approxi-
mately perpendicular to the stem, intersecting it above the stem's midpoint
(except for taw A-2 in which it intersects at the stem's midpoint). In the
final two instances, the stem displays a slight kink at the point of inter-
section.90 Furthermore, taws A-l, A-3 and A-4 show minor signs of curv-
ing at the tail of the stem. In all instances, the cross stroke shows no
88. Only the bottom portion of the stem of this taw has been preserved.
89. Taw A-l does not preserve the cross stroke.
90. Breakage of the stone at the point of intersection precludes observation of this
trait in taw A-3.
curvature or bend and measures a little under half the length of the stem on
average.91
Two styles of taw are attested before the fifth century BCE: an equilateral
form and a long-stemmed form. The taws of Fragment A correspond with
the latter style since the stem is considerably longer than the cross stroke.
The difference in the two styles, however, appears to be regional. The
equilateral form is found in Phoenicia, Palestine and Transjordan while the
long-stemmed form is attested in Syria, Southeast Anatolia and Cyprus.
We note that the Amman Citadel Inscription displays forms of taw which
have affinity with both styles because the region is on the border of the
two styles. Tell Fakhariyah, which displays equilateral taws, is an excep-
tion to this geographical spread. However, since Tell Fakhariyah has idio-
syncratic forms of many letters, and is on the Northwest Semitic fringe,
the exception is accounted for.
Thus, we see a decidedly northern or Syrian influence over the taw of
Fragment A. Among these northern inscriptions we find some very close
matches. One of these is Bar Hadad's Melqart Stele. The figure there is
more upright than Fragment A, and the cross stroke does measure more
than half the stem. However, the essential shape with some rotation is
clear. Also of note are Hazael's Ivory Inscription, his Horse Ornament
from Samos, and the Archaic Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus. The
taws of Kilamuwa are quite fanciful, displaying a scimitar shape in which
the curvature of the stem is most obvious. The stem is also a good deal
longer than it is in Fragment A. It is less of a match than the previously
mentioned inscriptions, but it passes as a variation on a similar form.
The inscribed bricks from Hamath also deserve mention. The cross
stroke in these inscriptions is characteristically short on the left side. We
observe a similar phenomenon in taw A-5. A similar, but more rotated
form is observable in the Azitawadda Inscription. The taws in Zakkur's
Stele are quite close to those of Fragment A, though the cross stroke inter-
sects the stem quite high. Panammu I and the Nerab Stelae show the same
tendency. Panammu II, however, has the intersection much lower, as in
91. This is a calculation based on the average of the ratios between the stem and the
cross stroke in each taw except for taws A-l and A-3. Due to the position of the
breakage, full measurement of these two figures is not permitted. However, the lower
portion of the stem and the right portion of the cross stroke are still visible on taw A-3
and are able to be measured. The ratio of these two portions matches exactly the ratio
of the corresponding portions in taw A-5. Thus, despite not tallying taw A-3 in the
average calculation, the visible portions confirm the calculation of the other figures.
taw A-2 of Fragment A. The Sefire Treaties are a good example of vari-
ations on the letter taw. A glance at Stele I B (a) epitomizes this with a
range of forms clearly observable. However, it is demonstrably clear that
the usual form of taw in the Sefire Treaties is the long-stemmed variety,
most of which are very close to the taws of Fragment A. Bar Rakib also
yields forms that are remarkably similar to those of Fragment A.
Considering these factors, the taw of Fragment A ranges chronologically
from the early ninth century BCE down to the end of the eighth century BC
and perhaps slightly later.
Dating the Script of Fragment A

The analysis of the script presented in Fragment A shows clear signs of a
Syrian style. This fact is seen most strikingly in the letters beth, daleth,
waw and taw. When the chronological bracket for each individual letter is
considered, we see the time-frame common to all is the period between the
time of the Kilamuwa Stele (c. 825 BCE) and that of the Bar Rakib Stele (c.
730 BCE). Thus, it is with good reason that we place Fragment A in this
chronological bracket. It also accords perfectly with the date for Fragment
A gleaned from the archaeological context.
We may, however, go even further to refine this date by noting the pecu-
liarities of certain letters. First, the rotation of the daleth alerts us to the fact
that Fragment A cannot readily be dated before c. 825 BCE. In addition to
this, we note that the daleth has a fairly short tail. Examples of rotated
daleths from the mid- to late eighth century BCE show that the tail of the
daleth started to lengthen before an altogether different style of daleth
began to appear. This suggests that the daleth in Fragment A belongs more
to the early eighth century BCE than the late eighth century BCE, a sugges-
tion confirmed by an identical form of daleth used in the Samaria Ostraca.
Thus, we may narrow the end of our chronological margin to the early
eighth century BCE.
Further support for this suggestion is seen with the analysis of the letter
heth. It was observed that only the two-'runged' heth of the Amman Cita-
del, and the heth of the Zakkur Stele had the characteristic configuration of
the 'risers' represented in the heth of Fragment A. Since the Amman Cita-
del Inscription and the Zakkur Stele are separated by only a few decades at
most, it is reasonable to see this configuration as the prevalent style at that
timenamely, the last quarter of the ninth century BCE and the first quarter
of the eighth century BCE. This conforms to our information from the par-
ticular style of daleth used in Fragment A.
Furthermore, the letter heh on Fragment A was clearly a style incorporat-

ing aspects seen in Kilamuwa, the Amman Citadel Inscription, and the
Archaic Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus. These three particular in-
scriptions are close contemporaries of each other. Thus, we must classify
Fragment A to the same general period.
However, the Kilamuwa Stele retains some older forms of letters, par-
ticularly that of 'aleph. This is demonstrated by the parallel forms dis-
played in the Melqart Stele and the Nora Stone. Thus, the 'alephs of the
Amman Citadel are of a slightly later style, if only by a few years or
decades. Similarly, Kilamuwa often employs the larger and older style of
'ayin which neither Fragment A, nor the Amman Citadel use.
This is a crucial datum. The script on the Amman Citadel Inscription is
certainly the closest of all to the script of Fragment A. A statistical analy-
sis of the correspondence demonstrates just how close the two scripts are.
First, the letter zayin is not attested in either Fragment A or the Amman
Citadel Inscription and must therefore be removed from the register of
comparable letters. Similarly, gimel and teth are unattested in Fragment A,
whilepeh and qoph are unattested in the Amman Citadel Inscription. These
too, then, must be stricken from our lists for comparison.
Of the remaining 17 letters, 14 (82 per cent) show close correspondence.
The letters that do not match are waw, sadhe and taw. However, the
Amman waw is midway between the Syrian 'hook' style, employed by
Fragment A, and the southern open 'cup' style. Thus, the letter waw is not
completely devoid of association. We noted a similar association with the
letter taw in the Amman Citadel Inscription. The Amman taw showed an
affinity with both the long-stemmed northern style, which Fragment A em-
ploys, and the more equilateral southern style. Thus, for this letter also, the
two inscriptions are not far removed. The single example of sadhe in Frag-
ment A is for the most part damaged. However, what is visible does seem
to vary slightly from the single example in the Amman Citadel Inscription.
Thus, there is a major divergence of style between Fragment A and the
Amman Citadel Inscription in only one letter, sadhe, and the example is
not fully comparable because of the damage to the letter on Fragment A.
The script of Kilamuwa is the next closest to Fragment A after the
Amman Citadel Inscription. Since we noted that Kilamuwa bore traces of
some archaic styles, we must date it earlier than the Amman Citadel In-
scription. Similarly, we must date Kilamuwa slightly earlier than Fragment
A. For this reason, Fragment A should be dated on palaeographic grounds
to c. 800 BCE, with a margin of two decades either side of that date. This
palaeographic information is corroborated by the dates yielded in our

examination of the archaeological context for Fragment A.
Fragment B
A facsimile of Fragment B (B 1 and B2 joined together) was drawn by Ada
Yardeni (Fig. 4.2).
Figure 4.2. Facsimile of Fragment B (Bl + B2; drawn by Ada Yardeni).
Analysis of Individual Letters

'Aleph. There are five instances of the letter 'aleph in Fragment B. Table
4.20 contains their images in sequential order.
Table 4.20. Occurrences o/'aleph in Fragment B.
B-l Line 2 [...?]fiP
B-2 Line 4 [...]&
B-3 Line 5 ps&[...]
B-4 Line 6 HD&
B-5 Line 6 [-
The form of the figure is very similar, if not identical, to the form of 'aleph
observed in Fragment A. The forms are particularly close to the 'alephs oc-
curring in the latter portions of Fragment A. In particular, 'alephs A-7 and
A-10 show a near-exact correspondence with the regular forms in Fragment
B. This suggests a very strong link between Fragment A and Fragment B.
Of particular interest is the tendency to kink the top of the stem some-
what leftward. This idiosyncrasy was noticed in Fragment A also. Thus, it
is quite reasonable to suggest that the same hand lay behind both frag-
ments. Yet, caution is needed for we see the same peculiar kink in other
inscriptions, most notably the Amman Citadel Inscription and the Sefire
Inscriptions. Thus, the slight kink in the stem may not be characteristic of
an individual's writing technique, but of a prevailing style. Since it is such
a small detail, however, it is difficult to determine which is the case.
Since there is such a close match between the forms of 'aleph in both
fragments, all the considerations of the form in Fragment A apply here
also. Thus, we find matches in the Amman Citadel Inscription, the Archaic
Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus, the Nora Stone, Zakkur, the Sefire
Treaties, the Hamath Bricks, the Nerab Stelae and the sarcophagi of Tabnit
and Eshmun'azar.
Thus, the 'aleph of Fragment B certainly sits within the same time-frame
as the form in Fragment A. We may assign a date to the form between the
late ninth century BCE and the early fifth century BCE. The style is attested
in Sardinia, Cyprus, Syria, Phoenicia and Transjordan.
Beth. There are four instances of the letter beth in Fragment B. Their
images are shown in Table 4.21 in sequential order.
Table 4.21. Occurrences o/beth in Fragment B.

B-l Line 2 [...?]Q
B-2 Line 5 [...P3&
B-3 Line 7 "Q
B-4 Line 8 [...ra

In each case, the figure is notably rotated in an anti-clockwise direction.

The sole example in Fragment B1, however, possesses a much larger head
in proportion to the examples occurring in Fragment B2. The point at
which the stem of the figure bends beneath the head to form a tail is quite
distinct. Only in beth B-4 is this vertex somewhat softened, hinting towards
a style of curved-stem beth. The tail is also fairly straight.
In these latter two features of a vertexed-stem form, Fragment B differs
considerably from Fragment A, which employs curved-stem beths. It
seems, at first, an irreconcilable difference of style. However, we did note
in the analysis of Fragment A the concurrency of both the vertexed-stem
and curved-stem beths, even within the same inscription. This was ade-
quately demonstrated by the Sefire Treaties, in particular Stelae I and III.
To this we may add that both styles appear side by side in the Amman
Citadel Inscription and the Eqron Inscription. Line 2 of the Amman Cita-
del Inscription contains two beths standing side by side. The first of these
beths corresponds in form to the curved-stem beths common in Fragment
A. The second, however, corresponds to the vertexed-stem beths of Frag-
ment B. Indeed, throughout the eight extant lines of the Amman Citadel
inscription, these two types of beth coexist. Turning to the Eqron Inscrip-
tion, we find both styles of beth used in the first line. Therefore, the seem-
ingly different styles of beth employed in Fragment A and Fragment B are
far from evidence of a different hand. Indeed, the curved-stem beth is not
attested without the vertexed-stem beth, except in tenth century BCE Phoe-
niciaa milieu that does not fit either Fragment A or Fragment B. That is,
the curved-stem beth is not mutually exclusive from the vertexed-stem beth
at this time. Thus, the alternate styles in the Tel Dan fragments comple-
ment each other and actually support the placing of both fragments to-
gether under the one hand.
In addition, we can make an appeal to beths A-l and A-5 in Fragment
A, which hint at the vertexed-stem form of beth. Thus, there is ample evi-
dence to suggest a bridge between the styles of Fragment A and Fragment
B with regards to the letter beth.
Remembering that the vertexed-stem beth is the most common style of
beth used in Northwest Semitic inscriptions outside tenth century BCE
Phoenicia, we see Fragment B indicating an affinity with the popular style.
Coupled with the all-important slant of the whole figure, we may date the
beth of Fragment B between the mid-ninth century BCE and the early fifth
century BCE. The Melqart Stele is the earliest attestation of a comparable
form, and the latest are the sarcophagi of Tabnit and Eshmun'azar, and
possibly the Tema Stele. Between these dates, we see particular affinity
with Kilamuwa, Nora, the Amman Citadel Inscription, the Archaic Phoe-
nician Inscription from Cyprus, Panammu I and the Sefire Treaties. The
Zakkur Stele has comparable forms except for a rounded 'nose'. Panammu
II, Bar Rakib and the Nerab Stelae represent a shift in style to a more up-
right letter, but nonetheless yield some good examples. Thus, the latter
inscriptions of Eshmun'azar and Tema are seen to bear archaic features
rather than contemporary features. For our chronology, however, we must
include them. Other figures, such as the more southern inscriptions like
Mesha and Siloam, display the same basic shape but lack the desired slant
of the whole letter. This shows the style spread across Sardinia, Cyprus,
Southeast Anatolia, Syria and Transjordan.
Gimel. There is a single instance of the letter gimel in Fragment B. It

occurs in the first line of Fragment Bl and is displayed in Table 4.22.
Table 4.22. Occurrences o/gimel in Fragment B.

B-l Line 1 [...mi[...]

The figure consists of two straight strokes, which meet at a common
vertex, much like a figure '7'. However, the entire letter is rotated signifi-
cantly anti-clockwise so that the vertex forms the highest point of the let-
ter. The right stroke is discernibly longer than the left stroke and, therefore,
forms what we may label as the stem. To be precise, the left stroke is two-
thirds the length of the stem and the angle formed at the vertex is 58.
Since no gimel is attested in Fragment A, we can make no comparison
with the form here. Thus, the letter gimel is inconsequential in our attempt
to determine a relationship between Fragment A and Fragment B. Although
there is only a single example here in Fragment B, the simplicity of the fig-
ure means we can be fairly sure that it represents a normal form employed
by the scribe of Fragment B and attempt a dating of it.
We may go back as far as the Proto-Canaanite of the thirteenth century
BCE to find a match. However, since the script of Fragment B shows a
good deal of development from Proto-Canaanite, we cannot legitimately
suggest it as a match. Rather, the similarities are due to the simple nature
of the letter rather than to any synchronism.
The gimels attested in tenth century BCE Byblian inscriptions are the
earliest meaningful matches. The inscriptions of Yehimilk and Eliba'al
both display the same gimel with correct proportions and rotation. After
this time, good matches can be made with Kilamuwa, the Archaic Phoeni-
cian Inscription from Cyprus, Nora, Panammu I, Panammu II and Bar
Rakib. Unfortunately, gimel is unattested in the Melqart Stele and the Am-
man Citadel Inscription. The Mesha Stele and later inscriptions from Pales-
tine are all of a southern style, which is much narrower and longer than the
style of gimel here in Fragment B. Thus, Fragment B here shows a nor-
thern influence. The Sefire Treaties preserve a number of various gimels,
some of which comply with the form in Fragment B. The sole example
from Nerab tends towards the style of Fragment B also. On the other hand,
Azitawadda's Inscription is very similar to the southern style of gimel. The
sarcophagus of Tabnit from the late sixth century BCE should also be
mentioned. The Tema Stele from the mid-fifth century also shows some
affinity, though it is not as close as some of the previously mentioned
inscriptions.
Thus, we may date the form of gimel to between the late tenth century
BCE and the mid-fifth century BCE. However, most of our matches come
from the late ninth century and eighth centuries BCE. This is in line with
the evidence of the archaeological context of Fragments Bl and B2. The
form is attested in Sardinia, Cyprus, Southeast Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia
and, to a lesser extent, in Northwest Arabia. This wide chronological and
geographical horizon can be attributed to the very simple nature of the
letter gimel.
Daleth. There are two instances of the letter daleth in Fragment B. Both
occur next to each other in the fourth line of Fragment Bl. Table 4.23
contains both their images.
Table 4.23. Occurrences of daleth in Fragment B.

B-l Line 4 Tin

B-2 Line 4 iin
The figure is essentially that of a triangle with a small tail. The tail is a
short continuation of the right diagonal stroke down below the bottom
horizontal stroke. Daleth B-1 also appears to have another minute tail with
the bottom horizontal stroke extending fractionally past the right stroke,
much like the corresponding portion of an 'aleph. However, such is not
the case. This 'tail'-like marking is simply a tiny pock in the surface of the
stone. The left and bottom strokes are of approximately the same size and
are both slightly longer than the right stroke.
There is a slight difference between the daleths of Fragment B and those
we observed in Fragment A. The daleths of Fragment B are proportionally
a little wider. This is shown by the bottom stroke being longer, and the
angle of the leftmost vertex being more acute than the corresponding parts
of the Fragment A daleths. However, the differences between the forms in
the respective fragments are not so great as to necessitate the view of two
mutually exclusive inscriptions. The variations in form within Fragment A
alone are enough to demonstrate that the style of daleth in Fragment A
could easily accommodate the style of daleth in Fragment B. A com-
parison between daleth A-2 and daleth B-2 reveals how close their respec-
tive forms are. A survey of the daleths in the Amman Citadel Inscription
also demonstrates the use of similarly divergent forms.
Another noteworthy point is the slant of the letter. A distinct leftward
slant is observable for the daleths of Fragment B. Consequently, the form
is at least contemporary with the form of Fragment A. This being the case,
we will have a similar register of matches with other Northwest Semitic
inscriptions. As in Fragment A, the form here displays distinctly Syrian
characteristics, which give us a terminus a quo in c. 825 BCE with the Kila-
muwa Inscription and the Amman Citadel Inscription. The only other dis-
tinguished matches are the bricks from Hamath, the stele of Bar Rakib, the
Siloam Tunnel Inscription, and even the ceramic texts of the Samaria
Ostraca.
With this information, we may place the daleth of Fragment B between
the late ninth century BCE and the end of the eighth century BCE, with the
form attested in Southeast Anatolia, Syria, Palestine and Transjordan. This
gives us the exact same bracket as that of the daleth in Fragment A. The
minor differences in the forms between Fragment A and Fragment B are
noteworthy, but are not conclusive for determining the relationship (or
lack of such) between the two fragments.
Heh. There are five instances of the letter heh in Fragments Bl and B2.
Table 4.24 contains their images in order of their appearance.
The form consists of a leftward leaning stem from which three 'bristles'
protrude to the left. These 'bristles' hang down heavily so that there is an
acute angle between the 'bristles' and the stem. The 'bristles' also appear
cluttered very close to each other. From the three fully preserved figures
we observe that the bottom 'bristle' branches from the approximate mid-
point of the stem. Likewise, on these three particular figures we observe
that the middle 'bristle' is shorter than the other two.
Table 4.24. Occurrences o/he in Fragment B.

B-l Line 2 rian^n[...]
B-2 Line 3 at...]

B-3 Line 4 pan
B-4 Line 4 na
B-5 Line 8 tf[...]
Having noted the characteristics of the form on Fragment B, we see that

there are some differences with the form in Fragment A. First, in Fragment
A, the 'bristles' do not appear as cluttered together as they do in Fragment
B. Also, there is a tendency in Fragment A for the 'bristles' to become
shorter further down the stem. This is by no means universal in Fragment
A, but it is a noted difference. Thus, the distinction between the two forms
in this regard is the length of the bottom 'bristle'. Also, the form of Frag-
ment A appears to have a shorter stem than the form of Fragment B.
With these divergent characteristics in mind, we must ask whether they
represent irreconcilable differences between the two fragments. We must
deal with each point in turn.
First, the relative clutter of the 'bristles' in Fragment B by no means
requires the interpretation that the fragments are mutually exclusive. Such
cluttering of the 'bristles' is often seen in other Northwest Semitic inscrip-
tions together with less cluttered figures, the type of which are seen in
Fragment A. For example, both forms are seen together in the Melqart
Stele, the Amman Citadel Inscription, Panammu I, the Sefire Treaties and
the stele of Si'-gabbari fromNerab. In particular, the Sefire Treaties testify
to just how divergent forms of letters, especially heh, can be within the one
inscription. If there is any question as to different hands being behind the
writing of Fragment A and Fragment B, then had the Sefire Treaties been
discovered in similarly fragmentary form, scholars would have had grave
doubts about any relationship between them. Indeed, the angles of some
strokes and the slant of some entire figures in single texts among the Sefire
Treaties are vastly more disparate than the differences between Fragment
A and Fragment B of Tel Dan. One of the consistencies between the two
fragments is the notable slant of the figures.
The second difference noted between the fragments was that the 'bris-
tles' in Fragment A tended to become shorter further down the stem. How-
ever, this was detected in only three of the six figures ofhehin Fragment
A (hehs A-2, A-4 and A-5). The other three figures displayed 'bristles' of
equal length. Thus, even to begin with, this is not a universal trend. Fur-
thermore, heh B-5, despite damage to the lower half of the letter, displays
the top and middle 'bristles' of the figure as being of equal length. Thus,
even within Fragment B itself, the tendency to have a shorter middle 'bris-
tle' is not universal. Thus, heh B-5 is for all intents and purposes, identical
to one of the more equal 'bristled' hehs on Fragment A, such as heh A-6.
Also, a survey of forms within other individual inscriptions reveals even
wider discrepancies than those represented by the Tel Dan fragments.
Again, the stelae of the Sefire Treaties contain a wealth of examples.
Another inscription that demonstrates this coexistence of seemingly diver-
gent forms is the Eqron Inscription. There we see figures with a short mid-
dle 'bristle' (e.g. line 3), as well as figures with 'bristles' diminishing in
size (e.g. line 5). Therefore, the difference in the length of the 'bristles'
between Fragment A and Fragment B are certainly not evidence of dif-
ferent hands.
The third difference between the hehs of Fragment A and Fragment B
which we noted was the length of the stem. Again, however, a survey of
other Northwest Semitic inscriptions shows this to be a misleading differ-
ence. First, a measurement of the absolute length of the stems in each
fragment shows them to be practically identical. Thus the difference in
stem length is merely an allusion created by the cluttering of the 'bristles'
in the hehs of Fragment B. Yet, in case there is any doubt, another survey
of Northwest Semitic inscriptions shows even wider varying stem lengths
within the one inscription.
Thus, when Fragment A and Fragment B are compared with other North-
west Semitic inscriptions, the difference in forms is seen to be miniscule.
In fact, the figures are shown to be remarkably similar to each other. The
differences that do exist may, therefore, be attributed to the natural inabil-
ity of one human hand to reproduce more than one written form in exact
replica. Yet, it must be said that few other individual inscriptions reproduce
such closely matching figures. Therefore, the letter heh lends support to
the notion that Fragment A and Fragment B are indeed part of the one in-
scription, or were at least written by the same hand.
This inevitably means that we will have the same chronological horizon
for the hehs of Fragment B as we had for those of Fragment A. A date for
the form between the mid-ninth century BCE and the early seventh century
BCE is appropriate. Among the matches are the Melqart Stele, Hazael's
Horse Ornament, Kilamuwa, the Amman Citadel Inscription, the Nora
Stone, the Archaic Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus, Zakkur, Panammu
I, the Sefire Treaties, Bar Rakib, the Silwan Tomb, the Nerab Stelae and
the Eqron Inscription. This sees the form attested in Sardinia, Cyprus,
Southeast Anatolia, Syria, Palestine and Transjordan.
Waw. There are three instances of the letter waw in Fragments B1 and B2.
Table 4.25 contains the images of these in their sequential order.
Table 4.25. Occurrences o/waw in Fragment B.
B-l Line 1 [...]nni[...]
B-2 Line 3 bin
B-3 Line 8 CT'[-]
The form consists of a vertical stem from which a 'hook' branches off to
the left. The stem has a discernable kink at this junction so that the top
portion of the stem bends very slightly to the right. In waw B-1 the 'hook'
has the appearance of being round. However, a definite vertex is discerna-
ble, meaning the 'hook' is made up of two strokes as in Fragment A. This
is also confirmed by the two observable deep points of chisel markings
inside the actual incisions.
Waw B-3, however, lacks the vertical stroke of the hook. This peculiar-
ity was understood by Cryer as proof that Fragment A and Fragment B are
from separate inscriptions, with the comment that it is only with great dif-
ficulty that this particular waw (B-3) can be understood as a waw at all.92
However, there is a good reason why this particular waw is missing half of

the 'hook', namely the small pockmark directly adjacent to where we

expect the missing stroke to have been. If the stroke had been carved, it
would have resulted in an inordinately wide stroke, which was undesirable
for aesthetic reasons. The engraver also risked further damage to the
written surface through accidental chipping. Instead, this small pockmark
was left to act as the vertical stroke of the 'hook'.93 As such, we need not
assume Cryer's reservations over this particular figure.
Both Cryer94 and Becking95 cite the letter waw as the most influential
palaeographic datum in determining the mutual exclusivity of the Tel Dan
fragments.96 Both point to the angle of the 'hook' as it is displayed in each
fragment. In Fragment A, Cryer and Becking claim that the strokes of the
'hook' are perpendicular to each other and branch out perpendicularly
from the stem. What is more, Becking claims that the vertical stroke of the
'hook' even leans occasionally inward towards the stem.97
This, however, is true for only one waw, namely waw A-l. Most of the
other figures do represent this perpendicular 'hook', but there are some
notable instances in which this is not the case. The clearest examples are
waws A-7 and A-8, which both occur in Line 9. The vertical stroke of the
'hook' in both these figures clearly leans away from the stem towards the
left. In this regard, they are identical to the forms of waw in Fragment B.
Thus, there is nothing that actually separates the forms within the two
fragments. The style of waw used in Fragment B actually matches the
scope of the style used in Fragment A.
Furthermore, an analysis of other Northwest Semitic inscriptions again
reveals these slight variations as normal phenomena that are only to be
expected. For example, the Archaic Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus
depicts waws with inward facing 'hooks', outward facing 'hooks', as well
as perpendicular 'hooks'. The same phenomenon is observed on the
Kilamuwa Stele, Zakkur, Panammu I, the Sefire Treaties, Panammu II and
the Bar Rakib Stele.
93. For this reason, the pockmark is included in the image of the figure in Table
4.25.
95. B. Becking, 'The Second Danite Inscription: Some Remarks', BN81 (1996),
pp. 21-29(22).
96. Cryer has since altered his opinion on these issues in preference for the view
that all the fragments are forgeries.
97. Becking, 'The Second Danite Inscription', p. 22.
Therefore, to base the mutual exclusivity of the Tel Dan fragments on

the variations of waw is illegitimate. Rather, the waws of both fragments
are demonstrably similar. What Cryer and Becking fail to note is that the
style of waw used in Fragment B is also used in Fragment A. Also, the
strokes of the figures themselves are all proportionate, suggesting a strong
association between the fragments rather than a strong disassociation.
The inscriptions mentioned above as typifying the use of slightly
varying waws also represent the best matches with the form of Fragment
B. Because of the similarity of the styles of waw used in Fragment A, it
comes as no surprise that these inscriptions were also the best matches
with the waws of Fragment A. This permits us to see a strong Syrian influ-
ence over the form, which may be dated between the late ninth century
BCE and the late eighth century BCE. The forms are attested in Cyprus,
Southeast Anatolia and Syria.
Zayin. There is one instance of the letter zayin in Fragment B. It occurs in

the first line on Fragment Bl and may be seen in Table 4.26 below.
Table 4.26. Occurrence o/zayin in Fragment B.

B-l Line 1 [...]nm[...]
The figure is similar to a Latin 'H' fallen on its side. It consists of two
parallel strokes that are joined by a connector stroke. The parallel strokes
are not quite horizontal as they slant slightly downwards on the left, thus
giving the overall impression that the letter leans towards the left. Simi-
larly, the connector stroke is not exactly vertical but leans to the right.
Both parallel strokes are of equal length.
Since there is no attestation of the letter zayin in Fragment A, we cannot
offer comparison with the form here in order to determine any relationship
between the two fragments. We can, however, find a niche for the form in
the chronology of script development among Northwest Semitic inscrip-
tions.
The particular form of zayin used in Fragment B represents an early stage
in the development of the script. A cursive style of zayin, resembling a Latin
'Z', becomes the predominant form at the end of the eighth century BCE.
On the Ahiram Sarcophagus, we find a precedent for the form attested
here in Fragment B. Two key differences may be noted, though. First, the
zayin of Ahiram has relatively short parallel strokes compared to the zayin
of Fragment B. Second, the figure in Ahiram characteristically leans to the
right. This is typical of an early style, evidenced by other Phoenician in-
scriptions such as the Shipitba'al Inscription. Later styles reflect a general
lengthening of the parallel strokes and a slight shift in rotation so that the
figures appear to sit flat or lean leftwards.
The first match comes with the Gezer Calendar. The difficulty with it,
however, is that the parallel strokes are on an inordinately steep slant so
that the figure appears grossly overweighted on the left. Also, the multi-
divergent forms of all letters represented in the Gezer Calendar means we
can by no means be sure that this single attestation of zayin in the inscrip-
tion is reliable as a measure of other forms. For these reasons, we must
refrain from attributing much weight to the match.
A meaningful match is made with the Melqart Stele, in which we see a
form comparably slanted to the one in Fragment B. The only difference is
the angle of the connector stroke. On the Melqart Stele, this stroke leans to
the left whereas in Fragment B it leans to the right. Only on one occasion
does the connector stroke lean to the right on the Melqart Stele (line 4,
second letter). Yet this form is closer in configuration to the cursive style
of zayin.
The angle of the connector stroke is the sole factor that prevents a
complete match with any dedicatory inscription from the Northwest
Semitic corpus. Except for the questionable figure in the Gezer Calendar,
and the solitary exception mentioned in the Melqart Stele, all non-cursive
styles of zayin display the connector stroke as perpendicular to the other
two strokes. This configuration is seen not only on the Melqart Stele, but
also on Kilamuwa's Sceptre, in Panammu I and the Sefire Treaties. In the
Mesha Stele, Kilamuwa Stele and the Azitawadda Inscription, we see
similarly configured forms that sit quite flat on the writing base line.
Except for this factor, the forms are comparable to that of Fragment B. It
is unfortunate that the letter zayin is not attested on either the Nora Stone
or the Amman Citadel Inscription.
However, with this information, we can make some important observa-
tions about the form in Fragment B and so make good inroads towards a
palaeographic dating of the letter. First, all non-cursive styles of zayin put
the connector stroke perpendicular to the other two parallel strokes. The
only exception is the odd form in the Gezer Calendar and one form from
the Melqart Stele. It is clear from the connector stroke of the Fragment B
zayin that the figure is intended as a non-cursive form. The fact that the
connector stroke touches the bottom stroke at the middle demonstrates this
well. However, the angle is far from perpendicular to the top and bottom
strokes. In fact, the angle of the stroke is 45 to the top and bottom strokes.
This suggests that the form here in Fragment B is some way between the
non-cursive and the cursive styles of zayin.
Unfortunately, there is no way of proving this suggestion because we
have only one example with which to work. The single cursive-like figure
on the Melqart Stele shows that it need not be a universal style within an
inscription either. The earliest cursive style of zayin we have is Hazael's
Horse Ornament from Samos from the second half of the ninth century
BCE. The latest non-cursive style zayin on a dedicatory inscription is from
the Siloam Tunnel Inscription and the Silwan Tomb at the end of the
eighth century BCE. Thus, I proffer this period of overlap between the two
styles, from the mid-ninth century BCE to the end of the eighth century
BCE, as a reasonable bracket in which to place the style of zayin.
The zayin of Fragment B is, therefore, seen to be a very rare form of the
letter. The closest comparable forms come from Southeast Anatolia, Syria,
Palestine and Transjordan.
Heth. There is only one occurrence of the letter heth in Fragment B. It

appears on Fragment B1, Line 2. Table 4.27 shows the image of this heth.
Table 4.27. Occurrence o/heth in Fragment B.

B-l Line 2 nanbn[...]
The form of the heth here in Fragment B is very similar to that encoun-
tered in Fragment A. If anything, the proportion of the 'risers' here in
Fragment B seems to be slightly more exaggerated than those in Fragment
A. However, we have the same style in both forms, demonstrated primar-
ily by the 'risers'. First, the left 'riser' extends notably above the top
'rung' and only slightly below the bottom 'rung'. For the right 'riser' we
see the opposite, in which it protrudes only minutely above the top 'rung',
but slightly more below the bottom 'rung'.
Cryer's description of this heth is not accurate. In comparing the two
forms from both fragments, he states that the form in Fragment A is
unusual in displaying the left 'riser' higher than the right 'riser'.98 In
making the comparison, he states that such is not the case for the form in
Fragment B. Cryer's statement is somewhat ambiguous in that he does not
clarify whether he is referring to the protrusion of the 'risers' beyond the
'rungs', or to the overall latitude at which each 'riser' is placed on the
stone. In either case, Cryer's accusation carries no weight. If he means the
former, then he is clearly mistaken as to the configuration of the letter in
Fragment B, which is the same as that in Fragment A. If he means the
latter, then it is of no consequence, for the difference in latitude is merely
a question of the figures' respective rotations. The figure in Fragment B
leans slightly more leftward than the figure in Fragment A. Yet, both fig-
ures display clear rotation. Cryer's influence on Becking in this regard is
unfortunate for both use this inaccurate observation as an argument for
two different styles ofheth and, therefore, two separate inscriptions." The
truth is quite the opposite as the forms show a very close association with
each other and provide good support for the fragments being from the
same inscription.
This being the case, the matches made for the form in Fragment A will
apply for the form here also. Matches can be made with Tell Fakhariyah,
the Hazael Ivory, Kilamuwa, the Amman Citadel Inscription (even though
it has only two 'rungs'), Zakkur and the Siloam Tunnel. This yields a
chronological bracket between the mid-ninth century BCE and the end of
the eighth century BCE, with the forms attested in Southeast Anatolia,
Syria, Palestine and Transjordan.
Teth. There are no instances of the letter teth in Fragment B.
Yodh. There are four certain instances of the letter yodh in Fragment B.
The yodh proposed by Biran and Naveh at the beginning of Line 4 cannot
be verified and cannot, therefore, count in our palaeographical analysis.
The four certain instances of yodh and their images are contained in Table
4.28.
The forms of yodh here in Fragment B are similar to those found in
Fragment A. The two fully preserved figures (yodhs B-l and B-3) show
characteristics of both curved and angular style yodhs. This tendency was
also observed on Fragment A. Yodh B-l closely resembles yodh A-8 from
Fragment A and yodhs B-2 and B-3 show similarity with yodhs A-2, A-7
98. Cryer, 'King Hadad', pp. 225-26.

and A-9. Thus, there is good correspondence between the two fragments,
suggesting a connection between them.
Table 4.28. Occurrences o/yodh in Fragment B.

B-l Line 3 bun
B-2 100 Line 3 [...]l^Q
B-3 Line 6 ro
B-4 101 Line 8 ini[...]
Since there is such close correspondence between the forms, the same
palaeographic considerations for theyodhs of Fragment A inevitably apply
to the yodhs of Fragment B as well. Thus, matches for the forms can be
made with the Melqart Stele, the Amman Citadel Inscription, the Archaic
Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus, Kilamuwa, Zakkur, Panammu I, the
Phoenician Governor's Bowl from Cyprus, the Sefire Treaties, Bar Rakib,
Azitawadda, the Nimrud Ivory Plaque, the Nerab Stelae and the Eqron
Inscription. This gives us a chronological scope for the yodh between the
mid-ninth century BCE and the early seventh century BCE, with forms from
Cyprus, Southeast Anatolia, Syria, Palestine and Transjordan.
Kaph. There are two instances of the letter kaph in Fragment B, both of
them occurring in Fragment B1. Their images are seen below in Table 4.29.
Table 4.29. Occurrences o/kaph in Fragment B.

B-l Line 3 [...rô
B-2 102 Line 4 ôn
100. The leftmost portions of this figure have been destroyed in breakage.
101. The bottom portions of this figure have been destroyed in breakage.
102. The leftmost portions of this figure have been destroyed in breakage.
As in Fragment A, the kaph here in Fragment B consists of a long stem

from which a 'V construction branches off to the left, forming what look
like three 'fingers' at the top of the figure. There is one slight difference,
though. The stem here in Fragment B is notably curved where the form of
Fragment A displays only minor curvature. This is probably the point of
difference noticed by Becking.103 The angles at which the 'fingers' pro-
trude are, however, comparable to those in Fragment A.
The closest match with the form of kaph in Fragment B is in Kilamuwa.
There we observe that many of the letters have notably curved stems,
including the kaph. In all respects, Kilamuwa is an excellent match. Like-
wise, many of the figures in Mesha, the El-Kerak Fragment and the Amman
Citadel Inscription are very close to the form here in Fragment B. From the
same period, a votive inscription on a stone vessel from Kuntilet 'Ajrud
also bears resemblance with the form in Fragment B; only the 'fingers' are
not quite as spread apart. The same style is observed on the Ivory Plaque
found at Nimrud, the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, and the Eqron Inscription.
Some examples from the Azitawadda Inscription also qualify for considera-
tion, thus yielding us a chronological bracket between the mid-ninth century
BCE and the early seventh century BCE. The forms are attested in Southeast
Anatolia, Syria, Transjordan, Palestine and the Negev.
If we discount the curvature of the stem, many more inscriptions become
available for comparison. However, these inscriptions all fall within the
same chronological bracket as the previously mentioned matchesnamely,
the mid-ninth century BCE through to the early seventh century BCE. Yet, to
incorporate non-curving matches is to deny the clear style of kaph in Frag-
ment B.
We must now ask whether the two forms, represented by Fragment A
and Fragment B respectively, are at all reconcilable. Since the 'fingers' of
both figures match up, the issue inevitably comes down to the significance
of the curved stem. In order to ascertain the importance of this, we must
use the evidence from other inscriptions.
For this task, the Mesha Stele is most informative. On the stele we find a
clear shift in the curvature of the stem for the letter kaph. In the first 16
lines of text, only three of the legible kaphs display a curved stem compa-
rable to the figures in Fragment B, while 23 figures have stems either com-
parable to Fragment A or straighter. At line 17, a transition occurs so that
in lines 17 through to 34, we see twenty curved-stem kaphs comparable to

Fragment B and only nine stems ofkaphscomparable to Fragment A. In

the last ten lines of text (line 25-34), almost all the kaphs have very curved
sterns.
In practical terms, these data from the Mesha Stele demonstrate that in
the upper portions of a stele, kaphs are more likely to have straighter stems
than in the bottom portions. The transition between the two forms occurs
precisely at a point where a scribe's arm would not be required to stretch
inordinately forward. Thus, in the bottom portions when a scribe does not
need to stretch so far forward to write, more comfort in writing is achieved
and therefore more stylistic strokes, such as curved stems, are achievable.
This is also generally the case with the Sefire Treaties, though the problem
there is that the kaphs are clearly meant to possess straighter rather than
curved stems.
This means that the seemingly different forms ofkaphin the Tel Dan
fragments are certainly reconcilable, especially if Fragment B is to be
placed below Fragment A, rather than to its left as it was arranged by
Biran, Naveh and their three colleagues.104 Therefore, the difference in
styles may be interpreted in either way, as evidence for or against the
integrity of the fragments as one inscription.
Lamed. There are four instances of the letter lamed in Fragment B, all of
them occurring on Fragment B1. Their images are contained in order of
their appearance in Table 4.30.
Table 4.30. Occurrences o/lamed in Fragment B.
B-l 105 Line 2 non!zn[...]
B-2 Line 3 ^1
B-3 Line 3 [...1^133
B-4 Line 4 l!2Qn
104. These three colleagues were N. Cohen, A. Weiner and R. Yekutieli. See Biran
and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription', p. 11 n. 5.
105. The top portion of the 'shank' on this lamedhas been destroyed by breakage.
All of the figures are in the shape of a 'fish hook'. The 'shanks' show little
or no curvature, while the actual hook is a neat curve. There is evidence of
a slight 'bump' in the 'hook' oflamedB-2. The 'barbs' on all figures slant
noticeably upwards, pointing essentially in the same direction as the top of
the 'shank'.
Becking notices a difference between the form here in Fragment B and
the form represented in Fragment A.106 He does not, however, specify the
nature of the difference. We can only surmise that it is the uniform curva-
ture of the 'hook' that Becking has in mind. The figures attested on Frag-
ment A do not display such uniform roundness at the 'hook', but are prone
to hyperbolic roundness which makes the 'hook' look like a distinct bend
or 'bump' rather than a smooth curve.
However, lamedB-2 also shows evidence of this 'bump' and is, in fact,
very similar to lamed A-4 on Fragment A. In addition to this, lamed A-9
shows uniform curvature of the 'hook' so that it is similar to the forms on
Fragment B. Thus, there is adequate overlap of the forms on both frag-
ments, and so the figures do not lend support to Becking's claim of exclu-
sive differences.
Since there is such considerable overlap between the two forms, the
matches for the lamed of Fragment B significantly overlap the matches for
the form in Fragment A. Our earliest matches are with the Phoenician
inscriptions of Ahiram, Yehimilk and Shipitba'al. The Mesha Stele forms
are comparable in all aspects except the 'barbs', which tend to hook more
to the vertical. The same may be said for the El-Kerak Fragment. No such
difficulties lie with the forms from Kilamuwa, the Amman Citadel Inscrip-
tion, the Archaic Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus, Zakkur, Panammu I,
the Sefire Treaties, the Hamath Bricks, Azitawadda, Panammu II, Bar
Rakib, the Nerab Stelae and the Tema Stele. As was also the case with the
form of Fragment A, numerous smaller texts from Palestine, such as seals,
ostraca and the like, testify to the persistence of the form right through to
the mid-fourth century bulla of Yesha'yahu ben-Sanballat, Governor of
Samaria.
Thus, the data on the form of lamed gives us a huge chronological
horizon stretching six centuriesfrom the mid-tenth century BCE through
to the mid-fourth century BCE. The form is attested throughout the entire
Levant as well as Cyprus and Sardinia.

Mem. There are five instances of the letter mem in Fragment B. Their
images are contained in order of their appearance in Table 4.31.
Table 4.31. Occurrences o/mem in Fragment B.

B-l Line 2 narf?n[...]
B-2 Line 3 [...]^n
B-3 Line 4 l^QH
B-4 Line 5 fa
B-5 Line 7 n%..]
There is a slight difference in the forms here in Fragment B. The first three
figures (mems B-l, B-2, B-3) have a continuous 'jagged head' in which
each of the four strokes matches up with the end of another stroke. On the
last two attestations (mems B-4 and B-5), the two centre strokes of the
'jagged head' do not meet end to end. Rather, it appears that the left two
strokes of the 'jagged head' have slipped down slightly.
This internal inconsistency in the form of mem, however, does not affect
the correspondence in the forms with Fragment A. On the contrary, it does
much to enhance it. For the mem of Fragment A, we noticed that the char-
acteristic markings of the form were the angle of the leftmost stroke of the
'jagged head' and the angle of the 'jagged head' as a whole. When we
compare these points with those of the forms here in Fragment B, we ob-
serve an identical match. Furthermore, the curvature of the stem matches
in every way. This means that the only difference between the two forms
of mem is the slight disconnection of the 'jagged head' seen here in mems
B-4 and B-5. Yet, this is an irrelevant difference because it is internal to
Fragment B and the first three figures there show close correspondence
with the forms in Fragment A.
The attestation of such a slight shift within the form of mem is a crucial
datum for the relationship between Fragment A and Fragment B. This will
be discussed further in the synthesis of all the epigraphical and palaeog-

raphical information.
Since the forms of mem in both Fragment A and Fragment B are vir-
tually identical, we have the exact same list of matches from other North-
west Semitic inscriptions for both fragments. Thus, the best matches for
the mem of Fragment B are the Mesha Stele, the El-Kerak Fragment,
Kilamuwa, the Amman Citadel Inscription, Zakkur, Panammu I, the Sefire
Treaties, the inscribed bricks from Hamath, Panammu II and Bar Rakib.
With these data, we may assign the mem of Fragment B to the time
between the mid-ninth century BCE and the late eighth century BCE. The
matches are attested in Southeast Anatolia, Syria and Transjordan.
Nun. There are two instances of the letter nun in Fragment B. Both of
these, however, are severely damaged. The visible parts of these figures
are contained in Table 4.32.
Table 4.32. Occurrences o/nun in Fragment B.

B-l 107 Line 5 IP
B-2 Line 6 ;[...]
The form of nun in Fragment B is difficult to assess because of the

fragmentary nature of both attestations. We may piece the portions of each
example to gain a coherent form, but this would be only hypothetical. This
hypothetical form certainly matches the two forms encountered in Frag-
ment A. Whereas the stem is completely destroyed on nun B-2, the very
bottom portion still remains of nun B-1, preserved below the join of Frag-
ments Bl and B2. This small portion allows the observation that at least
the stem appears to be curved in a way similar to the figures attested in
Fragment A.
A definitive comparison with the forms of Fragment A is, however,
elusive because of the fragmentary nature of nun B-l. This makes it diffi-
cult to reach a verdict on the relationship with the forms of Fragment A.
For this same reason, a palaeographical comparison with other Northwest
107. Since this letter is mostly damaged by a lacuna, the image is not very clear.
Semitic inscriptions is also difficult. We may only note that there appear to
be similarities with the forms of Fragment A, and therefore we suspect the
same matches with other inscriptions as those made by Fragment A. Com-
prehensive comparison, however, cannot be made.
Samekh. There is a single occurrence of the letter samekh in Fragment B,

the image of which is seen below in Table 4.33.
Table 4.33. Occurrence o/samekh in Fragment B.
B-l 108 Line 6 11

"O*
The form consists of a slightly curved, slightly leftward leaning stem,

which is intersected at the top by three crossbars. The form is the same as
that encountered in Fragment A. The only difference that might be per-
ceived between the two forms is the length of the stem. However, this is
not a real difference because the figures in the top half of Fragment A are
discernably bigger than those in the second half of Fragment A and the
figures in Fragment B. Indeed, both figures of samekh are proportionally
identical.
With these observations, it may plausibly be suggested that the same
hand is at work in both figures. This means the matches that were cited for
the form in Fragment A will also apply here for Fragment B. Thus, rele-
vant matches of a slightly leftward leaning samekh are made with forms
from Kilamuwa's Sceptre, the Amman Citadel Inscription, the Hamath
Bricks and the Azitawadda Inscription. This yields us forms of Syrian style
from the late ninth century BCE through to the late eighth century BCE. The
forms are attested in Southeast Anatolia, Syria and Transjordan.
'Ayin. There are three instances of the letter 'ayin in Fragment B. Their
images are seen below in Table 4.34.
As in Fragment A, the letter is in the shape of a simple closed circle.
The two notable characteristics of the form from Fragment A are also
matched herenamely, the lack of a pictographic dot in the centre of the
figure and the overall size of the letter. In addition, we note the
characteristic 'bump' at the bottom left of 'ayin B-l. Although this is not
108. Since this letter is mostly damaged by a lacuna, the image is not very clear.
visible on 'ayin B-2, the curvature at the bottom of the letter hints at such
a 'bump'.
Table 4.34. Occurrences o/'ayin in Fragment B.

B-l Line 3 în

B-2109 Line 5 [...]3fc
B-3110 Line 6 1fc[...]
In his description of the difference in the 'ayins between the fragments,

Cryer states that the forms in Fragment A are ovoid shapes, whereas the
single fully preserved form in Fragment B is round.111 This, however, is
not a realistic difference, nor even a discerning observation. The character-
istic 'bumps' along the curvature of the letters are observed in both frag-
ments. This speaks for both the same hand and the same engraver lying
behind both Fragment A and Fragment B. Also, Cryer is much too strin-
gent in his allowance for a margin of variation between separate figures.
When the 'ayins of both fragments are lined up, they are seen to be vir-
tually identical in both shape and size while also demonstrating that the
human hand is not mechanically precise in all minutiae. More importantly,
the characteristic features of each form are the same. Thus, Cryer's objec-
tion to a match between the 'ayins of the two sets of fragments cannot be
upheld.
The consistency in both forms is further demonstrated by the fact that
the matches for the form in Fragment B are exactly the same as those for
the form in Fragment A. We notice that the smaller form of 'ayin is also
employed in Fragment B. Good matches are found with the Mesha Stele
(mid-ninth century BCE) at the earliest, and the Eshmun'azar Sarcophagus
(early fifth century BCE) at the latest. Between these, we find correspon-
dence with forms in the Amman Citadel Inscription, the Archaic Phoeni-
109. The left portion of this 'ayin has been destroyed by breakage.
110. This figure is mostly destroyed due to the breakage of the stone. In my epi-
graphical analysis, I noted that there was the possibility this character could be restored
as something other than 'ayin, but that we should restore this letter as an 'ayin on phi-
lological grounds.
111. Cryer, 'KingHadad', p. 226.
cian Inscription from Cyprus, the inscriptions of Panammu I, Panammu II,

the Nerab Stelae, the Siloam Tunnel, the Silwan Tomb, the Eqron Inscrip-
tion and the Sarcophagus of Tabnit.
Thus, for the letter 'ayin, we find the form in use across the entire
Levant, as well as Cyprus, between the mid-ninth century BCE and the
early fifth century BCE.
Peh. There is a single occurrence of the letter peh in Fragment B. Its image
is shown below in Table 4.35.
Table 4.35. Occurrence o/pe in Fragment B.
B-l Line 5 pS*[...]
The figure is a fluid curved stroke and is essentially the same as the form
used in Fragment A. The form here in Fragment B is slightly longer than
the form used in Fragment A, but certainly not long enough to demand a
different hand. On the contrary, the fluidity of the figure closely resembles
peh A-l, suggesting a connection between the two forms.
Since there is such a close correlation between the forms of both frag-
ments, we also see a correlation with inscriptions containing comparable
forms of peh. Thus, we find good matches with the Archaic Phoenician
Inscription from Cyprus, and with the Nora Stone. On the Levantine main-
land, matches are found in the Zakkur Stele, the Sefire Treaties, Azitawad-
da, Panammu II, Bar Rakib and the sarcophagi of Tabnit and Eshmun'azar.
These data provide us a chronological bracket identical to the form in
Fragment Anamely, between the late ninth century BCE and the early
fifth century BCE. The form is attested in Sardinia, Cyprus, Southeast
Anatolia, Syria and Phoenicia.
Sadhe. There are no occurrences of the letter sadhe in Fragment B.
Qoph. There is one instance of the letter qoph in Fragment B. Its image is
shown below in Table 4.36.
The form is identical to that encountered in Fragment A. As such, all
considerations for the form in Fragment A apply to this form also. They
match in shape, proportion and slant. This close correlation between the
two forms certainly suggests that the same hand lay behind both fragments.
Table 4.36. Occurrence o/qoph in Fragment B.
B-l Line 5 J23[...]
Once again, the fine correspondence between the forms means our
matches for the form in Fragment A are the same for Fragment B. There-
fore, our matches for Fragment B range from the Melqart Stele in the mid-
ninth century BCE down to the Eqron Inscription in the early seventh
century BCE. Between these dates, we find matches with Hazael's Horse
Ornament, both Kilamuwa's Stele and Sceptre, the Archaic Phoenician In-
scription from Cyprus, Zakkur, Panammu I, the Sefire Treaties, Azita-
wadda, Panammu II and the Nerab Stelae.
Therefore, our chronological spectrum for the qoph of Fragment B, like
that of Fragment A, ranges from the mid-ninth century BCE to the early
seventh century BCE, with the form attested in Cyprus, Southeast Anatolia,
Syria and Palestine.
Resh. There are five instances of the letter resh on Fragment B. Their
images are contained in order of their appearance in Table 4.37 below.
Table 4.37. Occurrences o/resh in Fragment B.
B-l 112 Line 1 [...]im[...]
B-2 Line 6 'IPS
B-3 Line 7 on[...]
B-4 Line 7 in
B-5 LineS [...]D3
112. This letter has been restored as a resh on both epigraphical and philological
grounds. The 'head' of the figure has been destroyed in breakage.
As in Fragment A, the form consists of a long stem and a neat triangular

'head', with the whole figure being tilted to the left. There is, however, a
noticeable difference with Fragment A in the shape of the 'head'. This was
marked by both Cryer113 and Becking.114 Whereas the 'head' on the figures
in Fragment A are quite large, they are quite small and even squat in
Fragment B. To put the difference another way, the interior angles of the
triangular 'head' differ between the fragments. This difference in angles
also makes the stem of the figures in Fragment B look longer than those in
Fragment A.
When the overall sizes of the figures from both Fragments are com-
pared, there is no real difference. In fact, the stems in both fragments have
a virtually identical range in length. Similarly, the 'heads' from both frag-
ments have a virtually identical range in width. That is, the horizontal
stroke of the 'head' is roughly the same length in the figures from both
fragments.
Thus, although differences between the forms in the two fragments are
certainly observable, they are by no means major. While there is the sug-
gestion that the differences betray the fragments as two different inscrip-
tions, the evidence certainly does not demand it. On the contrary, the forms
are comparable enough to even suggest the same hand behind both of
them. The Archaic Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus uses reshs similar
to Fragment A in the first few lines, whereas the form used in the last ex-
tant line is identical to the form of Fragment B. Also, both the stele of
Panammu I and the Sefire Treaties use both forms, indicating that they are
a variation of the same style. As such, the comments of Cryer and Becking
are far from persuasive.
In finding matches for the form of resh in Fragment B, we must look for
comparably slanted figures rather than upright ones. The earliest inscrip-
tion with matching forms is the Melqart Stele. Some forms at the bottom
of the Mesha Stele also match. We may also cite examples from both Kila-
muwa's Stele and Sceptre, the Amman Citadel Inscription, the previously
mentioned example from the Archaic Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus,
Panammu I, the Sefire Treaties, the Hamath Bricks, Panammu II and, to a

114. Becking, 'The Second Danite Inscription', p. 22. Although Becking does not
explicitly state what he sees as the difference between the reshs of Fragment A and
Fragment B, there can be no doubt that his point of conjecture lies with the shape of
the 'head'.
lesser degree, Bar Rakib. The sarcophagi of Tabnit and Eshmun'azar also
qualify as matches.
Thus, the chronological bracket for the form of resh in Fragment B is
between the mid-ninth century BCE and the mid-fifth century BCE, with the
form attested in Cyprus, Southeast Anatolia, Syria and Transjordan. The
fact that many of the matching inscriptions are the same as those found for
Fragment A indicates that both forms of resh attested on the Tel Dan frag-
ments are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Rather, they appear to be
variations on the same form. This further undermines the objections raised
by Cryer and Becking in relation to this letter.
Sin. There is a single instance of the letter sin in Fragment B. It occurs

right on the join between Fragment B1 and Fragment B2. Its image is con-
tained in Table 4.38 below.
Table 4.38. Occurrence of sin in Fragment B.

B-l 115 Line 5 [...]info

Despite the damage to the figure from the fracturing of the stone, the
form is essentially the same as that encountered in Fragment A. The forms
match up in four ways. First, the leftmost stroke leans to the left. This was
seen as a feature allowing us to distinguish a sin from a mem in a damaged
context. Second, the right 'V is slightly larger than the left 'V. Third, the
right 'V sits slightly lower than the left 'V. Fourth, the left 'V is rotated
in more of a clockwise direction than the right 'V. These points of corre-
spondence make a strong case for the same hand lying behind both Frag-
ment A and Fragment B.
Due to this close correspondence, the matches found for the form in
Fragment A also apply here for Fragment B. As such, we find matches for
the Fragment B sin in the Tell Fakhariyah Inscription, the Amman Citadel
Inscription, Nora, Zakkur, Panammu I, the Phoenician Governor's Bowl
from Cyprus, the Sefire Treaties, Azitawadda, Panammu II, Bar Rakib, the
Nerab Stelae and the Eqron Inscription.
These data provide us with a chronological horizon between the mid-
ninth century BCE and the early seventh century BCE. The form is attested
115. Since this sin is right on the join between Fragments Bl and B2, the image is
not very clear.
in Sardinia, Cyprus, Southeast Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, Transjordan and

Mesopotamia.
Taw. There is only one instance of taw in Fragment B. It is, however,

mostly damaged and has been restored on epigraphical and philological
grounds. The remnants of this taw are seen below in Table 4.39.
Table 4.39. Occurrence of taw in Fragment B.
B-l 116 Line 2 nan^n[...]
All that remains of this taw is the bottom portion of the stem and the
leftmost point of the crossbar. Despite this, we may still compare it with
the relevant portions from the form of taw in Fragment A. The difference
is shown to be the curvature of the stem. In Fragment A, the stem of the
taw did not have such a pronounced curl. However, three of the figures
(taws A-l, A-3 and A-5) have a very modest flourish at the bottom of the
stem. In this way, the remnant of the taw in Fragment B is not too far
removed from the relevant portions of the figures in Fragment A.
Since the top half of the figure is missing, it is meaningless to pursue
matches for the taw of Fragment B with other inscriptions. We can, how-
ever, note that the form is a long-stemmed taw, rather than the shorter equi-
lateral taw. This shows a clear Syrian influence over the form of the letter.
Dating the Script of Fragment B

As was the case with the script of Fragment A, we see a decidedly Syrian
influence over the script of Fragment B. The tendency to lean letters to the
left is probably the most telling characteristic. The time-frame common to
each individual letterform attested in the fragment is that between the late
ninth century BCE and the late eighth century BCE. In script development,
this corresponds with the inscriptions between the Kilamuwa Stele and the
Bar Rakib Stele or Azitawadda Inscription. These dates correspond with
that gleaned from the archaeological context of the fragments.
Of all the letters, the heth provides us with perhaps the best evidence to
work towards narrowing this bracket. We observed how the heth of Frag-
ment B displayed all the characteristic features of the heth of Fragment A.
116. Only the bottom portion of the stem and the leftmost point of the cross-bar have
been preserved of this taw. The rest of the figure has been broken off.
This being the case, we see the Amman Citadel Inscription and the Zakkur
Stele as the closest matches, just as in Fragment A. These two particular
inscriptions are separated by less than half a century around the turn of the
eighth century BCE. Since heth is one of the most complex letters, it is a
fairly accurate indicator of variant styles.
The forms of 'aleph and 'ayin employed in Fragment B point to a date
slightly after 825 BCE. At that time, the Kilamuwa Stele still used early
styles of these letters. Thus, we find ourselves in the same time period as
that assigned to Fragment Anamely, c. 800 BCE ( 20 years).
Synthesis of the Script of Fragment A

and the Script of Fragment B
The date arrived at for the script of Fragment B (c. 800 BCE, +/- 20 years)
is confirmed by the fact that the script of Fragment B is very close, if not
identical, to the script of Fragment A. If we perform a statistical analysis
of the relationship between the fragments for each individual letter, we see
this fact substantiated. First, four letters (gimel, zayin, teth and sadhe) are
either attested in only one fragment or in neither. Therefore, we may dis-
miss them for purposes of considering a relationship between the frag-
ments. Of the remaining 18 letters, ten (56 per cent) show a very close
correspondence and six (33 per cent) appear to be closely related variants.
The remaining two (11 per cent) letters (nun and taw) are special cases in
that they are incomplete figures in Fragment B and difficult to compare
with their counterparts in Fragment A. Most importantly, no letters are
irreconcilably different.
This last particular point may legitimately be claimed for many contem-
porary but mutually exclusive inscriptions. As such, the fact that no letters
are irreconcilably different is no guarantee that the fragments are to be
understood as belonging to the same inscription. However, it does much to
undermine the objections of Cryer, Becking and others who claim that the
difference between the fragments demand'the interpretation that the frag-
ments are mutually exclusive. This is certainly not the case.
Furthermore, two particular letters are invaluable in actually clinching a
relationship between Fragment A and Fragment B. First, the letter waw is
noted by both Cryer and Becking as probably the most obvious and telling
figure for the mutual exclusivity of the fragments. However, close obser-
vation of the forms in both fragments reveals that the forms do in fact
overlap quite significantly. As such, the letter waw provides abridge rather
than a chasm between Fragment A and Fragment B.
Second, the form of the letter mem was seen to be inconsistent within
Fragment B itself. One form was practically identical to that encountered
in Fragment A, while the other represented a form in which half of the
'jagged head' had slipped slightly downwards. This internal inconsistency
alerts us to the tendency of the scribe of Fragment B to make slight alter-
ations to particular letters. This visible trend can be legitimately applied to
other letters which vary slightly between the fragments, such as the
slightly wider daleth, the cluttered 'bristles' on the heh and the curling at
the bottom of some long-stemmed letters in Fragment B. With this scribal
tendency, a firm connection between Fragment A and Fragment B is estab-
lished. This accords with the data about the engraving of the individual
letters, which was seen to be identical in both Fragment A and Fragment
B. We may thus talk of the fragments in the context of one inscription,
which we will henceforth term, the Tel Dan Inscription. My palaeographi-
cal analysis also confirms the veracity of the date for the fragments yielded
in our examination of the archaeological context. As such, we may legiti-
mately claim that the Tel Dan Inscription was written at some time close
to 800 BCE.
Summary of Script Analysis

Tables 4.40 and 4.41 summarize the palaeographical information gleaned
on each set of letters from both Fragment A and Fragment B.
Table 4.40. Summary of Palaeographical Information for the Script of Fragment A.
i rwYvjivijî-N i .r^.
Letter Closest Matching Inscriptions Regional Bracket Chronological Bracket

(centuries BCE)
8 Amman Citadel Cyprus Late ninth-
Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Phoenicia early fifth
Nora Inscription Southeast Anatolia
Zakkur Sardinia
Sefire Treaties Syria
Hamath Bricks Transjordan
Nerab Stelae
Tabnit Sarcophagus
Eshmun'azar Sarcophagus
3 Kilamuwa Northwest Arabia Late ninth-
Amman Citadel Southeast Anatolia mid-fifth
Zakkur Syria
Panammu I Transjordan
Sefire Treaties
FRAGMENT A
(centuries BCE)
3 Bar Rakib (cont.)
(cont.) Panammu II
Eqron
Tabnit Sarcophagus
Tema
3
1 Kilamuwa Palestine Late-ninth-
Amman Citadel Southeast Anatolia late eighth
(Samaria Ostraca) Syria
Bar Rakib
Siloam Tunnel
71 Melqart Stele Cyprus Mid-ninth-
Mesha Stele Southeast Anatolia early seventh
Amman Citadel Syria
Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Transjordan
Nora Inscription
Hazael's Horse Ornament
Zakkur
Bar Rakib
Nerab Stelae
Eqron
1 Kilamuwa Cyprus Late ninth-
Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Southeast Anatolia late-eighth
Zakkur
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Panammu II
Bar Rakib
T
n Tell Fakhariyah Palestine Mid-ninth-
Hazael Ivory Samal late eighth
Kilamuwa Syria
Amman Citadel Transjordan
Zakkur
Siloam Tunnel
C3
Melqart Stele Cyprus Mid-ninth-
Kilamuwa Palestine early seventh
Amman Citadel Southeast Anatolia
Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Syria
Zakkur Transjordan
Panammu I
Phoenician Governor's Bowl
Sefire Treaties
Azitawadda
FRAGMENT A
(centuries BCE)
* Bar Rakib
(cont.) Nimrud Ivory Plaque
Nerab Stelae
Eqron
D Mesha Stele Cyprus Late ninth-
Kuntilet 'Ajrud Negev early seventh
Amman Citadel Palestine
Nora Inscription SE Anatolia
Phoenician Governor's Bowl Sardinia
Panammu I Syria
Bar Rakib
Siloam Tunnel
Eqron
Ahiram Sarcophagus Cyprus Mid-tenth-
^ Yehimilk Negev mid-fourth
Shipitba'al Northwest Arabia
Mesha Stele Palestine
El-Kerak Fragment Phoenicia
Kilamuwa Southeast Anatolia
Amman Citadel Sardinia
Nora Inscription Transjordan
Kuntilet 'Ajrud Wares
Zakkur
(Samaria Ostraca)
(Samaria Seals)
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Hamath Bricks
(Khirbet el-Qom)
(Ophel Ostracon)
Azitawadda
Panammu II
Bar Rakib
(Tel Qasile Ostracon II)
(Beersheba Juglet)
Nerab Stelae
(Lachish III Seals)
(Ramat Rahel Seal)
(Tell en-Nasbeh Seal)
(Wadi Muraba'at Papyrus)
(Shechem III Seal)
Tema
(Yesha'yahu Bulla)
Q Mesha Stele Southeast Anatolia Mid-ninth-
El-Kerak Fragment Syria late eighth
FRAGMENT A
(centuries BCE)
a Kilamuwa Transjordan
(cont.) Amman Citadel
Zakkur
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Hamath Bricks
Panammu II
Bar Rakib
] Melqart Stele Samal Mid-ninth-
Mesha Stele Syria late eighth
Kilamuwa Transjordan
Amman Citadel
Zakkur
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Hamath Bricks
Panammu II
D Kilamuwa Scepter Southeast Anatolia Late ninth-
Amman Citadel Syria late eighth
Azitawadda
i; Mesha Stele Cyprus Mid-ninth-
Amman Citadel Palestine early fifth
Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Phoenicia
Panammu I Southeast Anatolia
Panammu II Syria
Nerab Stelae Transjordan
Siloam Tunnel
Silwan Tomb
Eqron
Tabnit Sarcophagus
s Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Cyprus Late ninth-
Nora Inscription Phoenicia early fifth
Zakkur Southeast Anatolia
Sefire Treaties Sardinia
Azitawadda Syria
Panammu II
Bar Rakib
Tabnit Sarcophagus
x Comparison not practicable
P Melqart Stele Cyprus Mid-ninth-
Hazael's Horse Ornament Palestine early seventh
Kilamuwa's Sceptre Syria
Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus)
FRAGMENT A
(centuries BCE)
P Zakkur
(cont.) Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Azitawadda
Panammu II
Nerab Stelae
Eqron
i Melqart Stele Cyprus Mid-ninth
Mesha Stele Northwest Arabia mid-fifth
Kilamuwa Sceptre Syria
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Panammu II
Bar Rakib
Tabnit Sarcophagus
Tema
E? Tell Fakhariyah Cyprus Mid-ninth-
Amman Citadel Mesopotamia early seventh
Nora Palestine
Panammu I Sardinia
Phoenician Governor's Bowl Syria
Sefire Treaties Transjordan
Azitawadda
Panammu II
Bar Rakib
Nerab Stelae
Eqron
n Melqart Stele Cyprus Mid-ninth-
Hazael Ivory Southeast Anatolia late eighth
Hazael's Horse Ornament Syria
Kilamuwa
Zakkur
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Hamath Bricks
Azitawadda
Panammu II
Bar Rakib
Nerab Stelae
Date for script of Fragment A: c. 800 BCE ( 20 years)
Table 4.41. Summary of Palaeographical Information for the Script of Fragment B.

FRAGMENT B
(centuries BCE)
K Kilamuwa Cyprus Late ninth-
Amman Citadel Phoenicia early fifth
Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Southeast Anatolia
Nora Inscription Sardinia
Zakkur Syria
Hamath Bricks
Nerab Stelae
Tabnit Sarcophagus
a Melqart Stele Cyprus Late ninth-
Kilamuwa (Northwest Arabia) early fifth
Amman Citadel Southeast Anatolia
Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Sardinia
Nora Inscription Syria
Zakkur Transjordan
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Bar Rakib
Nerab Stelae
Tabnit Sarcophagus
(Tema)
-" Yehimilk Cyprus Late tenth-
Eliba'al Northwest Arabia mid-fifth
Kilamuwa Phoenicia
Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Southeast Anatolia
Nora Inscription Sardinia
Panammu I Syria
Panammu II
Sefire Treaties
Bar Rakib
Nerab Stelae
Tabnit Sarcophagus
Tema
i Kilamuwa Palestine Late-ninth-
Amman Citadel Southeast Anatolia late eighth
(Samaria Ostraca) Syria
Bar Rakib
Siloam Tunnel
Nora Inscription Syria
FRAGMENT B
(centuries BCE)
n Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Transjordan
(cont.) Zakkur
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Bar Rakib
Silwan Tomb
Nerab Stelae
Eqron
1 Kilamuwa Cyprus Late ninth-
Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Southeast Anatolia late eighth
Zakkur Syria
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Panammu II
Bar Rakib
T Melqart Stele Palestine Mid-ninth-
Kilamuwa Southeast Anatolia late eighth
Kilamuwa' s Sceptre Syria
Panammu I Transjordan
Azitawadda
Sefire Treaties
Siloam Tunnel
Silwan Tomb
n Tell Fakhariyah Palestine Mid-ninth-
Hazael Ivory Southeast Anatolia late eighth
Kilamuwa Syria
Zakkur
Siloam Tunnel
B1
Melqart Stele Cyprus Mid-ninth-
Kilamuwa Palestine early seventh
Amman Citadel Inscription Southeast Anatolia
Zakkur Transjordan
Panammu I
Phoenician Governor's Bowl
Sefire Treaties
Bar Rakib
Azitawadda
Nimrud Ivory Plaque
Nerab Stelae
Eqron
D Mesha Stele Negev Mid-ninth-
El-Kerak Fragment Palestine early seventh
Amman Citadel Inscription Syria
FRAGMENT B
(centuries BCE)
D Kuntilet 'Ajrud Transjordan
(cont.) Nimrud Ivory Plaque
Azitawadda
Siloam Tunnel
Eqron
? Ahiram Sarcophagus Cyprus Mid-tenth-
Yehimilk Negev mid-fourth
Shipitba'al Northwest Arabia
Mesha Stele Palestine
El-Kerak Fragment Phoenicia
Archaic Cyprus Syria
Nora Inscription Transjordan
Kuntilet 'Ajrud Wares
Zakkur
(Samaria Ostraca)
(Samaria Seals)
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Hamath Bricks
(Khirbet el-Qom)
(Ophel Ostracon)
Azitawadda
Panammu II
Bar Rakib
(Tel Qasile Ostracon II)
(Beersheba Juglet)
Nerab Stelae
(Lachish III Seals)
(Ramat Rahel Seal)
(Tell en-Nasbeh Seal)
(Wadi Muraba'at Papyrus)
(Shechem III Seal)
Tema
Yesha'yahu Bulla
D Mesha Stele Southeast Anatolia Mid-ninth-
El-Kerak Fragment Syria late eighth
Kilamuwa Transjordan
Amman Citadel
Zakkur
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Hamath Bricks
Panammu II
Bar Rakib
] Comparison not practicable
FRAGMENT B
(centuries BCE)
0 Kilamuwa Sceptre Southeast Anatolia Late ninth-
Amman Citadel Syria late eighth
Azitawadda
y Mesha Stele Cyprus Mid-ninth-
Amman Citadel Palestine early fifth
Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Phoenicia
Panammu I Southeast Anatolia
Panammu II Syria
Nerab Stelae Transjordan
Siloam Tunnel
Silwan Tomb
Eqron
Tabnit Sarcophagus
s Archaic Phoenician (Cyprus) Cyprus Late ninth-
Nora Inscription Phoenicia early fifth
Sefire Treaties Sardinia
Azitawadda Syria
Panammu II
Bar Rakib
Tabnit Sarcophagus
x
P Melqart Stele Cyprus Mid-ninth-
Zakkur
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Azitawadda
Panammu II
Nerab Stelae
Eqron
Mesha Stele Phoenicia mid-fifth
Panammu I
Sefire Treaties
Hamath Bricks
Panammu II
FRAGMENT B
(centuries BCE)
~1 Bar Rakib
(cont.) Tabnit Sarcophagus
Eshmun'a/ar Sarcophagus
to Tell Fakhariyah Cyprus Mid-ninth-
Amman Citadel Mesopotamia early seventh
Nora Inscription Palestine
Panammu I Sardinia
Phoenician Governor's Bowl Syria
Azitawadda
Panammu II
Bar Rakib
Nerab Stelae
Eqron
n Comparison not practicable Syrian Influence
Date for script of Fragment B: c. 800 BCE ( 20 years)
Chapter 5
ARRANGEMENT OF THE FRAGMENTS
Evaluation of the Original Arrangement by Biran andNaveh

In this section, I will attempt a re-evaluation of the arrangement of the frag-
ments. Certain observations already made in the epigraphical analysis of the
fragments suggest there is doubt as to the arrangement endorsed by Biran
and Naveh. This now needs to be assessed.
When Biran and Naveh published Fragment B, they offered a text based
on a particular arrangement of the fragments.1 This saw Fragment B placed
to the left of Fragment A, with the first extant line of text in Fragment A
lined up with the first extant line of text in Fragment B (Fig. 5.1). Biran and
Naveh mention that three different arrangements were considered. The first
was to place Fragment B above Fragment Aa configuration rejected by
Biran and Naveh on the grounds of literary genre. The publishers claimed
that references to an author's father in an inscription traditionally occurred
in the first few lines of an inscription. Since Fragment A made mention of
the author's father, Biran and Naveh were reluctant to place the eight lines
of text represented by Fragment B prior to it.
The second arrangement considered by Biran and Naveh was to place
Fragment B after Fragment A. No comment was made as to the suitability
of this configuration. Rather, it was passed up in favour of the third arrange-
ment, which placed Fragment B to the left of Fragment A. The reasons for
this were textual. According to Biran and Naveh, this 'placement provided,
albeit with some difficulties, a meaningful and continuous text'.2

Figure 5.1. The arrangement of the fragments proposed by Biran and Naveh with
Fragment B to the left of Fragment A (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College,
Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan).
This arrangement was further endorsed by three restorers who worked

independently to ascertain whether Fragment A and Fragment B could be
joined together in any way. These three restorers were Nili Cohen of the
Hebrew Union College, and A. Weiner and Ruth Yekutieli, both with the
Israel Museum. According to Biran and Naveh, each of these three restorers
produced the same arrangement, demonstrating that the two fragments could
be joined under the surface at Line 5. In achieving this join, the bottom left
edge of Fragment A and the top right edge of Fragment B were seen as part
of the same line of fracture. According to Ada Yardeni, who was also in-
strumental in producing this arrangement, this join under the surface was
more than satisfactory.3
Thus, the fragments of the Tel Dan Inscription were presented to the
scholarly community and the world with Fragment B placed to the imme-
diate left of Fragment A. It is in this same configuration that people may
now view the inscription, housed in a glass case, in the Archaeology Sec-
tion of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.
3. Thanks go to Ada Yardeni who conveyed this to me personally.

5. Arrangement of the Fragments 111
In their comments on the arrangement of the fragments, Biran andNaveh

stated that 'Fragments A and B cannot be joined in an obvious, unequivocal
way'.4 Thus, by their own admission, there is a modicum of doubt as to the
present configuration. Biran reiterated these comments at a later stage.5 The
convenience of the join must also be doubted, for Biran and Naveh also
stated that the text that results is not without its problems.
Thus, there is reason to investigate the integrity of the arrangement pro-
posed by Biran, Naveh and their colleagues, Yardeni, Cohen, Weiner and
Yekutieli. Doubts have also been raised in the foregoing epigraphical
analysis of the fragments. Therefore, we must attempt an evaluation to
determine the strength of the original arrangement. This involves pursuing
those points of doubt that arise from the arrangement. The fact that the
current configuration is preferred over any other, because it provides a
meaningful text, means that investigation of the configuration is of para-
mount importance. If the arrangement is seen to be faulty in any way, then
this will have direct implications for the reading of the text.
The Physical Join

The join between Fragment A and Fragment B beneath the surface of
Lines 4 and 5 does not present an easy interlocking fit. The right extremity
of Fragment B may be placed up against part of the exposed surface of
Fragment A at the latitudes of Lines 4 and 5 (see Fig. 5.1). The length of
the join is approximately 3 cm. However, the fragments do not slip together
naturally and there are gaps in this 'join'. The nature of the join is similar
to two clenched fists placed end to end; they sit against each other but do
not really fit into each other. As Yamada phrases it, the 'phisical [sic] join
between Fragments A and B1+B2 is based on a quite infirm point of
contact'.6
Some of the exposed surfaces in the upper reaches of both fragments
come close to joining but do not manage to actually touch. One of the
strengths of this original arrangement, however, is the fact that there
appears to be one continuous line of fracture running from the bottom left

5. In personal correspondence with Biran, I asked him whether there was any
doubt about the join between Fragment A and Fragment B. His response was that
nothing in the field was concretely certain.
6. See S. Yamada, 'Aram-Israel Relations as Reflected in the Aramaic Inscription
from Tel Dan', UF 27 (1995), pp. 611-25 (612). Yamada, however, sees the join as
'tenable'.
of Fragment A up towards the top of Fragment B. Similarly, there is an

almost perpendicular line of breakage running from the top left of Frag-
ment A, down to Line 5, and then down along the bottom right of Fragment
Bl. However, since none of the written surfaces join up, there must be
some doubt as to whether the line of breakage of one fragment is actually
the same as the line on the other fragment. Thus, physically, the join that
Biran, Naveh, and their colleagues propose is possible, but it cannot be
confirmed.
Epigmphical Considerations
Doubts about the integrity of the original arrangement were first raised by
Cryer and Thompson of the University of Copenhagen in two articles pub-
lished in the Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament.1 This occurred
immediately following the publication of Fragment B in the Israel Explo-
ration Journal by Biran and Naveh. Cryer's objection to the arrangement,
indeed the entire association of the fragments, was based primarily on
palaeographic considerations. He saw the differences between certain
letterforms as evidence of the mutual exclusivity of the fragments.
Thompson's objections, which led him to the same conclusion, were
based primarily on archaeological and epigraphic grounds. Thompson ques-
tioned whether Fragment A and Fragment B had a common archaeological
context seeing as they were discovered in different usages at different loca-
tions in the Israelite gate complex at Dan. Epigraphically, Thompson
noticed that most of the lines of text in the original arrangement did not
properly align between Fragment A and Fragment B. He also stated that
there were insurmountable problems regarding the room required to accom-
modate certain letters proposed by Biran and Naveh between Fragment A
and Fragment B.
I will deal with Thompson's epigraphical arguments here. First, his
objection to the alignment of the textual lines between Fragment A and
Fragment B is quite cogent. The arrangement proposed by Biran and
Naveh et al. aligns the fragments at Line 5. In so doing, however, there are
great discrepancies in the alignment of other lines (see Fig. 5.2). It may be
claimed that this misalignment is simply due to the lack of ruled guiding
lines to aid the scribe writing the text. However, it was demonstrated that
the trends of the lines in Fragment A sloped downwards because the scribe
had to stretch forward in order to write. This would not have altered for
7. Cryer, 'King Hadad', pp. 223-35; Thompson, 'Dissonance and Disconnections'.

Fragment B if it was originally located to the left of Fragment A. We

would expect to see this trend continue in Fragment B. Yet, the trend of
the lines in Fragment B shows a completely different tendency. The trend
of the lines there indicates that the scribe was nearing the bottom of the
stone and so did not need to stretch forward to write at all. Thus, the mis-
alignment of the lines is confirmed by the vastly different trends detectable
in the lines of each fragment.
Figure 5.2. The incongruence of line trends between Fragment A (right) and Fragments
(left) (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan
[detail]).
Schniedewind understood the problems with both the physical join and
the alignment of respective lines. He noted the possibility that there may be
a larger gap between Fragment A and Fragment B.8 This, however, creates
a series of other problems, most notably textual. Schniedewind was able to
overcome this difficulty by simply proposing a rotation of the two B frag-
ments. He rotated Fragment B1 2 in an anti-clockwise direction and Frag-
ment B2 1.5 in the same direction. Thus, Fragments B1 and B2 were offset
by 0.5. According to Schniedewind, this 'slight rotation of the fragments
makes the lines match better and renders a more convincing join'.9
However, numerous objections must be raised to Schniedewind's pro-
posal of fragment rotation. First, Schniedewind was working only with
computer imaging of the fragments. He did not test his hypothesis on the

actual fragments. To date, his proposal has still not been carried out on the
actual physical fragments. Thus, there is no way of knowing whether rota-
tion of the fragments is physically possible.
Nevertheless, Schniedewind's claim that the rotation produces a better
alignment and more convincing join between the fragments cannot be sub-
stantiated. Although rotation aids in the alignment of some lines above
Line 5, those below it suffer deterioration. Line 8 is particularly disparate.
Furthermore, the proposed join beneath the surface would be compromised
as there would be less contact between Fragment A and Fragment B. In
short, Schniedewind's proposal does not bring us any closer to substantiat-
ing the join proposed by Biran and Naveh et al.
It is clear from the trends of the lines that different physical circum-
stances governed the writing of Fragment A and Fragment B. The trend of
Fragment A was consistent with writing in the upper portions of the stone,
while the trend of Fragment B was shown to be consistent with writing at
the bottom of the stone. Therefore, the trends of the lines suggest placing
Fragment B beneath Fragment A, rather than to the left of it.
More weight is added to this suggestion when it is seen that many of the
longer characters encroach on the line beneath. For example, the mem and
kaph in Line B4 have stems that reach down to the same level as the top of
the letters in Line B5. The mem in particular nearly touches the 'head' of
the qoph beneath it. Similarly, the stem of the damaged nun in Line B5
almost touches the resh directly beneath it in Line B6.1 suspect that the
mem preceding this nun was similarly carved so that the stem almost
touched the samekh beneath it. I also note that the mem in Line B7 almost
joins with the waw beneath it in Line 8. These characteristics are con-
sistent with a scribe who reached the bottom portion of the stone and
needed to cram his letters slightly.
Palaeographical Considerations
The slight difference in the forms of some letters led Cryer to claim the
mutual exclusivity of Fragment A and Fragment B. Others, like Becking,10
soon followed with similar hypotheses. In the earlier palaeographical analy-
sis of the fragments, we saw how these differences were not sufficient to
warrant the interpretation that we were dealing with two separate inscrip-
tions. Rather, they were seen to be variant forms, many of which had forms
common to both Fragment A and Fragment B (e.g. lamed and mem).
10. Becking, 'The Second Danite Inscription'.

However, in trying to account for why these variant forms exist at all,
we find further evidence for placing Fragment B below Fragment A, rather
than to its left. It was noted that letters in Fragment B were quite neat and,
when compared with the letters in Fragment A, they were neater on the
whole. That is, lines were straighter, curves were more rounded and small
flourishes were achieved. This suggests a greater ease of movement in the
arm and greater control of the writing implement. Thus, the scribe's arm
must have been in a very comfortable position during writing of the lines
in Fragment B.
If we keep the current arrangement proposed by Biran and Naveh, we
see a great disparity in the ease of movement between one side of the
inscription and the other. The first eight lines of Fragment A show signs of
strained movement whereas no such strain is visible for the writing of the
corresponding lines in Fragment B. Such longitudinal disparity is very
unlikely. In fact, if there was to be any longitudinal disparity in the ease of
movement, then we would expect more strain in writing to be evident in
the left side than the right, due to a crossing of the scribe's arm. Thus, the
arrangement of placing Fragment B to the left of Fragment A represents a
very unusual irregularity in the style of writing. Rather, the ease of move-
ment evident in the writing of Fragment B demonstrates that it should be
placed below Fragment A. Five particular letters highlight this for us.
Beth. The form ofbeth used in Fragment A was the less common curved-
stem beth. This was seen to be a variation of the more common vertexed-
stem beth employed in Fragment B. A bridge between the two forms was
seen in the figures of beths A-l and A-5. I propose that the curved-stem
beth was employed in Fragment A because of the scribe's strain in writing.
Due to the posture needed to write in the upper portions of the stone,
vertexes were hard to achieve. As such, instead of employing the more
common vertexed-stem beth in the upper portions, the scribe sufficed or
resorted to using the close variant of curved-stem beths. In the lower por-
tions of the stone, however, no such strain was exerted in writing. As such,
the scribe was able to write vertexed-stem beths with ease.
Daleth. The form ofdaleth in Fragment A was like an equilateral triangle

with a small tail. The figure was fairly tall. It was also noticed how the
horizontal stroke of the figure was written on different angles. This con-
firms that the scribe had some difficulty in writing the letter and was unable
to achieve full consistency. The height of the figure testifies to the fact that
the scribe was stretched considerably forward when writing. This made
diagonal lines considerably steeper rather than flatter. On Fragment B,

though, we see that the horizontal stroke is consistently written sloping up
to the right. The form is also noticeably shorter or flatter than the form in
Fragment A. This indicates that the scribe had greater freedom of move-
ment with his arm. Thus there was no heaviness of hand to make the figure
longer and to mark the horizontal stroke inconsistently.
Heh. The difference between the hehs was seen to be the distance between
the 'bristles' as well as their lengths. The form in Fragment A puts a
noticeable gap between the 'bristles', which tend to become shorter further
down the stem. This suggests, once again, that the scribe experienced
some strain in writing Fragment A. This strain prevented him from being
able to accurately place the 'bristles' close together. Rather, with his arm
being stretched forward, the scribe would naturally have wanted to pull his
arm closer to himself for more comfort. This natural force of retracting the
arm led him to put some space between the 'bristles'. The stretched pos-
ture also prevented him from making the 'bristles' of comparable length.
Heh A-6, the last heh on Fragment A, shows signs of the scribe beginning
to experience greater control in writing. When compared with other hehs,
the 'bristles' of heh A-6 are closer together and are of comparable length.
Samekh. The same force at work in the letter heh applied to the writing
of the letter samekh. The difference in form between the fragments is the
spacing of the crossbars. In Fragment A, the crossbars are noticeably
spaced, whereas in Fragment B they are much closer together. Fragment A
shows signs of the scribe's arm wanting to retract from the strain of
stretching forward, hence the wide spacing. No such factor is evident in
the samekh of Fragment B, suggesting a greater ease of movement.
Resh. The same factor that was seen for the letter daleth applied to the
writing of the resh. That is, the 'head' of the resh in Fragment A is notice-
ably taller than the 'head' of the resh in Fragment B. This is consistent
with the scribe stretching forward and having considerably less ease in
writing on Fragment A than he did in writing on Fragment B.
Thus, the palaeographical evidence suggests that Fragment B should be
placed below Fragment A.
Textual Considerations
The main reason cited by Biran and Naveh for their particular arrangement
(see Fig. 5.3) of the fragments is the reading of the text that ensues. There-
fore, we must test to see whether their reading of the text is sustainable.
Numerous scholars have raised objections to the publishers' text.11 In-
deed, most of the controversy surrounding the Tel Dan Inscription has
been textual in nature. The single most important textual consideration is
the translation of the enigmatic word "TITf D in Fragment A, Line 9. How-
ever, there are other factors that hold the text of Biran and Naveh together.
Most of these have to do with the flow of text between the fragments. I
shall deal with these line by line. Since Biran and Naveh offer no connec-
tive text in Line 1,1 shall start with their reconstruction of Line 2.
Figure 5.3. Facsimile of the fragments integrating the arrangement proposed by

Biran and Naveh (drawn by Ada Yardeni).
Line 2: [...-]-nnDn^h[nnmî;]pD^^^[ ]. Between Fragment A

and Fragment B, Biran and Naveh propose inserting six letters and two
word dividers: [rD'iTIÛ]. There is, however, barely enough room for six
letters, let alone an extra two word dividers. The space required for one
11. E.g., and among others, Knauf, De Pury and Rmer; Garbini; Cryer; Thompson;
and Davies (see individual entries in the Bibliography).
word divider is the equivalent to half the space of a normal letter. In order
to accommodate the words required by Biran and Naveh, the letters would
have to be considerably crammed together so as to overlap each othera
suggestion which cannot really be sustained with any credibility. Thus, the
reconstructed text of Biran and Naveh is physically impossible here.
Biran and Naveh offer no reconstruction for the end of the line.
Line 3: [^]Êînn[innK]^K^n^nKO:Dn. Between Fragment A

and Fragment B, Biran and Naveh here propose inserting four letters and a
word divider[1!"DN]as well as the full figure of heh which is only par-
tially preserved in Fragment B. There is adequate room for this recon-
struction.
At the end of the line, Biran and Naveh propose adding one letter, a s in,
after restoring theyodh partially broken at the edge of Fragment B. This
implies that the left edge of the whole inscription was immediately after
this sin, for the scribe ran out of room to complete the remaining three
letters of the word L?N~ln. These extra three letters were subsequently writ-
ten at the beginning of the next line.
Line 4: [^nn][]nn^nn^[>]^^p"l3Dlpbn. As Biran and Naveh

have arranged the fragments, they propose inserting one letter and a word
divider[>]in the gap between Fragment A and Fragment B. There is
adequate room for this reconstruction.
At the end of the line, Biran and Naveh restore the 'aleph along the
broken edge of Fragment B and add three letters and a word divider: [TT'].
However, this runs into difficulty on the premise that only one letter could
be added to the end of Line 3. This being the case, there is insufficient room
to accommodate all the letters that Biran and Naveh wish to restore here at
the end of Line 4. There is room enough for only two letters and a word
divider as opposed to the three letters which Biran and Naveh propose. If
indeed the left edge of the inscription permitted the addition of all three
letters and the word divider, then we would expect to have had an extra let-
ter at the end of Line 3namely, the resh in ^NHET. This letter, however, is
at the beginning of Line 4 according to Biran and Naveh. Thus, there is
some discrepancy as to the spacing at the end of Lines 4 and 5.
Line 5: [--npnfiJ-|D-pa[>]l'DTp-TTn-"[n''>n3. In this line, Biran and

Naveh propose the insertion of one letter and one word divider[>].
There is adequate room for this reconstruction.
At the end of the line, Biran and Naveh propose the restoration of the
partially damaged 'ayin and the addition of a taw.However, they also
propose the addition of at least one divider and extra letters which they
have not specified. That is, they cannot reconstruct the end of Line 5 in
order to match up with the beginning of Line 6. If we allow for the inser-
tion of a taw and a word divider after the restored 'ayin, as Biran and
Naveh suggest, there is room enough for one letter and one word divider if
Line 3 is allowed to dictate the position of the inscription's left edge. If we
allow Line 4 to dictate the position of the inscription's left edge, we have
room enough for two letters and one word divider. However, Line 6 begins
with ayodh, the last letter of a word which is no longer extant. This being
the case, we must presume that no word divider should be added other
than the one after the taw which Biran and Naveh suggest. Thus, we have
a scenario in which either one or two letters can be added to the end of
Line 5, depending on whether we take our cue for the inscription's left
edge from Line 3 or Line 4.
Line 6: [>^]NnDîJp^p]^b^npK>n:D^D\ Upon restoring the

damaged mem and lamed at the end of the line in Fragment A, Biran and
Naveh insert four letters and a word dividerpop]. After this, they
restore an 'ayin as the first letter only partially visible on Fragment B.
There is certainly room for this construction, but there seems to be too
much room. There is extra space the size of one word divider or half a let-
ter. Thus, for Biran's and Naveh's reconstruction, we must assume the
letters were spread out more in this gap than in the rest of the line.
At the end of the line, Biran and Naveh add four letters and a word
divider["VS1?]. If we allow Line 3 to dictate the position of the inscrip-
tion's left edge, then we find that there is room enough for three letters. The
word divider would have to sit outside the margin. If we allow Line 4 to
dictate the position of the inscription's left edge, then the word divider can
be accommodated comfortably. However, no matter which line we allow to
dictate the position of the left edge, there is certainly no room for the resh
which Biran and Naveh's reconstruction requires at the end of the line. This
resh is the first letter of the word 3D~l, the last two letters of which are writ-
ten at the beginning of Line 7.
On the other hand, if we allow Line 6 to dictate the position of the
inscription's left edge, so that the four letters and one word divider which
Biran and Naveh add are accommodated, then we have discrepancies with
the end of Line 3. There, we would have more than enough room to
accommodate at least the resh of bK"ICT with room to spare. It is odd then,
if this was the case, that the letter resh appears at the beginning of Line 4
and not at the end of Line 3. The word divider required at the end of Line
4 could be easily accommodated and there would be ample room for at
least two letters at the end of Line 5.
Thus, allowing Line 6 to dictate the left edge of the inscription permits
us to accommodate the letters needed by Biran and Naveh in previous
lines. However, the oddity about the noted shortness of Line 3 undermines
this reconstruction.
Line 7: [OKnK]O>nn[lTn^n^np]enEKS^K>:a. In the gap between

Fragment A and Fragment B, Biran and Naveh require ten letters and three
word dividers to be inserted[liT'JTK'n^np]. There is, however, only
room enough for nine letters and three word dividers. This means that the
waw of the theophoric element -1!T, which Biran and Naveh add to the
letter D~l- to form the name of Jehoram must be dropped. This, however, is
not possible since the waw in the theophoric element -1iT is never dropped.
The only other alternative is to suggest the apocopated form, -V. This yields
the name 'Joram', an attested alternative to Jehoram which is used in the
biblical text.
At the end of the line, Biran and Naveh insert the personal name, Ahab.
That is, they add four letters and one word divider[DKnK]. If Line 3
dictates the left edge of the inscription, then we do not have enough room
to include the word divider. If Line 4 dictates the left edge, then the word
divider fits perfectly. If Line 6 dictates the left edge of the inscription, then
there would be a blank space the size of one letter at the end of this line.
Since Biran and Naveh's reading of the text requires Line 6 to dictate the
position of the inscription's left edge, then we must propose this extra
space at the end of Line 7, as well as the extra blank space at the end of
Lines 3 and 4.
L/^ 5: [^Qminn]n3inn[Tn^n^-n]^np>^n^-[^. Biran and Naveh

rightly restore the visible but damaged letters at the end of Fragment A,
Line 8 as 'Tip. To this they add a taw to form the word n^Hpl ('and I
killed'). All in all, between Fragment A and Fragment B they insert seven
letters and two word dividers. There is, however, only enough room for six
letters and two word dividers. No apocopation can be suggested for their
reading. Even cramming the letters closer to each other does not leave
enough room for the extra letter required by their reading.
As such, their reading here is unsustainable. Yet, it is one of the pivots

of their reading that the name of Ahaziah (i.e. Ahazyahu) can be restored
here. To maintain the placement of Fragment B to the left of Fragment A,
either Biran and Naveh must abandon their reading of Ahaziah's name
here, or else arrange the fragments differently. This automatically destroys
their entire reconstruction of the text, for even moving Fragment B slightly
more to the left in order to accommodate the name of Ahaziah here creates
problems for the letters to be inserted in previous lines. Thus, Biran and
Naveh's reading cannot be maintained as it is physically impossible.
At the end of the line, we have even greater difficulties accommodating
Biran and Naveh's reading. They propose reading the kaph at the begin-
ning of Line 9 as the last letter in the word "]^Q. As such, they require the
addition of seven letters and two word dividers after the extant end of Line
8 in Fragment B. However, there is no way all these letters can be accom-
modated. If Line 3 dictates the position of the inscription's left edge, then
there is only enough room for four letters and one word divider. If Line 4
dictates the left edge of the inscription, then only five letters and one word
divider can be accommodated. If Line 7 dictates the position of the left
edge, then there is enough room for only five letters and two word dividers.
Even allowing for the apocopated form of the name JehoramJoramwe
still do not have enough room for all the characters required by for the
reading proposed by Biran and Naveh.
Alternatively, if we allow all the seven letters and two word dividers to
be accommodated so that the position of the inscription's left edge is gov-
erned by this line, we have even greater discrepancies at the end of pre-
vious lines.
This analysis shows that the arrangement of the fragments proposed by
Biran and Naveh is unsustainable. We see that their reconstructed text
inserted between the Fragments in Lines 2 and 8 is physically impossible
due to lack of space. In addition, we see huge discrepancies with the place-
ment of letters at the end of the lines. Yet, it is the placement of these let-
ters, both between the fragments and at the end of the lines, on which
Biran and Naveh's reading hangs.
Orthographical Considerations
A major inconsistency also exists within the orthography of the text sug-
gested by Biran and Naveh. In order to maintain the connection between
the end of Line B3 and the beginning of Line A4, Biran and Naveh must
posit the lack of a word divider in the construction ^NHCTD^D ('the king of
Israel'). They note the possibility of such a compound without a word

divider by appealing to a similar compound construction, bmzfofc ('king
of Byblos'), in the tenth-century BCE Phoenician inscriptions of Ahiram
and Yehimilk from Phoenicia.12 However, it is a regular orthographic fea-
ture of these particular inscriptions to write construct chains as one com-
pound word without any word dividers. This is not the case with the Tel
Dan fragments. In Line A8, we see the construction ^"l^r*"]1^ with a
word divider separating the two nouns of the construct chain. Unlike the
fragmentary nature of Biran and Naveh's reading for the end of Line B3,
this construction is complete. Therefore, it must form the basis for under-
standing the orthography of the inscription. This being the case, it is clearly
evidence that compound orthography is not employed in the Tel Dan
Inscription. Rather, the nouns of construct chains are clearly delineated by
the use of word divider. Further evidence for this is seen in the construc-
tions CTIS-'S^KI (Line A7), [...jK-nDfr (Line B6) and [...]'3^8fHKn
(Line A4).
Needless to say, this has implications for our understanding of the word
11IPT 3 (Line A9). However, it is abundantly clear from the unambiguous
cases that word dividers are used in construct chains. In order for Biran
and Naveh's reading to stand, we must posit that there is an inconsistent
use of word dividers in two identical constructions. This is highly improb-
able given the evidence of other construct chains in the Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion. Thus, we must consider Biran and Naveh's reading as erroneous and
their arrangement of the fragments as unlikely.
Restored Letters
Biran and Naveh's reading is further undermined by the restoration of cer-
tain letters on Fragment A, which were made in the epigraphical analysis.
Line A4. Over the lacuna on Line A4, the remains of a lamed were
identified. This means that Biran and Naveh's reading of this word as ^K
('my father') cannot be upheld. Rather, the word is to be restored as
[...pn^N and regarded as fragmentary. As a result, Biran and Naveh's
reconstructed text for Line 4 cannot stand. Also, the arrangement of the
fragments is brought into question because no meaningful text can be
reconstructed with this arrangement after the restoration of the lamed over
the lacuna.

Line A6. The last extant letters on Line A6 are the remains of a mem and
lamed. In the reading proposed by Biran and Naveh, these letters must
form part of the word p^Q ('kings'). Some of the impetus for this reading
must be attributed to Yardeni, who identified the remains of a nun along
the very edge of Fragment A.13
However, closer inspection of the remains of this letter clearly shows it
to be part of a waw, not a nun. As a result, the last word of Line A6 cannot
be restored as p^Q. Thus, Biran and Naveh's reading at this point cannot
be upheld. This has implications for the restoration of the text of Line 6
between Fragment A and Fragment B as arranged by Biran and Naveh.
Their inserted text must be altered in light of the remnant of this waw at
the edge of Fragment A. Yet, no meaningful text can be proposed with this
arrangement of the fragments.
A New Arrangement
The numerous objections raised to both the text proposed by Biran and
Naveh, and their arrangement of the fragments, highlights the need for an
alternative configuration. The preceding epigraphical analysis showed that
the script of Fragment B is consistent with a scribe writing at the bottom of
a stone rather than at the top. In keeping with this observation, I propose
arranging the fragments so that Fragment B is placed below Fragment A.
A particular comment by Biran and Naveh is also pertinent to this pro-
posal of rearranging the fragments. In considering the possibilities for
arranging the fragments, they noted that Fragment B is unlikely to have
come before Fragment A in the original inscription because of the refer-
ence to the author's father in Fragment A.14 In the genre of royal memorial
inscriptions, this is indeed correct. In fact, one of the key elements which
allows us to classify the genre of the Tel Dan Inscription is the author's
reference to his father. Furthermore, the text of Fragment B does not sup-
port its placement above Fragment A for there are no references to the
author's father. Also, the content is more appropriate in the latter portions
of a royal memorial inscription than in the earlier portions prior to refer-
ences of the author's father.

Galil, however, opts for placing Fragment B above Fragment A.15 Unfor-
tunately, he does this on the surmise that Biran and Naveh are correct in
interpreting the names in the final lines of Fragment B as those of Jehoram
and Ahaziah. Galil sees the context in which these two monarchs are
named as belonging to the generation before the author of the Tel Dan
Inscription. That is, the ancient author mentioned them in a discussion of
his own father (whom he interprets as Hazael). However, it is only the
original arrangement proposed by Biran and Naveh that demands the
names be those of Jehoram and Ahaziah. As such, Galil actually bases his
new arrangement on the discredited old arrangement. Furthermore, Galil's
study lacks a detailed epigraphical examination to inform him of the line
trends of each fragment and what they entail.
These facts, coupled with the unsustainability of Biran and Naveh's
reconstructed text, leave us with only one possibility for arranging the
fragmentsnamely, that Fragment B must be placed below Fragment A.
A slight shifting of the fragments in order to match up different lines
between Fragment A and Fragment B yields no meaningful results either.
Therefore, our only option left is to place Fragment B below Fragment A.
In order to calculate just how far below Fragment A we must position
Fragment B, we must consider the dimensions of the written surface which
were calculated in the epigraphical analysis. In this section I arrived at a
minimum height of 110 cm and an approximate width of 35 cm. Line A8
was calculated at approximately 90 cm above the bottom edge of the in-
scription. This means the bottom of Fragment A was 77 cm above the
bottom edge of the inscription. We also noted that the writing on Fragment
B reflected a position towards the bottom of the stone. In writing the text
of Fragment B, the scribe had good control of his writing implement. As a
result, I suggest the scribe was not leaning forward over the stone when
writing the text of Fragment B. Rather, he was in a comfortable posture
with his arm in a fairly natural writing position. As such, I suggest placing
Fragment B within a cubit's length (about 45 cm) of the bottom edge of
the inscription. However, we have no clue as to where in the stele's width
we should place Fragment B. That is, the longitude of Fragment B is un-
known. What is certain, however, is that it cannot be placed very close to
either the left or right edge of the stele because there are no remains of any
edges.
15. G. Galil, 'A Re-Arrangement of the Fragments of the Tel Dan Inscription and
the Relations between Israel and Aram', PEQ 133 (2001), pp. 16-21.
This arrangement sees Fragment B placed approximately 32 cm below

Fragment A. Thus, there is a considerable gap between the fragments (see
Fig. 5.4) implying contextual distance between the texts of the respective
fragments. It is with this arrangement of the fragments that we must pro-
ceed to conduct a textual analysis.
Figure 5.4. A reconstruction of the probable position of the fragments in relation to the
whole original stele, showing Fragment A in the upper portion and Fragment B in the
lower portion (dimensions in centimetres).
Chapter 6
TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
I turn now to an analysis of the text of the Tel Dan Inscription. Since I
propose placing Fragment B at some distance below Fragment A in the
original composition of the text, I will examine Fragment A and Fragment
B separately. The aim is to derive a meaningful text from the deciphered
characters and from those characters that can be restored or reconstructed.
In the course of this analysis, I will examine the meaning of individual
words, and address issues of grammar and syntax.
Reference and Sigla

The system of line reference used here will be a compound label, consist-
ing of the fragment label and the line number within that fragment. For
example, the second line in Fragment A is referred to as 'Line A2', and
the fourth line in Fragment B is referred to as 'Line B4'.
We do not know whether word dividers were employed at the end of a
line. For the sake of clarity, though, I have chosen to include them where I
perceive that the last word of a line was complete and did not continue
onto the next line. Letters that are mostly damaged, yet still restorable, are
marked by a small circle above the letter (X). Lacunae are marked with
brackets [ ]. Within some of the lacunae I have reconstructed particular
words. Some of these reconstructions are less certain than others. I have
ventured, however, to include only what may be plausibly suggested given
the current evidence. I have avoided reconstructions founded solely on
speculation or creativity. The reconstructions are individually dealt with in
the commentary that follows the transcriptions.
6. Textual Analysis 193
The Text
Fragment A: Transcription
[ ^]i>noh[ ] (Ai)
[ ]pD^3K^n]b[nm] (A2)
[K^D:> îrr^Korjen (A3)
[ ^npn^'p-lKIl'Dlp^Kl (A4)
par* ]4'mp-nn-[rr>njK (A5)
p^K ]1[']pl2bnp>'Dl?Q^ (A6)
[TriKiir j-criBâ^Kvra (A?)
[^Q nn]^np>^ner^Q (A8)
[ ]-&z>Tnrr>"[ (A9)
[ ib-cn-p-iK-rr (AlO)
pMBtnrr ?]!fnpnK (All)
[HOE? ^K-OET'^'-f? (A12)
[ ]-lD2J]^rnSl3 (A13)
Fragment A: Translation
(Al) [ ] you will rule ov[er ]
(A2) [and because of the p]iou[s act] s of my father, may [?] go up [ ]
(A3) and my father will repose. May he go to [ at every]
(A4) ancient [h]earth on ground of El-Bay [tel am]
(A5) I, so Hadad would go before me [ the day-]
(A6) -s of my reign, and I would slay a kin[g] and [ thousands of cha-]
(A7) -riots and thousands of horsemen [ ]
(A8) the king of Israel, and [I] killed [him kin-]
(A9) -g of Bayt-Dawid. And [the] name of [ ]
(AlO) their land to [ ]
(All) another and to [ Jehoashr-]
(A12) -eigned over Is[rael I laid]
(A 13) siege to [Samaria ]
Fragment B: Transcription
[ Tim[. ] (Bi)
[ v^nan^htnn ] (B2)
[ -nr>]î>bin;i[ ] (B3)
[ Tp]ft-"nn'f7!3r>?[ ] (B4)
[ ]>Q]iOZ>jBpSK[]3 ] (B5)
[ EJ]K""IDfriiJ[ ] (B6)
[ KD-D-I[ ] (B7)
[ Wvn>in'[iO* ] (B8)
Fragment B: Translation
(Bl) [ ]and[?]cut[ ]
(B2) [ in] his [flighting against A[? ]
(B3) [ ]?. But my king, [Hadad,] would come [ ]
(B4) [ ] Hadad made m[e] king [ ]
(B5) [ bjraver than seven [kings ]
(B6) [ ]ty captured m[en ]
(B7) [ ?[ramsonof[ ]
(B8) [ Amaz]iah son of [Joash ]
Commentary on Fragment A
Line AI
The first portion of the line is missing due to breakage of the stone. There
is room for approximately eight or nine characters before the first extant
letter. We must note the probability that this was not the first line in the
whole original inscription because of the height of the exposed surface
above this line.
[...]l>~ln[...]. Biran and Naveh misunderstood the initial markings
here as a mem.l Closer epigraphical observations reveal the markings to be
two distinct letters, a taw followed by a sin. The difficulty in interpretation
here is that we do not know if the letters "liZn form an independent lexeme
on their own. The breakage of the stone precludes us from making an
absolute judgment on this. However, we can deal with these letters as one
whole lexeme in order to determine if any meaning can be assigned to
them independently.
No noun "l!Zn is attested in Northwest Semitic languages. There is a
suggested emendation to a Hatrean text (49.3) which replaces K~ltyn with
"Itn.2 However, no meaning is offered for "icn. Alternatively, we could
see "I En as the end of a personal name with the final two letters ("IEJ) being
the noun 'prince' or 'potentate'. A less likely option is to view this as a
defective spelling for the month 'Tishri'. In order to maintain this, how-
ever, we need to posit some Mesopotamian influence over Dan and the
surrounding region so that the calendar bore Mesopotamian names. Unless
the Tel Dan Inscription was a bilingual inscription, we cannot really posit
that the author was from Mesopotamia.
1. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', pp. 87, 90.
2. J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-west Semitic Inscriptions
(2 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), II, p. 765.
We find more meaningful options for this word if we treat it as a verb.

First, due to the taw preceding the sin, we do not have any metathesis.
This means we must be dealing with either a middle-weak root (V~ll^ or
A/T^),3 or else a verb in a verbal stem other than Ithpa'al.4 Second, we
have no root ""!>n attested in Northwest Semitic languages.5 This leaves us
with the option that the taw is a verbal preformative. The possibilities here
for the verbal root of the element ~l> are:
1. V~n2)'to be steadfast'. This would yield a Pe 'al Impft 3.fem.sg./2.masc.sg.
2. "vTlE?'to rule, be prince'. This also would be a Pe 'al Impft 3.fem.sg./2.masc.sg.
In both these instances, the gemination of the verbal root is masked in

the verbal form of the Pe 'al stem.6 Since both these verb options are
human actions, we may reasonably dismiss the possibility that the subject
was feminine. Females are rarely, if ever, mentioned in ancient Northwest
Semitic inscriptions.7 The human subjects of such monumental inscrip-
tions are almost exclusively males. The only real exception to this would
be a reference to a female deity. However, from a statistical point of view,
we should view this verb as masculine.
The attractiveness of the second option is that the 'ayin, which begins
the next word, may be understood as the first letter of the preposition by
('over'). This yields a good idiomatic expression, L?I>~l'n ('you will rule
over'). Similar expressions placing this verbal root with the preposition by
can be seen in the Hebrew text of Num. 16.13 and Judg. 9.22. Although
the fragmentary nature of the Tel Dan text does not allow us to identify the
subject of this verb, we can logically suggest the subject is the author of
the text, especially since the subject is likely to be masculine. This requires
us to view the verb as part of direct speech, perhaps spoken by the author's
royal predecessor or patron deity.
3. S. Segert, Altaramaische Grammatik mit Bibliographic, Chrestomathie und

Glossar (Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopadie, 1975), pp. 291-93.
4. A geminate root would retain its geminate root letters in an Ithpa 'al stem. See
Segert, Altaramaische Grammatik, pp. 284-86.
5. Once again, the possibility of the amended reading ~IO~1 in Hatra 49.3 does not
help us since no meaning can be assigned to this lexeme.
6. R. Degen, Altaramaische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10.-8. Jh. v. Chr.
(Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag F. Steiner [fur die] Deutsche Morgenlandische
Gesellschaft, 1969), pp. 72-73.
7. One exception which comes to mind is the Pazarcik Stele of Adad-nirari III,
which refers once to his mother, Semiramis. See Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical
Inscriptions, pp. 90-91. This, however, is not a Northwest Semitic text.
Line A2
^[l]b[rm]. Again, the first portions of the line are missing or damaged
because of the stone's fracturing. However, traces of deliberately carved
strokes allowed for the restoration of these letters. As was seen in the
epigraphical analysis, the first fully legible character in Line A2 is a word
divider. It was possible to restore ayodh immediately before this. The pre-
ceding letters were restored on the basis of physical alignment and space,
as well as lexical and contextual sense, so that the word before the word
divider read ^n]b[rm].
The noun "TDPf is attested in the singular in later Jewish Aramaic from
Palestine with the meaning 'piety'.8 Although this would appear to be
under the influence of Biblical Hebrew, where it is far more common, an
adjectival form TOP! is known from Punic epigraphic texts.9 Contextual
analysis shows that it implies an act of kindness, often unwarranted, moti-
vated by the subject's commitment to the recipient of the action.10
<
OK'*["T]b[rD'l]. The addition of ayodh to the root "TDPI means we are
almost certainly dealing with a noun here. An imperative fem.sg. is highly
unlikely given the genre and content of the inscription. The yodh could
represent either a l.com.sg. pronominal suffix ('my piety'), or a plural
construct ('pious acts of). The following words make the first option
unlikely since subjects commonly follow verbs (see below). Therefore, we
may view 1'[~r]b[rQl] as being in construct with the following word, ""UK.
The construct chain yielded, then, is ^^''["TjbfrQl] ('and because of the
pious acts of my father').
The speaker is clearly the author of the inscription. The impetus for
adding a prefixed preposition D to the restored word "HDil comes from a
similar expression in other royal inscriptions. In Panammu II, line 19, we
find the expression "'pliDl <'3N"p"7iO ('because of my father's righteous-
ness and my righteousness'). The exact same expression appears in Bar
Rakib, lines 4 and 5. Both these stelae were produced by Bar Rakib and in
both instances, the expression precedes a statement about Bar Rakib's
ascension to the throne. Similarly, in lines 1-2 of Panammu II, we find the
expression rON-pliC ('because of his father's righteousness'). The stele
of Si'-gabbari from Nerab also contains an expression with the word
8. Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-west Semitic Inscriptions, I,

p. 390.
p. 390.
10. E.g. Gen. 47.29; Josh. 2.12; Judg. 1.24.
TIpTin ('because of my righteousness'). These expressions require the

prefixed preposition D, understood with causative sense, before the noun
p~fiJ ('righteousness'). I propose a similar reading here, though with the
noun IDn ('piety').
The addition of a waw conjunction is motivated by the physical limita-
tions of Fragment A. After adding the prefixed preposition D, we see there
is room enough for only one letter or a word divider at the beginning of
the line. Since the phenomenon of starting a line with a word divider is un-
attested in Fragment A, nor in any other monumental lapidary inscription,
we must opt for the addition of a letter. The only letter that suffices to be
added before the prefixed preposition 3 is the waw conjunction.
[...]pD n s n^^[l]b[nm]. The expression n n^^[l]b[nm] must be under-
stood as a construct chain for syntactical reasons. The word following ^38
is the verb pD"1. Since it is conventional syntax for verbs to precede their
specified subject when they are placed next to each other, "TIN should
probably not be seen as the direct subject of pD11.'] Biran and Naveh, how-
ever, did understand TlK as the direct subject of pD\12 This was probably
due to the circumstantial text created by the fragment's breakage. That is,
since Line A2 is mostly destroyed before the word ''UN, and since the line
is no longer extant past the qoph of pD*, it is easy to associate these two
words together.
However, there is no real syntactical basis for doing this. The syntactical
construction of a verb preceding its subject is common to all Northwest
Semitic inscriptions and far exceeds the occurrences when the subject
directly precedes the verb.
The only evidence that may be brought against this comes from the
Mesha Stele and the two Nerab Stelae.13 In lines 2-3 of the Mesha Stele,
we read 'nKOnN-'nD^D^KVn^j^MKa'bl^^nK ('My father
reigned over Moab 30 years, and I have reigned after my father'). In both
11. The syntax of verb + subject is certainly not universal, particularly when a
subject is emphasized by the use of a personal pronoun, or when a disconnected clause
is resumed by a personal pronoun. The point here is that the syntax of verb + subject is
far more common, and that there is evidence to suggest that this is upheld in the Tel
Dan Inscription.
12. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', pp. 90-91.
13. The syntactical construction of subject + verb occurs occasionally in the Deir
'Alia texts. However, since they are poetic texts, we are dealing with a different genre
in which the syntax is dictated by poetic conventions. The Tel Dan Inscription is not of
poetic genre. Rather, it employs syntax more akin to prose narrative. We cannot, there-
fore, use the Deir 'Alia texts to compare with the syntax of the Tel Dan Inscription.
these clauses, we see the subject preceding the verb. In the stele of Sin-
zer-ibni from Nerab, we read in lines 9-10, inD^rav^DDVEmnontB
j^KQ^^Nl "[D2> ('May Sahar and Shamash and Nikkal and Nusk drag
your name and your place out of life!'). Here we see the four expressed
subjects of the verb 1PID11 placed before the verb itself. Similarly, in the
stele of Si'-gabbari from Nerab, we read in lines 9-10, "fra>^DD>"in27
lQKnnrnnN>nnnDf>:in n ('May Sahar and Nikkal and Nusk make
his dying odious, and may his posterity perish!'). Again, we see two
clauses in which the expressed subjects precede their corresponding verbs.
The syntax of the two clauses from the Mesha Stele, however, are of a
particular constructionnamely, X + qatal. This syntax, in which the
subject precedes an afformative verbal conjugation (perfect), is idiomatic
for expressing past tense with a pluperfect nuance. Since we are dealing
with a preformative verbal conjugation here in the Tel Dan Inscription, the
syntax does not really compare.
The syntax of the examples from Nerab appears quite compelling in
making us connect ""DN in Line A2 with the following verb pD\ In both
these stelae from Nerab, and in the Tel Dan Inscription, we are dealing
with preformative verbal conjugations. However, Line A5 of the Tel Dan
Inscription contains unambiguous evidence that subjects follow their corre-
sponding verbs of preformative verbal conjugations in the Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion. The preformative verbal form "[IT! possesses a prefixed waw that
separates it syntactically from the previous word. The only way in which
this verb may be read is to connect it with the following personal name,
T7!"I. We therefore have the syntactical construction in which the prefor-
mative verbal form precedes its subject. It must also be mentioned that the
verbal forms from the Nerab Stelae are jussives. Although the verb pD"* in
Line A2 may also be a jussive, the normal syntax is to place jussives before
their subjects. This is overwhelmingly demonstrated with the numerous
jussives in both Panammu I and the Sefire Treaties.14 Thus, the syntax of
the jussives in the Nerab Stelae is irregular. The beginning of Line A3 also
supports placing the verb before the subject C'HN'iacn). Thus, although
it is possible to associate "QN with pD% the possibility is remote. On con-
textual and syntactical grounds, therefore, I propose connecting "ON in
Line A2 not with the following verb, pD\ but with the preceding word,
"[7]b[rm].
14. Sefire II A.4 may be an instance in which the subject of the jussive precedes the
jussive itself. However, the text is fragmentary at this point and all other jussives
follow the conventional syntax with the subject following the verb.
All the references from other texts cited by Biran and Naveh in support
of their reading to place ''DK with pD"1 actually count against them. Two
references from the Sefire Treaties are cited (I A.5 and I C.3-4) in which
the verb pD"1 or ]pDn appears in a subordinate relative clause.15 Thus, the
syntax does not compare with that suggested by Biran and Naveh for Line
A2. Similarly, the Akkadian reference cited by them is also in a relative
clause.16 The Biblical Hebrew reference from 1 Sam. 25.13 has no ex-
pressed subject while the citation from 1 Kgs 1.40 does have an expressed
subject, but it follows the verb. Therefore, there is little syntactical support
for understanding "ON as the expressed subject of pD\
Furthermore, since Line A2 is broken off at the qoph of pD% we cannot
even be sure whether this verb is singular or plural. This adds further un-
certainty to a direct connection between "DK and pD"1. Reasonably, there-
fore, we must connect "ON with the preceding word, * [~I]b[mi], yielding a
construct expression, ÛlN^ ["T]b[rm] ('and because of the pious acts of my
father').
Two possible implications derive from this expression. Either the author
of the inscription mentioned his own piety before that of his father (in con-
trast to Bar Rakib), or he did not mention his own piety at all. If the former
case is true, then the context for the expression in Line A2 may be the
author's ascension to the throne, as it is in Panammu II (line 19) and Bar
Rakib. Alternatively, if the author of the Tel Dan Inscription did not men-
tion his own piety, we may have an expression similar to lines 1-2 of
Panammu II. There we read |Qn^n^niCO^Sn3^pliJnlQ]2^n^
nnn^> ('My father Panammu, because of his father's righteousness, did
the gods of Ya'di deliver him from destruction'). In the case of the Tel
Dan Inscription, the author would not be referring to the pious acts of his
father's father, but simply to those of his father.
References to an author's father are traditionally placed in the early
portions of an inscription. The texts of the Mesha Stele, Panammu I and
Bar Rakib all demonstrate this. The Panammu II Inscription is different in
that Panammu II was not the author. The inscription was authored by his
son, Bar Rakib, and was a memorial about his father, Panammu II. As
such, references to the author's father at the end of the Panammu II
15. Sefire I A.5 reads mEJKD jpD"1 ''T ni]H DU1 ('and with his sons who will come
up in his place'). Sefire I C.3-4 reads '"IEa ]pD' 'T HH 13^1 ""13^ ('for my son and
for my grandson who will come up in my place').
16. The Akkadian reference reads mannu sarru sa ilia arkiya ('whatever king will
arise after me'), cited from CAD, 'E', p. 123, s.v. elu.
Inscription must be classed differently since the author's father is the main
referent of the text. The author is only a secondary referent. We can be
sure that we do not have a similar case in the Tel Dan Inscription because
the author refers to his killing of others in Line A6. This would be appro-
priate if the author was indeed the main referent of the text. It is highly
unlikely that the author would mention his own personal exploits in isola-
tion or in clear distinction to those of his father if his father were the main
referent of the text.17
[.. .]pD\ This verb confirms that the language of the inscription is Ara-
maic since the root of this verb, Vp^D, is attested only in Aramaic. Further-
more, the verbal form allows us to classify the language more specifically
as Old Aramaic. Later strands of Aramaic retain the lamed of Vp^D in the
imperfect of the Pe 'al conjugation, and only in the Haph 'el or Aph 'el con-
jugations does the lamed elide.18 The lack of a heh or 'aleph preformative
in the current form would seem to preclude the verb from being in one of
these conjugations. The dialect of the Deir 'Alia texts (if it can even be
classed as Aramaic), and that of the Sam'alian texts from Zenjirli, are the
only known dialects in which the preformative heh of the Haph 'el conjuga-
tion is lost in the imperfect.19 The close similarity between the dialect of
the Tel Dan Inscription and the Sefire Treaties suggests that it is likely the
heh preformative of the Haph 'el conjugation was retained in the Tel Dan
Inscription, as it is in the Sefire Treaties. There is no prefixed mem to sug-
gest an infinitive form.
This leaves the Pe 'al or Pa 'el conjugations as options for this verb.
Elsewhere, the verb is only attested once in the Pa 'el stem as a perfect in
Egyptian Aramaic texts, but the meaning is ambiguous. It could mean 'to
17. Kilamuwa mentions the ineffectiveness of his royal predecessors in his own
stele. However, none of these predecessors are the main referent of Kilamuwa's stele.
Rather, Kilamuwa himself is the main referent.
18. See Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-west Semitic Inscriptions,
II, pp. 788-90.
19. See J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij (eds.), Aramaic Texts from Deir 'Alia (Lei-
den: E.J. Brill, 1976), p. 293; Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II, p. 63.
There is also a suggestion of an early Aph 'el form in Sefire III.3see Fitzmyer, The
Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 145. However, others have conjectured that this
isolated Aph 'el form is a scribal error. See S. Segert, 'Zur Schrift und Orthographic der
altaramaischen Stelen von Sure', ArOr 32 (1964), pp. 110-26 (121); J.C. Greenfield,
'Studies in West Semitic Inscriptions. I. Stylistic Aspects of the Sefire Treaty Inscrip-
tions', AcOr 29 (1965), pp. 1-18; Degen, Altaramaische Grammatik, p. 19 n. 79.
settle (a debt)' or 'to reach (an agreement)'.20 This implies a causative

sense. However, the causative ofVp^D is most commonly attested with a
Haph 'el orAph 'el conjugation. There is only one occurrence of the root in
the Pa 'el stem. As such, we are justified in seeing this verb in the Pe 'al
conjugation, meaning simply 'to go up'. As mentioned previously, the
breakage at the edge of the fragment means we cannot discern from the
epigraphic evidence whether this verb is singular or plural.
Most notable is the fact that this verb is in a preformative verbal con-
jugation. Biran and Naveh understood this as a Pe 'al imperfect 3 .masc.sg.
ofVp^D, but with a past tense meaning.21 In evidence, they mention the
fact that imperfects are often used with the force of past tense in biblical
prose and also in other inscriptions, such as Mesha, Zakkur and the Deir
'Alia texts. However, the examples cited by Biran and Naveh are far from
being trouble-free and require some discussion.
First, the Hebrew of biblical prose and the Moabite of the Mesha Stele
may be isolated as clear examples of 'Canaanite' idiom. The use of a pre-
formative verbal conjugation in association with a prefixed waw consecu-
tive22 is usual and frequent in Canaanite dialects. However, it is yet to be
demonstrated that the Tel Dan Inscription does indeed represent a Canaan-
ite dialect. On the contrary, the vocabulary confirms the language as
Aramaic. Also, since we have no waw prefixed to this preformative verbal
conjugation, or a preceding prepositional particle of any kind, it stands in
seeming contrast to the norms of Canaanite dialects if we are to interpret
pD"1 with a past tense. It would require us to see pDn as a preterite rather
than an imperfecta phenomenon that is at home in Hebrew texts of a
higher style, predominantly poetry rather than prose.23
Second, the other inscriptions to which Biran and Naveh find recourse
in this instance are quite problematic. The plaster texts of Deir 'Alia repre-
sent a peculiar dialect and so will always present difficulties for interpret-
ing other texts in their light. As Hackett has pointed out, the classification
of the Deir 'Alia texts as a form of Aramaic has been unduly emphasized
in the past. Rather, it is better to classify the Deir 'Alia texts as a type of
20. Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-west Semitic Inscriptions, I, p.

97; II, pp. 788-90.
22. Also known as waw conversive, or wayyiqtol forms.
23. P. Joiion and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2 vols.; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993), II, 113.h.
South Canaanite dialect.24 The tense of the so-called 'consecutive im-

perfects' is not secure, especially given the fragmentary context in which
they appear.25 It is also odd that these 'consecutive imperfects' appear only
within the first seven lines of text. Similarly, the notion that the Old Ara-
maic inscription of Zakkur contains evidence for the usage of waw con-
secutive in Aramaic26 is also questionable. The few consecutive imperfects
in Zakkur all appear within the same immediate context and may legiti-
mately be understood as habitual imperfects rather than consecutives.27
Furthermore, if there was any doubt about this, Muraoka has demon-
strated that the usage of waw consecutive in Aramaic is highly improb-
able.28 Muraoka opts for the copulative use of prefixed waw in the Tel Dan
Inscription, something he rather generously attributes the observation of to
Biran and Naveh.29 By 'copulative', Muraoka means a form of prefixed
waw where the phonetic structure is not identical with that represented by
the waw consecutive of Biblical Hebrew (patah followed by gemmation of
the first preformative consonant). His reasoning for this is that, because
there are no vowel points in ancient lapidary Aramaic texts, the phonetic
24. J.A. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir 'Alia (Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
1980), pp. 123-24.
25. Contra Hoftijzer in Hoftijzer and van der Kooij (eds.), Aramaic Texts From
Deir 'Alia, pp. 296-98.
26. Cf. J.A. Emerton, 'New Evidence for the Use of Waw Consecutive in Aramaic',
VT44 (1994), pp. 255-58; V. Sasson, 'Some Observations on the Use and Original
Purpose of the Waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew', VT41 (1997),
pp. 111-27; V. DeCaen, 'The Morphosyntactic Argument for the waw Consecutive in
Old Aramaic', VT51 (2001), pp. 381-85.
27. This will be discussed below.
28. Muraoka's work appears in four articles. The first, 'Linguistic Notes on the
Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan', IEJ 45 (1995), pp. 19-21, accompanied the
publication of the find of Fragments B1 and B2 by Biran and Naveh. The second, 'The
Tel Dan Inscription and Aramaic/Hebrew Tenses', Abr-Nahrain 33(1995), pp.113-15,
was written in response to Tropper's appraisal of the Tel Dan fragments (see Tropper,
'Palaographische und linguistische Anmerkungen'). Muraoka's third article, 'Again on
the Tel Dan Inscription and the Northwest Semitic Verb Tenses', ZAH11 (1998), pp.
74-81, was also written in reponse to an article by Tropper entitled, 'Aramaisches
wyqtlund hebraisches wayyiqtoF, UF2& (1997), pp. 633-45. Along with M. Rogland,
Muraoka wrote a fourth article, 'The waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic? A Rejoinder
to Victor Sasson', FT48 (1998), pp. 99-104, and then a fifth, 'The Prefix Conjugation
in Circumstantial Clauses in the Tel Dan Inscription?', FT51 (2001), pp. 389-92.
29. Muraoka, 'Linguistic Notes', p. 20. Biran and Naveh, however, nowhere argue
for the use of a copulative waw rather than a waw consecutive.
structure of prefixed waws is ambiguous. Since all Aramaic texts employ

perfect verbs to denote past tense, the alleged use of waw consecutive in
the Aramaic texts of Zakkur and the Tel Dan Inscription is very rare and
extremely inconsistent. Not only is it grammatically problematic, it is also
contextually difficult to maintain. As such, it is highly unlikely that waw
consecutive is employed at all in Aramaic.
Although the verb pD"1 in Line A2 is not prefixed with a waw, Muraoka's
arguments, despite their circular nature, have a great deal of import for
how we should interpret it. If pD"1 is to be interpreted as a past tense, it
must be seen as a preterite rather than a consecutive imperfect. The distinc-
tion is very fine, but nonetheless important for the issue of waw consecu-
tive usage in Aramaic. If Muraoka is correct in his hypothesis, then the
preformative verbal conjugations in the Tel Dan Inscription may be seen
as preterites (rather than imperfects) that take copulative waw. This would
allow us to interpret the similar verbal conjugations in Zakkur and Deir
'Alia in the same way, without recourse to a rather inconsistent usage of
waw consecutive in Aramaic.30
Sasson tries to posit a theory whereby this rather inconsistent usage of
waw consecutive in Aramaic is rendered consistent.31 His argument is that
waw consecutive, when used in prose, appears in the context of war or war-
related events. As such, we should not be surprised to find waw consecu-
tive used in Aramaic dialects when the context is directly or indirectly
connected with the recounting of war. However, this theory fails to account
for much of the usage of waw consecutive in Hebrew narrative that has
nothing to do with war. For instance, it does not accommodate the usage
of waw consecutive in the book of Ruth. It also implies that tales of war
are necessarily the deciding factor in whether or not waw consecutive is
used in prose. The corollary of this is that the war tale is the pinnacle or
climax of a prose text whenever waw consecutive is employed. Yet, this
does no justice to much of the biblical material. Also, Sasson's theory does
not adequately explain why such a phenomenon is not employed in Phoe-
nician, a much closer relative of Hebrew than Aramaic.32
Muraoka's suggestion of copulative waw + preterite is quite attractive in
explaining the usage of waw prefixed to preformative verbal conjugations
30. Muraoka, 'Linguistic Notes', p. 20.

31. Sasson,'Some Observations'.
32. Another theory as to when waw consecutive is employed may be in prose that
has a divine context. That is, when the narrative centres around deities or other divini-
ties, waw consecutive is used.
in Aramaic. Certainly his arguments are more convincing than those of

Sasson. Yet, the greatest weakness of Muraoka's theory is that he has not
eliminated the seemingly random usage of these verbal forms. He has
simply replaced the consecutive imperfect conjugation with the preterite
conjugation. The question still remains why the text employs such preter-
ite conjugations for past tense when it could be achieved by the far more
commonly employed perfect conjugation. It is also unlikely that preterites
are used at all in Aramaic.33 Therefore, we must ask whether the context
even demands interpreting our preformative verbal conjugations in the Tel
Dan Inscription with a past tense meaning.
In order to answer this question, we must closely examine the context in
which these particular verb forms appear. The Deir 'Alia texts are difficult
to evaluate, partly because of the fragmentary nature of the texts, but also
because of their peculiar dialect, which Hackett argues convincingly is
closer to South Canaanite dialects than Aramaic.34 The seeming consecu-
tive imperfects in the Zakkur Stele may legitimately be understood as
habitual imperfects with durative quality (as opposed to simple imperfects
with punctiliar quality). The context in which the verbs in question appear
relates to how Zakkur beseeched his patron deity, Ba'alshamayn, during
the siege of Hadrakh, and how Ba'alshamayn responded with favourable
oracles (Zakkur A. 11-17). Five verbs (*m\ ^]in, [V^D"!], [10^1] and
IQK'H) have commonly been regarded as consecutive imperfects in this
context by virtue of the fact that they are preformative verbal conjugations
prefixed with waw, yet with seemingly past tense meaning. However, since
the simple perfect is used elsewhere in the Zakkur Stele to denote simple
past tense, we must be sceptical about interpreting the relevant forms as
consecutive imperfects. Of the five verbs, only three are actually extant on
the preserved fragment of the stele. The other two verbs have been recon-
structed. Nevertheless, it is logical to suggest that the siege of Hadrakh,
33. Gibson cites examples of preformative verbal conjugations with past tense mean-
ing in Biblical Aramaic; see Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II, p. 15.
However, only one preformative verbal conjugation could be considered a preterite
(Din1, Dan. 4.31, 33). However, as the LXX demonstrates, there are numerous textual
difficulties with these verses. Nevertheless, the use of preformative verbal conjugations
in these two verses is not indicative of past tense, but an action simultaneous with that of
another. Thus, they do not carry the concept of consecutive action, but of simultaneous
action. See also F. Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harras-
sowitz, 1963), 178.
34. See Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir 'Alia, pp. 123-24.
which occasioned Zakkur's appeal to Ba'alshamayn, was a durative event.

As such, we should view Zakkur's petition to Ba'alshamayn as occurring
throughout the duration of the siege. That is, Zakkur's petition was not a
punctiliar action, but an ongoing, repetitive action. In the same way, we
can view Ba'alshamayn's favourable reponses through seers and messen-
gers as an ongoing, repetitive action. It is pertinent that the deity's reponse
came through more than one medium, implying that it was not a singular,
isolated oracle or event which made the deity's attitude known. As such,
the verbal forms that have been regarded as isolated instances of consecu-
tive imperfects, or even preterites, in the Zakkur Stele should actually be
regarded as habitual imperfects. This removes the need to explain an
otherwise troublesome usage of consecutive imperfects in Old Aramaic.
With regards to the Tel Dan Inscription, we must ask whether the con-
texts in which pD" and other preformative verbal conjugations appear
demand a past tense meaning. This is partially hampered by the fragmen-
tary context of the Tel Dan Inscription. Yet, we can still make meaningful
observations.
Most verbs used in royal memorial inscriptions carry a past tense mean-
ing. In Aramaic, this is expressed by the use of perfect verbs. Preformative
verbal conjugations serve as either imperfects or jussives. It is difficult to
understand pD"1 here in Line A2 as an imperfect ('he will go up'), but this
is certainly not the case for a jussive ('may he go up'). The only contexts
in which jussive verbs appear in royal memorial inscriptions are: (1) curse
formulae (usually against potential vandals); (2) formulae for divine bless-
ing; or (3) optative expressions of good will towards a deceased person in
the afterlife. The context of Line A2 does not fit the first two options. The
possibility of the third option, however, must be considered.
Optative statements expressing good will towards a deceased person in
the afterlife are well attested in Northwest Semitic inscriptions. Such
statements occur in Panammu I (lines 17, 21-22) and Panammu II (lines
17-18).35 Since they refer to a deceased king as the father of the living
king, these expressions have import for the context of Line A2 (and Line
A3). Also, these expressions invariably employ jussive verbal forms.36
The presence of both the word "ON, as well as the preformative verbal con-
jugation pD\ are compelling evidence that the context of Line A2 is an
optative expression of good will towards the author's deceased father.
35. The text is fragmentary here.

36. Although the form of the jussive rarely varies from the form of the imperfect,
the verbs are clearly jussive in meaning.
Despite the fact that "OK and pD11 are in separate clauses, it is the context
which is under scrutiny. In this regard, Line A3 must also be considered.
Line A2 (end) and Line A3

[.. .]^"]nnÔD^l[v. .]pD^DK. In Line A3 we have two preformative
verbal conjugations pDCTl and "]JV). Biran and Naveh understood both of
these with past tense meaning.37 The crucial element is the verb DDET1.
Here we find a preformative verbal conjugation with a prefixed waw, which
Biran and Naveh understood as a consecutive. However, since the usage of
waw consecutive is highly problematic in an Aramaic text, it is best to treat
the suggestion here with a fair degree of scepticism. Also, the Zakkur Stele
cannot really be used as evidence for waw consecutive in Aramaic. There-
fore, I propose understanding this waw as a simple conjunction.
This leaves us with the preformative verbal form, DDET1. We may under-
stand this verb as either an imperfect or a jussive with its stated subject
being the author's father CDN). Since Biran and Naveh first understood
this and other preformative verbal conjugations as having past tense mean-
ing,38 all other scholars have erroneously followed the same line of inter-
pretation. Biran and Naveh also misconstrued the nuance of "QKOD^n,
which they translated as 'and my father died'. Yet, only in Rabbinic Ara
maic does VDDEJ actually denote the act of dying.39 Elsewhere, in reference
to death, VllD> describes the state of one after death.40 That is, it describes
someone who is already dead, not someone at the moment of death. There-
fore, we should not translate ''DKOIDCH as 'and my father died' in the way
Biran and Naveh do.41 That would have to be expressed by VfllQ.42
Closer evaluation of the contextual usage of A/DDE1 in ancient Northwest
Semitic languages gives us the following options for understanding the
nuance here in Line A2:

38. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', pp. 90-93; idem, 'The Tel Dan
Inscription', pp. 13-16.
39. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim: The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi,
and the Midrashic Literature (2 vols; New York: Judaica Press, 1993), p. 1571.
40. Muraoka, 'Again on the Tel Dan Inscription', pp. 78-79. Muraoka interprets the
meaning as 'to come to lie in ancestral grave'.
41. Biran and Naveh contemplate translating T1KOI3H as 'and my father became
sick (and) died'. However, they reject this in favour of 'and my father died', based on
their understanding of a synonymous construction with the next clause. See Biran and
Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', pp. 91-92.
42. That is, '3K-PD.
1. 'To have sexual relations'.43

2. 'To lie/fall down'.44
3. 'To be in a lying position'.45
4. 'To sleep (as at night)'.46
5. 'To rest'.47
6. 'To repose in death'. 48
The only contextually meaningful nuances which may be seriously

entertained for usage in a royal memorial inscription are the fifth and sixth
options. Although the nuance of the second option may be taken as a
reference to the author's father falling in battle, it would require a Haph 'el
conjugation. The fifth option may provide a reference to the author's father
resting comfortably in the afterlife. As such, it may be understood as a jus-
sive in an optative expression ('and may my father rest'). The sixth option
may be understood as either an imperfect or a jussive. As an imperfect, it
may refer to the state of repose in which the author's father lies in death
('and my father reposes').49 Alternatively, it may have a future sense as a
reference to the ongoing repose of the author's father in the future ('and
my father will repose').
[.. .]^K"[iT. On the basis of context and the interpretation of preforma-
tive verbal conjugations in Aramaic, I propose understanding ~[!T as a jus-
sive form in an optative statement referring to the afterlife of the author's
father. It is common to find the preposition ^N after the verb of motion,
V"pn.50 However, because of the fragmentary nature of the text, we do not
know if there was a word divider immediately after the lamed of btt. As
such, ^N may just as plausibly be understood as the first letters of the sub-
ject of ~[iT. In this regard, bft may be a theophoric element at the begin-
ning of a personal name ('May El-[] go'). Alternatively, ^K may be
understood as the deity El ('May El go up'), or the deity El-Bethel ('May
El-Bethel go up').51 The original suggestion by Biran and Naveh was to
43. E.g. Gen. 20.15-16.

44. E.g. Judg. 5.27.
45. E.g. Ezek. 4.9.
46. E.g. Judg. 16.3.
47. E.g. 2Kgs4.11.
48. E.g. Donner and Ro'llig, Kanaandische undAramdische Inschriften, I, 9A.3;
Deir'Alia 11.11.
49. That is, it may be understood as an habitual imperfect.
50. Or vY?i"l. See Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-west Semitic
Inscriptions, I, p. 281.
51. The deity El-Bethel, or El-Baytel, will be discussed below.
read this as a reference to the author's father having died and gone 'to his
house of eternity'.52 However, "]T should not be interpreted as a preterite,
but as a jussive in an optative expression.

[...r^K-plKn-Dlp^Kl^Dn]. The first three letters of Line A4 are
the end of a word begun at the end of Line A3 (no longer extant). Biran
and Naveh interpreted this as a reference to Israel (^81 [ET]) in the context
of an Israelite king who formerly held sway over the land of the author's
father,53 or who had simply entered the territory of the author's father.54
However, the restoration of the lamed over the lacuna makes a reference to
the author's father here improbable. There is also nothing per se about the
syntax of Line A4 which is definitive and which requires us to include all
the elements within the same clause.
Garbini makes a notable protestation at Biran and Naveh's translation of
Dip as an adverb ('previously').55 He notes that the only times that the
root Dip appears in an adverbial sense in Aramaic, it is as a plural noun,
as a singular noun with a preceding preposition, or as an emphatic active
participle. It is true that the adverbial sense is achieved most commonly
with a plural noun (pip). However, when Dip is preceded by a preposi-
tion, it is not the preposition that necessarily gives it adverbial force.
Rather, the adverbial sense is implied by Dip. Thus, in a Phoenician text
from Cyprus, we see the expression, DlpD'O^r-l^-nT'lE'lT ('month
by month, forever as aforetime').56 In this way, Dip may be understood as
a noun ('aforetime') that has an implied adverbial sense.57 If we are per-
mitted to import this understanding into Aramaic here, it would require
Dip to be the stated circumstance of a new clause, thus separating it from
the previous word. However, there are reasonable doubts as to whether the
Phoenician expression can inform us of Aramaic idiom. Thus, Garbini's
warning here is quite pertinent.
Knauf, De Pury and Romer interpreted Dip as a perfect verb in the Pa 'el
conjugation, yielding the expression, '[The King of Isjrael had advanced
52. nQbUHTIl*1^; see Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', pp. 91-92.
54. Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription', pp. 14-15.
55. Garbini, 'L'iscrizione aramaica di Tel Dan', p. 463. See also Hoftijzer and
Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-west Semitic Inscriptions, II, pp. 986-92.
56. Donner and Rollig, Kanaandische und Aramdische Inschriften, 43.12.
57. Compare the use of Dip in Biblical Hebrew, Pss. 74.2; 119.152.
into the land of my father'.58 Although D~fp is certainly attested as a verb

in ancient Northwest Semitic texts,59 the difficulty here is that the authors
have not restored the lamed over the lacuna towards the end of Line A4.
As such, they read n 3N as the last extant word of Line A4, rather than the
correct reading, ^H^K.
It is also unlikely that Dip should be read as a Pe 'al participle meaning
'chief. This nuance is attested in the Nabatean expression nnD~]>''Q~Tp
('the chiefs of its corporation').60 However, it is unlikely that the author is
here referring to himself as a 'chief since this would be a lesser title than
'king'. This raises the question of whether the author was indeed a king.
Cryer raised this issue with reference to the word n3^Q in Line 6 as
referring to the author's king.61 However, since this word should be read
as a reference to the author's own 'reign', it confirms the royalty of the
author. Therefore, 'chief is an unlikely interpretation of Dip.
Alternatively, I propose understanding Dip as an adjective meaning
'ancient'. In this way, it may be understood as attributive of a preceding
masculine singular noun. The first three letters of Line A3 may then be
understood as the end of the word ^81 [N]. This enigmatic word appears in
line 12 of the Mesha Stele in the context of booty captured by Mesha and
brought before his patron deity, Kemosh. In this respect, the b'K'lN (or the
nTn^fcON) appears to have had cultic significance. Ezekiel 43.15-16
describes an ^KIN or ^Kin as a type of four-horned altar par excellence,
or an essential component of such an altar.62 As such, an ^"IK is probably
an altar hearth which may have been portable.63 The fire of such a hearth
may have been symbolic of the deity's presence or attention, or may sim-
ply have been used to consume offerings made to the deity to whom the
hearth was dedicated. This permits us to understand Dip L7K""I[N] as a refer-
ence to an 'ancient altar hearth', mentioned in reference to sacred memorial
rites for the author's deceased father. This fits the immediately preceding
58. E.A. Knauf, A. De Pury and T.R. Romer,' *BaytDawTdou *BaytDod?\ BN12
(1994), pp. 60-69(62-63,68).
59. Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-west Semitic Inscriptions, II,
pp. 986-87.
60. Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-west Semitic Inscriptions, II,
p. 987.
61. Cryer, 'On the Recently-Discovered "House of David" Inscription', pp. 16,18.
62. The word is also used as a symbolic name for Jerusalem in Isa. 29.1, 2, 7.
63. This suggestion is based on Mesha's boast of having brought the rnn^KlN
('the hearth of its dwd'} from 'Ataroth to the shrine of Kemosh in Qiryat.
context very well. It also compares with Panammu I, lines 15-18 and 21 -22,
in which Panammu I entreats his successors to bless his memory and con-
dition in the afterlife when they sacrifice to Hadad. That is, the memory of
the deceased ancestor was to be blessed in cultic rites. The restoration of
['TOD] before D"7p>L?K"l[N] is far from certain. However, it would not be
inappropriate in the context.
[...^Nn^D't'N'pnND. Biran and Naveh understood p~)K as referring to
the land of the author's father.64 However, since we restored a lamedover
the lacuna in Line A4, this reading cannot stand. I propose connecting these
two words to the preceding clause. We must consider [.. .pn't'N as fragmen-
tary since vD^N is unattested as a genuine root in Northwest Semitic lan-
guages. Although Vl^K is attested as an orthographical variant of V*]1^
('to instruct, incite'),65 we cannot make good contextual sense of this root
here. In addition, we see the noun "'S^N in Line A7, making the interchange
ofpeh with beth highly improbable in the Tel Dan Inscription. If the clause
ended with p"IN3, we might expect to find this noun in the emphatic state
with the post-positional definite article (Kp"lKH). It may be argued that
since the definite article is unattested in the Tel Dan Inscription that we
cannot know with any certainty whether it was employed at all,66 or
whether the definite article was not marked with a prefixed definite article
as in Hebrew. It has been argued that Line B4 preserves a prefixed definite
article in the lexeme "f^QI"!.67 This, however, is highly unlikely since the
vocabulary clearly marks the language as Old Aramaic. Furthermore, the
script shows distinct Syrian influence, which would point to the definite
article being the post-positional 'aleph. Although this particular point is
not an all-encompassing argument, it certainly lends weight to the notion
that we are dealing here with a conventional dialect of Old Aramaic, simi-
lar to that in the Sefire Treaties. Therefore, the lack of a post-positional
definite article here most probably indicates that p"lKD is in construct with
the following word.
With this understanding, I have restored [.. .J^R to read ^WTn^N ('El-
Baytel'). No other meaningful alternative for understanding this lexeme
can be found. 'El-Baytel' is the hypostasis of the deity El, who came later
64. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', pp. 90, 92; idem, 'The Tel
Dan Inscription', pp. 13-15.
65. Panammu I, line 34. See also Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-
west Semitic Inscriptions, I, p. 64.
66. Compare the lack of a definite article in Sam'alian Aramaic.
to be known simply as 'Baytel' or 'Bethel'. The name El-Baytel specifi-

cally refers to the deity El in the form of a massebah or sacred Bethel-stone
at the city gate. In this form, El-Baytel watched over legal proceedings as
a patron of wisdom and justice.68 The compound structure of the name
compares with pDCfrm ('Ba'alshamayn'),69 ^crip^R ("Arq-Reshef ),70
*7R33"1 ('Rakib-El'),71 and most of the deities revered by the Judaean com-
munity of Elephantine^KSTnrD:? ("Anat-Bethel'), bwrnDtDR ('Ishum-
Bethel') and^n^Din ('Herem-Bethel').72
The word p"18 here must be understood in the sense of a plot of
'ground', as opposed to 'earth', or 'land' in reference to a state entity.73 It
refers to the ground on which an 'ancient altar hearth' (Dlpv?KH[K])
stands, the ground being the sacred property of the deity El-Baytel. We
may compare this with the biblical concept of 'holy ground' in which cer-
tain plots of ground were distinguished as special or consecrated to a
deity.74 This concept is also borne out in temple architecture in which the
temple sanctuary or main chamber (Hp) was a 'holy' place,75 and the
room in which the deity resided was the 'holy of holies' (D^^p Hp).76
Line A5
[...]^Qlp~nn"[lT>n]N. Biran and Naveh understood the first word in
Line A5 as the l.com.sg. independent personal pronoun, T. Originally,
before the discovery of Fragment B, the context was understood as a state-
ment concerning the author's humility, as in Zakkur I, line 2, n38n]I>^N
('I am a humble man').77 After the discovery of Fragment B, this was
altered to coincide with the arrangement of the fragments and the text pro-
posed by Biran and Naveh. The new context was understood to be the
68. This will be discussed further in Chapter 7.

69. E.g. Zakkur I, line 3, and many other texts.
70. Panammu I, line 11.
71. E.g. Kilamuwa Stele, line 16; Bar Rakib, line 5.
72. The deity ^WTD ('Bethel') is also revered by this community. However, Bethel
is a later development of the deity El-Baytel here in the Tel Dan Inscription. See
Chapter 7 for further discussion.
73. Compare usage in the contracts from Elephantine. See A. Cowley, Aramaic
Papyri of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), 6 (passim), 8
(passim), 9 (passim), 13.15.
74. Exod. 3.5; Josh. 5.15.
75. 1 Kgs 8.8; compare Exod. 38.24.
76. See 1 Kgs 6.16; compare Exod. 26.33.
author's legitimation of his own rulership through divine sanction,

n3K^niK-lin"[L713!T1 (' And Hadad made me king').78 This second recon-
struction is now discredited because it was motivated by the arrangement
of the fragments proposed by Biran and Naveh. This arrangement, we have
seen, is practically impossible. It also appears to have been motivated by
the syntactic disjunction inherent in understanding "]!T1 as an example of
waw consecutive. That is, H3K was separated completely from what fol-
lowed because the waw prefixed to "[IT was understood consecutively
rather than conjunctively. Thus, the reading was subconsciously tinged
with Hebraic hues.
Since it is unnecessary and unlikely that waw consecutive was a legiti-
mate construction in Aramaic, we should understand this line differently
from what Biran and Naveh propose. Thus, I view the waw prefixed to "f!T
as conjunctive and the verb itself as an habitual imperfect rather than a
consecutive imperfect. In this way, !"[]N may be seen as the 1 .com.sg. inde
pendent personal pronoun at the end of a clause, but still a part of the
author's same train of thought that runs through the following clause. Due
to the preceding context, the waw conjunction is understood with causative
force leading to a result clause. Thus, in lines A2-4,1 understand the author
to be remembering his deceased father's pious acts and wishing his father's
memory to be perpetuated through cultic ritual. Now, in Line A5,1 under-
stand the author to be boasting of his own piety as king and the subsequent
divine favour bestowed on him by Hadad.
Biran and Naveh's original suggestion that riDN formed the end of the
author's claim to humility is thus seen to be very plausible in the context.
The end of Line A4 may have been similar or identical to the statement in
Zakkur I, line 12: nDK-mu-CTK ('A humble man am I'). If the text pre-
serves some kind of parallelism between the author and his father, the
author may have claimed that he was a 'pious' man: n]N"!DrWK ('A
pious man am I'). Alternatively, the author may have claimed that he was
a righteous king, as in Yehawmilk, line 9: ^np1iJ"]^DO ('for he is a
righteous king'); or Yehimilk, lines 6-7: "ln~[L?Q>p~IH"[L?QI] ('for [he] is
a righteous king and an upright king').
The statement that 'Hadad would go before me' compares with the bib-
lical concept of the deity going before his people or his appointed leader
as a guide or a conqueror.79 Primarily, it has a military connotation and

79. Compare Exod. 13.21; 14.19; 23.23; 32.1; Num. 14.14;Deut. 1.30; 31.8; Judg.
4.14; 2 Sam. 5.24; 1 Chron. 14.15; Isa. 45.2; 52.12.
implies certain victory over the enemy. We may infer from this that the
author of the Tel Dan Stele considered himself favoured by Hadad to
whom he ascribed or dedicated his military exploits. The use of the habit-
ual imperfect ~[i~H implies that the author was a regular military cam-
paigner who, in his own estimation, enjoyed a good deal of success.

>
'D^Q''[QV]. Originally, Biran and Naveh interpreted "O^Q as 'my king',
inferring from it that the author was a vassal of a greater king.80 When
Fragment B was published, Biran and Naveh reinterpreted it as 'my king-
dom', a reading necessitated by their arrangement of the fragments. I pro-
pose understanding "^Q as the abstract noun meaning 'my reign', with a
l.com.sg. pronominal suffix. This fits the context in which the author
switches from discussing his deceased father to discussing his own exploits
as king. The noun "]^D meaning 'reign' or 'kingship' is attested in Sefire I
B.6 as a singular construct noun, and probably also in I C.6 with a 1 .com.sg.
pronominal suffix,81 as here in Line A6. It is also attested in Ugaritic and
Phoenician.82
The noun "^Q is probably connected to the idea in the preceding line
that Hadad would go before the author, bringing military success during
the days of the author's reign. Obviously, some text is missing between
the statement ^Q~lp~nn~[iT ('And Hadad would go before me') and the
phrase *lbtt^ [QV] ('the days of my reign'), but we may surmise that it has
to do with the success granted to the author by Hadad and perhaps other
gods. We may also expect that "'QV was immediately preceded by either
^D ('all') or the prefixed preposition n ('during').
[...]! ["[]^bv?npKl. This phrase continues the author's claim that Hadad
gave him military success by expounding on this idea. As such, ^PpK
should be understood with the same tense as "[IT in Line A5, that is, as an
habitual imperfect ('and I would slay'), as opposed to the consecutive im-
perfect ('and I slew') proposed by Biran and Naveh. Thus, the prefixed
waw should be understood as the copulative rather than the consecutive.
The retention of taw in ^HpK, as opposed to an assimilation to emphatic
80. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan', p. 92.
81. So Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 52. However, only the
initial mem is preserved. Gibson disagrees and reconstructs this word as [TO^p. See
Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II, pp. 32, 43.
82. See further Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, pp. 117-18.
teth, is a common phonetic feature of Old Aramaic,83 also observable in

the Sefire Treaties84 and the Sam'alian texts.85
The word following ^HpN! was misread by Biran and Naveh after the
small remnant of a waw at the end of the line on the edge of Fragment
A was mistaken for a nun?6 This yielded the erroneous reading p^Q
('kings'). Although this word makes contextual sense, it was also partly
shaped by the arrangement of the fragments proposed by Biran and Naveh.
Epigraphically, there would be an inordinate gap between the kaph and
nun. I propose that the waw at the edge of the fragment be interpreted as a
waw prefixed to the beginning of another word. This leaves room enough
for a kaph and a word divider after the restored lamed. Thus, our restored
text reads [.. .]1 ["j]i:>Z>l?npKl ('and I would slay [a?] king and...').
The fact that ["]]^Q is not in the emphatic state supports the idea that the
author is here making generalized claims about his military exploits. Also,
the very fact that [~[]^b is not preceded by the direct definite object marker,
!TK, is pivotal. There is more than sufficient clear evidence throughout the
inscription to suggest that, if ["|]^b was a direct definite object of the verb
^npKT, it would have carried the direct definite object marker, rTN. 87 Since
this is not the case, we must understand ["f]^b as an indefinite object
within the clause. This being the case, it makes it even harder for those
advocating the use of consecutive imperfects or preterites in the Tel Dan
Inscription, and in Old Aramaic at large, to make their assertions. The syn-
tax here severely undermines their case. We should bear in mind that the
word after ["f]^D begins with a waw. If we then take ^PpNl as a consecu-
tive imperfect or a preterite, as most do, then we must translate the phrase
here as 'and I killed a king'. Such usage of verbs makes for a very weak
tone of voice, which hardly befits the genre of the inscription as a royal
memorial stele. It is, therefore, clear that the use of preformative conjuga-
tions that allude to past events in the Tel Dan Inscription, and so also in
Old Aramaic, must be understood as habitual imperfects. In this way, the
wording and tone of the phrase here is seen to be assertive, as befits an
inscription of this genre.
83. See further, W.R. Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 BCE
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), pp. 44-45, 72 n. 168.
84. See Sefire I B.27; II B.8-9; III.l 1, 18, 21.
85. See Panammu II, line 8.
87. Compare the use of fTN in Lines A9-10 and Line B4.
Since ["]]^b is followed by a word prefixed with waw, I expect that the
author went on to explain exactly how he dealt with a defeated king, or
otherwise how he killed other persons, such as commanders, soldiers, or
even entire armies. Presumably, this explanation made reference to the
defeat and plunder of the defeated king's army. Line A7 supports this
understanding. The author thus portrays himself as a fearsome warrior
before whom no one could stand. Not even kings could endure encounters
with him for he was a slayer of kings and an annihilator of armies.
Line A6 (end) and Line A 7

ETISKS^NIODp^B^N]. This line continues the author's generalized claim
of his military success, granted to him by Hadad. The desire for detail
originally led Biran and Naveh to understand ''S^Nl as a dual construct
noun ('two thousand').88 This was revised with the publication of Frag-
ment B to an indefinite plural construct ('thousands of). Given the gener-
alizing tendency of the author at this point, I also propose interpreting
"l*b$'\ as an indefinite plural. Muraoka's observation that early Aramaic
inscriptions use cyphers to indicate numerals rather than actual lexemes89
is not applicable to the Tel Dan Inscription since it is evident from Lines
B5 and B6 that numerals were spelled out with words rather than cyphers
in the Tel Dan Inscription. The dual is also not usually employed where
there would be ambiguity. Rather, numerals are employed, or else the dual
is used of items occurring unambiguously in natural pairs or in clear
contrast.90 These facts, along with the author's literary style, lead me to
interpret >'SL?K1 as an indefinite plural noun in the construct state.
Thus, the author is seen here to be making a generalized boast about the
number of different armed units he defeated, destroyed, or captured during
his reign. Alternatively, the author could be boasting here about the vast-
ness of his own armed force. The former is most likely the case since it
was customary style for a monarch to play up the strength of his enemy in
order to enhance his own prestige as a result of victory. The previous gen-
eralization about killing kings also makes it likely that the references to
armed units here are those of an enemy. The restoration of'S^l before
lOp] ('chariots') is based on a parallelism with the phrase HS<12L?K1
('and thousands of horsemen').

89. Muraoka, 'Linguistic Notes', pp. 20-21.
90. Halpern, 'The Stela from Dan', p. 65.
Line A 7 (end) and Line A8

^tO^T ~[L?Q[TnN1iT]. At this point, the author's generalized claims about
his military success become more specific with a reference to the king
of Israel. Since Hebrew, not Aramaic, was the language of Israel, this can
hardly be a reference to the author himself being the king of Israel.91
Rather, this reference must be understood as applying to the author's
enemy. Since the following word is a verb prefixed with wow, the words
b^lt^'I^D must form the end of a clause. Therefore, I presume that the
author's specific claims of military success began in the now non-extant
portions of Line A7, perhaps with an expression stating that he went to
war against the 'king of Israel'. Thus, ^KHET ~[L?Q would be seen as the in-
direct object of the clause. Alternatively, the 'king of Israel' may have been
labelled as the belligerent party through a statement that the king of Israel
went to war against the author. This would see L?Kn^"jL?Q as the subject
of the clause. In either possibility, the king of Israel was probably expressly
named at the end of Line A7 since his successor seems to be expressly
named in Line Al 1-12. For reasons pertaining to historical reconstruction,
I have restored the Israelite king's name here as [TllNliT] ('Jehoahaz').92
[nnj^Hpl. Although the line breaks off after the lamed, the context
allows us to restore a taw after it to maintain the author's speech in the
first person. The restoration of a heh as a 3.masc.sg. object suffix is based
on an understanding that the aforementioned 'king of Israel' is the object
of the verb ^np. Once again, we see the retention of taw rather than an
assimilation to emphatic teth.
This verb is very important for understanding the use of verbs in the
entire inscription, as well as disproving the use of waw consecutive in
Aramaic. The choice of an afformative verbal conjugation here signifies a
past tense meaning. The fact that a preformative verbal conjugation was
not chosen to convey this tense supports the case that these conjugations in
the rest of the inscription are not to be considered as consecutive imper-
fects. Rather, the conveying of past tense meaning is fulfilled by the use of
afformative verbal forms, whether the action is viewed perfectly, pluper-
fectly or consecutively. This is the normal convention in Aramaic and
91. The Samaria Ostraca, dated to just after the Tel Dan Inscription, prove that
Hebrew was the language of Israel at this time.
92. The reasoning behind this restoration will be discussed in the following chapter,
since it is based primarily on historical considerations rather than textual or epigraphic
reasons.
should, therefore, be applied here. We must translate this verb, then, with
past-tense meaning as 'and [I] killed [him]\
Line A9
TnrrD. Without doubt, Line A9 has caused the greatest controversy aris-
ing from the Tel Dan Inscription. From Biran and Naveh's initial publica-
tion of Fragment A, debate has raged over the interpretation of the lexeme
Tnrf 3. Biran and Naveh first posited the theory that it should be inter-
preted as 'House of David', referring to 'the dynastic name of the kingdom
of Judah'.93 A parallel was drawn to the Assyrian designations of various
small states in the Levant, such as BitHumri ('House of Omri' = Israel),
BitAgusi ('House of Agusi' = Arpad) and Bit Haza 'Hi ('House of HazaeP
= Aram-Damascus). These designations were styled after the names of
prominent rulers within these states, rather than the actual name of the
state. That is, certain states came to be known after the name of a major
dynasty. This line of interpretation was followed numerous scholars, such
as Ahituv,94 Kallai,95 Andersen,96 Kitchen,97 Lemaire,98 Noll,99 Puech,100
Rainey,101 Rendsburg,102 Schniedewind,103 Tropper,104 Wesselius,105 and
93. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', pp. 93, 95-96.
94. S. Ahituv, 'Suzerain or Vassal? Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel
Dan', IEJ43 (1993), pp. 246-47.
95. Z. Kallai, 'The King of Israel and the House of David', 7E/43 (1993), p. 248.
96. F.I. Andersen, 'I Have Called You By Name...', BH 34 (1998), pp. 37-52
(44-45).
97. K.A. Kitchen, 'A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE,
and Deity *Dod as Dead as the Dodo?', JSOT16 (1997), pp. 29-44 (38-39).
98. A. Lemaire,' "House of David" Restored'; idem, 'The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece
of Royal Historiography', JSOT81 (1998), pp. 3-14.
99. Noll, 'The God Who is Among the Danites'.
100. Puech, 'La Stele Arameene de Dan'.
101. A. Rainey, 'The "House of David" and the House of the Deconstructionists',
BARev 20.6(1994), p. 41.
102. G.A. Rendsburg, 'On the Writing TnfTD in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel
Dan', IEJ45 (1995), pp. 22-25.
103. Schniedewind, 'Tel Dan Stela'.
104. Tropper, 'Eine altaramaische Steleninschrift aus Dan'; idem, 'Palaographische
und linguistische Anmerkungen'.
105. J.W. Wesselius, 'De eerste koningsinscriptie uit het oude Israel: Een nieuwe
visie op de Tel Dan-inscriptie', NTT53 (1999), pp. 177-90,243, translated into English
as 'The First Royal Inscription from Ancient Israel: The Tel Dan Inscription Recon-
sidered', SJOT 13 (1999), pp. 163-86. A response was offered by B. Becking, 'Did
Jehu Write the Tel Dan Inscription?', SJOT 13 (1999), pp. 187-201.
Yamada.106 On the other hand, there were those scholars who insisted that
TnJTn could not be interpreted as 'House of David', such as Cryer,107
Davies,108 Knauf, De Pury and Romer,109 Lehmann and Reichel,110
Lemche111 and Thompson.112 It is obvious that this conundrum has yet to
be resolved.
The crux for interpreting the lexeme TITTD lies in the fact that there is
no word divider between the seeming two parts, JT3 and 111. This sug-
gests that the lexeme incorporates only one idea rather than two separate
ideas, and is to be understood as a single concept or entity. This is con-
firmed by the fact that elsewhere in the Tel Dan Inscription, construct
expressions are used to denote two or more concepts that are both indi-
vidually exclusive, yet connected genitivally in the given context. As a
result, a word divider is used to demarcate the separate parts of a construct
expression. For example, in Line A4 we see the construct expression, p"IN3
[^Nflpn^K* ('on ground of El-Baytel'). Similarly, in Line A8 we see the
expression, ^KIET "]L?Q ('the king of Israel'). In Line A7, we also have the
expression, cnB^BvNl ('and thousands of horsemen').113 We even see a
surplus use of word dividers in Line Al 0 where a noun is demarcated from
a pronominal suffix in the expression D!>p"IK ('their land').114 Thus, there
can be no doubt that the lexeme TnjT3 denotes one idea rather than two
106. Yamada, 'AramIsrael Relations'.

107. Cryer, 'On the Recently-Discovered "House of David" Inscription'; idem, 'A
"Betdawd" Miscellany: Dwd, Dwd' or Dwdh?', SJQT9 (1995), pp. 52-58; idem, 'King
Hadad'; idem, 'Of Epistemology'.
108. P.R. Davies,' "House of David" Built on Sand: The Sins of the Biblical Maxi-
mizers', BARev 20.4 (1994), pp. 54-55; 'BYTDWD and SWKTDWYD: A Comparison',
JSOT 64 (1994), pp. 23-24.
109. Knauf, De Pury and Romer, ' *BaytDawTd ou *BaytDod?\
110. R.G. Lehmann and M. Reichel, 'Doo und ASIMA in Tell Dan', BN11 (1995),
pp. 29-31.
111. N.P. Lemche, 'Bemerkungen iiber einen Paradigmenwechsel aus Anlass einer
neuentdecken Inschrift', in M. Weippert and S. Timm (eds.), Meilenstein. Festgabefur
HerbertDonner zum 16Februar 1995 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1995), pp. 99-
108; Lemche and Thompson, 'Did Biran Kill David?'.
112. Thompson, 'Dissonance and Disconnections'; Lemche and Thompson, 'Did
Biran Kill David?'.
113. This expression is presumably paralleled by the expression HD'VSbN ('thou-
sands of chariots') in Line A6-7.
114. This separation of long suffixes is common both Old Aramaic (compare Zakkur
A.9, Dn-rmnai; Bar Rakib B.7, an-HED]) and Moabite (cf. Mesha Stele, line 18:
DnonoNi).
separate ideas. Therefore, we must look to an interpretation that under-

stands "Tnrrn as one essential entity. Unfortunately, none of the possible
interpretations is completely devoid of problems.
One of the more interesting hypotheses has been put forth by the Ger-
man scholars, Lehmann and Reichel.115 With reference to the difficult text
of Amos 8.14, they have supposed inn1'!] to be a reference to a deity
'Dawd' or 'Dod'. This understanding is achieved through a long-proposed
amendment of Amos 8.14 in order to read QE>~~1K3 ~[~n TP ('by the life
of your Dod, O Beersheba') rather than the Masoretic reading, ~[~n TP
jnET-IKn ('by the life of the Way of Beersheba').116 By doing this, Leh-
mann and Reichel parallel the 'Dod of Beersheba' with the 'Ashima of
Samaria' and the god of Dan also mentioned in Amos 8.14. A similar
connection is then read into Line A9 whereby the lexeme DW1, which
occurs after TITTO, is read as a reference to the goddess Ashima. Thus,
Lehmann and Reichel here see a deity, Dod, in the guise of 'BaytDod',
coupled with the deity Ashima, in the guise of 'Ashim', just as in Amos
8.14. Taking this understanding and transplanting it into the reading pro-
posed by Knauf, De Pury and Romer,117 they translate Line A9 as '[I
offered libatjion to BaytDod and Ashim'. In this way, Lehmann and
Reichel compose the deity's name 'BaytDod' in the same way as other
divine names known from Elephantine, such as Ishum-Bethel.118
Attractive as this solution may sound, there are insurmountable difficul-
ties precluding it. First, Lehmann and Reichel's interpretation necessitates
a deity named 'Dod' to have been worshipped in the Levant during Iron II.
Yet, it is highly unlikely that an independent deity named 'Dawd', 'Dod',
or even 'BaytDod' was revered in the ancient Levant. A deity named
'Wadd' ('Love') was worshipped in the central regions of Arabia before
the advent of Islam,119 but a connection with an older Levantine deity
named 'Dod' or 'Dawd' cannot be made. Rather, as Barstad and Becking
115. Lehmann and Reichel, 'DOD und ASIMA in Tell Dan'.

116. This amendment was proposed as far back as 1897 by Hugo Winckler in Alt-
orientalische Forschungen (3 vols.; Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten
Orients, 11; Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1897), I, pp. 194-95.
117. Knauf, De Pury and Romer,' *BaytDawTd ou *BaytDod?\ p. 68.
118. They also propose somewhat of a parallel between the resulting connection of
Dod and Ashima that this reading achieves, with the Ugaritic deity Kotar-wa-Hasis
(see Lehmann and Reichel, 'Doo und ASIMA in Tell Dan', p. 31). This, however, is a
highly questionable parallel.
p. 494.
have shown, 111 is almost certainly to be regarded as a divine epithet

applied to Yahweh and perhaps other deities known throughout the
Levant,120 and probably northern Arabia also.121 Thus, if Lehmann and
Reichel's theory is to have any applicability, 'Dod' must be understood as
a divine epithet rather than an actual divine name.
Nevertheless, there is no way this theory accounts for how the epithet
(as opposed to the actual name) of an otherwise anonymous deity evolved
from Tn into the form inn''!}. In the case of the deity El-Baytel there is a
clear evolution of the name, which can be traced through a connection
with sacred Bethel-stones.122 No such derivation can be traced for THfTD.
So, although we may understand an epithet 111 as 'beloved', we are at a
loss to explain the form "TUfTD. Lehmann and Reichel no doubt identified
this problem and proposed the possibility that TnJTD be interpreted as a
kind of cultic object. However, this destroys the parallel with the deity
Ashim(a) connected to 11 "IPT3 with a waw conjunction.
Furthermore, the translation of Lehmann and Reichel, as well as that of
Knauf, De Pury and Romer,123 is discredited on numerous grammatical
and syntactical grounds. First, these scholars suppose the use of consecu-
tive imperfects in Aramaic. In order to maintain their reading, they inter-
pret the single kaph at the beginning of Line A9 as the final letter of the
word "]DN1 ('and I made libation'). However, consecutive imperfects are
highly unlikely in Aramaic. Rather, if the lexeme immediately preceding
TnJTD was to be read as a verb with past tense, we would expect an
afformative verbal form, fODUl, and hence a taw rather than a kaph at the
beginning of Line A9. Otherwise, if this word were indeed a preformative
verbal conjugation, we would have to interpret it as an habitual imperfect
('and I would make libation'). However, even this suggestion runs aground
because the object of this verb would be the item poured out as a libation.
With the given syntax, we would have to interpret 'BaytDod' as the object
120. H.M. Barstad and B. Becking, 'Does the Stele from Tel-Dan Refer to a Deity
Dod?', 57V77 (1995), pp. 5-12.
121. Certain names in Ancient Arabic inscriptions from c. 500 BCE contain the the-
ophoric elements 'Dad' and 'Dadat'. These are most likely to be refer epithets for other
deities rather than deities in their own right. See Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary of
the North-west Semitic Inscriptions, I, p. 493.
122. See Chapter 7 for further discussion of this evolution.
123. Knauf, De Pury and Romer, in distinction to Lehman and Reichel, do not
propose understanding the lexeme D27N1 as a reference to the deity Ashim(a). Rather,
Knauf, De Pury and Romer interpret this word as a consecutive imperfect meaning,
'and I setup'.
of the verb. That is, the syntax would require 'BaytDod' to be the item
poured out as a libation, rather than the indirect object to whom the
libation was made, or the item on or inside which the libation was made.
The only way this interpretation can be avoided is to supply a preposition
immediately before "inn"13. The prefixed preposition ^ is needed to under-
stand 'BaytDod' as the deity to whom libation was made. Alternatively,
the prefixed preposition H is required to understand 'BaytDod' as a temple
or shrine at which the libation was made. Since neither of these preposi-
tions is present in the text, it is only with a great stretch of normal gram-
matical principles that we can avoid considering TnJT3 as the direct
object rather than the indirect object of a preceding verb. Even still, if we
interpret TOfTD as a cultic object of some sort, as Lehmann and Reichel
do, the waw conjunction prefixed to DCft* ('Ashim') further obfuscates the
syntax so that deriving a meaningful sense from the text is elusive. It is
abundantly clear, then, that the suggestions of Lehmann and Reichel, as
well as those of Knauf, De Pury and Romer, have too many holes in them
to be considered sustainable theories in regards to the word TITrfD.
The suggestion that TnJTD be translated as 'House of David' is also
fraught with difficulties. The fact that the words JTD and 111 have been
combined into one composite lexeme means that the term was most prob-
ably not understood as a construct expression, 'House of David'. That is,
the author was certainly not referring to a Davidic dynasty that ruled the
small ancient state of Judah. The orthography of the text indicates that such
an expression would most certainly have been rendered by two separate
words, TnJT3. As such, the translation 'House of David' is impossible.
Almost as a concession to this theory, however, is the fact that TnJTD
might refer to an actual state entity. We may consider TITTD as a singular
proper noun to be rendered 'Bayt-Dawid'. In this regard, the author would
be referring to the name of a small state. Although such a state would have
received its name from a prominent dynasty that ruled it, the label inn1'3
would not refer to the dynasty itself, but to the actual country ruled by that
dynasty. That is, Tnff H could be interpreted as a political term for a state
entity. This is how such state labels of the type '5ff-PN' are used in Assyr-
ian texts. Such usage is to be clearly distinguished from the proposal that
TnrTD be translated as a dynastic name, 'House of David'. Nevertheless,
this hypothesis by default incorporates an understanding that a 'House of
David' at one time ruled a state entity.
However, the lexeme Tnmi may just as reasonably be understood to
refer to a geographical entity, rather than a political entity. That is, TniTH
can be understood as a toponym referring to a town or district. In this way,

the name would compare with composite toponyms such as W2V2 JTD
('Beth Shemesh'), urb JTD ('Beth Lehem'), ]K2? JT2 ('Beth She'an'), rm
bto ('Bethel'), pin PPD ('Beth Horon'), pi PPD ('Beth Dagon'), nm mi
('Beth Rehob'), ratflD PPD ('Beth Ma'akah'), and numerous others. It has
been suggested by Thompson that within this interpretation, the element
TO is the epithet of a deity, presumably Yahweh, meaning 'Beloved'.124
This is certainly more plausible than the suggestion that 'Dawd' or 'Dod'
was an independent Levantine deity.
There are some minor difficulties with these two hypotheses, though.
First, these composite names for either a state or a toponym are almost
always written as two distinct lexemes. Such is the case in Aramaic,
Hebrew and Moabite. There are, however, two known exceptions that
occur, both of them with toponyms. The first is on Ostracon B from Tell
Qasile which documents an import of 30 shekels of Ophir gold to 'Beth-
Horon', which is written as a single lexeme, j"inmi.125 The second excep-
tion is a reference to a certain 'Bethel' of unknown location in Sefire I
A.34, which is also transcribed as one word, ^KITH Both these references
are dated to the eighth century BCE. Thus, although most composite titles
are written as two distinct words, there is certainly scope for seeing a topo-
nym transcribed as a single lexeme.
The second difficulty is that no town or district by the name TnrTQ is
known to us from the ancient record. This latter point, of course, does not
mean that such a place did not exist in antiquity. To claim that no such
place could have existed is to argue from silence. However, the lack of
such a toponym in the ancient record does not inspire great confidence that
such a place did in fact exist.
Cryer called attention to an honorific stone inscription from Palmyra,126
in which the expression KTH r\2 appears.127 In the context, it refers to
someone who was NTH fin by ('over the cookhouse'). The expression
may be rendered literally as 'the house of the cooking pot'. Although this
124. T.L. Thompson, '"House of David": An Eponymic Referent to Yahweh as

Godfather', SJOT9 (1995), pp. 59-74 (59-61). Compare A.M. Van Zijl, The Moabites
(Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1960), p. 190.
125. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II, pp. 15-17.
126. Cryer, 'A "Betdawd" Miscellany', p. 54.
127. H. Ingholt, 'Un Nouveau thiase a Palmyre', Syria 1 (1926), pp. 128-41 (129);
D.R. Killers and E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1996), 2743.
would present a parallel with the lexeme Tnmi in the Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion, we again encounter the problem of word division, for the Palmyrene
expression is a construct expression composed of two distinct words. We
might also wonder what a reference to a 'cookhouse' in the Tel Dan In-
scription would entail for both the context and general understanding of
the inscription.
Inevitably, we must interpret "PUT 13 in a manner that is meaningful to
the immediate context within the inscription. Thus, meaningful translation
and interpretation of the lines surrounding Line A9 is the best approach to
understanding the term TnrTQ in the Tel Dan Inscription. Lines A7-8, as
discussed above, refer to the author's encounter with the king of Israel,
from whom he appears to have struck down or captured vast numbers of
military units. I presume that the author killed the king of Israel (Line A8).
In Line A10, after the reference to TnrTQ, the author refers to D!>p~lK
('their land'). Presumably, one of the entities entailed in the S.masc.pl.
pronoun DH is the king of Israel. However, since the pronoun is plural, the
author obviously envisages more than just the king of Israel here.
This gives us two options for understanding this plural pronoun. First,
the author may have had in mind both the king of Israel and his armies,
which the author boasts of having defeated or captured. Thus, 'their land'
may refer to the land of the king of Israel and his armies. It is question-
able, however, whether a king's armies would have been associated with
him in the expression, 'their land', particularly since armies were tradi-
tionally seen as belonging to the king and, therefore, on a par with the land
rather than with the king.128 This leads us to the second, more likely
optionnamely, that the author here envisaged at least one other notable
personage with comparable status to the king of Israel. That is, at least one
other monarch was associated with the king of Israel as the author's
enemy, and hence the author's usage of the S.masc.pl. independent per-
sonal pronoun, DH in Line A10.
Given that the reference to "TlinTl appears in the line before this pro-
noun, we may understand THfTD as the name of a state or city whose
leader was associated with the king of Israel. The content of the Tel Dan
Inscription, corroborated with other sources, leads us to conclude that the
name TnjTD was the Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew "111 "I1117 ('City of
David' or "Ir-Dawid'). That is, "inrvn is best understood as a reference
128. E.g. Shalmaneser Ill's account of the Battle of Qarqar (c. 853 BCE) in which the
enemy units listed as enemies belong to the respective enemy kings. See ANET, pp.
278-80.
to Jerusalem. We should, therefore, render ~n"HT3 in English as 'Bayt-

Dawid', considering it a composite toponym transcribed as a single
lexeme. We should then interpret the single kaph at the beginning of Line
A9 as the last letter of the construct noun, ~f [^D] ('[kin]g of). This implies
that at the time the Tel Dan Inscription was written, Jerusalem was a city-
state rather than the capital of a much wider regional state. These issues
will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7.
We may rightfully term this usage of TOfTD eponymous. Similar
toponyms appear in the biblical literature in which a region is associated
with one particular personage. We find various regions referred to by
eponymous titles, understood as references to particular personages, such
as spV fTO ('House of Joseph'),129 "1DCX2T rrn ('House of Issachar'),130
nilH" n-n ('House of Judah'),131 rrn ('House of Esau'),132 and numer
ous others. Contrary to Rendsburg's assertions,133 these particular exam-
ples are not the result of Aramaic influence upon Judaean scribal schools,
but simply labels carrying connotations of kinship or ethnicity. However,
no such connotations are embedded in the label TUfTD of the Tel Dan
Inscription.134 Rather, TnJTD is closer in nuance to the biblical term TU
"in ('City of David' or "Ir-Dawid'),135 and the Assyrian term mat Humri
('land of Omri' or 'Omri-land').136
This latter term should be clearly distinguished from the term Bit Humri
('House of Omri'), which is a reference to a political state or dynasty
rather than a toponym.137 This distinction is highlighted by the fact that in
Assyrian texts, no person is ever termed the king of a particular dynasty.138
That is, there is no formula sar Bit-PN. Rather, such a concept was con-
veyed by the formula PN] marPN2. Thus, in the various texts dating to the
reign of Shalmaneser III, Jehu of Israel is referred to as laua mar Humri
129. IKgs 11.28.

130. 1 Kgs 15.27.
131. E.g. 2 Sam. 2.4, 7, 10-11.
132. Obad. 18.
133. Rendsburg, 'On the Writing TniT3', pp. 23-24.
134. This will be discussed further in Chapter 7.
135. E.g. 2 Sam. 5.7.
136. E.g. Nimrud Slab, Line 12.
137. Kitchen appears to have missed the distinction between the use of state or
dynastic titles and toponyms of these types. As a result, his treatment of the term
"Tnrrn is slightly inaccurate. See Kitchen, 'A Possible Mention', pp. 38-39.
138. This fact was ably noted in Knauf, De Pury and Romer, ^BaytDawTd ou
*BaytDod?\ p. 66.
(literally, 'Jehu son of Omri').139 The connotation, however, is 'Jehu the

Omrite'. What this shows is that it is extremely unlikely that we have in
the Tel Dan Inscription an expression TnrT!>~[[bQ] where Tnmi refers
to a dynasty. 14 Rather, ~IT~imi must be a toponym. Thus, we can compare
the expression TnrTD""|[l?D] in the Tel Dan Inscription to the expression
^-JTn f bft in Josh. 12.16.
In claiming this interpretation for TnrTO, however, there are a number
of caveats to bear in mind. First, there is the already mentioned difficulty
of interpreting "Tnmi as a toponym. We expect it to have been tran-
scribed as two separate words, rather than a single composite word.
However, the evidence from Tell Qasile and Sefire demonstrates the rare
but, nonetheless, attested practise of transcribing composite toponyms as a
single lexeme. Second, the 3.masc.pl. pronoun, DPI, may well refer only to
the king of Israel and his armies as mentioned above. Although there are
questions about this possibility, we cannot simply discount it. Such an
interpretation, though, leaves the lexeme TUfTD without interpretation.
Yet, neither does this suggestion preclude Tnmi from being interpreted
as a name for a city (or a state), for the pronoun DPI in Line A10 might
refer to the king of Israel and his armies without including a monarch of
'Bayt-Dawid' in its scope.
Although we cannot be perfectly certain that ""[TUTU was intended as a
reference to Jerusalem during a time when the city was called Til TU, we
can be confident that "Tnmi was indeed a toponym. The flow of the
immediately surrounding context makes the proposed interpretation of
TUfTD as a reference to Jerusalem most likely. However, since that con-
text is still quite fragmentary, there will be a speck of doubt pending
further recovery of other fragments. What is certain from the context is
that the author is recounting a conflict in which the king of Israel played a
role. The language of chariots, horsemen (Lines A7-8) and siege (Line
Al 3) is undoubtedly that of war. The reference to the king of Israel is also
unquestionable. It is clear that at least one other king was mentioned along-
side the king of Israel. The most logical solution to this is to understand
the second king as the ruler of a place called TOfTO. As mentioned above,
the context of the Tel Dan Inscription and other corroborated sources show
us that Jerusalem is by far the most likely candidate for this place.141
139. E.g. on the Black Obelisk.

140. Although this argument is based on Assyrian idiom, it is likely that the point
carries over to Northwest Semitic dialects.
141. See the next chapter for a fuller discussion.
I cannot stress enough that TnrTO should be regarded as a toponym and

not a reference to a Davidic dynasty. Although this label may have had an
etymology going back to a Davidic dynasty, this is not how the author of
the Tel Dan Inscription used it. Rather, the author was here referring to a
geographical entity. My contention is that this geographical entity was
Jerusalem. In the next chapter, this will be considered in more detail.
D&K1. This was mistakenly understood by Biran and Naveh as a consecu-
tive imperfect meaning, 'and I put'142 or 'and I set'.143 Rather, we should
identify here the common noun for 'name' in Old Aramaic, prefixed with a
waw conjunction to start a new clause. The prothetic 'aleph is a normal,
though not universal feature, of this noun in Old Aramaic. It is well at-
tested in the Sefire Treaties144 and Panammu I,145 though not in Zakkur.146
The suggestion of Lehmann and Reichel, mentioned above, was to under-
stand this as the name of the deity Ashim(a).147 However, it was demon-
strated that this was not a plausible theory on numerous grounds. Since
Line A9 breaks off immediately after this word, it is impossible to specify
the contents of this new clause. Since the author claims, in Line A8, to
have killed the king of Israel, after mentioning him and his force, this here
may be a reference to how the author dealt with the King of Bayt-Dawid
by wiping out his name. This, however, is only speculation.

[ . . . ]hDi~[ p"lN"fT [K]. The first two letters on Line A10 are best understood
as the final part of the accusative article, JT [8].148 The 'aleph is restored in
accordance with Old Aramaic. The oddity here is that the pronominal
suffix, Di~J, has been separated from its relevant noun, p"lK, by a word
divider. This seeming overuse of word division led Biran and Naveh to
mention the possibility of a reference here to 'the land of Ham'.149 The
only time such a land is ever mentioned in the ancient record is in Gen.

144. See Sefire I C.25; II A.[4]; II B.7. This form with prothetic 'aleph is the sole
form employed in the Sefire Treaties. See further Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions
of Sefire, pp. 120, 129.
145. Panammu I, lines 16, 21.
146. Zakkur C.2 uses the form DIZ).
147. Lehmann and Reichel, 'Doo und ASIMA in Tell Dan'.
148. Compare Zakkur B.5, 15, 16; Sefire I B.32; II B.8; II C.5 (bis.), 14; III.[11].
14.5. There are, however, numerous difficulties associated with this pas-
sage. It is far better to compare the separation of the pronominal suffix DH
here in Line A10 with the same phenomenon in other Northwest Semitic
inscriptions. Line 18 of the Mesha Stele has the expression DnoriDNl
('and I dragged them'), Zakkur A.9 contains the expression Dnm3nQl
('and their armies'), while Bar Rakib B.7 has the expression, D!"[ncn2
('their souls'). Thus, this is not an isolated instance of separating a long
pronominal suffix from its noun. From the known occurrences, it may be
that this feature is reserved for feminine nouns with plural pronominal
suffixes.
The scope of DPI here should include the king of Israel, and presumably
also the king of Bayt-Dawid. If the king of Bayt-Dawid is indeed included
in the scope of DI~I, it is interesting that the author uses only a singular
noun, plK ('land') in mentioning their territory. This may present a case
for understanding the scope of Dil as including only the king of Israel and
his military units. More probably, the author simply regarded the territo-
ries belonging to Israel and Bayt-Dawid as a single geographic unit and
referred to them here as a single terrain rather than in the context of sepa-
rate states or countries. This suggests that Israel and Bayt-Dawid were
neighbours in the highlands of Palestine. The reference to a single terrain
is all the more understandable since there are no outstanding natural bor-
ders to demarcate different states within the highlands of Palestine south
of the Jezreel Valley. The terrain is fluidly composed of hills and valleys
from the edge of the Jezreel southward to the Negev. We may parallel
such geographic consociation with the Assyrian term for all the states west
of the Euphrates, Amurru.150
The preservation of a lamed at the extant end of Line A10 leads me to
believe the author was here claiming to have laid waste the land belonging
to the king of Israel and the king of Bayt-Dawid by turning their land 'to'
ruin. Biran and Naveh suggested that the word after the lamed here may
have been ]Q5T ('desolation').151 This word is employed in Sefire I A.32
in a curse formula. The suggestion is certainly plausible, but is still only
speculation.
Line All
jinK. This adjective, 'another', is most probably used attributively of a
preceding singular masculine noun written at the end of Line A10, but
150. This term is used by Adad-Nirari III; see ANET, p. 281.

151. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 93, esp. n. 20.
which is no longer extant. A substantive usage, however, cannot be ruled

out. Since Fragment A grows considerably narrow in the last few lines, the
exact context of this adjective is a matter of guesswork. The words HHkQ
Î> ('siege against') in Line A13 clearly show that the author is still
engaged in recounting armed encounters, but this does not aid us in
understanding the precise context of Line A l l . The suggestion of Biran
andNaveh that the phrase might have been ]~in^["f^Q] ('another king')152
is certainly plausible in the light of Line A12, which appears to introduce a
new king of Israel. There is, however, no way of confirming this in the
shrinking context. The same may be said for their other suggestion that
this may have been a reference to 'another battle'.
[.. .?]nVl. The waw prefixed to this word introduces a new clause. Since
the line breaks off so abruptly, however, we can only speculate as to what
the whole word originally was. The lamed and heh are well preserved. Only
a small fraction of the following letter is preserved. It was observed during
epigraphical analysis that this letter can only be one of three letters,
namely nun,peh or qoph. If we restore this letter to a nun, we may derive
]?h, understood either as the adversative coordinate conjunction 'how-
ever', or as the subordinate conjunction 'except'. This, though, is unlikely
to have been prefixed with another conjunction. Since none of the three
possible letters form a verbal root with lamed and heh, we may reasonably
deduce that the lamed is a prefixed preposition. This means that the word
following could be either a noun or, more probably, an infinitive. This
being the case, we may suggest the words DDilVl ('and to remove') and
"fSH^l ('and to overturn') as possibilities. Alternatively, we may see the
heh as indicative of the Haph 'el conjugation. Thus, we may also suggest
pT3nl7l ('and to cause harm'), nmnVl ('and to bring down'), pSDHÎ ('and
to bring out'), IpSH^T ('and to give command of), flOpilbl ('and to raise/
establish'), and many others as suitable restorations. The numerous possi-
bilities, though, serve to demonstrate that we cannot be sure what this
word actually was.
Line All (end) and Line Al2

[...^Nn]CT"17I>"[l?[&"^'li"r]. The presence of the preposition Û means
that the preceding word is most probably a verb ('he reigned') rather than
a noun ('king'). Although the preposition is the only complete word on
this line, the other two words are easily restored because of the content in
other lines. It is possible to translate [b^~l]lzrL?i7"]b[Q] as '[was k]ing

over Is[rael]', but this is less natural than reading '[r]eigned over Is[rael]',
which is to be preferred.
Unfortunately, the subject of the verb "[^[Q] is no longer extant, though
it was presumably named at the end of Line A l l . What is clear, however,
is that if "f?[ft] is a verbal form, then the author cannot be the subject, for
we would expect a taw to have been suffixed to the verb to indicate the
first person. The content of the inscription also precludes the author from
being the king of Israel.153 Thus, we should regard ~j^[Q] as a verb in the
third person, which forms part of a statement mentioning a new king of
Israel who presumably succeeded the king whom the author had killed.
The name of this new Israelite king has been reconstructed as [2)81 IT] on
historical grounds.154
A further point of interest is that the subject of the verb, "f?[!2], actually
precedes the verb. This may have been done to emphasize the name of the
new Israelite king. Alternatively, the syntax might indicate that ~[^[Q] is to
be regarded as a participle. The same word order appears in the Mesha
Stele, lines 4-5, with the phrase ^^~l^~fiT'D''"lD^. However, there also,
there is some ambiguity as to whether "pE is a verbal form or a noun.
Line A12 (end) and Line Al3

[]"lDC?-]bl?-liD[-nD27]. Since the noun HiJft ('siege') is followed by the
preposition Û ('against'), I presume it was preceded by a form of the verb
D^ ('to place') or KPIQ ('to force'), depending on the indirect object that
was besieged. Both these verbs are used with the preposition Û to express
the idea of laying a siege, the former to express siege against a location,155
and the latter to express siege against a person.156 Unfortunately, the
153. Contra J.W. Wesselius, who regards Jehu, king of Israel (841-814 BCE), as the
author of the inscription. There are, however, innumerable problems with this theory,
such as the choice of Aramaic for the inscription rather than Hebrew, the seemingly
wavering perspectives Jehu had of himself within the one inscription, the fact that the
theory depends on the erroneous arrangement of the fragments, and the lack of certain
epigraphical and archaeological considerations. See Wesselius, 'De eerste konings-
inscriptie uit het oude Israel' (or the English translation, 'The First Royal Inscription
from Ancient Israel').
154. Discussion of these historical considerations is reserved for the following
chapter.
155. Compare Zakkur A.9: "pm^JJ"lUI3-L?^3l7DL?D1iat01 ('and all these kings
laid siege to Hadrakh').
156. Compare Zakkur A. 15:1iIQ^llL'i:-lnQ'1TL'^''3^QL'D ('all these kings who
have forced a siege against you').
fragmentary context precludes us from identifying what was besieged.

However, historical considerations indicate that the author was probably
the one who laid a siege here, probably during a campaign against 'their
land' (Line A10)that is, the land of Israel and Bayt-Dawid. On these
grounds, I suggest that it was a city that the author besieged, probably the
city of Samaria.157
Hence, I have reconstructed the verb immediately preceding "liJQ as
[PDtB] ('I laid') and the indirect object of the verb as [pQE] ('Samaria').158
Commentary on Fragment B
Line Bl
[.. .pm [...]. Although no word divider is preserved before this word, the
waw leads me to believe that there originally was a word divider before it.
Thus, the waw is to be treated as a conjunction. All commentators have
understood this word as a verb derived from V"1T3 ('to cut'). However, no
commentator has considered the possibility that this may be a reference to
the city of Gezer, located in the Shephelah, perhaps mentioned in the con-
text of a list of towns conquered by the author. There is, however, no way
of checking this interpretation. This is further highlighted by the fact that
the line breaks off at the letter resh, leaving us ignorant as to whether or
not there were any extra letters in this word. If there originally were extra
letters, we should then interpret this word as a verb rather than a proper
noun. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing if there were extra let-
ters without extra fragments of the stele.
This interpretational dilemma should be approached by appeal to both
context and syntactical convention. Line B2 is a reference to a battle with
the author probably being the object. That is, the author was not the aggres-
sor in this particular battle, so it is most likely that the author was the
defender here. This being the case, this particular battle probably occurred
in the author's own territory rather than in an opponent's territory. Since
the author composed in Aramaic, we should probably not regard Gezer as
the location of this battle, for he would have to be defending Gezer, in
which case we would expect the author to have written in a Canaanite
dialect, probably Hebrew. One wonders hypothetically how an account of
157. This is concluded on grounds of historical consideration. See the following

chapter for a fuller discussion.
158. The historical considerations behind this reconstruction will be discussed in the
following chapter.
a defence of Gezer, written by Gezer's defender, ended up as building

material all the way up in Dan. Also, we may survey the use of prefixed
waw conjunctions in the other portions of text, including Fragment A, to
aid us. This exercise shows that wows are prefixed to verb forms five times
in Fragment A and once in Fragment B, as opposed to only two instances
of waw prefixed to nouns. As a result, we are compelled to interpret "1731 as
a verb rather than a noun. At the same time, we must realize that this
conclusion is based on circumstantial evidence and so is not completely
secure. We also cannot identify the person or number of the verb, though
we may reasonably surmise the gender to be masculine. The verb V~!T3 is
also common in Aramaic.159
Line B2
[.. .?]KD"i"[QnLT![rQ...]. The first extant word, despite being in fragmen-
tary condition, is understood as a verb form from Von^ ('to fight/battle'),
also known from Moabite and Hebrew. The remnant of a taw at the
beginning of the line is the tow-infix of the Ithpe 'el conjugation, hence the
restoration of heh before it. The taw-infix is also present in the Moabite
forms from the Mesha Stele.160 However, the Moabite form employs a
metathesis between the tow-infix and the first radical, lamed. This does not
occur here in the Aramaic of the Tel Dan Inscription. Rather, the -Tin
prefix is kept as a cohesive element of the conjugation. The restoration of
the prefixed preposition D is prompted by the presence of a 3.masc.sg.
pronominal suffix, H- ('his'). We are, therefore, dealing with an Ithpe 'el
infinitive.161 A similar word, HQnn^rn, which is identical except for the
metathesis, is found on the Mesha Stele, line 19. The reference to a third
person here ('his fighting') is most likely to one of the author's enemies,
probably intended as a defamatory statement of the enemy's unjustified
aggression.
The prefixed preposition D on the following word should probably be
understood in the sense of 'against'.162 However, this is not absolutely
certain. This preposition is idiomatically employed with verbs from A/DPI1?
in the Mesha Stele to indicate the object fought against. Biran andNaveh,
however, opt for translating this preposition as 'at', indicating the location
I, p. 220.
160. See Mesha Stele, lines 11, 15, 19, 32.
161. See the discussion in the Grammatical Survey later in this chapter.
162. Compare Becking, 'The Second Danite Inscription', p. 25.
of battle.163 Just which sense of the preposition the author intended here is
slightly ambiguous because the word to which the preposition is prefixed
is fragmentary. Thus, we do not know whether it indicated a location or a
person. Certainly, if it indicated a person, we must translate the preposi-
tion as 'against'. On the other hand, if it indicated a location, we could
translate it as either 'against' or 'at'. The evidence of the Mesha Stele sug-
gests we translate it 'against'. However, in the Mesha Stele we have a
wider definite context allowing us to make this decision. The preposition
3 is, however, used universally in this sense when preceded by a form
of Van1?. Therefore, we may suggest translating the preposition here as
'against', but we cannot make this a definite decision.
In the earlier epigraphical analysis of Fragment B, it was observed that
four letters stood as candidates for restoration of the letter following -83.
These were beth, yodh, lamed and sin. It is not possible to be any more
precise than this because of the fragmentary nature of the stone. Therefore,
we should not hazard a guess as to what this word could literally have
been, especially as it would colour our understanding of the historical
circumstances behind the inscription. Such indefinite reconstruction must
be avoided for sound historical appraisal.
Line B3
[T"[n]''DL?QL?in. The first complete word is a preformative verbal
conjugation prefixed with a waw conjunction. Biran and Naveh correctly
took this verb as a derivation from VÎJ ('to come, enter').164 The objec-
tions to this, which Becking raises,165 have more to do with Biran and
Naveh's arrangement of the fragments and the difficulty in connecting Line
B3 with the beginning of Line A4 than with translation of this verb. Beck-
ing's objections in regard to Biran and Naveh's arrangement and reading
are appropriate, but the new text created by rearranging the fragments does
not necessitate his interpretation that ÎTl is derived from Vil^^ ('to go
up'). The root, Vilbu, is common in Phoenician, Punic and Hebrew, but
only enters Aramaic at a much later stage in the Targums, under the influ-
ence of Hebrew. Also, the concept of 'going up' is conveyed by Vp^D,
which has already been seen in the Tel Dan Inscription in Line A2. Fur-
thermore, seeing the lexeme ÎTl as stemming from Vil^^ creates the false

165. Becking, 'The Second Danite Inscription', p. 25; also Cryer, 'King Hadad',
p. 233.
impression that this is a preterite verbal form because of the seeming

elision of the il from the root. However, as has been argued above, it is
highly unlikely that preterite verb forms are used at all in conventional Old
Aramaic. Therefore, we must interpret ÎTl as a preformative verbal con-
jugation in the Pe 'al stem, derived from the geminate root W?U.
As Becking notes, Biran and Naveh's understanding of the subject of
this verb is not, however, viable.166 They saw the letters "Obo as forming a
continuum with the beginning of Line A4, yielding the composite word
^"lETD^D ('king of Israel').167 However, the context of Line A4 makes
this suggestion highly questionable. Furthermore, the consistent, even ex-
cess use of word dividers means we must have grave doubts about the
omission of a word divider here. Also, Biran and Naveh's interpretation
was necessary in order to maintain the integrity of their arrangement,
which is no longer sustainable. Therefore, we must interpret the letters
^D differently.
Two options are open to us. First, we may understand "^Q as the first
four letters of a personal name, such as [IHp^Q. Alternatively, we can in-
terpret theyodh as a 1 .com.sg. pronominal suffix of the noun ~[^Q ('king'),
yielding the word 'my king'. I propose this latter option on the understand-
ing that the author's reference to 'my king' is a reference to his patron
god, Hadad. Thus, I suspect that the deity's name followed "^Q. This
compares with the expression ^833"! S^~1D ('my lord Rakib-eP) in Bar
Rakib A. 5. The yodh of ^D^ft cannot be indicative of a plural construct
noun or a plural noun with a pronominal suffix because the connection
with the preceding singular verb, ÎTl, would be lost. The idea of a deity
being 'king' is attested in the Aqhat and Ba'al cycles from Ugarit, in
which it serves as an epithet for El.168 Yahweh is also deemed to be a king
in Pss. 47.3; 95.3; Jer. 46.18; Mai. 1.14. It is also a dominant theme in 1
Samuel 8.
The use of an habitual imperfect in regard to Hadad comes as no
surprise, for the author implies Hadad's ongoing action on his behalf. The
connotation is that the author had always been favoured by Hadad, shown
by Hadad's continual demonstration of favourable actions towards him.
We saw a similar connotation to the habitual imperfect used in reference
to Hadad in Line A5, ^lp"Iinfn n l ('And Hadad would go before me').
166. Becking, 'The Second Danite Inscription', pp. 25-26.

168. M.D. Coogan, Stories From Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1978), pp. 38, 95-96, 98, 100, 110, 117.
Here in Line B3, the author may be claiming that Hadad would always
'come' to his aid. This gloss is particularly suitable in the light of Line B2,
which mentions an enemy's hostility. I suggest that the waw conjunction
prefixed to blT be understood with adversative force, 'but'.
Line B4
p!T]&"nn~[b>ftn. We have understood the first extant word of Line B4 as
a Haph 'el perfect of V"f^Q. This interpretation is prompted by two factors.
First, it was observed in the epigraphical analysis of Fragment B that the
two markings along the right edge at the beginning of Line B4 were likely
to be the remnants of either the letter gimel, heh or samekh, followed by a
word divider. Second, the context suggests the use of a perfect verb rather
than an imperfect. The phrase thus reads, 'Hadad made m[e] king', indi-
cating a singular action in past tense. This compares with the speech of
Ba'alshamayn in Zakkur A. 13, [~[rB]^Qnn]K ('it was I who made you
king'). Here in the Tel Dan Inscription, though, the king is the speaker,
rather than the deity.
Cryer's suggestion that the heh of "[ÊH represents the definite article of
Canaanite dialects169 should be dismissed, particularly since the rest of the
Tel Dan Inscription reveals traits that clearly belong to conventional Old
Aramaic. Cryer's motivation for his suggestion stems from his perception
that Fragment A and Fragment B belong to two separate inscriptions and
from his dismissal of the historical interpretation offered by Biran and
Naveh.170
The lack of a waw conjunction prefixed to ~f^Qn probably indicates that
this lexeme occurs in mid-sentence rather than at the beginning of a fresh
sentence. Exactly what preceded the word "[^QH is uncertain. Our epi-
graphical analysis demonstrated that the last letter of the preceding word
could only have been a gimel, heh orsamekh. If we understand this letter as
a heh, it could be a 3.masc.sg. pronominal suffix. This could refer to either
Hadad or perhaps one of the author's enemies. However, the markings are
too ambiguous to permit confident reconstruction of the sentence. What

170. Cryer, 'King Hadad', p. 225: 'the hand responsible for the first inscription is
not identical with that responsible for the two fragments' (Cryer's emphasis); p. 234:
'It should be clear to anyone not single-mindedly determined with hammer and tongs
to find reference to a Biblical figure in this ancient votive inscription that these poor
fragments are susceptible of quite a number of equally non-compelling interpretations'.
we may say, however, is that the words preceding ~[^QH were likely to be
the reason given by the author for why Hadad made him king.
The use of the object marker to carry the object pronoun, as opposed to
an object pronoun suffixed to the verb, may indicate an emphasis on the
object.171 However, since the object marker does not precede the verb, the
emphasis is not as strong as it could have been.172
Line B5
[ . . .]Q>jQpSK[...]. Due to the fragmentary context, it is extremely diffi-
cult to interpret this line. First, we do not know whether pSK is a complete
lexeme or whether other letters preceded it. Second, there are four differ-
ent interpretations that may be offered, of which only the first two have
previously been entertained.
1. The first reading triggered by the fragments is to consider pSN as
the Pe'al imperfect l.com.sg. of VpSDK ('to go forth'), as Biran
and Naveh have done.173 This reading is prompted by the lines of
the fragment's breakage, as well as the following lexeme, JQ
('from'). Pursuing this line of interpretation, the context does not
permit us to verify whether the form is an imperfect with future
tense ('I will go forth'), a habitual imperfect ('I would go forth'),
or even a cohortative ('May I go forth'). It is certainly not an
example of a consecutive imperfect as Biran and Naveh pro-
posed. Yet, since the previous line is certainly seen in past tense,
the verb here would most likely be a habitual imperfect, with the
text reading, 'I would go forth from seven[...]'. However, since
Fragment B belongs to the lower portions of the stele where
blessings and curses most often appear, we cannot dismiss a
future or cohortative sense. The oddity with this reading lies in
the interpretation of the word [.. .]ID& in the context. Biran and
Naveh's tentative suggestions, 'And I went forth (to war) outside
the seven (?) [districts] of my kingdom',174 seem rather awkward
and cumbersome, in spite the use of a consecutive imperfect here.
It is also motivated by their proposed arrangement of the frag-
ments. Nevertheless, we must keep the thrust of this suggestion
because of uncertainty involved in the highly damaged context.
171. Garr, Dialect Geography, pp. 168-69.

172. E.g. compare Sefire Ill.ll.^np' '[rTpK ]H ('If it is [m]e they kill').
2. The second alternative, espoused primarily by Becking,175 is to

understand pSN as the name of a location, 'Apheq'. At least four
locations bearing the name Apheq are known in the region,
namely the sites of Khirbet 'Afqa (near modern Beirut), Fiq (in
the Golan),176 Tell el-Kurdaneh (10km south of Akko), Ras el-
'Ain (at the headwaters of the Yarqon in the Sharon Plain) and
probably a fifth but as yet undiscovered site in the Jezreel Val-
ley.177 'Apheq' could even be the toponym broken off at the end
of Line B2 where a battle seems to have occurred. Indeed, a town
called Apheq features prominently in the biblical account of the
Syro-Ephraimite wars.178
3. Another option is to regard pSK as the noun meaning 'channel'.
This leaves us with the interesting proposition that the following
word, JD, is the noun for 'water', spelled defectively without the
yodh. This would yield the expression, 'a channel of water', pre-
sumably followed by a statement giving the length of the channel
([i~[DK]KQ]in&, 'seven hundred cubits')? The seemingly out-
of-place reference to a water channel in what appears to be a war
narrative cannot be dismissed because the context is so fragmen-
tary as to defy precise definition.
4. Since we do not know what immediately preceded the 'aleph of
pSN, we can surmise that pBN was part of a larger lexeme
namely, a Pa'el participle, pSN[Q], derived from VpDK ('to be
brave, determined'). This word is probably also found in Sefire
I B.29.179 The use of the following preposition, JQ, is therefore
comparative ('than'), giving us the expression, 'braver than
seven[...]'. In light of Line B4, in which the author claims that
Hadad made him king, this seems an appropriate boast for him to
make. It allows us to continue the theme of military conflict

176. This Apheq may well have had a sister village at the site of 'Bin Gev on the
shores of Lake Tiberias.
177. This is based on locating Apheq in 1 Sam. 29.1 near Mount Gilboa'. This town
is probably also the Apheq situated in a plain, mentioned in 1 Kgs 20.26, 30.
178. E.g. 1 Kgs 20.26, 30; 2 Kgs 13.17.
179. A. Lemaire and J.-M. Durand, Les inscriptions arameennes de Sfire et I'Assyrie
de Shamshi-Ilu (Geneva: Droz, 1984), p. 115. The reconstruction of "[pJpSNQ for Sefire
I B.29, proposed by Lemaire and Durand, is far more epigraphically sound than Fitz-
myer's uncertain reconstruction, ~[[?]S*nQ. See also, Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscrip-
tions of Sefire, pp. 109-10.
encountered earlier while at the same time justifying the author's

rule. Presumably, the author here compares his own might with
that of seven opponents, presumably kings. However, since the
context is so fragmentary, the suggestion cannot be confirmed.
Nevertheless, this is my preferred reading, above the other three
options.
Line B6
[.. .]N''"O*j&[...]. Biran and Naveh reconstructed the first extant letters
on Line B6 as the end of the word fJ&pCJ] ('70').180 However, equally
plausible are JS[T1K] ('40') and j [ED] ('90'), perhaps as the last part of
a larger number. The difficulty with the following word, "HDK, is whether
to interpret it as an active or a passive participle. Biran and Naveh opted
for the active, compelled by their arrangement of the fragments to read the
cumbersome expression, '70 kings who harnessed thousands of chariots
and thousands of horsemen'.!81 Thus, their arrangement also inspired their
interpretation of the single preserved 'aleph at the end of Line B6 as
pS^jft ('thousands of). Yet, since Biran and Naveh's arrangement is
dubious, we are not limited to this interpretation, plausible though it is in
the new arrangement. If we take "HDN as a passive, then we should trans-
late the lexeme as 'captured' or 'prisoners of. This allows us to interpret
the single 'aleph at the end of the line as perhaps the first letter of the
plural noun, []C?]]K ('men'), or the collective noun, [ti?]K ('men'), or even
as the first letter of a toponym, such as [D~1]N ('Aram'), or [D"T]N ('Edom').
As a tentative interpretation, I suggest 'captured men', but with the realiza-
tion that the context is too damaged to provide a definite interpretation.
LineB7
[.. .]"QD~1[...]. The final two lines of Fragment B have sparked nearly as
much controversy as Line A9. Biran and Naveh unequivocally recon-
structed this line as [nKn]--Q-D1['irr] ('Jehoram, son of Ahab').182 The
majority of objections raised to this interpretation were in regards to the
historicizing that it entails.183 Indeed, it must be said that Biran and
Naveh's interpretation represents a fairly subjective approach. Despite the
tantalizing prospect of identifying a known historical figure here, we must
180. Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription', pp. 13, 16.
183. E.g. Cryer, 'King Hadad', p. 234.
refrain from jumping to conclusions without further consideration of the

various issues.
Inevitably, the crux of interpretation lies in the lexeme ~Q and its possi-
bilities for translation. The first instinct is to regard this as the common
Aramaic word for 'son', just as Biran and Naveh did. Cryer's objection
that Line B7 could not possibly be a reference to Jehoram, son of Ahab,184
does not bear much weight. Apart from verbally attacking Biran and
Naveh's hypothesis, Cryer does not actually eliminate 'Jehoram, son of
Ahab' as a possible reconstruction of Line B7. His suggestions that the
lexeme "ID might be translated as 'cistern' or 'fortress' are rather weak.
First, the Old Aramaic word for cistern preserves a diphthong which is
written as TD in Sefire I B.34. Since it is evident from the lexeme TniTQ
(Line A9) that internal diphthongs are also preserved in the Tel Dan
Inscription, it is unlikely that "Q in Line B7 is the noun meaning 'cistern'.
Second, the noun for fortress in Aramaic is feminine and is written as
ilTD in later strands of Aramaic. The word is unattested in Old Aramaic,
but is nonetheless likely to have carried a feminine marker also.
Apart from the noun 'son' as an interpretation of "Q, we may also sug-
gest the noun meaning 'outside'. Although this noun is commonly attested
in later strands of Aramaic,185 it presents no orthographical problems for
Old Aramaic. It is also used in Biblical Aramaic186 and Hebrew187 with the
connotation of'open countryside'. Alternatively, we can suggest the noun
meaning 'grain', or the adjective meaning 'pure'. The difficulty with these,
however, is in interpreting the previous letters, D~l, which are most cer-
tainly the end of a larger lexeme. One possibility is to see them as the end
of a noun, such as Dip] ('vineyard') or D"l[n] ('banned object'), or per-
haps the toponym, D"1[K] ('Aram'). Or, we could see the final mem as
perhaps being a 3.masc.pl. pronominal suffix. Yet, although the context
here is extremely damaged, we still have enormous difficulties in under-
standing the syntax. As a result, I propose staying with the interpretation,
'son'. This is further motivated by the fact that the author is almost cer-
tainly talking about people in Line B6 and is likely to have continued this
onto Line B7.
184. Cryer, 'King Hadad', p. 234, esp. n. 39.

I, pp. 195-96.
186. Dan. 2.38; 4.9, 12, 18, 20, 22, 29.
187. Job 39.4.
Following this line of interpretation, it is unlikely that we have here a

reference to someone whose name began with the element -""D. The pre-
sence of a word divider immediately after ~Q makes this improbable, espe-
cially since it was a general convention for such names to be written as
single lexemes.188 The only known exception is the name ~!TI>'p ('Ben-
'azzur') on Lachish Ostracon 19. However, the orthography of the Tel Dan
Inscription suggests that such a name would have been transcribed as a
single lexeme.
It is also unlikely that ~Q is an independent absolute noun, for both the
meaning and syntax would then be impossible to decipher. This may sim-
ply be due to the highly damaged context, and indeed one must leave
scope for such possibilities. Nevertheless, seeing "Q as an absolute noun
requires us to interpret it as indefinite since no emphatic marker or definite
article is attached to it. This would occasion a strange expression in such a
monumental lapidary inscription. Therefore, I propose viewing the noun as
being in a construct relationship with the following lexeme that, unfortu-
nately, is no longer extant. All these observations mean that we must con-
sider D"l as the last part of a personal name, followed by the person's
patronymic.
Our problem now lies in reconstructing this name. The element D"l- is
well attested in the Northwest Semitic onomasticon. It may be preceded by
a theophoric element, as in the names DHliT (' Jehoram'), D"l"lin ('Hador-
am'),189 and Dl^N ("Ilram').190 It is also attested with various other ele-
ments, as in the names D"QK ('' Abiram'), DT31K ('' Adoniram'), DlbnK
("Adonleram'), D""inN ("Ahiram'), and D~lQU ("Amram'). Thus, we are
by no means restricted to the name of Jehoram here. The temptation is to
opt for the name of a familiar figure, such as Jehoram, son of Ahab. How-
ever, there are a number of issues that should be borne in mind.
First, the damaged context of the fragments does not allow us to pin-
point a name with any accuracy. Since the name following the lexeme ~Q
has not been preserved, the immediate context is unknown. Schniede-
wind's report that the slightest remains of an 'aleph are preserved at the
very edge of Line B7191 are not sustainable after vigorous observation of
188. E.g. ~nmn on the Melqart Stele and Zakkur Stele, as well as m on the
Zakkur Stele.
189. 'Hadoram' is presumably short for 'Hadad-ram'.
190. This particular name is well attested among the corpus of Ammonite seals. See
further Aufrecht, A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions, p. 358.
191. Schniedewind, 'Tel Dan Stela', pp. 77, 80.
the fragment, and so they must be discounted. Thus, we must not be

restricted to searching for a candidate whose father's name began with the
letter 'aleph.
This means that any reconstruction of the name here in Line B7 will
inevitably be affected by external factors, such as how one interprets the
history of Syria-Palestine in Iron Age II. This is perhaps the most critical
issue of all and unfortunately infuses the interpretation with a large degree
of reader subjectivity. In order to maintain some objectivity, we must
balance an interpretation with other factors. The palaeographic dating and
archaeological context of the inscription should provide the chronological
bracket in which we place the inscription, and hence our selection of
personages available from that time. However, we must not be fooled into
necessarily selecting a figure known to us from other sources, for we may
have a reference here to a previously unknown figure. We should certainly
test the names of figures known to us, but they should not restrict us. Fur-
thermore, although it is most likely that a personage mentioned with their
patronymic was a king, it is not necessarily the case. Again, the damaged
context hinders us from a full knowledge of the circumstances at this point
in the Tel Dan Inscription.
With this platform, we may proceed to unravel the mystery of the name
in Line B7 as best we can. Palaeographically and archaeologically, the
inscription was assigned to c. 800 BCE. Biran and Naveh's suggestion that
the name here in Line B7 is that of' Jehoram, son of Ahab' is unlikely in
this case, for Jehoram is supposed to have lived approximately half a
century earlier, being assassinated by Jehu in 841 BCE. The only possible
way of reading 'Jehoram, son of Ahab' here is to understand it as a very
distant retrospection or as part of a multiple patronymic.192 The difficulty
with this last suggestion is that Jehoram was the last member of the Om-
ride Dynasty, which was allegedly annihilated by Jehu. Thus, it is virtually
impossible that a descendant of Jehoram survived to be mentioned in the
Tel Dan Inscription. With the annihilation of the Omride Dynasty, it is dif-
ficult to ascertain what relevance Jehoram, son of Ahab, had to the author
who lived some time later.
The only resolution to this problem is that the author is Hazael, who
died in c. 798 BCE. His reign, which began in c. 843 BCE, provides an over-
lap with that of Jehoram of barely two years. Yet, Hazael is characterized
in biblical literature as a usurper, confirmed by his description in Assyrian
192. That is, PNU son of PN2, son of PN 3 ...

records as 'the son of a nobody'.193 Na'aman has recently hypothesized

that Hazael was actually a royal prince of Beth-Rehob, the son of Ba'asa,
who is known from Shalmaneser Ill's account of the Battle of Qarqar (c.
853 BCE).194 As such, claims Na'aman, Hazael would have had no hesita-
tion in referring to his father, Ba'asa. Thus, Na'aman sees Hazael as the
author of the Tel Dan Inscription.
However, this theory is based on a number of questionable interpretations
of key texts. First, seeing Hazael as the son of Ba'asa does not account for
Hazael being labelled in Assyrian records as 'the son of a nobody'. Second,
Na'aman's claim that the biblical account of 'Bar Hadad's' death (2 Kgs
8.15) does not necessarily implicate Hazael as his murderer is unsustain-
able.195 Third, reinterpreting the text of Hazael's Horse Ornament from
Samos, as Na'aman does, to identify Hazael's origins in "Amqi' (i.e. the
Beqa' Valley) does not automatically elevate him to the status of a heredi-
tary royal prince.
That Na'aman's theory is based on a number of highly questionable
connections and reinterpretations is clearly seen. Therefore, Hazael should
still be considered a usurper who had no hereditary claims to royalty. This
disqualifies him from being the author of the Tel Dan Inscription. Any
connection, then, with Jehoram, son of Ahab, is lost, meaning we cannot
identify the figure mentioned in Line B7 as Jehoram of Israel.
Another alternative is to consider C"l- as part of the name of the king of
Bayt-Dawid. If we identify the rulers of Bayt-Dawid with the rulers of
Jerusalem, then Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat comes to mind. However,
once again, this Jehoram lived approximately half a century before the
production of the Tel Dan Inscription. A multiple patronymic, though,
would resolve this problem, for the same dynasty ruled Jerusalem (and
Judah) for centuries. The leading candidate in that case would be Jehoash,
grandson of Jehoram, who reigned in Jerusalem from c. 835-796 BCE.
Thus, we might have a remnant of the name ~Q1iTTnN~OG)K1iT]
[tDSCnrr]~OD"l[1iT ('[Jehoash, son of Ahaziah, son of Jeho]ram, son of
[Jehoshaphat']).
193. D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (New York:
Greenwood, 1927), pp. 245-46.
194. N. Na'aman, 'Hazael of Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob', UF21 (1995),
pp. 381-94.
195. Compare also V. Sasson, 'Murderers, Usurpers, or What? Hazael, Jehu, and the
Tell Dan Old Aramaic Inscription', UF28 (1996), pp. 547-54. Sasson takes the same
viewpoint as Na'aman.
Yet we must ask what purpose a multiple patronymic served the author
here. Kings are known to cite their own multiple patronymics,196 but not
that of an ally or enemy. This is limited to a single patronymic. Since the
king of Bayt-Dawid was apparently an enemy of the author,197 it is
unlikely that his multiple patronymic was cited by the author. Therefore,
we must have doubts about the validity of restoring the multiple patro-
nymic of Jehoash, son of Ahaziah, here, especially as it would require the
inclusion of at least three predecessors' names.
There is nothing within the inscription, however, which limits us to
identifying the personage in Line B7 as a figure from either Israel or Bayt-
Dawid. We may legitimately look outside these two entities to identify
him. A theophoric element preceding the element D1-, which could give
us a clue to the ethnicity of this person, is unfortunately no longer extant.
As such, we may propose a monarch of any nation in the Syria-Palestine
region.
The name U~h^ ("Ilram') is known to have been a popular name in
Ammon, perhaps even the name of a seventh-century king.198 The element
DT- is also to be seen in the name of the Edomite king, Aiarammu, known
from Sennacherib's annals (c. 701 BCE), and the popular Tyrian name,
Ahiram or Hiram. Noll mentions this latter possibility as a plausible option
for reconstructing this name in Line B7.199 On purely philological grounds,
he is correct. However, Noll dates the inscription along roughly the same
lines as Biran and Naveh. Since the present study has dated the inscription
to c. 800 BCE, it is unlikely that a king of Tyre was mentioned here, for at
that time Pygmalion ruled Tyre. The possibility still remains, though.
Noll's suggestion simply underlines the fact that the element D~l- was
common in names all over the Levant, thus leaving us no closer to finding
a solution.
Becking mentions the possibility that the name in Line B7 may be that
of 'Adonleram, steward of the royal house in Hamath.' Adonleram's name
196. E.g. bn3^D']17Dn^>73>-fbQl7â^3nl73>']l7Dî:3CDS2Jinthe Shipitba'al

Inscription; "ljr]>fcnKplD'1p>Ha]>2r:DK in the Eqron Inscription.
197. This is ascertained by the fact that the king of Bayt-Dawid is probably
associated together with the king of Israel (and perhaps others?) in the phrase Dr>p"IN
('their land') in Line A10.
198. Aufrecht, A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions, 15, 28, 53, 135, 137.2. The
possibility that 'Ilram was a late seventh-century king is based on the seal of one
' Abda, steward of 'Ilram (Aufrecht, A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions, 53). How-
ever, this is far from certain.
199. Noll, 'The God Who is Among the Danites', pp. 9-10.
is known to us from the inscribed bricks from Hamath. The title given to
him is rD^D'H"1 [H]pD. Yet, although "3D is predominantly used to denote
a governor, the fact that 'Adonleram is called 'governor of the royal
house' means his position was that of a steward rather than a regional or
political-administrative governor. As such, his position and title were akin
to the title fT^n-b^'H^N ('who is over the house'), known from seals and
bullae from Palestine. One wonders, therefore, what relevance a household
official in Hamath had for the author of the Tel Dan Inscription. A connec-
tion between 'Adonleram and a figure named in Line B7 is possible, but
unlikely.
Perhaps the best candidate for the person mentioned in Line B7 is a
figure known from the cache of ceramic inscriptions found at Hazor.
Specifically, the sherd of interest comes from Building 14a in Area A
of the Hazor excavations. The sherd is stamped with the word mDIDQ1?
('belonging to Makbirram').200 It is dated stratigraphically to the early
eighth century, making it synchronous with the Tel Dan Inscription. Al-
though no patronymic is given for Makbirram on the sherd bearing his
name, we may assume he was a wealthy and important figure in Hazor,
perhaps an administrative governor, a military general, a vassal ruler or
even a member of a royal family. The immense strategic significance of
Hazor to the regional balance also underlies the importance we may attach
to Makbirram, if indeed we can see him as a man of some authority. The
proximity of Hazor to Dan (less than 30 km) also makes him an especially
attractive prospect as a match for the personage in Line B7.201
However, a fair degree of uncertainty must be maintained because of the
fragmentary nature of the context and the relative ambiguity surrounding
Makbirram's person. Nevertheless, it must be said that Makbirram pre-
sents as good a match as any for the name in Line B7 in terms of the epi-
graphical, archaeological and historical data. Thus, the name in Line B7
may tentatively be identified with Makbirram of Hazor. It should, how-
ever, be realized that the choice of Makbirram as the most likely candidate
comes in the absence of any other candidate known from this era. As a
200. The derivation of this name is uncertain. As a result, it is difficult to ascertain a

pronunciation. The pronunciation given here interprets the name as meaning, 'He who
endows is exalted'. This is derived from ~QDQ, a Hiphil participle of V"Q3 ('to be plen-
teous, powerful'), and the adjective D~l ('exalted'), with an interfusion of both reshs.
For a photograph of this sherd, see Y. Yadin, Hazor (London: Oxford University Press,
1972), Plate XXXV.e.
201. Makbirram will be discussed further in Chapter 7.
result, we simply do not know for certain who this figure in Line B7
actually was.
Line B8
"O1iT. Although the first letter of Line B8, a partially damaged yodh, lies
a fair distance from the following letter, a partially preserved heh, we must
consider them as part of the same lexeme. This is due to the fact that the
letters 111 do not make a meaningful lexeme on their own. Official Aramaic
transcribes the S.masc.sg. independent personal pronoun as in, but this is
not the case in Old Aramaic, where the pronoun is written KH. Hence it is
not the case here in the Tel Dan Inscription.
The only choice we have is to join the first three extant letters to form
the element 1iT. The fact that this is followed by the lexeme "ID ('son')
means we must view 1IT as a theophoric element within a name, rather
than as the independently standing divine name, Yahu. As the Mesha Stele
shows, this divine name preserves a heh during this period and is thus
transcribed as i"PiT. The apocopated form, 1IT, appears as the theophoric
element of numerous names originating in Israel and Judah where Yah-
wistic cults prevailed. The implication for Line B8 is that the figure men-
tioned here is almost definitely an Israelite or a Judaean.
For the century between 852 BCE and 753 BCE, no king of Israel pos
sessed a name with the final element being the theophoric element, "IIT.
Rather, three kings during this period (Joram, Jehoahaz and Jehoash) each
had Yahwistic names, but with the theophoric element as the first rather
than the last element of the name. From the biblical record, however, we
know that Amaziah became king of Judah in 796 BCE. It is, therefore, most
likely that Line B8 preserves the name [2V-]"l><iril'[:aiDK] ('Amaziah
ben-Joash').202 Once again, though, this is only a probability and not a cer-
tainty. We must factor in the possibility that this personage was not a
monarch. Amaziah ben-Joash, however, is quite likely considering the
time-frame in which we can date the original inscription. Hence, this recon-
struction of his name here is the most likely option, seeing that royal per-
sonages are likely to be named in such monumental lapidary inscriptions.
202. It must be remembered that there are two variant spelling of the name Joash/
Jehoash. For the sake of clarity with the Israelite king, Jehoash, we have chosen to label
the name of Amaziah's father as CW ('Joash'). However, it is quite possible that in the
Tel Dan Inscription, Joash's name was written as SDNliT rather than 2JNV. Since the bib-
lical text regularly interchanges the spelling of this name, there must be some ambiguity
as to how exactly to reconstruct the name here in the Tel Dan Inscription.
Language of the Inscription

From the text of the three fragments, it is clear that the language of the Tel
Dan Inscription is Old Aramaic. This conclusion is based on the following
combination of factors:
1. The representation of the original phoneme d by the consonant
qoph (p), demonstrated in the noun pHK ('land/ground') in Lines
A4 and A10.
2. The retention of taw in the two conjugations of the verb ""Tip in
Lines A6 and A8.
3. The indication of the masculine plural absolute by ] -, seen in the
initial word of Line B6, ]&[.. .].203
4. The 1 .com.sg. independent personal pronoun, HDN, in Line A5.
5. The indication of 3.masc.sg. pronominal suffix by !"[-, seen in
Line B2 with the lexeme nQn^hfrn] in Line B2.
6. The use of the preposition Dip, seen with a suffix in Line A5.
7. The nun of the preposition ]Q not assimilating to the following
consonant due to the entire preposition not being prefixed to the
following word in Line B5.
8. The definite object marker, JTK, in Lines A9-10.
9. The prothesis of 'aleph in the noun D&K in Line A9.
10. The postpositive nun in the masculine singular adjective |"lPIK in
Line A l l .
11. The use of characteristically Aramaic vocabulary:
a. The noun "D ('son of', Lines B7, B8);
b. The verbal root V"[1H ('to go', Lines A3, A5);
c. The verbal root Vp^D ('to go up', Line A2).
12. The elision of lamed in the Pe 'al imperfect conjugation of Vp^D,
demonstrated in Line A2 with the lexeme pD"1.
The combination of all these factors makes it certain that the language
we are dealing with is Old Aramaic.
A large gap in the data is the lack of any definite article. This, however,
should not be taken as a characteristic of the inscription's language, but as
a result of the inscription's breakage into fragments. That is, no definite
article is attested on the three fragments available to us, but there is nothing
203. Although this word is only partially preserved, there is no doubt that this word
is a noun representing a numeral.
to suggest that the other parts of the original inscription did not use a
definite article. In fact, all the indications from the language of the text
lead us to believe that the post-positional definite article, N-, would have
been used as a normal feature of the language, Old Aramaic, or, if not ex-
pressly written, probably pronounced nonetheless. The text of the extant
fragments does not require the use of a definite article in these particular
portions of the text. Thus, the absence of the definite article from the
three fragments is circumstantial, not linguistic. Although the Aramaic of
Hazael's Horse Ornament and of the Sam'alian inscriptions preserve no
definite article, we cannot make the same assumption of the Tel Dan
Inscription, because we have no portion of text which requires the definite
article to be used. The close similarity of the Tel Dan Inscription's dialect
to that of the Sefire Treaties leads us to believe that the definite article was
most likely used in the Tel Dan Inscription. It is only the fragmentary
nature of the text that prevents us from seeing any explicit evidence.
Grammatical Survey
Orthography
Graphemes. A total of 21 different graphemes are attested on all three
fragments as a whole. The only grapheme that remains unattested is teth.
The single occurrence ofsadhe is also quite damaged, though there is no
doubt as to its identification.
Consonants. The text and its orthography indicate that there were likely
more consonantal phonemes than individual graphemes. By necessity,
therefore, some graphemes in the Tel Dan Inscription carry more than one
phonetic value:
1. The grapheme qoph (p) represents the phonemes q and d.
a. The representation of phoneme q is demonstrated by the
words Dip (Line A4), 'Dip (Line A5), bnp1 (Line A6),
[nn]^npl (Line A8) and p2K[ft] (Line B5).
b. The representation of phoneme d is demonstrated by the
words p-IKD (Line A4) and p"!K (Line A10).
2. The grapheme sin (V) represents the phonemes s and s.
a. The representation of phoneme s is demonstrated by the
words H^h (Line Al) and [btri]er (Lines A8, A12).
b. The representation of phoneme s is demonstrated by the
words DDEn (Line A3), 2TIS (Line A7), DEW (Line A9)
and in& (Line B5). The grapheme sin (527) may also have
served to represent the phoneme/, but such an instance is
unattested among the three extant fragments.
Vowels. The orthography of the Tel Dan Inscription represents only those
long vowels that occur in an open syllable at the end of a word. This is
demonstrated by the following cases:
1. At the end of a word, the grapheme heh can represent either the
vowel a or the vowel e in an open syllable.
a. The representation of vowel a in a final open syllable is
seen in the word HHK (Line A5).
b. The representation of vowel em a final open syllable is
seen in the word Hftn^nfrQ] (Line B2). The final heh of
this lexeme represents the 3.masc.sg. pronominal suffix.
It is, therefore, more indicative of the pronominal suffix
than of the accompanying vowel. Yet, it is to be expected
that other words ending in heh but not representing a pro-
nominal suffix did actually represent the vowel e. How-
ever, no such words are attested among the small portion
of text preserved on our three fragments.
2. At the end of a word, the grapheme waw represents a long 'u'-
type vowel in an open syllable.
a. The representation of long vowel u in a final open sylla-
ble is seen in the word in" [UEN] (Line B8). We might ex-
pect that the final vowel of the afformative for 3.masc.pl.
verbs was also represented by the grapheme waw and
indicative of long vowel u. However, no such verbs are
attested among the three extant fragments.
b. The representation of long vowel 6 is unattested among
the three extant fragments.
3. At the end of a word, the grapheme yodh can represent either the
vowel e (or a) or i in an open syllable.
a. The representation of vowel e in a final open syllable is
seen in the words ^[l]D[nm] (Line A2), 'S^M (Line A7)
and "HDN (Line B6). We might expect that this vowel was
properly represented by the grapheme heh (see 1 .a. above).
When the vowel e is represented by the grapheme yodh, it
is solely indicative of the masculine plural construct form.
Alternatively, if these sounds had not reduced to simple
vowels in the final syllables of construct nouns, we must

consider them diphthongs.204
b. The representation of vowel i in a final open syllable is
seen in the words T3K (Lines A2, A3), "O^Q (Line A6)
and "O^Q (Line B3). In these instances, the final yodh is
indicative of the l.com.sg. pronominal suffix.
4. Although the grapheme 'aleph is not attested at the end of a word
in an open syllable, we might expect that it could have repre-
sented the vowel a, either in the emphatic ending of a definite
article (assumed to be post-positional to-), or in particular words
such as the particle of negation, toh. However, no instances of
such words are attested among the extant fragments.
Diphthongs. The orthography of the extant fragments demonstrates that

diphthongs were preserved and had not contracted, either in an open or a
closed syllable:
1. The diphthong ay is represented by the grapheme yodh.
a. The diphthong ay is seen in an open syllable in the word
""Dip (Line A5). In this particular instance, the diphthong
represents the l.com.sg. suffixed pronoun.
b. The diphthong ay is seen in a closed syllable in the word
Tnrrn (Line A9).
c. If the diphthong ay had not yet contracted to e in the final
syllable of construct nouns, then the grapheme yodh also
indicated the masc.pl. construct.205
2. The diphthong aw is unattested among the extant fragments, but
must have been represented by the grapheme waw in other parts
of the original inscription. It had been previously thought that
diphthong aw was preserved in the lexeme Tnrrn (Line A9),
but this must be revised in light of the preceding interpretation of
the meaning and phonology of this word.
Matres Lectionis. The orthography of the text indicates that matres lec-
tionis were not used within a word to indicate either a long or a short
vowel. Only long vowels in final open syllables were marked by certain
graphemes according to the vowel and grammatical circumstance (see the
204. Segert,AltaramdischeGrammatik,p. 188.

205. Segert, Altaramdische Grammatik, p. 188.
discussion of diphthongs above). To this end, the masc.pl. ending was

indicated by |- (see ]&[...], Line B6), not by ]'-. On analogy with the
Zakkur texts, we may surmise thatplene spelling may have been used on
occasion.206 However, from the sample of text available to us, this cannot
be confirmed and would actually appear unlikely.
Pronouns. The extant portions of the inscription attest the following pro-
nouns.
Independent personal pronouns. Only two independent personal pronouns
are attested among the extant fragments:
a. The l.com.sg. form, HDN (Line A5).
b. The 3.masc.pl. form, DPI (Line A10). This particular pronoun is a
special case since it is treated syntactically as a pronominal suf-
fix. Orthographically, however, it stands independently of the pre-
ceding noun.
Suffixed personal pronouns. Only two pronominal suffixes are attested
among the extant fragments:
1. S.masc.sg. (H-):
a. Attested only after verbal forms: nQn^hfrQ] (Line B2).
2. l.com.sg. C1-):
a. After nominal forms: ''UK (Lines A2, A3), *lhfo (Line
A6), ^Q (Line B3).
b. After prepositions: ""Dip (Line A5).
c. After object marker: [TP]K (Line B4).
Otherpronouns. Other than the two types of personal pronouns mentioned
above, no other types of pronouns are attested among the extant fragments.
Thus, there are no occurrences of demonstrative pronouns, interrogative
pronouns, or relative pronouns.
Nouns. The inscription contains numerous nouns, many of which are un-
damaged. Some, however, require reconstruction, while others are identi-
fiable as nouns but defy specific reconstruction.
Forms. The following types of nominal forms are attested among the three
extant fragments:207
206. Compare n^ in Zakkur A10, but tmtZTl in Zakkur A17.

207. Any grammatical particles prefixed or suffixed to these nominal forms have
a. Type ql\ 38 (Lines A2, A3), HD (Lines B7, B8).

b. Type qtl: *p$ (Lines A6 [reconstructed], A7), p"!N (Lines A4,
A10), Dm (Line A9), -pft(Lines A6, A8-9, B3), "iSa (Line
A13), 2Tia (Line A7), rap] (Lines A6-7), ID& (Line B5),)'[...]
(damaged pi. noun, Line B6).
Inflexion of the noun. The limited data of the nominal forms attested in the
extant fragments does not allow us to fully develop a paradigm for the in-
flexion of nouns. All the nominal forms attested are masculine, with the
sole exception of the noun p")K. However, as this noun was considered
feminine by nature rather than by inflexion, the data is incomplete. For
some of the nouns, particularly those representing numerals, we may sur-
mise feminine forms by appealing to other Old Aramaic texts for parallels.
However, most of the nouns attested among the extant fragments are mas-
culine by nature rather than inflexion. For these nouns, no feminine equiva-
lent can be derived. Another gap in the data is that no nominal forms are
attested in the emphatic state with the definite article.
Thus, our paradigm is very sparse with attested forms. For those forms
that are not attested among the three extant fragments of the Tel Dan In-
scription, a paradigmatic noun ^np is employed and the form is underlined
and preceded by an asterisk (*). The inflexion of these forms is based on
the conventions of Old Aramaic, but it must be realized that we have no
definitive evidence of their inflexion among the extant fragments of the
Tel Dan Inscription. As the paradigm for feminine forms would be entirely
theoretical, there being no evidence whatsoever for their inflexion among
the extant fragments of the Tel Dan Inscription, the feminine paradigm is
not included.
Table 6.1. 'Paradigm' of masculine nouns, based on the information from the
Tel Dan Inscription.
Masculine Forms
Singular Plural
Absolute CHS (Line A7) ]'[...] (Line B6)
*)^np
Construct I^D (Line A8) **b* (Line A7)
Emphatic *8^np *K^np
been removed when the noun is quoted. As such, only the singular absolute forms are
quoted.
Adjectives. There is only one attestation of an adjectival form among the

extant fragments. This is the lexeme ]"inK (Line All). This is a masculine
singular form, but the noun that it modifies is no longer extant. Reasonably,
however, we may assume congruence between the noun and the adjective
pertaining to number and gender. The inflexion of the adjective, therefore,
would have followed the inflexion of the modified noun in these aspects.
Prepositions. Six prepositions are attested among the extant fragments.

These can be put into two classifications:
1. Independent Prepositions:
a. ^ (Line A3).
b. ]Q(LineB5).
c. bs (Lines Al [reconstructed], A12, A13).
d. Dip (Line A5).
Of these independent prepositions, only D~Ip is attested with a pro-
nominal suffix ( n Qlp).
2. Prefixed Prepositions:
a. -D (Lines A2 [reconstructed], A3 [reconstructed], A4, B2
[twice; once reconstructed].
b. -b (Line A10, All).
In addition to these, we may add the particle marking the direct object,
rVK. This is placed immediately before the object of a clause or can have a
suffixed pronoun to indicate the object.
Conjunctions. Only one conjunction is attested in the Tel Dan fragments

namely, the copula, -1. This is prefixed to both verbal and nominal forms.
When prefixed to verbal forms, it does not serve the function of a waw
consecutive.
Verbs. There are five verbal stems attested on the Tel Dan fragments:
1. Pe'al
2. Pe'il.
3. Pa'el.
4. Haph 'el.
5. Ithpe'el.
Within these, we may recognize the following categories of aspect:
1. Perfect.
2. Imperfect.
3. Infinitive.
4. Jussive.
5. Participle.
These are the conjugations and aspects attested in the fragments. There
is no evidence of, nor any need to see, the presence of consecutive imper-
fects derived from a preterital form.
The Ithpe 'el is attested here only in the infinitive within a damaged
context (Line B2). It is, therefore, difficult to ascertain whether the pre-
formative of the stem in the perfect and/or infinitive conjugations was
formed with a -Tin particle or an -TIN particle. An Ithpa 'al perfect form is
attested in Bar Rakib A. 14 with a -Till particle CDtWnn), suggesting that a
-Tin particle is plausible for an Ithpe 'el form. All other attested forms of
Ithpe 'el or Ithpa 'al are in the imperfect conjugation, some being ambigu-
ous due to damaged contexts.2081 have opted for a -fin particle on the
basis of the attestation of the Ithpa 'al perfect form in Bar Rakib.
Adverbs. No adverbial forms are attested among the extant fragments of

the Tel Dan Inscription.
Glossary of the Inscription

List of Words
3K 'father', n.masc.sg. + l.com.sg. sfx, "QN, Lines A2, A3.
priN 'other, another', adj.masc.sg., Line Al 1.
n' nota ace.TP[N], Lines A9-10; JTK (+ l.com.sg. sfx), ["JT]K, Line B4.
l
hto io\prep.Line A3.
^N 'thousand', n.masc.pi. cstr. + -1, ''S^l, Line A7; {pi. cstr., ["S^K]},
Line A6.
niN 'I\pron. l.com.sg.LineAS.
~1DK 'to bind, capture', vb.Pe'/'/, participle masc.pl. cstr. {orPe 'al, participle
masc.pl. cstr.}, HD8, Line B6.
pSN 'to be brave, determined', vb.Pa'el, participle masc.sg., pSR[Q], Line
B5.
^818 '(altar) hearth', n.masc.sg. abs., ^H~l[^], Lines A3-4.
p"IN (1) 'land', n.fem.sg. cstr., Line A10. || (2) 'ground'sg. cstr. + -H,
pIKD, Line A4.
208. Degen, Altaramdische Grammatik,pp. 74,78; Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscrip-

tions ofSefire, p. 195.
2?N 'man', n.masc.(coll)sg. abs., [KJ]N, Line B6.

D5D8 'name', n.masc.sg. cstr (or sg. abs.} + -1, bEJKI, Line A9.
-3 'in, at, on', pfa.prep.3 + n., Lines (A2), {A3}, A4; [3] + inf. +
3.masc.sg. sfx., HQn^flfrQ], Line B2.
~Q 'son', n.masc.sg. cstr., "13, Lines B7, B8.
TH 'to cut', vb.Pe 'al, masc. (person and number unknown) + "I, [.. .Jim,
LineBl.
"fin 'to go, walk', vb.Pe'al, impft 3.masc.sg. + -1, ~[iTl, Line A5; juss.
S.masc.sg., "]!T, Line A3.
Cil 'they, them',pron. 3.masc.sg.Line A10.
-1 'and\pfa.conj.1 + pft, Line A8; 1 + impft., Lines A3, A5, A6; 1 + -h +
inf. (?), Line Al 1; 1 + n., Lines (A2), A7, A9; 1 + {?}, Line A6.
"IDF! 'piety, pious act', n.masc.sg. + -1 + -3 + l.com.sg. sfx., <'[~[]b[ri31]
DV 'day', n.masc.pi. cstr., '[QV], Lines A5-6.
^3 'all', n.masc.{sg. cstr. + -3, [^33]}, Line A3.
-b 'io\ pfa.prep.b + inf.(?), Line Al 1; b + {?}, Line A10.
DH^ 'to fight, battle', vb.Ithpe 'el, inf. (+ -3) + 3.masc.sg. sfx., HQn^n[n3],
Line B2.
"f^Q 'to reign', vb.Pe 'al, pft 3.masc.sg., "[^[Q], Lines Al 1-12. Haph 'el, pft
3.masc.sg., "f^QH, Line B4.
~[^Q 'king', n.masc.sg. abs., [~[]^Q, Line A6; sg. cstr., "f^D, Line A8; ~[[^Q],
Lines A8-9; sg. + l.com.sg. sfx, *lbtt, Line B3; pi. abs., []3^Q], Line
[B5].
I^Q 'reign', n.masc.sg. + l.com.sg. sfx., ^370, Line A6.
]Q 'from',prep.|Q, Line B5.
"liJQ 'siege', n.masc.sg. abs., "liJQ, Line A13.
p^D 'to go up, ascend', vb.Pe'al, juss. 3.masc.sg., pD1', Line A2.
bv (1) 'against', prep.Û, Line A13. || (2) 'over'Û, Line A12; [^p,
Line Al.
^Û 'to come', vb.Pe 'al, impft 3.masc.sg. + -1, ÎTI, Line B3.
CHS 'cavalry, horsemen', n.masc.sg. abs., EDS, Line A7.
C~Ip 'ancient', adj.masc.sg., Line A4.
Dip 'before\prep.D"fp + l.com.sg. sfx., 'IQp, Line A5.
^Plp 'to slay', vb.Pe'al, pft l.com.sg. + -1 {+ 3.masc.sg. sfx.}, [iinj^flpl,
Line A8; impft l.com.sg., + -1, bnpKI, Line A6.
33~l 'chariotry, chariots', n.masc.sg. abs., 33[~l], Lines A6-7.
IQC 'seven', n.masc.sg. abs., in&, Line B5.
D^ 'to put, lay', vb.Pe 'al, pft l.com.sg., [HfttD], Line A12.
33EJ 'to repose, lie', vb.Pe'al, impft 3.masc.sg. {or juss. 3.masc.sg.} + -1,
33^1, Line A3.
"IIE1 'to rule', vb.Pe 'al, impft 2.masc.sg., "12F1, Line Al.
Names of Persons and Deities

^NfTD1^ 'El-Baytel' [i.e. 'The Bethel-stone, El', a developed form of the deity El]
n.pr.dei.masc.[^n]"3^^, Line A4.
imJQK 'Amaziah', n.pr.pers.masc.1!T'[1QK], Line B8.

~nn 'Hadad', n.pr.dei.masc.Lines A5, [B3], B4.
TnNliT 'Jehoahaz', n.pr.pers.masc.Lines [All], [B8].
^l(n)11 'Jehoash, Joash', n.pr.pers.masc.Lines [Al 1], [B8].
Names of Places
mmi 'Bayt-Dawid', n.pr.loc. [name of the city state centred on Jerusalem]-
Line A9.
^tner 'Israel', n.pr.gent.Line A8; [^n]2T, Line A12.
]"1DE? 'Samaria', n.pr.loc.[flDEJ], Line A13.
Chapter 7
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY
A synthesis of the amassed data from the Tel Dan Inscription now puts us
in a position to extract historical implications from the inscription. As with
all ancient Near Eastern history, such reconstruction must proceed with a
fair degree of caution. The corroboration of various kinds of sources is no
easy task, particularly when their milieu is so far removed from our own
time and culture.
With the Tel Dan Inscription we have a primary written source. Further-
more, information can be gleaned not just from its text, but also from its
physical remains. The fact that the inscription is a primary source is of
great importance because it lends weight to the information we can extract
directly from it. Our caveat must be, however, not to take all the infor-
mation derived from the inscription at face value, nor to be swept up in an
attempt to impose the inscription onto a neat biblical template. Neither
must we dismiss the biblical evidence from having any value for historical
reconstruction. Rather, we must recognize that the biblical texts are sec-
ondary sources and employ them with the appropriate contingent weight.
Historical Considerations
The Author of the Inscription
Although the author of the Tel Dan Inscription is never named in any of
the three extant fragments, we may look to the clues given in the text,
language and archaeological context of the inscription in order to attempt
an identification. Since the inscription belongs to the latter period of the
second construction phase at Dan's city gates, our author lived sometime
c. 800 BCE. During this time, the city of Dan was under Aramaean influ-
ence. Under the leadership of Hazael, Damascus had grown to be the head
of a quasi-empire with influence over a number of Levantine states. Dan,
located on the fringe of the Aramaean region, just 70 km from Damascus,

would most definitely have come under the sway of the potent Aramaean
state as Hazael extended his suzerainty.
The archaeological and epigraphical evidence from Dan bears this out.
During the reign of Hazael in the second half of the ninth century BCE,
Dan underwent a major building phase: the second of the three building
phases in Stratum III. The previous building phase was contemporary with
the Omride Dynasty, but it is difficult to attribute the construction to the
Omrides. Distinctly Israelite remains do not appear until the third construc-
tion phase, dated to the eighth century BCE. For example, Proto-Aeolic
capitals only appear in the layer of debris that covered the large piazza
built at the gate complex.1 Since the piazza was built in the second con-
struction phase (second half of the ninth century BCE), the Proto-Aeolic
capital is necessarily later. Dated to the same time as the capital is the
stamped handle of an amphora unearthed in a room (No. 9024) to the
immediate west of the shrine complex in Tel Dan's northwest corner (Area
T). The handle is stamped THQUb ('belonging to 'Immadiyo')a dis-
tinctly Hebrew name of Israelite origin.2 Prior to this, there is a distinct
Aramaic-speaking culture in Dan, as attested by the Aramaic Tel Dan
Inscription from the second phase of construction, along with a sherd from
a bowl inscribed with the Aramaic word ^[npft1? ('belonging to the
butch[er]s').3 This Aramaic-speaking influence can even be seen as far
south as 'Bin Gev on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, where ajar
inscribed with the word Wpvh ('belonging to the cupbearers') was un-
earthed during excavations.4 In light of the conquest of Dan prior to the
first construction phase (presumably at the hands of Bar Hadad I) and the
continuity between the first and second construction phases, it seems
probable that an Aramaic-speaking culture prevailed in Dan throughout
the majority of the ninth century BCE, being replaced by an Israelite cul-
ture only in the early eighth century BCE.
The emerging picture, therefore, is one in which Dan was already in the
orbit of Damascus before Hazael even ascended the throne in c. 843 BCE.
The renaissance of an Israelite culture at Dan at the beginning of the
1. Biran, Biblical Dan, p. 241.

2. Biran, Biblical Dan, pp. 199-201. The apocopated theophoric element V (as
opposed to the fuller 1iT-) is of a distinctly Israelite flavour, as attested by similar
Yahwistic theophoric elements among names in the Samaria Ostraca.
3. N. Avigad, 'An Inscribed Bowl From Dan', PEQ 100 (1968), pp. 42-44.
4. B. Mazar, 'Bin Gev: Excavations in 1961', IEJ14 (1964), pp. 27-29.
7. Historical Commentary 257
eighth century BCE must be attributed to the successful exploits of Jehoash

and his son, Jeroboam II. Damascene hegemony over Dan is further en-
forced by the polished language of the Tel Dan Inscription (Old Aramaic).
Wesselius's suggestion that the author of the Tel Dan Inscription is to be
identified with Jehu of Israel5 flounders here on numerous grounds. Wes-
selius's hypothesis fails to consider the archaeological landscape of Tel
Dan and its telling implications for reconstructing the political and cultural
climate of both Israel, Damascus, and more specifically, of Dan itself dur-
ing the ninth and eighth centuries BCE. Rather, Wesselius's theory is based
solely on reconciling the text of the Tel Dan Inscription with the biblical
narratives of Jehu. Not only are there a number of dubious assertions in
this hypothesis,6 but Wesselius also fails to address how and why Jehu
erected a stele for himself at Dan so far from the Israelite heartland, espe-
cially if (as Wesselius insists) Jehu was a vassal of Hazael's ever-growing
Damascene state.7
Moreover, Wesselius's hypothesis rests on circumstantial evidence and
too many uncertain possibilities. Wesselius proceeds largely on the basis
that since the inscription mentions the slaying of two kings, then it is
worth investigating whether the king boasting of the slayings is Jehu who,
in the biblical narrative, is behind the slaying of two kings. This, of course,
is a reasonable suggestion. However, that the Tel Dan Inscription mentions
the killing of two kings is conjecture. Although it may originally have
done so, the most we can say with certainty is that the extant fragments
mention the slaying of one king. The second king may well have been
connected to this in some way, but the Tel Dan fragments do not spell this
out. Furthermore, Wesselius insists that it is only if the Jehu hypothesis is
overturned that we can then proceed with other hypotheses. This is
unnecessarily restrictive, particularly if much of the evidence happens to
be circumstantial. Indeed, much of the evidence to date has been circum-
stantial due to the incorrect arrangement of the inscription's fragments.
Since Wesselius's hypothesis relies on this incorrect arrangement, the basis
of the evidence for the Jehu hypothesis no longer stands. Coupled with the
fact that the hypothesis does not square well with the archaeological
evidence, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that Jehu authored the Tel
Dan Inscription.
5. Wesselius, 'The First Royal Inscription from Ancient Israel'.

6. Some of these are addressed by Becking in his critique of Wesselius's hypothe-
sis. See Becking, 'Did Jehu Write the Tel Dan Inscription?'.
7. See Wesselius, 'The First Royal Inscription from Ancient Israel', pp. 175-76.
Lines Al 1-12 refer to a ruler of Israel in the third person. This comes
not long after Line A8 where the author makes mention of having killed a
king. Since the mention of the king of Israel is in the immediate context,
and Line A12 mentions the rise of a new Israelite king, it is clear that the
author was not the king of Israel. Together with the fact that the nearby
Aramaean state of Damascus was at its zenith towards the end of the ninth
century BCE, we should look to monarchs of that state for the author of the
Tel Dan Inscription.
Most theories about the Tel Dan Inscription attribute authorship to
Hazael. However, such claims are based on a reading derived from the old
arrangement of the fragments, now seen to be defunct. This reading identi-
fied the two names in Lines B7 and B8 as those of '[Jehojram son of
[Ahab]' and '[Ahaz]iah son of [Jehoram]', respectively. Since the death of
these two kings occurred in c. 841 BCE, and the author could not have been
the king of Israel, scholars nominated Hazael as the only logical choice for
the author of the Aramaic inscription. The redundancy of the old fragment
arrangement and the more detailed archaeological picture we now have
from Tel Dan means we must rethink this entire hypothesis.
Data gleaned from the archaeological context of the fragments and the
palaeography of the script indicated that the inscription was broken at the
beginning of the eighth century BCE and probably written not very many
years before that. In fact, the excellent condition of the inscribed letters, as
well as the dating of the script, suggests that the original stele was not
standing for many years at all before it was knocked down and fractured.
Thus, we must look to the period at the very end of the ninth century BCE
and the beginning of the eighth century BCE for the author. During this
time, Aram-Damascus was the dominant power in Syria-Palestine. Under
the leadership of Hazael, Aram-Damascus had gone from a small state on
the fringe of the Syrian steppes and desert, to a quasi-empire with influ-
ence over at least the majority of states in Syria-Palestine.8 Hazael's death
occurred in c. 799 BCE9the very time to which the archaeological and
palaeographical evidence point for the date of the inscription's production
and destruction. We must, therefore, nominate both Hazael and his son,
Bar Hadad, who succeeded him on the Damascene throne, as the possible
authors of the Tel Dan Inscription.
8. Pitard, Ancient Damascus, pp. 145-60, for a discussion on the achievements of

Hazael.
9. The exact date of Hazael's death is difficult to determine. This issue is further
discussed below.
The first few lines of Fragment A, however, prevent us from identifying

Hazael as the author of the Tel Dan Inscription. Hazael was most certainly
a usurper of the throne of Aram-Damascus. This fact is clearly conveyed
in other corroborated sources. The Assyrian annals call Hazael 'the son of
a nobody',10 while the biblical text portrays him as the murderer of Bar
Hadad II (Hadad-'Idri), his predecessor (2 Kgs 8.15). It is unlikely, indeed
impossible, that Hazael would have referred to his own father with such
terms as are used in the Tel Dan Inscription, for evidently Hazael's father
was not the previous king of Aram-Damascus.
This was a point first noticed by Biran and Naveh in their publication of
Fragment A.11 However, this crucial datum was not properly dealt with in
Biran and Naveh's revised theory once Fragment B was published. Biran
and Naveh speculated that Hazael might have been part of the royal dy-
nasty he usurped.12 Yet, this speculation does not negate the fact that
Hazael's father was not the king whose throne he usurped. For Biran and
Naveh, who proposed that Hazael authored the Tel Dan Inscription, this
presents a major flaw in their theory. Indeed, this flaw serves to demon-
strate that their theory has been largely forced onto the evidence. That is,
Biran and Naveh's theory attempts to mould the evidence into a shape that
it simply cannot hold. This fact alone seriously undermines their entire
historical reconstruction for the inscription.
Recognizing this key difficulty in identifying Hazael as the author,
Schniedewind and Zuckerman propose an ingenious solution. They hy-
pothesize that Hazael was the leader of a political group aligned with
worship of the deity El, whereas his predecessor on the throne, Hadad-
'idri, was part of a faction owing allegiance to Hadad.13 This sets up an
intriguing picture of the religio-political situation of Damascus. However,
there are three fundamental flaws in this theory. First, in Line A5 the
author indicates allegiance towards Hadad. According to Schniedewind and
Zuckerman's theory, this must either see Hazael as a turncoat or a blatant
liar. Neither, of course, can be totally dismissed. However, the more criti-
cal flaws lie in the fact that Schniedewind and Zuckerman follow the old
arrangement of the fragments and the readings dependent on them, and a
failure to examine the archaeological strata of Tel Dan.
10. Luckenbill, Ancient Records, I, pp. 245-46.

11. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 95; compare also Dijkstra,
'An Epigraphic and Historical Note', p. 11.
12. Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription', pp. 17-18, esp. n. 26.
13. Schniedewind and Zuckerman, 'A Possible Reconstruction', p. 91.
The 'complete confidence' shown by Margalit in identifying Hazael as

the author of the Tel Dan Inscription is, therefore, totally unfounded.14
Margalit's conclusion is based entirely on the (erroneous) identification of
the two names in Lines B7 and B8 with Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of
Judah. As has been noted in previous chapters, this identification is practi-
cally impossible on archaeological and epigraphical grounds. Margalit
deals with the difficulty of Hazael's apparent reference to his 'father' in
the following manner:
Hazael, who was probably not in direct line of succession, and may even
have been a commoner, credits Hadad's favour for his accession to the
throne as successor of Hadad-Izri whom he (disingenuously?) calls 'father'
in the inscription.15
This treatment of the issue is quite inadequate. Furthermore, the tone and
punctuation which Margalit uses shows that not even he is actually com-
pletely confident in explaining the difficulty of positing Hazael as the
author of the Tel Dan Inscription. Based on the text proposed by Biran and
Naveh, Margalit claims that the l.com.sg. independent pronoun in the
(awkward) reconstruction n]K[nnn]K[]~nn~[t?D]T [1] emphasizes that it
was Hazael, and not any other pretender, whom Hadad put on the throne
of Aram-Damascus. However, since the pronoun appears on Fragment A
while the rest of the expression appears on Fragment B, Margalit's theory
falls apart. It requires the fragments to be arranged in the old configura-
tion, which has been demonstrated as no longer sustainable.
Unfortunately, Margalit goes on to make other conclusions about the
content of the inscription based on the false premises that Hazael was the
author and that the names in Lines B7 and B8 are those of Jehoram of
Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. Not only do these conclusions have no real
foundation, but the methodology employed to reach them is decidedly
backward. If these conclusions are reached by means of reverse approaches
to research, then there must be a distinct lack of confidence in identifying
Hazael as the author of the Tel Dan Inscription. We must be led by the
time-frame of the inscription indicated by the archaeological data, and the
fact that Hazael was certainly a usurper.
Sasson, who appears to have followed both Margalit's and Yamada's16
theories, deals with the issue in a similar way:
14. B. Margalit, 'The Old-Aramaic Inscription of Hazael from Dan', UF26 (1994),
pp. 317-20(317).
15. Margalit, 'The Old-Aramaic Inscription', p. 318.
16. Yamada, 'Aram-Israel Relations', pp. 613-14.
7'. Historical Commentary 261
Hazael could have been of royal blood but not necessarily in line of succes-
sion to the throne of Aram-Damascus. Considering that in biblical times
frequently a monarch had several wives and various heirs, it is possible that
Ben Hadad was Hazael's father.17
Sasson's comments, a repeat of Margalit's previous suggestions, appears

to be an attempt simply to conform the notion that Hazael was actually the
author of the Tel Dan Inscription with the evidence from the Assyrian and
biblical sources. Sasson's suggestion that Hazael was not actually a com-
moner but perhaps the son of a minor wife or concubine fails to realize the
implication of the Assyrian label, mar la mammana ('son of a nobody').
For all the propagandistic purposes of Shalmaneser Ill's texts, the implica-
tion in calling Hazael the 'son of a nobody' is that Hazael was most cer-
tainly not of royal stock. If this was merely a piece of propaganda designed
to discredit Hazael without any shred of truth in it, then we must ask why
Shalmaneser did not employ the same 'name-calling' against other adver-
saries, especially against those of the various coalitions that stood up to
him far more successfully than Hazael ever did. The reason must undoubt-
edly be that those other adversaries were kings of legitimate royal stock
whereas Hazael was not. Hazael may have held a position in the court of
his predecessor, but he was not his predecessor's son.
Sasson also follows Na'aman's suggestion that there was no foul play in
the death of Hazael's predecessor.18 Dealing with the biblical narrative on
Hazael's accession to the throne, Sasson hypothesizes that either Hazael
was nursing his predecessor when he died, or Hazael's predecessor killed
himself either accidentally or deliberately. Throughout these two sugges-
tions, Sasson maintains that Hazael was a very close confidante of his pre-
decessor, sharing 'a relationship almost, if not actually, as close as that of
a son to his father'.19 In actual fact, the biblical narrative merely portrays
Hazael as an emissary. To suggest anything beyond that is to venture even
beyond the source that Sasson tries to extract from. Yet, even if we allow
for the understanding that no foul play was involved in the death of
Hazael's predecessor, we must ask why the direct heir did not then assume
the throne of Aram-Damascus. By Sasson's own admission, Hazael was
evidently not in the direct line of succession. Unless the death of Hazael's
predecessor was accompanied simultaneously by the death of his direct
17. Sasson, 'Murderers, Usurpers, or What?', p. 547.

18. Sasson, 'Murderers, Usurpers, or What?', pp. 548-49; Na'aman, 'Hazael of
'Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob', p. 387.
19. Sasson, 'Murderers, Usurpers, or What?', p. 548.
heir(s)either his sons and/or those in a more direct line of succession

we must understand Hazael's appropriation of the Damascene throne as
the result of deliberate court intrigue. In other words, Hazael was a usurper
in the fullest sense of the word.
Lemaire follows a more coherent path in his treatment of the issue,
though it too falls short of accounting for the difficulties inherent in seeing
Hazael as the author of the Tel Dan Inscription. Lemaire appeals to Middle
Kingdom Egypt and the Neo-Assyrian Empire to make a case that it was
not unusual for a usurper to refer to his predecessor as 'father'.20 He also
appeals to the text of 1 Sam. 24.11 in which David refers to Saul as 'my
father'. This latter example, though, may be dismissed for David is clearly
not portrayed as the 'usurper' of Saul's throne. In fact, David is portrayed
as Saul's son-in-law who eventually fills the vacuum left by Saul's son
and successor, Ish-bosheth. The same may well have been the case with
the example of Tiglath-Pileser III who could have inherited the kingship of
Assyria from a power vacuum left in the wake of a revolt in Nimrud. This
leaves Lemaire's example of Middle Kingdom Egypt. However, the rele-
vance of Pharaonic ideologies and the machinations of Egyptian politics in
the Middle Bronze Age to the situation of Hazael in Iron Age II is dubi-
ous. Nonetheless, for all that the examples of Egypt and Assyria may en-
tail, Lemaire's argument is based on the assumption that Hazael was the
author of the Tel Dan Inscription. Not only does this not comport with the
archaeological and epigraphical data of the Tel Dan Inscription, it also
represents a backward methodology. Lemaire seeks not to enquire as to
whom the author of the Tel Dan Inscription might have been, but to find
evidence supporting the assertion that Hazael was the author. The laudable
terms used by the author of the Tel Dan Inscription in reference to his
fatherand he speaks of himself with equal praisedo not permit the in-
terpretation that Hazael was the author of the stele. Such an interpretation
disregards the weight of numerous independent sources.
In further support of his hypothesis, Lemaire cites Line B4 and the facti-
tive use of Vf^Q. 21 This, claims Lemaire, indicates that the 'succession
20. Lemaire, 'The Tel Dan Stela', pp. 5-6.

21. Lemaire cites Line B4 in the configuration proposed by Biran and Naveh as the
continuation of Line A4 and the preceding line to Line A5. Lemaire patently agrees
with this arrangement of the fragments (see Lemaire, 'The Tel Dan Stela', p. 3), though
I have demonstrated the error of this position. Since Lemaire cites Line B4 in this con-
figuration, his transcription differs from mine slightly. Despite this, his point is still
relevant here and worthy of attention.
between Hadadezer [Hadad-'idri] and Hazael was not natural'.22 Once

again, Lemaire's comments are based on the assumption that Hazael was
the author of the Tel Dan Inscription. Disregarding this, however, his claim
that the factitive use of V~|^D in Line B4 indicates an unusual or prob-
lematic succession at first appears valid. However, we must note the posi-
tion of this phrase in the entire inscription, as well as the implications of
its syntax.
First, Lemaire's transcription of the relevant phrase is based on the text
reconstructed by Biran and Naveh, and so is incorrect. The relevant verb is
not a consecutive imperfect ("]^Qn[1]), as Lemaire proposes, but a simple
perfect ("[^QH). Second, contrary to Lemaire's arrangement of the frag-
ments, it has been shown that Fragment B belongs in the lower portions of
the original stele. If this phrase was referring to an unnatural succession
that had to be legitimated through divine appeal, then it is quite strange
that it appears so far down in the inscription. One expects that legitimacy
for the throne would be stated at the outset. Although Lemaire's under-
standing of the arrangement puts this phrase at the beginning of the stele,
the arrangement is unsustainable. Third, the relevant phrase Cnn"]^Qn
[TT]K) follows a reference to the author's king, presumably Hadad, in
Line B3. Lines B4-5 are, in turn, bracketed by references to war and cap-
tives. Thus, it is with reference to war that we must understand the author's
claim that Hadad made him king. That is, the author appears to have
claimed that his special task as king was specifically to make war and that
it was for this divinely ordained task that Hadad made him kinga fairly
normative Levantine ideology. Line B4, then, appears not to be a state-
ment legitimating a dynasty, but a declaration for holy war. Since, then,
the author did succeed his father to the throne, the author cannot have been
Hazael. It must be said that if it requires backward methodology based on
a defunct reading of the inscription to validate the claim that Hazael was
the author, then we must abandon the notion.
Only one other king suffices for identification as the author of the Tel
Dan Inscription, and that is Bar Hadad, Hazael's son and successor. This
Bar Hadad has been enumerated as the third, or even fourth, monarch of
that name to have worn the crown of Aram-Damascus. However, for
reasons that will be discussed below, Bar Hadad, the son of Hazael, should
be enumerated as only the second monarch of Aram-Damascus with that
name. Thus, I will refer to him as Bar Hadad II.
22. Lemaire, 'The Tel Dan Stela', p. 6.

It is not precisely known when Bar Hadad II succeeded his father as

king of Aram-Damascus, though we can estimate an approximate date.
The Tell el-Rimah Stele mentions that Adad-Nirari III received a large
tribute from a certain Mari of the land of Damascus. This information is
corroborated by the Nimrud Slab.23 It would appear that this occurred in
the year 796 BCE, which in the Eponym Chronicle is described as the year
'against Mansuate'. Mansuate appears to have been an Assyrian designa-
tion for the Beqa' Valley in the Lebanon.24 The year 796 BCE is the only
time during which Adad-Nirari III could have campaigned against Damas-
cus and received tribute from its king, one of whom was Jehoash of Israel
who had not come to the throne until c. 798 BCE.25 Adad-Nirari III is likely
to have been the 'saviour' who relieved Israel in 2 Kgs 13.5 from the
oppression of Hazael and his son, Bar Hadad II. This also means we
should identify Mari from the Tell el-Rimah Stele with Bar Hadad II.
Thus, the indications are that Bar Hadad II had been on the throne of
Aram-Damascus for at least a few years before 796 BCE.
Bar Hadad IPs death occurred some time before 773 BCE, for in that
year, Shamshi-ilu, field marshal under Shalmaneser IV, campaigned
against Hadianu of Damascus and received tribute from him. This cam-
paign is mentioned in the Pazarcik stele, while in the Eponym Chronicle,
the year is referred to as the year 'against Damascus'. The only other clue
for the date of Bar Hadad IPs death comes from the Zakkur Stele. Al-
though no concrete dates can be gleaned from the stele, the political situ-
ation it describes allows us to give an approximate date. In its description
of the siege against Hadrakh, the stele places Bar Hadad II at the head of
16 armies and their kings. According to Ahlstrom, the siege could not
have occurred after 796 BCE when Adad-Nirari III exacted tribute from
Bar Hadad II.26 However, Assyria's preoccupation with its northern enemy,
Urartu, in the latter years of Adad-Nirari III and the early years of Shal-
maneser IV, could also have occasioned Bar Hadad's alliance and the
23. Luckenbill, Ancient Records, I, p. 263.

24. A.R. Millard and H. Tadmor, 'Adad-Nirari III in Syria: Another Stele Fragment
and the Dates of his Campaigns', Iraq 35 (1973), pp. 62-64. After the fall of Damascus
in 732 BCE, the Assyrians divided its territory into various districts, one of which was
Mansuate. See further G. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palae-
olithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993),
pp. 636, 642.
25. This precludes the other possible dates for Adad-Nirari Ill's campaign against
Damascus, these being 805 BCE and 802 BCE.
26. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine, p. 611.
siege of Hadrakh after some years of respite from Assyria's opposition.27

The Zakkur Stele was written at least some years after the siege of
Hadrakh since Zakkur mentions his vast building projects undertaken after
the struggle with Bar Hadad II and his alliance.28 Since Hadianu had come
to the throne of Aram-Damascus by 773 BCE, we should date the siege of
Hadrakh sometime between c. 784-775 BCEthat is, the last years of
Adad-Nirari III and the first years of Shalmaneser IV. Thus, Bar Hadad II
was still on the throne of Aram-Damascus at this time.
The pottery assemblage gathered from the third construction phase at
the southern Iron Age gate of Tel Dan was dated to the first half of the
eighth century BCE. Since Hadianu ruled Aram-Damascus towards the end
of this period (c. 775-750 BCE),29 he could not have been the author of the
Tel Dan Inscription, which was recycled as building matter for the third
phase of construction at Dan's city gate. This third construction phase
must have occurred in the first few years of the eighth century BCE.
Therefore, Bar Hadad II is the only real candidate for the author of the Tel
Dan Inscription.
The Author's Father

The breaking of the Tel Dan Inscription must logically have occurred
immediately prior to the third phase of construction at Dan's city gate. The
hammer blow that destroyed the inscription is still evident as the semi-
circular recess along the left edge of Fragment A. Thus, it was a very
deliberate act of vandalism that destroyed the original stele. This destruc-
tion of the stele should be taken as an act of reprisal aimed against Bar
Hadad II himself. A corollary of this is that the stele had been erected as
an act of triumph or glorification of Bar Hadad II. The excellent condition
of the inscription's incisions and the date of the script demand that there
was not a great period of time between these two acts.
It is not surprising that Bar Hadad II praises the exploits and memory of
his father, Hazael, in the first few lines of the inscription's extant portions.
27. This situation compares with Hazael's ability to recoup after the campaigns of
Shalmaneser III against him in 841 and 838 BCE.
28. See Zakkur B3-15.
29. The precise dates for Hadianu's reign cannot be calculated. As mentioned above,
he had become king of Aram-Damascus by 773 BCE. His successor, Resin (Akkadian
Rahianu), is mentioned by Tiglath-Pileser III as a contemporary of Menahem of Israel.
Menahem died in 741 BCE. Thus, by this time, Hadianu had died. It is likely that Resin
had already succeeded to the throne before the coronation of Tiglath-Pileser III in 745
BCE, putting Hadianu's death sometime before that.
Hazael was arguably the most influential and successful monarch of Aram-
Damascus. His memory is even recounted in the oracles of Amos who
prophesied at Bethel nearly half a century after Hazael's death.30 Both the
Hazael Ivory and the Horse Ornament from Samos both refer to Hazael as
]N~1Q ('our lord')- It appears that this title passed to his son, Bar Hadad II,
and it was this title that was used of Bar Hadad II in the Tell el-Rimah
SteleMari.
At the time of Hazael's death, Aram-Damascus had taken control of the
region's most important trade routes. From Damascus, the vital highway
to Tadmor (Palmyra) and Mesopotamia branched to the northeast, while
the road to Hamath, Aleppo and northern Syria branched to the north. Bar
Hadad's later campaign against Zakkur of Hamath and Luath may well
have been partly motivated by a desire to restore the territory conquered
by his father. Numerous biblical texts also inform us of Hazael's capture
of Transjordanian territories, giving him the King's Highway and sub-
sequently the rich trade from Arabia. Amos's oracles condemn Damascus
for a violent conquest of Gilead (Amos 1.3-5), and Israel's boast of having
captured Lo-Debar and Qarnayim (Amos 6.13) implies that these Transjor-
danian towns previously had been in the secure possession of another
state. This can only have been Aram-Damascus. This tallies with 2 Kgs
10.32-33, which has Hazael extending his control all the way to the Arnon
Gorge. If this had indeed been the case, then Hazael would also have
controlled the caravan route through the desert between Rabbath-Ammon
and Dumah in the northern Arabian Desert.
The biblical record also has Hazael campaigning against Gath and
seizing it (2 Kgs 12.17-18). Certainly, the downfall of Gath alluded to in
Amos 6.2 was legendary. There is a question, however, as to whether this
description refers to Gath's conquest at the hands of Hazael (late ninth
century BCE) or the hands of Sargon II (712 BCE).31 If it refers to the latter,
then we must date the reference in Amos to a period well after Amos's
ministry (c. 760 BCE). Since Gath's final downfall seems to have come
with Sargon II in 712 BCE (or with Sennacherib in 701 BCE at the latest), it
is likely that the description of Gath's downfall as legendary derives from
that time.32 Although Gath may simply have been known for its many
downfalls, further support for this late date is the fact that the downfall of
30. Amos's oracles can be dated between c. 760-750 BCE. The reference to 'the
house of Hazael' is seen in Amos 1.4.
31. SeeANET,p. 286.
32. Compare Mic. 1.10.
Kalneh and Hamath are also described in Amos 6.2 as comparable to that
of Gam. Both these cities fell to Tiglath-Pileser III in 738 BCE. It is possi-
ble that Amos 6.2 refers to the conquests of Kalneh, Hamath and Gath by
Hazael, but this is much less likely.
Nevertheless, it is not inconceivable that Hazael did indeed campaign on
the Philistine Plain. Israel was certainly weak enough politically, economi-
cally and militarily for this to have occurred. The tradition of a harsh op-
pression of Israel by Damascus, particularly at the hands of Hazael, is
quite pervasive33 and would be in line with the geopolitical situation of the
late ninth century BCE. Recent excavations at Tell es-Safi, the most likely
location of Gath, have unearthed a destruction layer which has been dated
stratigraphically, typologically and radiometrically to the late ninth century
BCE or early eighth century BCE.34 Whether this destruction can be attrib-
uted to Hazael is debatable, though it is plausible. Similar destruction
levels dated to the same time have also been found at Tell er-Rumeilah
(Beth Shemesh) and Tell Hamid (Gittaim?). If the debris from these sites
can be attributed to Hazael, then it would appear that the Damascene
monarch conducted a campaign against the Shephelah region. However, it
is more likely that the debris levels from these sites are connected to either
the expansion of the Judaean state in the first half of the eighth century
BCE or, more likely, the earthquake that struck the region in c. 760 BCE.35
This still does not preclude Hazael from having campaigned at Gath.
For such a campaign to have been conducted, Hazael must have had some
kind of control over the routes in the Jezreel Valley, the Aruna Pass and
the Sharon Plain. A successful campaign against Gath would then have
given him control over the coastal road (the 'Way of the Sea') between
Egypt and Palestine. 2 Kings 12.17-18 also has Hazael initiating a cam-
paign towards Jerusalem. If this indeed occurred, it was presumably to
affect control over the road along the watershed of Palestine's hill country,
which connected with the Road to Shur and the Road to the Arabah in the
Negev. Although the biblical account has Hazael turning away from Jeru-
salem, it implies that he was able to gain effective control of these routes
through the submission of Joash of Judah. If Hazael had actually cam-
paigned that far south, his control of these regions must have been nomi-
nal or indirect, purely because of the seasonal economy of Damascus (as
33. Compare 2 Kgs 8.12; 9.14; 10.32-33; 13.3, 22.

34. My thanks go to Aren Maeir, head of the Tell es-Safi excavations, for per-
sonally communicating this information to me.
35. Compare Amos l.l;Zech. 14.5.
opposed to the perennial economies of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian

superpowers) and the distance of these southern localities from his seat of
rule. Only if Hazael employed regional governors could his control of
such southern territories have been strong. In any case, it seems clear from
the evidence that Hazael's ascendancy and economy were fuelled by his
secure possession of the King's Highway in Transjordan and the routes
branching to the north of Damascus.
The throne that Bar Hadad II inherited from his father was a prestigious
and powerful one. Hazael's military, political and economic success would
undoubtedly have been seen as a blessing from the gods, and Hazael him-
self would have been considered as their minion. The wealth captured by
Hazael would have ensured the prosperity and ascendancy of Damascus
during his lifetime. What the Tel Dan Inscription shows is Bar Hadad IPs
desire to consecrate and perpetuate the memory of his deceased father
through a kind of ancestor cult enacted at various shrines belonging to the
deity El-Baytel.
Line Al of the Tel Dan Inscription implies that Bar Hadad II was
Hazael's named successor. In Lines A4-5, Bar Hadad starts to recount
incidents from his own reign. In these lines, he seems to liken himself to
his father whom he earlier describes as a pious man (Line A2). Bar Hadad
obviously saw himself as a favourite of the gods, in particular, Hadad, to
whom he ascribes the successes of his own military campaigns with the
phrase, 'so Hadad would go before me'. It is reasonable to suggest that
Bar Hadad lived in the shadow of his father's success and desired to emu-
late his achievements. He attained at least one success worthy of mention.
The King of Israel

One of the successes that Bar Hadad experienced is mentioned first in
generalized terms and then furnished with specifics. In Lines A6-7, Bar
Hadad makes a name for himself as a slayer of kings and a defeater of
armies. In Line A8, he gives us the specific detail that he killed the king of
Israel. Three kings of Israel were contemporaries of Bar Hadad during his
reignnamely, Jehoahaz, Jehoash and Jeroboam II, all successive rulers
from the Jehu dynasty. The biblical records, however, do not recall that
any of these three Israelite kings were killed by Bar Hadad. Jeroboam II
died in 753 BCEtoo late to be the king killed by Bar Hadad since Bar
Hadad died c. 775 BCE. Jeroboam's father, Jehoash, died in 782 BCE. This
also seems slightly too late for Jehoash to have been the king killed by Bar
Hadad because the pottery assemblage from the third construction phase at
Tel Dan predates this slightly and the Tel Dan Inscription was recycled
during this construction phase. This leaves Jehoahaz who died in 798 BCE.
This date for Jehoahaz's death fits perfectly with the archaeological and
palaeographical data of the Tel Dan Inscription. Therefore, we can con-
clude that Jehoahaz ben-Jehu was the king of Israel whom Bar Hadad
claims to have killed in Line A8.
In Lines Al 1-12, Bar Hadad goes on to mention the successor of the
Israelite king whom he had killed. The biblical record states that Jehoash
ben-Jehoahaz came to the Israelite throne after his father's death (2 Kgs
13.9). This is corroborated by the Tell er-Rimah Stele, which records that
Adad-Nirari III received the tribute of 'lasu' (Joash) of Samaria.36 This
must have occurred during 796 BCE when Adad-Nirari III campaigned
against Mansuate in the Lebanese Beqa', just two years after Jehoash's
accession to the Israelite throne in Samaria. Hence, I have restored the
name 'Jehoash' or 'Joash' to the end of Line Al 1.
The biblical record of Jehoahaz's reign is a predominantly theological
statement. However, it describes a political situation that seems to be well
in keeping with the geopolitical circumstances of the timethat is, con-
flict between the states of Aram-Damascus and Israel:
In the twenty-third year of Joash ben-Ahaziah, king of Judah, Jehoahaz
ben-Jehu reigned over Israel in Samaria for seventeen years. Yet, he did
evil in Yahweh's eyes and followed the offences of Jeroboam ben-Nebat,
who had made Israel offend. He did not stray from them. So Yahweh's
anger burned against Israel and he put them into the hand of Hazael, king of
Aram, and the hand of Bar Hadad ben-Hazael all the time. (2 Kgs 13.1-3)
This account of conflict between the monarchs of the two Levantine
states squares well with Bar Hadad's own account of the conflict in the Tel
Dan Inscription. However, what the biblical record does not relate is that
Jehoahaz was killed by his nemesis, Bar Hadad. This piece of information
is glossed over by the following statement:
Yet Jehoahaz beseeched Yahweh's person and Yahweh listened to him
because he saw Israel's oppression. Indeed, the king of Aram had oppressed
them. Yahweh gave Israel a saviour and they escaped from the hand of
Aram. Then the Sons of Israel lived in their own tents as in times past.
(2 Kgs 13.4-5)
This preserves the memory of Adad-Nirari Ill's campaign to Mansuate

in 796 BCE in which Bar Hadad ('Mari' in the Tell er-Rimah Stele) was
36. In the biblical texts, the names 'Jehoash' and 'Joash' are interchangeable. The
former must be considered the proper full name and the latter a hypocoristicon.
forced to pay a hefty tribute to the Assyrian king. The Saba'a Stele puts
the tribute at 100 talents of gold, 1000 talents of silver, as well as other
sums that have been damaged on the face of the stele.37 The Tell er-Rimah
Stele puts the tribute payment at 2000 talents of silver, 1000 talents of cop-
per, 2000 talents of iron and 3000 multicoloured and plain linen gar-
ments.38 The Nimrud Slab puts the tribute at 2300 talents of silver, 20
talents of gold, 3000 talents of copper, 5000 talents of iron, coloured wool-
len and linen garments, an ivory bed, a couch inlaid and embossed with
ivory, and an immeasurable amount of Bar Hadad's property and goods.39
Whichever account is relied upon, it is abundantly clear that Bar Hadad
paid an enormous tribute to the Assyrian king. The Tell er-Rimah Stele
also tells us that the king of Israel paid an undisclosed tribute to Adad-
Nirari, though this king was not Jehoahaz but his son, Jehoash. Thus, the
notion that Israel's reprieve from Aram-Damascus came in Jehoahaz's life-
time, should be altered. The Tell er-Rimah Stele and the Eponym Chron-
icle show that the reprieve came during the reign of his son, Jehoash.
Bar Hadad had inherited from his father, Hazael, a large sphere of influ-
ence in Syria-Palestine. After Adad-Nirari Ill's castigation of Bar Hadad
in 796 BCE, Aram-Damascus began to lose sway over the region. The
archaeological record of Dan shows that at this precise time, a new phase
of construction occurred at the extremities of the southern city gate. This
can be associated with Dan's incorporation into Israel. The biblical record
corroborates this:
Hazael, king of Aram, died and Bar Hadad, his son, reigned in his stead.
Then Jehoash ben-Jehoahaz went back and took from the hand of Bar
Hadad ben-Hazael the towns that he had taken from the hand of Jehoahaz,
his father, in war. Jehoash had defeated him three times when he retrieved
the towns of Israel. (2 Kgs 13.24-25)
Jehoash of Israel was able to take advantage of Aram-Damascus' weak-

ness after the campaign of Adad-Nirari III in 796 BCE. The tribute exacted
on Bar Hadad rendered him weak against the emerging and determined
new king of Israel, Jehoash. The Israelite king's subsequent recovery of
the territories taken by Hazael (and Bar Hadad?) must have occurred quite
soon after Adad-Nirari's departure from the region. One of the cities that
Jehoash 'retrieved' must have been Dan, for the stele erected there by Bar
37. Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions, pp. 85-86.

Hadadthe Tel Dan Inscriptionwas knocked down at this time. There-

fore, the fracturing of the inscription and its recycling in the third construc-
tion phase at Dan must be associated with Jehoash's victories over Bar
Hadad and the economic advantages that these victories wrought for Israel.
The recapture of Transjordanian territories by Israel would have given
Jehoash (and his son, Jeroboam II) control of strategic stretches of both the
King's Highway and the coastal road from Egypt. Bar Hadad's line of
supply from these routes would have been effectively choked by his losses
against Jehoash.
The Toponym 'Bayt-Dawid'

As a toponym, Bayt-Dawid can be understood as either (1) the name of a
city, similar to 'Bethel', or (2) the name of a state, similar to 'Beth-Rehob'.
The fact that this geographical entity had a king implies some sort of state.
This does not necessarily lead us any closer to identifying the location, as
we could be dealing with either a state occupying a region known as Bayt-
Dawid, or a city-state centred on a city called Bayt-Dawid. Our course of
action should be to understand how exactly the name 'Bayt-Dawid' was
understood by the author of the Tel Dan Inscription, Bar Hadad II. Thus,
we must look at the contexts surrounding the occurrence of the word
THrrn in Line A9.
The apparent alliance between the king of Israel and the king of Bayt-
Dawid is implied in two ways by Bar Hadad. First, they are both
mentioned close together in successive lines (Lines A8 and A9). Second,
Bar Hadad groups the land of these two kings together. This means that
Bar Hadad either viewed the land of these two kings as a single political
entity, or, more likely, as a single terrain. It is unlikely that any other kings
were mentioned in addition to the king of Israel and the king of Bayt-
Dawid at this point in the inscription. References to any other kings would
all have to have occurred within the space of Lines A8-9. It is clear that
the king of Israel was Bar Hadad's primary opponent since his death is
recounted as a great victory for Bar Hadad who is then obligated to men-
tion his successor. Thus, the entire alliance must be recalled between the
initial reference to the king of Israel (Line A8) and the later reference to
his successor (Lines All-12). The reference to 'their land' (Line A10),
however, implies that by Line A10, Bar Hadad had listed all the parties in
alliance with the king of Israel and had begun to explain what he inflicted
on 'their land'. There is hardly enough space, therefore, for more kings to
be mentioned here.
This apparent alliance between the king of Israel and the king of Bayt-
Dawid, as well as Bar Hadad's reference to 'their land', must mean that
the region or town of Bayt-Dawid was an immediate neighbour to the king-
dom of Israel. Presumably, this means the two states shared a common
border and a single terrain. This information places Bayt-Dawid some-
where in the central hill country of Palestine. Of this area, Israel occupied
the country encompassed by the Jezreel Valley, the Jordan River, the
Sharon Plain and the mountainous region just south of Bethel. This leaves
the southern hill country south of Bethel as the area in which we should
look for Bayt-Dawid. All the other frontiers of Israel can be classed as
another terrain and are, therefore, unlikely to have been considered a unity
with the territory of Israel.
As mentioned previously, no entity named 'Bayt-Dawid' has hitherto
been known to us. Either we are dealing with an entity previously known
under a different name or we have a new entity altogether. If Bayt-Dawid
was a city-state, we need to look among the individual sites to Israel's
immediate south which date at least to the end of the ninth century BCE.
The leading candidates for a city-state dating to this time are Gibeon (el-
Jib), Gezer (Tell Jezer), Jerusalem, Beth Shemesh (Tell er-Rumeilah),
Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) and Hebron (er-Rumeidah). However, for most
of these cities, there is no evidence that they were called 'Bayt-Dawid' in
antiquity. Specifically, in the cases of Gibeon, Gezer, Lachish and Hebron,
we have evidence that these cities were known by the names by which we
know them also.40
Beth Shemesh is a particularly interesting possibility as the location of
Bayt-Dawid. Major installations for the production of olive oil and wine,
as well as minor installations for dyeing have been found at the site (Tell
er-Rumeilah) dating to Iron II.41 This suggests the importance of Beth
Shemesh as a leading centre for these industries, either in co-operation or
rivalry with nearby Eqron. Among the ceramic evidence, jar handles
stamped with the word "fbD1^ ('belonging to the king') have been found.
However, these stamped handles do not indicate that Beth Shemesh had a
resident king. Hundreds of similarly stamped jars have been found at
40. In addition to the usage of these names in the biblical texts, Lachish is named in
Assyrian texts, while the name of Hebron appears stamped on numerous storage jars
dating to the late eighth century BCE. See further Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient
Palestine, pp. 699-700.
41. E. Grant and G.E. Wright, A in Shems Excavations. V. Text and Plates (5 vols.;
Bible and Kindred Studies, 8; Haverford: Haverford College, 1939), pp. 75-77.
numerous sites throughout Judah.42 Many of them also bear the name of a
city, though only four cities are attested from these stamped jarnamely,
Hebron, Socoh, Ziph and the enigmatic H^QQ. It is quite easy to read these
stamps as construct expressions, such as 'Belonging to the king of Hebron'
or 'Belonging to the king of Socoh'.
However, numerous factors count against this interpretation. First, these
storage jars are all of the same essential type and the letters l^fcb are
accompanied by an image of either a winged sun-disk or a scarab beetle.
Certainly the scarab beetle image has been identified on two bullae as part
of the personal seal of Hezekiah.43 The iconography, palaeography, epi-
graphy and archaeological context of these jars point to a date towards the
end of the eighth century BCE.44 They also reflect a situation in which all of
Judah was under the central administration of Jerusalem. All the seal
impressions on these particular storage jars throughout Judah were also
made with a small number of seals.45 Also, the clay that the jars them-
selves are made of appears to have a provenance in or around Jerusalem
and the region around Mareshah and Moreshet-Gath in the Shephelah.46
The enigmatic name HO2Q has variously been interpreted as a reference to
'Jerusalem' or the government of Judah centred in Jerusalem.47 To this we
may add that it might be a reference to Mareshah or Moreshet-Gath (per-
haps a misspelling?). Whatever the interpretation of the name, however,
these jars were not made in the cities whose names are stamped on them
(unless a connection between HO2Q and Mareshah can be made). Rather,
they were distributed to numerous towns in Judah, perhaps with the
intention of transferring them to the cities stamped on the handles.48 Thus,
42. D. Ussishkin, 'Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions',
BASOR 223 (1976), pp. 1-13; 'The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the
Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars', Tel Aviv 4 (1977), pp. 28-60.
43. P.M. Cross, 'King Hezekiah's Seal Bears Phoenician Imagery', BARev 25.2
(1999), pp. 42-45, 60.
44. Ussishkin, 'The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib', pp. 28-60; Cross,
'King Hezekiah's Seal Bears Phoenician Imagery', p. 44.
45. J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (London:
SCM Press, 1986), pp. 354-56.
46. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine, pp. 699-700.
47. H.L. Ginsberg, 'MMST andMSH', BASOR 109 (1948), pp. 20-21; Y. Aharoni,
The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (London: Westminster Press, 2nd rev.
edn, 1979), pp. 298-99.
48. For various theories about the purpose of these stamped jars and the signifi-
cance of the cities stamped on their handles, see N. Na'aman, 'Hezekiah's Fortified
at the end of the eighth century BCE, Beth Shemesh was not a city-state,
but part of the regional state of Judah.
Yet, was this also the situation earlier in that same century? In the
biblical record, Beth Shemesh is portrayed as the centre of a territorial
dispute between Israel and Judah during the reigns of Jehoash of Israel and
Amaziah of Judah (2 Kgs 14.8-14). The decided supremacy of Israel at the
beginning of the eighth century BCE is well attested by the archaeological
record. During the reigns of Jehoash and his son, Jeroboam II, Israel ex-
perienced a cultural and economic floruit. Judah at this time was a less
well established state, just emerging from veritable insignificance on the
international political arena, though on the rise as an organized state. It is
only to be expected that if Israel and Judah did indeed clash at this time,
as the biblical text purports, that Israel would have been the victor. The
question is whether Israel and Judah actually clashed. The answer to this
question is that they most likely did, especially since both states were
expanding during the reigns of Jehoash and Amaziah. Possession of the
agriculturally rich Shephelah, particularly the city of Beth Shemesh, would
undoubtedly have become an issue at some stage. There is no reason, then,
to dismiss the biblical text, which reports what is only to be expected
given the archaeological evidence.
This being the case, it is unlikely that Beth Shemesh was an independent
city-state in c. 800 BCE. It appears to have been a city of certain importance,
but not a state capital independent of either Israel or Judah. In excavations
at the site of Beth Shemesh (Tell er-Rumeilah), no palatial structures dating
to Iron II have been found. One large structure was uncovered which Grant
and Wright call a 'residency', but even by their own admission, there is
nothing about the structure to suggest it was a palace or even a governor's
residence.49 Furthermore, the wall of Beth Shemesh was severely breached
during the destruction of the Stratum IV city, probably at the hands of the
Philistines.50 These breaches were repaired with rubble during subsequent
Cities and the LMLK Stamps \BASOR 261 (1986), pp. 5-21; Y. Yadin, 'The Fourfold
Division of Judah', BASOR 163 (1961), pp. 6-12.
49. Grant and Wright, Ain Shems Excavations, V, pp. 69-71.
50. Grant and Wright date the destruction of Stratum IV to the end of the thirteenth
century BCE claiming that the Philistines were unlikely to have been the perpetrators;
see Grant and Wright, Ain Shems Excavations, V, p. 12. However, following Finkel-
stein's observations regarding the relation between Monochrome ware and sites from
the 20th Dynastysee Finkelstein, 'The Archaeology of the United Monarchy'I am
inclined to downdate Grant and Wright's conclusion by the better part of a century.
levels of occupation and were made considerably narrower (1 m in thick-

ness) than the original wall (2.4 m in thickness), or were simply built over
in the construction of houses.51 This could hardly be called advanced or for-
midable fortification. Thus, if there had been a city-state at Beth Shemesh
at this time it was a very weak one. In any case, the abundance of Philistine
ware from Stratum III of Tell er-Rumeilah, which we date from the late
twelfth to the late tenth centuries BCE,52 indicates that Beth Shemesh was
well and truly in the orbit of Philistia at this time. The less prosperous city
of Stratum II and its various phases which are of relevance to the time of
the Tel Dan Inscription's manufacture, highlights the unlikelihood of any
state administration centred at Beth Shemesh.
However, the weak defences and the lack of palatial structures at Beth
Shemesh must be offset by the presence of industrial installations for the
processing of olives and wine, a dyeing industry and an apparent increase
in population in Iron II. These indicate that Beth Shemesh was a thriving
town, though not as prosperous as the previous Philistine-administered
city, and certainly not an independent city-state.
The statement in 2 Kgs 14.11 that Beth Shemesh belonged to Judah
further supports the notion that Beth Shemesh was part of a larger regional
state. This territorial claim in the biblical text should alert us to the pro-
Jerusalem and pro-Judaean bias of the author-compilers. That Amaziah of
Judah is described as drawing Jehoash of Israel into battle at Beth
Shemesh implies that Beth Shemesh was in Israel's possession and that
Judah had to wrest the town from Israel in order to press its claim. That
the recollection of this incident corroborates quite well with the archaeo-
logical and geopolitical landscape of the early eighth century BCE must
verify at least some degree of accuracy in the biblical account. All the
sources, therefore, point to Beth Shemesh being part of a larger state entity
centred on another city at the time in question. It is most unlikely, there-
fore, that Beth Shemesh was the Bayt-Dawid of the Tel Dan Inscription.
Jerusalem, however, fits the evidence remarkably well. The biblical text
gives the constant impression that Jerusalem was always the capital of a
larger state called 'Judah'. This was certainly the case in the late eighth
century BCE and the late seventh to early sixth century BCE. However,
Jerusalem did not attain the status of a metropolis until the mid-eighth
century BCE. By the time of Sennacherib's campaign against Hezekiah
51. Grant and Wright, Ain Shems Excavations, V, pp. 18-26.

52. This is in accordance with Finkelstein's readjustment of the period. See n. 50
above.
(701 BCE), Jerusalem had been strongly fortified. With the city expanding
into the 'Second Quarter' (i~I]O2n) on the Western Hill, a new 'broad wall'
was erected to protect these new outer environs.53 At this time, we can see
the influence of Jerusalem extending to all corners of Judah's greater area.
Among the evidence for this is Sennacherib's own annals recounting his
campaign in 701 BCE. Sennacherib mentions having besieged 46 of Heze-
kiah's cities and taking them from Hezekiah's country and giving them to
various Philistine kings.54 This must be a reference to a regional state of
Judah. Sennacherib also calls Hezekiah 'the Judaean' (Akkadian laudai),
obviously in reference to the country that Hezekiah ruled.
Prior to this time, however, Jerusalem was a smaller town, confined to
the ridge popularly known as the 'City of David' and the area roughly
equating to the current Temple Mount. Amos's oracles against the nations
(Amos 1.3-2.16) reflect a political situation in c. 760 BCE in which a state
of Judah did exist, with Jerusalem as the capital. Yet, how large was the
state of Judah at this time? Certainly Amos himself was considered a
Judaean with his home in Tekoa.55 Thus, we are safe in determining that in
c. 760 BCE the state of Judah extended from the northern environs of Jeru-
salem along the Central Ridge of Palestine to at least Tekoa, some 15 km
south of Jerusalem. If the accounts of the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah
(Azariah), kings of Judah, are accurate, we have a situation in which
Judah's influence extended all the way to Edom,56 even as far as the Gulf
of Aqabah.57 This is indeed a plausible situation considering that the for-
mer power of the region, Aram-Damascus, had been considerably weak-
ened and its territories along the King's Highway taken from its control.
Judah could easily have taken advantage of this new situation to pursue its
53. The 'Second Quarter' (TUBOn) is mentioned in 2 Kgs 22.14 (= 2 Chron. 34.22).
The building of this new outer wall is recalled in 2 Chron. 32.5 and probably also in
Isa. 22.10-11. This must be the 'Broad Wall' uncovered by Avigad. See N. Avigad,
'Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, 1969/1970', 7E/20
(1970), pp. 1-8, 129-40; idem, 'Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of
Jerusalem, 1971', IEJ22 (1972), pp. 193-200; A.D. Tushingham, 'The Western Hill
under the Monarchy', ZDPV95 (1979), pp. 39-55. For the possibility that this outer
wall was built after Sennacherib's campaign in 701 BCE, see N. Avigad, Discovering
Jerusalem (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983), pp. 46-57.
54. See ANET, pp. 287-88.
55. This impression is gained by the superscription to Amos's oracles (Amos 1.1)
and the record of his encounter with Amaziah, priest of Bethel (Amos 7.12).
56. Compare 2 Kgs 14.7, 10.
57. Compare 2 Kgs 14.22.
interests in the south at this point. Effective control of the corridor

between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqabah only required possession of
the junction between the King's Highway and the Way to the Arabah near
Bozrah. Thus, with a single victory, this may have been achieved for
Judah.58 Axiomatic to this, though, is that Judah had some type of central-
ized government and military organization at its disposal. The eighth cen-
tury BCE economic boom in Judah implies as much. This centralized
structure must have come from Jerusalem.
However, just how far Judah's influence reached into the hills west of
the Central Ridge is difficult to determine. The Beth Shemesh campaign
may have been an attempt on the part of Amaziah to enlarge Judah's ter-
ritory, perhaps to regain traditional or ideological boundaries. Zimhoni's
examination of the ceramic evidence from Lachish shows that in the
second quarter of the eighth century BCE an industrial revolution began in
Judah.59 This increase in economic activity, corresponding to Lachish III,
led to the consolidation of the Judaean administration in Jerusalem, right
up until Sennacherib's campaign in 701 BCE. The previous period, corre-
sponding to Lachish IV (eighth century BCE),60 was characterized by a city
wall and a palace-fort. This undoubtedly suggests that Lachish was an im-
portant administrative centre at this time. Yet, does it represent an autono-
mous government at Lachish, or is it evidence of a centralized regional
government incorporating other districts of Judah?
At the end of the eighth century BCE Lachish was under Jerusalem's
sovereignty. 2 Kings 14.19 preserves an account of Amaziah's assassina-
tion at Lachish in c. 767 BCE. The fact that the conspirators could both
murder Amaziah at Lachish and then bring his body back to Jerusalem
suggests that the kings of Jerusalem did have some influence at Lachish.
The beginning of Lachish III is dated to around the same time as Ama-
ziah's assassination. The destruction of the previous city, Lachish IV,
58. For the course of these and other relevant roads, see Y. Aharoni and M. Avi-
Yonah, Macmillan Bible Atlas (New York: Macmillan, 3rd rev. edn, 1993), p. 17, Map
10.
59. This is evidenced by a notable shift in ceramic culture. See O. Zimhoni, Studies
in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological, Archaeological, and Chronological
Aspects (Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 1997), pp. 172-73.
60. The exact chronology for Strata IV and V at Lachish is still not fixed. However,
the end of Lachish IV can be placed in the early eighth century BCE. Its cultural con-
tinuity with the preceding Lachish V leads us to consider Lachish IV as representing at
least the second half of the ninth century BCE. See further Zimhoni, Studies in the Iron
Age Pottery of Israel, pp. 172-74.
should not be attributed to a hostile takeover of Lachish by Amaziah, and

thereby suggest an independent city-state at Lachish prior to that time.
Rather, the destruction of Lachish IV is best explained as the result of an
earthquake, presumably the one recalled in Amos 1.1 and Zech. 14.5.61
This quake is dated to the reign of Amaziah's son, Uzziah (Azariah). Thus,
there is actually a smooth transition from the poorer economy of Lachish
IV to the more affluent economy attested in Lachish III with its renewed
building activity and ceramic innovations. The connection between Jeru-
salem and Lachish hinted at in the account of Amaziah's assassination
probably indicates that Lachish had come under Jerusalem's influence by
Amaziah's reign at the latest.
These data suggest that there was a traditional tie between Jerusalem
and the Shephelah, which the kings of Jerusalem were probably unable to
enforce so long as Aram-Damascus was the dominant power of the region.
With the demise of Aram-Damascus, though, Jerusalem appears to have
been released from economic impediments, thus being able to actively
enforce its suzerainty over Lachish. The same scenario at Beth Shemesh
may well have prevailed. Indeed, it seems to have been the cause for Ama-
ziah's conflict with Jehoash of Israel who had probably already staked his
own claim on this industrially rich city in the fertile Soreq Valley. Jeho-
ash's claim, then, stood in direct opposition to the traditional links of Beth
Shemesh with Judah and hence the kings of Jerusalem.
At the time the Tel Dan Inscription was written, sometime early in the
reign of Jehoash of Israel, the state of Judah was probably on the verge of
recovering its traditional or ideological boundaries. Jerusalem, in all likeli-
hood, had only token sovereignty over the regions of Judah at this time.
The harsh political and economic reality was that Judah had been effec-
tively fractured into virtually autonomous districts which did not have the
military or political clout to assert any real claim over other districts, espe-
cially if Aram-Damascus exercised control over the region. Instead, the
economic fortunes of these districts, which could have led to military and
political strength, would have been funnelled into the coffers of the Dam-
ascene kings. The relative insignificance of Judah during this time is dem-
onstrated by Adad-Nirari III in the Nimrud Slab. In this text, the Assyrian
king fails to mention Judah in the list of'Amurru in its totality', though he
mentions Israel (BitHumri), Edom and Philistia.62 This may be a sign that,
61. Ussishkin, 'The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib', p. 52; Zimhoni,

Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel, pp. 172-73.
62. ANET,p. 281.
along with Ammon and Moab, Judah was a particularly weak and
politically insignificant region. Indeed, Ammon and Moab must have
suffered considerably while Aram-Damascus controlled the King's High-
way. If Hazael did exact tribute from Joash of Judah,63 then Judah must
have been put into a similarly weak state.
It is with this poor, insignificant and fractured region that we should
associate the toponym Bayt-Dawid. This locality was essentially confined
to the southern spur of Jerusalem, though it may have had some influence
over a few neighbouring hills and valleys. After the campaign of Sennach-
erib against Hezekiah in c. 701 BCE, Judah was again essentially reduced
to these limitsa fact reflected in Esarhaddon's annals, where Hezekiah's
successor, Manasseh, is called sar URUIa 'udi ('king of the city of Judah').64
The connection between Bayt-Dawid and Jerusalem is clinched when we
understand the nature of Jerusalem prior to the economic boom of the
eighth century BCE and the names associated with the town.
In c. 800 BCE the city of Jerusalem was confined to the narrow spur
between the Qidron Valley and the Central (Tyropoean) Valley. We can
also presume the presence of a temple on the Temple Mount. A fortifying
wall connected these two sections of the city in the ninth century BCE at
the earliest.65 The Western Hill to the west of the Central (Tyropoean)
Valley was not incorporated into the city until well into the reign of Heze-
kiah.66 That there was previous settlement on the Western Hill is demon-
strated by the fact that Hezekiah's wall enclosing this 'Second Quarter'
was built over some of the ruins of previously standing houses. However,
it is unlikely that there was much, if any, settlement on the Western Hill in
c. 800 BCE. The ceramic wares taken from these demolished houses date
from no earlier than the eighth century BCE,67 pointing to settlement of the
Western Hill sometime during that century rather than during the previous
ninth century BCE.
Thus, the city of Jerusalem in c. 800 BCE occupied only the spur known
as the 'City of David' or 'Ophel'. The biblical text knows of this term,
"111 TU ('City of David'), as an early or alternate name for Jerusalem. The

64. Prism B V.55-57; Â^r, p. 291.
65. E. Mazar and B. Mazar, Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The
Ophel ofBiblicalJerusalem (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University
of Jerusalem, 1989), p. 58.
66. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, pp. 55-56.
67. See Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, p. 49.
name is most frequently associated with the place of burial for the kings of
Judah. Up until the time of Jerusalem's expansion under Hezekiah, the bib-
lical text places the burial of every Judaean king in the 'City of David'.68
Importantly, in 2 Sam. 5.7 it is associated with the 'fortress of Zion', cap-
tured by and renamed after David. It appears, therefore, that the name "IT
"111 ('City of David') is associated with references to the early stages of
Jerusalem-namely, the period before the end of the eighth century BCE. It
has a strong tradition of association with a fortified compound and its
royal owners.
It is my contention that the toponym 'Bayt-Dawid' (TITTD), as used in
the Tel Dan Inscription, is the equivalent of the biblical 'City of David'
("111 TU). The nounTU ('city') is unattested in Old Aramaic, so there is
no surprise that this element has been substituted with -TPD in the Old
Aramaic of the Tel Dan Inscription. The reason why the noun iT"!p was
not used instead may be due to the fact that Jerusalem, at this time, was
more of a citadel or castle compound rather than an urban settlement.69
Nevertheless, we do see an interchange between the element -TU and -TVI3
when, in Josh. 19.41, the town of Beth Shemesh is referred to as VlftV} "IT
('Ir Shemesh'). Thus, the interchange is certainly not unheard of.
Since Bayt-Dawid is the equivalent of 'City of David', we must there-
fore understand the toponym 'Bayt-Dawid' as a reference to a landed
estate or city-state. It should not be regarded as a reference to a regional
state, for had the City of David stood as a capital of a regional state, then
we would expect Bar Hadad to have referred to this state by its regional
title, rniiT ('Judah'). Since this is not the case, 'Bayt-Dawid' should be
considered a landed estate or a city-state that lent its name to the immedi-
ately surrounding district, rather than to the entire region of Judah. Thus,
the Tel Dan Inscription confirms that Jerusalem's sovereignty over the
regions of Judah was more token and ideological than an actual political
reality. From the point of view of the region's most dominant power of the
68. There is some confusion over the precise of location of Ahaz's tomb in the
biblical accounts. 2 Kgs 16.20 places his tomb in the City of David, while 2 Chron.
28.27 sees Ahaz buried 'in the city, in Jerusalem', though not in the same tombs as the
kings of Israel. Despite this odd statement about the precise location of Ahaz's tomb, it
appears clear that he was buried in the City of David. The text of Kings fails to men-
tion the location of Hezekiah's tomb. The Chronicler, however, tells us that he was
buried in the 'upper tombs of David's sons' (2 Chron. 32.33). This was probably
located in the City of David.
69. Compare Sabean "1U meaning 'fortified height'.
time, Aram-Damascus, 'Bayt-Dawid' was only a small feudal estate with

its own lord who was in league with the larger regional state of Israel.
These feudal lords of Bayt-Dawid had a close association with their feudal
residence, a fortified compound on the southern spur of Jerusalem, and it
was the name of this fortified compound, 'Bayt-Dawid' or 'City of David',
by which the lords and their estate were known. Bayt-Dawid was, in
effect, a small principality with very limited suzerainty.
The King of Bayt-Dawid

With the identity of Bayt-Dawid known, it becomes a relatively simple task
to identify the king of Bayt-Dawid mentioned by Bar Hadad II in the Tel
Dan Inscription. The king of Israel whom Bar Hadad II killed was un-
doubtedly Jehoahaz ben-Jehu. The king of Jerusalem at the time of Jeho-
ahaz's death was Joash ben-Ahaziah. Since Bayt-Dawid is to be identified
as Jerusalem, Joash must be the king of Bayt-Dawid referred to in the Tel
Dan Inscription. Joash's reign began in c. 835 BCE after a coup to depose
the Queen Dowager, Athaliah. His reign ended not long after Jehoahaz of
Israel was slain by Bar Hadad; Joash was assassinated in c. 796 BCE 'in the
House of the Millo which goes down to Silla' (2Kgs 12.21). This House of
the Millo was located in Jerusalem and may have been partly uncovered by
Benjamin Mazar.70 Joash was succeeded by his son, Amaziah, who then
began what effectively amounts to a Judaean expansionist policy in the
power vacuum left in the wake of Aram-Damascus' demise. The short time
span between the deaths of Jehoahaz (c. 798 BCE) and Joash (c. 796 BCE)
gives us a very accurate margin with which to date the Tel Dan Inscription.
The Inscription and the Biblical Text

The facts we can glean from the Tel Dan Inscription confirm for us a long-
held suspicion about the biblical accounts of the wars between Israel and
Aram-Damascus. It has long been thought that the account of Ahab's
death in battle against Bar Hadad (2 Kgs 22.29-37) and other narratives
dealing with the Aramaean conflict have been misplaced. That is, these
narratives do not refer to the reign of Ahab, but to the reigns of later Israel-
ite monarchs.70 The Tel Dan Inscription confirms that these narratives
actually derive from the reigns of Jehoahaz and Jehoash.
70. Mazar and Mazar, Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount, pp. 13, 29.
71. E.g. A. Jepsen, 'Israel und Damaskus', AfO 14 (1941-45), pp. 153-72; C.F.
Whitley, 'The Deuteronomic Presentation of the House of Omri', VT 1 (1952),
pp. 137-52; J.M. Miller, 'The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars', JBL
Ahab was evidently a very strong monarch politically, economically

and militarily. His ability to field the largest chariot force of the southern
coalition which fought Shalmaneser III at Qarqar (853 BCE) attests to his
influence,72 as does his connection to the Tyrian royal family through his
marriage to Jezebel, daughter of Ithbaal I. At the battle of Qarqar, Ahab
and his Damascene counterpart, Hadad-'idri, both stood together in the
same coalition against the Assyrian force of Shalmaneser. We may also
surmise that after Ahab's death in 853 BCE, Israel continued to support the
southern coalition against Shalmaneser III. Indeed, three more encounters
between Assyria and the southern coalition occurred after Ahab's death: in
849 BCE, 848 BCE and 845 BCEthat is, during the reign of Ahab's second
son, Jehoram.
It appears that a rift between Samaria and Damascus occurred only after
Hazael usurped the Damascene throne in c. 843 BCE and began an expan-
sionist policy that brought him into direct conflict with neighbouring
Israel. This would be the reason why Jehoram of Israel is portrayed as
warring against Hazael during which he received serious wounds (2 Kgs
8.28-29; 9.14-16). It was while Jehoram was recovering from these wounds
that Jehu's coup d'etat took place (in 841 BCE).
The notion that Jehu's coup had been backed by Hazael (as derived
from previous interpretations of the Tel Dan Inscription) does not make
sense of the political situation then current. Israel still suffered terribly in
the face of Hazael's expansionist policy even after Jehu usurped the Israel-
ite throne. Hazael's reign is clearly portrayed as a time of severe oppres-
sion. Jehu's coup seems to have done nothing to resolve any differences
between Samaria and Damascus. In fact, the dissolution of the anti-Assyr-
ian coalition of the south by 841 BCE implies an obvious lack of unity and
uniformity between the two major partners of the coalition, Israel and
Aram-Damascus. Shalmaneser's respective treatment of Hazael and Jehu
85 (1966), pp. 441-54; idem, 'The Fall of the House of Ahab', VTll (1967), pp. 307-
324; idem, 'The Rest of the Acts of Jehoahaz', ZAW 80 (1968), pp. 337-42; E.
Lipinski, 'Le Ben-Hadad II de la Bible et 1'histoire', in P. Peli (ed.), Proceedings of the
Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (4 vols.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish
Studies, 1969), I, pp. 157'-Ibidem,' Aram et Israel duX e auvm e siecleav.N.E.',v4c/a
Antiquita 27 (1979), pp. 49-102 (75-76); Pitard, Ancient Damascus, pp. 114-25;
Yamada, 'Aram-Israel Relations', pp. 615-18.
72. Although the numbers of the southern coalition were probably inflated in the
Assyrian texts, Ahab's importance and strength within the coalition is not undermined.
The fact that he could send a chariot and infantry force to Qarqar in northern Syria that
was worthy of mention by the Assyrians confirms this fact.
further demonstrates the fact that these two Levantine kings were clearly
rivals, not allies.73
Thus, it appears that until Hazael's seizing of the Damascene throne,
there was an active entente between Israel and Aram-Damascus. It is, there-
fore, odd that Ahab, a clearly willing member of this entente cordiale, is
portrayed in the biblical text as constantly embroiled in hostilities with his
Damascene counterpart.74 This does not seem to comport with the political
situation of the time. With regard to this discrepancy, three biblical texts
are of interest to us.
1 Kings 22.1-40. The first episode we need to deal with is that of Ahab's
death. The narrative recounts a campaign in which Ahab of Israel and
Jehoshaphat of Judah join forces to fight the Aramaeans and recapture
Ramoth-Gilead. This was a Transjordanian city on the King's Highway
which the Aramaeans were in possession of, but to which Israel had tradi-
tional claims. In the narrative, the king of Israel's tactic is to head into the
battle incognito, but he suffers a blow from an arrow shot at random.
Watching the battle from his chariot, the king of Israel succumbs to his
wound and dies. Upon his death, his forces retreat and are defeated. The
king's body is then conveyed to Samaria and buried there.
In this narrative, the king of Israel remains largely anonymous. It would
appear that the names of both the king of Israel and the king of Judah, when
they are expressly named in the narrative, have been supplied at a much
later stage of the narrative's transmission in order to discredit the Omride
Dynasty, especially Ahab. The geopolitical situation at the end of Ahab's
reign does not permit such a battle between Israel and Aram-Damascus to
have been fought for possession of Ramoth-Gilead. In the year of Ahab's
death, 853 BCE, both Ahab and Hadad-'idri of Aram-Damascus had been
allies in the anti-Assyrian coalition that confronted Shalmaneser III at
Qarqar and checked his advance.
Lipinski suggested that this narrative of Ahab's death actually recounts
the death of his son, Jehoram.75 However, since Jehoram was assassinated
in Jehu's coup, this theory does not fit the evidence. The narrative does,
however, fit the time of Jehoahaz remarkably well, especially considering
73. See ANET, pp. 279-81.

74. This discrepancy is also noticed in N. Na'aman, 'The Contribution of Royal
Inscriptions for a Re-Evaluation of the Book of Kings as a Historical Source', JSOT 82
(1998), pp. 3-17(6-7).
75. Lipinski, 'Le Ben-Hadad II de la Bible et 1'histoire', pp. 157-73.
the information gleaned from the Tel Dan Inscription. Dijkstra suggested
the plausibility of this scenario in connection with the Tel Dan Inscription,
but rejected it on the grounds that the archaeological context did not permit
a date for Fragment A at the turn of the eighth century BCE.76 Dijkstra's
article, however, appeared before the discovery of Fragments Bl and B2.
Furthermore, the evidence from excavations subsequent to the discovery of
these fragments proves that the original inscription must date to the turn of
the eighth century BCE. Therefore, the connection with the reign of Jehoahaz
is immediately apparent and applicable to the biblical text.
During Jehoahaz's lifetime, Hazael had taken possession of Israel's
Transjordanian territories. Understanding 1 Kgs 22.1-40 in connection
with Jehoahaz, it appears that upon Hazael's death, Jehoahaz tried to renew
resistance against Aramaean domination and attempted to retake Ramoth-
Gilead in Transjordan. To do this he enlisted the help of Joash, king of
Bayt-Dawid, and went into battle against Hazael's successor, Bar Hadad
II. In this battle, Jehoahaz lost his life and Israel was presumably defeated.
Thus, the biblical account of Ahab's death has actually been derived
from the memory of Jehoahaz's death at the hands of Bar Hadad. The
memory of this event is still preserved in the Tel Dan Inscription. Just how
Ahab actually died remains an unanswered question. It has been posited
that Ahab died a natural death because of the formulaic statement in 1 Kgs
22.40 that 'Ahab reposed with his fathers'.77 However, since the same for-
mula is used to mark Jehoahaz's death in 2 Kgs 13.9, one wonders whether
this is simply the result of editorial confusion over the various narratives
and traditions, or whether the author-compilers of Kings ever actually
intended the formula to mark a natural death. It is clear that Ahab died in
the same year he fielded a force to fight Shalmaneser III at Qarqar in 853
BCE. That this is the case is confirmed by the fact that Shalmaneser records
receiving tribute from Jehu in 841 BCE. The biblical chronology places 12
years precisely between the end of Ahab's reign and the beginning of
Jehu's reign. This being the case, Ahab's death in 853 BCE may have
occurred on the field of battle against Shalmaneser III at Qarqar or as the
result of an injury suffered at this battle. The memory of this event may
have been fused with the memory of Jehoahaz's death at the hands of Bar
Hadad II.
76. Dijkstra, 'An Epigraphic and Historical Note', p. 13.

77. B. Alfrink, 'L'Expression Vnin$ US 13&, OTS2 (1943), pp. 106-18; Ahlstrom,
The History of Ancient Palestine, p. 576.
If such a conflation of traditions did indeed occur, then it might even

explain how the name of Jehoshaphat entered the narrative. The relation
between the royal families of Samaria and Jerusalem through the marriage
of Jehoram and Athaliah probably reflected an entente cordiale between
Ahab and Jehoshaphat. It is not inconceivable, then, that Jehoshaphat
accompanied Ahab to Qarqar as either a vassal or an ally. It would certainly
have been politically expedient for Jehoshaphat to pursue this association
with an anti-Assyrian coalition, not just to ward off Shalmaneser III, but to
avoid crossing the relatively powerful Ahab and an entire coalition of 12 or
more Levantine states.
1 Kings 20.23-43. In this narrative of an Israelite victory over Aram-

Damascus, the name of the Damascene king is given as 'Ben Hadad'the
Hebrew equivalent of 'Bar Hadad'. From the Monolith Inscription of Shal-
maneser III, it is known that Hadad-'idri was the king of Aram-Damascus
at this time. Thus, there is a discrepancy with the identification of the
Damascene king in the biblical text.78 It is also telling that in this particular
narrative, the king of Israel is once again anonymous. The placement of
this narrative has resulted in the inference that Ahab is the king of Israel
involved. Also of note is the fact that the Israelite force facing the Aramae-
ans was so small, it was comparable to 'two folds of goats' while the
Aramaean army was immensely large (1 Kgs 20.27).
Thus, the situation we have in 1 Kgs 20.23-43 is of an unnamed king of
Israel fighting a Damascene king by the name of Bar Hadad at Apheq with
the smallest of armies. The result of the battle, though, is the defeat of Bar
Hadad and the subsequent return of territory to Israel, which Bar Hadad's
father had captured a generation earlier. Also, the king of Israel is per-
mitted to set up rnuin ('outposts')79 in Damascus. This does not fit the cir-
78. Although it is possible simply to see 'Bar Hadad' as a title and 'Hadad-'idri' as
the personal name of the king of Aram-Damascus, or even that the king had two names
(compare Uzziah/Azariah of Judah), the fact that there is a difference in the name
supports the notion of a misplaced narrative.
79. The exact nuance of the Hebrew word miMn is debatable. The word is derived
from a root meaning 'outside' and could refer to streets, bazaars or distribution centres
for produce and manufactured items. Biran has surmised that the structural complex in
which Fragment A was recycled was actually a ilHin, interpreting this as a marketplace
that stood 'outside' the city walls. See Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques', pp. 50-52. How-
ever, the nature of this structure in its earliest phase may suggest a military purpose
(p. 45). I have rendered the term as 'outposts' here in an attempt to convey its general
meaning as well as its ambiguity.
cumstances of Ahab at all. Apart from the discrepancy of the Damascene

king's name, Ahab's army was one of the largest in the region, as evi-
denced by his contribution to the anti-Assyrian coalition as portrayed in
the Monolith Inscription. Also, since Ahab and his Damascene counterpart
were allies, we are at a loss to reasonably account for this hostility.
The situation, however, does fit the circumstances of Jehoash ben-Jeho-
ahaz remarkably well. In this instance, we see Jehoash defeating Bar
Hadad II and reclaiming all the territory seized by Bar Hadad's enor-
mously successful father, Hazael. The link with the battle site of Apheq is
made when we consider the narrative of 2 Kgs 13.14-19. In that episode,
the prophet Elisha prophesies that Jehoash would defeat Aram-Damascus
three times and would have to attack the Aramaeans at Apheq. A little
further on in the narrative, we are told that Jehoash did indeed defeat Bar
Hadad three times and so recapture the Israelite territories which Hazael
had taken from Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 13.25). We are also told in 2 Kgs 13.7
that the force of Israel during the reign of Jehoash's father, Jehoahaz, was
only 50 cavalry units, ten chariotry units and ten companies (literally,
'thousands') of infantry soldiers. We cannot know whether these figures
are accurate or not, but it definitely appears that the Israelite army in Jeho-
ahaz's day was vastly smaller than the army in the time of Ahab. Thus, it
is reasonable to suggest that the force Jehoash inherited from his father did
indeed resemble 'two folds of goats'.
We see, then, how this narrative has been misplaced and taken from its
original context, the first Israelite victory over Bar Hadad II under Jehoash,
and put into a secondary context during Ahab's reign.
1 Kings 20.1-22. This narrative relates a siege instigated by 'Ben Hadad'

against Samaria during the reign of Ahab. Ben Hadad makes certain de-
mands for hostages, which the king of Israel initially agrees to. However,
once Ben Hadad increases his demands, the king of Israel refuses. An
anonymous prophet predicts that the king of Israel will have victory over
Ben Hadad. While Ben Hadad and his 32 accompanying kings carouse in
their tents, they are attacked by a small Israelite force of seven companies
(literally, 'thousands')80 and 232 city official trainees (miDil "HE ni?3).
Ben Hadad's siege and demands are thwarted in this successful attack, but
Ben Hadad escapes on horseback with his cavalry.
80. This figure could also refer in the text to the whole population (or male
population) of Israel.
The king of Israel is expressly named only three times in the narrative
(1 Kgs 20.2,13,14). Otherwise, the king of Israel is anonymous. In 1 Kgs
20.13-14 Ahab is named in the encounter with the anonymous prophet. It
is possible that this episode has been inserted into an account of an anony-
mous Israelite king who was besieged in Samaria by 'Ben Hadad'that
is, Bar Hadad. Thus, we may have here the intertwining of two separate
traditions into the one narrative. Indeed, the account of a victory for Ahab
seems quite odd given the agenda of the writer-compilers of Kings to dis-
credit Ahab and the Omride Dynasty. Alternatively, the name of Ahab has
simply been injected into the narrative to provide a specific name for an
anonymous Israelite king.
Catalogue of the Kings of Aram-Damascus

This analysis of the biblical texts in light of the Tel Dan Inscription has
highlighted that the 'Ben Hadad' of the Ahab narratives in Kings was not a
contemporary of Ahab, but of Jehoahaz and Jehoash. It must be noted that
there are two distinct Damascene kings called 'Ben Hadad' (i.e. Bar
Hadad) in the biblical text. The first is the son of Tabrimmon, who features
only in 1 Kings 15. This first 'Ben Hadad' is not associated with Ahab.
The second 'Ben Hadad' is the son of Hazael, and it is with him that our
interests lie.
Bar Hadad, the son of Hazael, has commonly been enumerated as the
third or fourth monarch of that name. By this reckoning, the second Bar
Hadad was viewed as a contemporary of Ahaba theory based on the
biblical texts that show Ahab in conflict with a certain 'Ben Hadad'. Since
the Tel Dan Inscription shows that these narratives have been conflated
and derived from narratives originally involving Bar Hadad, the son of
Hazael, we need to readjust our understanding of Damascene chronology
and the succession of Damascene kings.
Essentially, our need to account for a Bar Hadad who was a contempo-
rary of Ahab disappears in light of the Tel Dan Inscription. In other words,
there was no Bar Hadad who ruled Aram-Damascus in the mid-ninth cen-
tury BCE. As has long been recognized, there is a discrepancy between the
text of Kings and the royal texts of Assyria. Whereas the biblical text
claims that 'Ben Hadad' was a Damascene contemporary of Ahab, the
Assyrian texts claim that the Damascene king of this time was Hadad-
'idri. This difficulty was overcome by maintaining that 'Ben Hadad' and
Hadad-'idri were in fact one and the same person. The Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion, however, shows us that there is no longer any need to maintain this
doubtful equation.
Two points bear mentioning. First, in 853 BCE Hadad-'idri was the king
of Aram-Damascus who fought with Ahab as an ally on the battlefield of
Qarqar. We also know that Ahab died in that same yearnamely, 853
BCE. If there was a 'Ben Hadad' who was a contemporary of Ahab, then he
must have reigned prior to Hadad-'idri, who was ruling Damascus when
Ahab died. This would make Bar Hadad I, the son of Tabrimmon, the
perfect candidate. However, we then run aground on chronological issues:
how could Bar Hadad I have killed Ahab in battle in 853 BCE if Bar Hadad
I had been succeeded by Hadad-'idri well before 853 BCE? The equation
simply does not hold up. Therefore, the 'Ben Hadad' of the Ahab narra-
tives cannot be Bar Hadad I. Rather, he must be a second Bar Hadad. Yet,
the Tel Dan Inscription shows us that this second Bar Hadad was not
actually a contemporary of Ahab.
We now have a problem arising from the narrative of 2 Kgs 8.7-15,
which twice names Hazael's predecessor as 'Ben Hadad'. We have a num-
ber of possible solutions. First, we could understand 'Ben Hadad' and its
Aramaic equivalent, 'Bar Hadad', as an honorific title for the king of
Aram-Damascus, much like 'Pharaoh' for the king of Egypt. The difficulty
with this, however, is that not every Damascene king was referred to as
'Bar Hadad'. Hazael was certainly not referred to as 'Bar Hadad' and
neither were any of the latter Damascene kings. In fact, epigraphic evi-
dence clearly shows that Hazael was referred to by the title ]K"1Q ('Our
lord'). This title seems to have been used by his son, also, when we see
Adad-Nirari III refer to him as 'Mari'.81 Thus, all the evidence points to
'Bar Hadad' being a proper name as opposed to a title.
The second option is to see 'Ben Hadad' of 2 Kgs 8.7-15 as Hadad-
'idri's successor who reigned for less than four years some time between
845 BCE (the last time Hadad-'idri faced Shalmaneser III in battle) and 841
BCE (the first time Shalmaneser III encountered Hazael). Pitard has sug-
gested this as a possibility.82 Attractive as this solution might be, however,
it goes directly against the Assyrian epigraphic evidence. A summary in-
scription from the reign of Shalmaneser III clearly states that 'Hadad-'idri
died; Hazael, the son of a nobody, seized the throne'.83 This statement
81. See the Tell el-Rimah Stele, line 7; the Nimrud Slab, line 15; and the Saba'a
Stele, line 19.
82. See the lengthy discussion about the entire chronological difficulty associated
with the Bar Hadad question in Pitard, Ancient Damascus, pp. 132-38.
83. For the cuneiform text, see L. Messerschmidt, Keilschrifttexte as Assur: his-
torischen Inhalts (2 vols.; Osnabriick: OttoZeller, 1970), I, p. 30. See also Luckenbill,
Ancient Records, I, 679-83; Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions, pp. 53-54.
makes the possibility that a 'Bar Hadad' reigned after Hadad-'idri and
before Hazael extremely slim, if not altogether impossible.
Our third and most plausible option is to replace the name 'Ben Hadad'
in 2 Kgs 8.7-15 with that of'Hadadezer' (i.e. Hadad-'idri). This solution
recognizes the confusion in the biblical text surrounding the 'Ben Hadad'
narratives due to their misplacement, and seeks to amend it in light of the
known geopolitical circumstances of the ninth and eighth centuries BCE.
Hazael, therefore, must be seen as the murderer of Hadad-'idri. Bar Hadad,
Hazael's son, should then be enumerated as the second (and last) Damas-
cene king to bear that name.
Reconstructing the Events of the Inscription

The political picture that emerges from the Tel Dan Inscription is of a
coalition between Jehoahaz of Israel and Joash of Bayt-Dawid against Bar
Hadad II of Aram-Damascus in c. 798 BCE. Given the nature of the city-
state of Bayt-Dawid and that of its northerly neighbour, Israel, it can plau-
sibly be suggested that Israel was the senior partner in this coalition. If
Hazael had indeed campaigned in the southern coastal plain at Gath (2 Kgs
12.17), both Israel and Bayt-Dawid must have been desperately weak both
economically and militarily. Certainly Israel's weakness is guaranteed by
their loss of Transjordanian territories to Hazael. It is not unreasonable to
also suggest that Galilee had been severed from Samaria's control, espe-
cially if Hazael did indeed campaign on the southern coastal plain at
Gatha situation requiring Hazael's control of the Jezreel Valley. Bayt-
Dawid (i.e. Jerusalem) was still, at the time, in a dark age, even though it
was a nascent state on the verge of territorial and economic expansion.
Bar Hadad II came to the throne of Aram-Damascus after Hazael's
death in c. 798 BCE. Jehoahaz appears to have used Hazael's death as a rea-
son to attempt the recovery of Transjordanian territories. The death of
Hazael marked the death of Israel's great nemesis and abuser. It would
have presented a glimmer of hope for the end of Aramaean domination of
Israel and Israel's perpetual weakness. Thus, it appears that Jehoahaz went
into battle at Ramoth-Gilead, Joash of Bayt-Dawid by his side, with
renewed vigour.
The identification of Ramoth-Gilead as the location of the battle is
inferred from the misplaced narrative of 1 Kgs 22.1-40. The choice of this
town as the site of battle must undoubtedly have lain in its strategic posi-
tion along the King's Highway. That Jehoahaz was able to penetrate so far
east into Transjordan appears to have been a major achievement in itself. It
implies that Bar Hadad, the newly crowned king of Aram-Damascus, took
some time to head off Jehoahaz's advance, perhaps because he had liter-
ally just been crowned.
Nevertheless, Bar Hadad was able to face Jehoahaz and Joash in battle.
During the battle, Jehoahaz was killed. That Bar Hadad did not actually
capture Jehoahaz and execute him seems to be implied by the fact that
Jehoahaz's son, Jehoash, succeeded to the throne of Israel. This victory
consolidated the Aramaean position in Transjordan and Bar Hadad appears
to have placed a garrison at Lo-Debar, just east of the Jordan River, in
order to check any further Israelite attacks into Gilead. This surmise comes
from the fact that Israel viewed their eventual recapture of Lo-Debar as a
praiseworthy achievement (Amos 6.13).
The memory of this battle at Ramoth-Gilead is preserved in Fragment A
of the Tel Dan Inscription. That it was the first of Bar Hadad's victories is
implied by the fact that he mentions it immediately after praising the mem-
ory of his father, Hazael, who had probably just died before the battle. Bar
Hadad then appears to have followed this victory up with a raid into Israel-
ite territory west of the Jordan. Just how thorough a campaign this was we
cannot fully tell. The memory of an Aramaean siege against Samaria in 1
Kings 20.1-22 and 2 Kings 6-7 probably stems from this time. Whatever
the case, Bar Hadad does boast of some raiding campaign into 'their land'
(Line A10)that is, the land of Israel and Bayt-Dawid. It seems a logical
strategic move if Bar Hadad did indeed lay siege to the Israelite capital at
Samaria.84
If we are permitted to see the Aramaean siege of Samaria as occurring at
this time, then we may also have a reason for why Samaria did not actually
fall. From the Eponym Chronicle we know that on the day of the Assyrian
New Year Festival in the month of Nisan (April) of the year 796 BCE, the
Assyrian king, Adad-Nirari III, was located with his army in the Lebanese
Beqa' at Mansuate. The biblical text also informs us that a 'saviour'
rescued Israel from the Aramaean onslaught (2 Kgs 13.5). This 'saviour'
was undoubtedly Adad-Nirari himself. If we are able to tie all these threads
together, then the Aramaeans may have lifted the siege of Samaria because
of the Assyrian threat in the north. We notice that a similar sentiment is
expressed as the reason for why the Aramaean siege of Samaria was lifted
in one of the Elisha narrativesnamely, 2 Kgs 7.6.
84. Compare Sasson, who first mentioned the possibility of a siege against Samaria
being recounted in the Tel Dan Inscription, though he based it partly on an unlikely
restoration stemming from a misreading of Line Al. See Sasson, 'The Old Aramaic
Inscription from Tell Dan', p. 15.
The probability that Bar Hadad laid siege to Samaria is strong, not only
because of the presumed historical-strategic considerations, but also
because of the content of the Tel Dan Inscription itself. We note that Line
A13 does actually mention a siege. Unfortunately, the besieged city's
name is no longer extant. It is my contention, however, that since a siege
of Samaria would certainly have rated a mention and was probably Bar
Hadad's primary goal, and since the memory of an Aramaean siege of
Samaria by 'Ben Hadad' is preserved in the biblical text, we can recon-
struct the missing name of the city in Line A13 as |~1D^ ('Samaria') with a
fair degree of certainty.
That the siege was ultimately a failure, or at least did not lead to any
wide destruction to Samaria, is evidenced by Samaria's archaeological
record, which shows no conflagration from this era. This is backed up by
textual evidence. The Tell er-Rimah Stele, which records that Jehoash of
Israel paid tribute to Adad-Nirari III, refers to the Israelite king as ' Joash
of Samaria' (Akkadian: lasu KmSamerina). The memory of an unsuccess-
ful siege of Samaria by 'Ben Hadad' is also quite strong in the biblical text
of Kings. The siege's failure does not preclude it being referred to in the
Tel Dan Inscription, though, for in the Tel Dan Inscription we are dealing
with royal propaganda. We may compare it with Sennacherib's claim to
have caged Hezekiah up like a bird in Jerusalem, yet without reference to
Jerusalem's wall being breached or the gates penetrated. An Aramaean
siege of Samaria at this time does make sense when we consider the possi-
bility that Jehoash of Israel probably appealed to Adad-Nirari III at this
time to come to his aid, indicating that Jehoash found himself in dire
straits. The Assyrian king's willingness to check Bar Hadad, then, was the
reason for Bar Hadad's retreat from Samaria,85 as well as the reason why
Jehoash is listed as having paid tribute to Adad-Nirari III.
Meanwhile, Joash of Bayt-Dawid, who seems to have survived the ear-
lier battle of Ramoth-Gilead, was assassinated in his capital city during a
palace coup (2 Kgs 12.20-21). This would have occurred approximately
two years after the battle of Ramoth-Gilead, probably in late 797 BCE o
early 796 BCEthat is, just before or around the same time Adad-Nirari III
was campaigning in southern Syria. Joash's son, Amaziah, was installed as
king of Bayt-Dawid in Joash's stead. It is Amaziah's name that appears
partially preserved in Line B8 of the Tel Dan Inscription.
The context of this reference appears to have been another battle.
Whether this occurred before or after Bar Hadad paid a hefty tribute to

Adad-Nirari III is difficult to determine. If it occurred before the Damas-

cene's submission to Adad-Nirari, then we have a very small window of
opportunity to date this battle. This is due to Adad-Nirari Ill's campaign at
Der, east of the Tigris River, at the time of the New Year Festival of the
very next year (795 BCE). Since this window of opportunity is so small, it
is more probable that the battle occurred in the wake of Adad-Nirari's
departure from Syria or, even more likely, that this was the battle fought
between Bar Hadad and Adad-Nirari III. We note that in Line B2 of the
Tel Dan Inscription, Bar Hadad refers to 'his fighting'. Exactly whom the
pronoun refers to is impossible to say because of the highly damaged
context. Adad-Nirari, however, seems to be the most suitable candidate
according to the time-frame.
Exactly what role Amaziah of Bayt-Dawid played in this battle we
cannot determine. Once again, this is due to the fragmentary nature of the
text at this point. Exactly who the personage in Line B7 is and what role
he played we also cannot tell. Although I have suggested a certain Mak-
birram as a possibility for this personage, we have no way of verifying
this. Makbirram is known to us from excavations in Area A at Hazor. His
name was found inscribed into some pottery discovered in Building 14a,86
a fact indicating his relative importance. Building 14a was found in
Stratum VI at Hazor, but its original structure goes back to the previous
level, Stratum VII.87
Yadin proposed that Building 14a was a residential house and that Mak-
birram was a merchant who lived in it.88 However, there are numerous
problems with this interpretation. First, that Makbirram did not actually
reside in Building 14a is evidenced by the fact that another piece of pottery
was found there with the name of a certain 'Jerob[oam] ben-Elm[atan]'
written across it in ink.89 Yadin does not explain why the names of two
seemingly unrelated persons were found on sherds in the same building.
Second, Yadin proposes that part of the building consisted of shops.90 This
certainly seems plausible. In a paved courtyard (Room 132a) within the
building, Yadin found an extraordinary six millstones along with various
cooking wares. Yadin states that the daily preparatory cooking must have
taken place in this courtyard. However, six millstones (four bottom stones
86. Yadin, Hazor, Plate XXXV.e.

87. Yadin, Hazor, p. 181.
88. Yadin, Hazor, pp. 181 -82.
89. Yadin, Hazor, p. 181 n. 7, Plate XXXV./
90. Yadin, Hazor, p. 181.
and two top stones) must certainly have been an oversupply for whoever
may have lived in this structure. It seems far more plausible to suggest that
this was an industrial installation, perhaps that of a baker.
This suggestion gains more weight when we consider the finds in other
parts of the building, such as an oven and numerous storage jars, kraters
and jugs.91 One room, which Yadin identified as a bedroom (Room 44a),
even contained a pithos, two storage jars and two cooking pots, as well as
some iron tools. This hardly befits the description of a bedroom. Interest-
ingly, an intricate ivory cosmetic spoon was also found at the doorway.92
Yadin remarks that this dainty 'is one of the few of its kind to be found,
not in palaces, but in a private house'.93 However, we suspect that Build-
ing 14a was not a house at all, but a bakery, and that the cosmetic spoon
belonged to someone who probably did not live in Building 14a but who
may have frequented it.
Makbirram, therefore, should probably be seen as a client of this bakery
rather than a resident. That he had pottery custom-made for him and that
he may have been supplied in bulk from this bakery attests to the fact that
Makbirram was a man of some standing and wealth. Interestingly, Build-
ing 14a is located adjacent to Building 2a, which Yadin describes as 'the
most beautifully planned and preserved building among the Israelite struc-
tures of Hazor'.94 Did this serve as Makbirram's residence? Whatever the
case, Makbirram's prominence is secure. Whether he was a governor, petty
king, general or merchant is unknown. Whether he was the personage
mentioned in Line B7 of the Tel Dan Inscription is also beyond absolute
proof. From the stratigraphy of Hazor, however, we know that Makbirram
was a contemporary of Bar Hadad II.
Bar Hadad seems to imply from Fragment B of the Tel Dan Inscription
that he was victorious in the battle alluded to in Line B2. If this battle had
been against Adad-Nirari III and his army in 796 BCE, as I have suggested,
then we must question Bar Hadad's claim here. From the Tell er-Rimah
Stele, it is clear that Bar Hadad (also known as 'Mari') was the loser of
any armed encounter with the Assyrian king. The thoroughly documented
tribute that he brought to Adad-Nirari III testifies to this. If, therefore, the
stele of the Tel Dan Inscription had been erected in response to an encoun-
ter with Adad-Nirari III, it may have been an act of damage control on the
91. Yadin, Hazor, pp. 181-82.

92. Yadin, Hazor, Plate XXXVl.b.
93. Yadin,/fazor, p. 182.
94. Yadin,//azor, p. 181.
part of Bar Hadad. That is, since Bar Hadad was so weakened by the
humbling encounter with Adad-Nirari, he may have thought it expedient to
reassert his strength in his various territories with an inscription describing
his own prowess and authority in parallel with that of his illustrious father,
Hazael. Thus, the Tel Dan Inscription may represent Bar Hadad's propa-
ganda in the face of his waning power and a last-ditch attempt to assert his
sovereignty over Galilee and Transjordan.
Alternatively, if Bar Hadad actually was successful in this second battle,
it does not appear to have been fought against Adad-Nirari. In this case, it
may have been fought against a small coalition of forces trying to over-
throw his suzerainty. Yet, since this battle most likely took place after his
submission to Adad-Nirari, one suspects that Bar Hadad could not have
held out against such a coalition. Indeed, Jehoash's three victories over
Bar Hadad attest to the fact that the Damascene king was left almost pow-
erless after his encounter with Adad-Nirari. Therefore, once again, we may
surmise that Bar Hadad erected the Tel Dan Inscription in the vain attempt
to stamp his authority over the regions that were rapidly slipping from his
grasp. It may have even been a response to one of Jehoash's victories over
him.
Whatever the case, it appears that the Tel Dan Inscription represents
deliberate propaganda by Bar Hadad to promote his suzerainty over former
Israelite territories in the face of his waning influence over these territo-
ries. It was presumably aimed at Dan's leaders, as well as the leaders of
other major centres in Transjordan, Galilee, and in Israel proper, in an
attempt to dissuade rebellion against Bar Hadad, as well as any association
with Jehoash of Israel. Since Dan was in a geographical (and perhaps
political) 'no-man's land' between Israel and Aram-Damascus, its gates
were the most suitable place to erect the stele. Dan may also have been the
only external territory that Bar Hadad still held at the time the Tel Dan
Inscription was composed. In any event, the Tel Dan Inscription is a cover
for Bar Hadad's rapid demise. The subsequent revival at Dan and other key
sites like Hazor demonstrates Jehoash's success at expelling Bar Hadad
from both Transjordan and the Galilee. The lack of evidence for any con-
flagration at Dan suggests that it had been transferred to Israelite control
without any siege or major hostility at Dan itself. This would corroborate
well with the information about Jehoash's three victories at Apheq, Lo-
Debar and Qarnayim, in that these victories were enough to expel Bar
Hadad and the Aramaean forces from all of Galilee and Transjordan.
Date of the Inscription

The Yahwistic name which is partly preserved in Line B8 is most likely
that of Amaziah ben-Joash, king of Bayt-Dawid. That is, in Line B8, Bar
Hadad II mentions the successor of the king of Bayt-Dawid with whom he
fought in Fragment A. The succession of contemporary Israelite kings saw
no monarch with a final Yahwistic theophoric element. Amaziah of Bayt-
Dawid, then, is the most reasonable candidate for the person named in
Line B8.
Amaziah came to the throne of Bayt-Dawid as the result of a palace
coup against his father, Joash, which resulted in his father's assassination
(2 Kgs 12.20-21). Since there are two years between the death of Jehoahaz
of Israel in battle (c. 798 BCE) and the assassination of Joash of Bayt-
Dawid (c. 796 BCE), at least two years must have transpired between the
first battle mentioned in Fragment A and the second battle mentioned in
Fragment B. This also means that the inscription could not have been
written before c. 796 BCE.
This date accords remarkably well with the archaeological context in
which the fragments were found, as well as the physical condition of the
fragments and other corroborated facts. The second battle, referred to in
Fragment B, is either a battle between Bar Hadad II and Adad-Nirari III,
or else between Bar Hadad and a coalition of southern states. Whichever is
the case, 796 BCE is the earliest date at which this battle could have
occurred. Therefore, 796 BCE is the earliest date at which the Tel Dan
Inscription could have been produced.
Jehoash's third victory over Bar Hadad probably brought Dan once
again under Israelite control. Dan was certainly in Israelite hands during
the reign of Jeroboam II (c. 782-753 BCE) when Israelite influence was at
its peak (cf. 2 Kgs 14.25; Amos 8.14). Thus, the latest possible date for the
production of the Tel Dan Inscription is the end of Jehoash's reign in c.
782 BCE. However, Jehoash probably ousted Bar Hadad from all Israelite
territories not long after Bar Hadad had been humbled by Adad-Nirari III.
Thus, Jehoash probably smashed the stele of the Tel Dan Inscription in the
first decade of his reign. If we can, as Thiele has suggested, corroborate
the beginning of Jeroboam IPs co-regency in c. 792 BCE with Jehoash's
battle against Amaziah,95 then Jehoash had probably swept to his three vic-
tories over Bar Hadad within four years, between c. 796 BCE and c. 792
BCE. Amaziah of Jerusalem's capture by Jehoash may have prompted the
95. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers, p. 109.

rise of Amaziah's son, Uzziah (i.e. 'Azariah') to the throne of Judah as a

co-regent in his father's place. Since this occurred in c. 791 BCE, it seems
reasonable to suggest that the stouche between Jehoash and Amaziah
occurred close to this time. It seems reasonable, then, that by c. 792 or c.
791 BCE, Jehoash had defeated Bar Hadad three times and had smashed
the stele of the Tel Dan Inscription at the end of this campaign.
The demolition of the stele is clearly associated with the third construc-
tion phase at the gates of Dan. This information has come to light since
excavations after the publication of all Tel Dan fragments. Dijkstra's sug-
gestion that the original stele may have been destroyed by Hazael in an
attempt to obliterate the memory of the preceding dynasty can no longer
stand in light of the date demanded by the archaeological context.96 Dijk-
stra followed Biran and Naveh's lead in dating the gate complex to the
ninth century BCE. However, at the time of Dijkstra's article, the three dis-
tinct construction phases at Dan's gate complex had not been discerned.
Dijkstra did, however, comment that his suggestion for Hazael being
behind the demolition of the original stele would be in jeopardy should the
gate complex be dated to the early eighth century BCE. The recent excava-
tions at Tel Dan have shown this to be partially the case by discerning
three construction phases stretching from the mid-ninth century BCE to the
early eighth century BCE.
Jehoash's third victory over Bar Hadad and his encounter with Ama-
ziah of Judah correspond in date perfectly with the pottery assemblage
gleaned from this third construction phasenamely, the very early eighth
century BCE. This means that there was a maximum of five years between
the production of the Tel Dan Inscription by Bar Hadad II and its subse-
quent destruction by Jehoash. I therefore place the production of the stele
in c. 796 BCE and its destruction in c. 791 BCE.
Timeline
The sequence of events surrounding the production and destruction of the
Tel Dan Inscription may be reconstructed as follows:
c. 799 BCE: Hazael of Aram-Damascus dies and is succeeded by his

son, Bar Hadad II. Aram-Damascus has control of the
major trade routes of Syria-Palestine, rendering the states
of Israel and Bayt-Dawid very weak.
96. Dijkstra, 'An Epigraphical and Historical Note', p. 14.

c. 798 BCE: Jehoahaz ben-Jehu, king of Israel, tries to recapture the

Israelite territories in Transjordan in the wake of Hazael's
death. He enlists the support of Joash ben-Ahaziah, king
of 'Bayt-Dawid' (Jerusalem), for this task. However, Bar
Hadad II of Aram-Damascus defeats them at Ramoth-
Gilead. In the battle, Jehoahaz is killed. He is succeeded
by his son, Jehoash. To follow up his victory, Bar Hadad
begins a campaign on Israelite territory in the Central Hill
Country and lays siege to at least one city, probably
Samaria.
Late 797- Joash is assassinated in his capital city, 'Bayt-Dawid'
Early 796 BCE: (Jerusalem). His son, Amaziah, succeeds him. In Samaria,
Jehoash appeals to Adad-Nirari III to come to his aid as
Bar Hadad continues his onslaught on Israelite territory.
April 796 BCE: Adad-Nirari III and his Assyrian army are located at Man-
suate in the Lebanese Beqa'.
Later in Bar Hadad lifts the siege of Samaria because of the loom-
796 BCE: ing Assyrian threat. Adad-Nirari III forces Bar Hadad II
into submission. Bar Hadad is then required to pay a mas-
sive tribute. Jehoash of Israel also pays an undisclosed trib-
ute to Assyria, seemingly as payment for Assyria's services
in coming to Israel's aid.
Late 796- Bar Hadad erects a stele, the Tel Dan Inscription, at the
Early 795 BCE: gates of Dan as propaganda against his waning power. In
the text of the stele, Bar Hadad portrays himself and his
deceased father, Hazael, as pious men and mighty warriors
favoured by the god Hadad. Bar Hadad also recounts his
victory at Ramoth-Gilead. The stele is aimed at dissuading
rebellion against him and association with Jehoash of
Israel.
However, as Adad-Nirari III departs for Mesopotamia,
Jehoash takes advantage of Bar Hadad's weakness and
begins a campaign against him to recover lost territories.
Jehoash defeats Bar Hadad at Apheq in the Jezreel Valley.
795-792 BCE: Jehoash defeats Bar Hadad II twice moreat Lo-Debar on
the east bank of the Jordan, and at Qarnayim on the King's
Highway in Transjordan. As a result, Bar Hadad loses all
control of Transjordan and Galilee, thus relinquishing the
southern trade routes. A new era of ascendancy and pros-
perity begins for Israel.
c. 792/91 BCE: Jehoash, now in possession of Dan, breaks down Bar

Hadad's stele at the city gate. Some of the fragments are
then recycled as building material in a new construction
phase at the city gate.
Bayt-Dawid and the Quest for King David

Perhaps the most hotly contended of the many controversial issues about
the Tel Dan Inscription has been the interpretation of the word "TUfTD
(Bayt-Dawid) in Line A9. It is certainly not surprising that the word
became a battleground for ideologies on historical methodology, for the
very use of the element "Til raises issues about the historicity of David and
the United Monarchy as well as the interaction between archaeology and
biblical texts. The use of the word TUFT 3 in the Tel Dan Inscription begs
the question, 'Does this refer to King David?' Indeed, scholarship must
deal with such questions and others like it arising from the Tel Dan
Inscription.
In the textual analysis we saw how context and syntax demand that we
consider Bayt-Dawid as a toponym. This is, however, at odds with the
suggestion that the lexeme "11171''3 is akin to such state-dynastic labels as
BitHumri. Rather than represent a political entity, "DTP3 signifies a geo-
graphical locationnamely, Jerusalemwhich was known as 'Bayt-
Dawid'. The present investigation now turns to the derivation of the indi-
vidual element "111 within the toponym TnJT3.
We must realize, however, that we have a methodological dilemma as
we approach this question. History is reconstructed through the use of
numerous sources, each weighted according to their reliability and value.
If we proceed to assess the word TnrTD in the Tel Dan Inscription in
accordance with all our previous data and conclusions, we risk making a
premature judgment on the word rather than incorporating it into our data
to give the evidence a fuller scope on which to base conclusions. That is,
we run the risk of circular argumentation by using previously formed con-
clusions as evidence for conclusions themselves, thereby leaving the Tel
Dan Inscription out of the loop of evidence. On the other hand, if we pro-
ceed to incorporate it as part of our data, we risk not having assessed its
meaning and worth properly before using it for reconstruction, if indeed
such assessment allows us to use the Tel Dan Inscription as part of the
evidence.
Needless to say, this dilemma exists with every new datum used for
historical reconstruction. Yet there is a sharper edge to our dilemma with
the word llimi in the Tel Dan Inscription because even the previous data
and conclusions are so hotly debated. The value of the biblical texts for
historical reconstruction becomes a crucial issue, for it is primarily with
the biblical narratives of David that we must interact as we investigate the
derivation of the element 111.
Etymologically and contextually, the Aramaic toponym HlfTD (Bayt-
Dawid) is identical to the Hebrew toponym 111 TU ('Ir Dawid, or 'City of
David'). The biblical texts make the statement that Jerusalem was captured
by David and renamed 111 TU ('City of David') after himself (2 Sam. 5.7,
9; 1 Chron. 11.7). However, many, such as Davies,97 Lemche98 and Thomp-
son,99 argue that for methodological purposes, the biblical narratives on
David, which must be dated to the Persian era at the earliest, cannot be used
for reconstructing the history of Syria-Palestine in the early tenth century
BCE. Rather, it must be the role of archaeology to elucidate the history of
Syria-Palestine, especially in the early Iron Age, which has yielded next to
nothing of a literary nature. If this approach is taken, then the biblical
account of how the toponym "111 TI? ('City of David'), and therefore its
Aramaic equivalent 11 Iff 3 (Bayt-Dawid) was derived loses its value as a
historical source. The temporal gulf between the early Iron Age and the
setting down of the traditions in writing makes the biblical record an
unknown quantity at best and a pure fabrication at worst.
Thompson, however, does analyze the biblical texts. He does this in
order to ascertain contextually how the name 'David' (111) was under-
stood by the biblical writers themselves, late though they may have been,
and to see if this gives any clue as to the derivation of the name at an ear-
lier time.100 According to Thompson, the issue is one of priority: whether
the name Bayt-Dawid (llinTl) was derived from the name of a personage,
'David', or whether the name 'David' was derived from the word Bayt-
Dawid (HIST 3). If the latter were the case, then the name 'David' must be
derived from an epithet of Yahweh. It is at this point that Thompson turns
to the biblical texts to support his suggestion that this latter scenario was
indeed the case.
97. P.R. Davies, In Search of Ancient Israel'(JÔTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1995), pp. 64-67; idem, 'Method and Madness: Some Remarks on
Doing History with the Bible', JBL 114 (1995), pp. 699-705.
98. N.P. Lemche, 'Is it Still Possible to Write a History of Ancient Israel?', SJOT%
(1994), pp. 165-90(183-89).
99. Thompson, '"House of David": An Eponymic Referent'.
100. Thompson, '"House of David": An Eponymic Referent'.
At this juncture it is of paramount importance to distinguish between the

use of the term 111JT3 in the Aramaic Tel Dan Inscription and the term
1H rP3 in the Hebrew narratives of biblical literature. Despite appear-
ances, the Aramaic term is not the equivalent of the Hebrew term. In the
Tel Dan Inscription, 111ST D is a toponym whose Hebrew equivalent is 111
T17. The Hebrew term "Til JTQ is not a toponym, but a socio-political
label, 'House of David'. Thus, in dealing with the usage of the Hebrew
term 111 JTD, we are not explaining the usage of the Aramaic term 111ST 3
(Bayt-Dawid) within the Tel Dan Inscription. Rather, we are attempting to
trace the etymology of the element 111 to identify its referent. If we can
trace the referent in the Hebrew label 11 "T IT 2 ('House of David') we may
be in a better position to determine the referent in the Aramaic toponym
llimn (Bayt-Dawid) as it is seen in the Tel Dan Inscription.
In his contextual analysis of the term 111 JTH ('House of David') in the
Hebrew narratives, Thompson highlights the eponymic nature of the label.
Correctly, he brings out the idea that the term JTD ('house') is a socially
loaded word denoting a patron relationship, be it of a social, political or
theological nature. The nature of such patronage, however, is more com-
plex than Thompson's assessment. Such patron labels utilize family termi-
nology to describe the relationship, but different labels describe different
types of patron relationships. Thus, there is a need to distinguish between
patron relationships labelled as JTD ('house') and other relationships la-
belled as nK/p ('father/son'). Thompson sees in the Hebrew term 111 ITU
('House of David') a theological patronagenamely, that of Yahweh for
the kings of Jerusalem. That is, the kings of Jerusalem were in a bound
relationship of subordination to their superior, the patron deity Yahweh.
However, an appreciation of the Semitic root Vlll as well as certain bib-
lical texts highlight that this type of relationship between a divine patron
and a subordinate human was not described by the label JTI3 ('house').
First, the root Vlll denotes a close, loyal relationship, with nuances includ-
ing 'uncle', 'aunt', 'darling' and 'love'. We cannot consider 'general' as a
nuance since Tadmor put an end to that suggestion long ago by demon-
strating that the word dawidum, known from Mari texts, was simply a
dialectal form of the more normative dabdu, meaning 'defeat'.101 To the
other legitimate nuances mentioned above we should add 'patron'. Thus,
the use of the noun mil in the Mesha Stele need not be as enigmatic as is
often thought if we translate the noun as 'his patron'. Not only is such a
101. H. Tadmor, 'Historical Implications of the Correct Rendering of Akkadian

"daku"', JNES++++++++++++++++
translation in keeping with the meaning of the Semitic root Vlll, but it
makes good contextual sense. A deity, therefore, could legitimately be
given the title "111. However, biblical texts demonstrate that it is also used
as a human appellation, most notably in the personage of David (~n~[ or
T11). In this regard, the biblical name 'David' can be seen as a title that
takes on the significance of a personal name, similar to an example cited
by Thompsonnamely, 'Bar Hadad' derived from 'Son of Hadad'.102
Yet, Thompson argues that the biblical character David is the personifi-
cation of Yahweh's patronage of Jerusalem's kings. Thompson bases this
assertion on the patron language within the biblical narratives themselves.
However, this suggestion does not appreciate the complexity of patron
language in antiquity. The patron language surrounding the title or per-
sonal name TO suggests that it arose not from the notion of Yahweh's
patronage of Jerusalem's kings, but from these kings' patronage of other
people, especially of the people of Jerusalem and Judah. Indeed, it is in
this capacity as royal patrons that the House of David is often addressed in
biblical literature. Within the label TH mi ('House of David') the ele-
ment TH refers to the patriarch of an aristocratic family landed in Jerusa-
lem (as well as Bethlehem and Hebron) who was acknowledged with the
title "pft ('king'). In other words, the label TO JTD ('House of David')
does not see the kings of Jerusalem as the subordinates in a relationship
with their deity, but as the superiors in a relationship with their 'subjects'.
The House of David is only seen to stand for Yahweh through the use of
metonymy.
Certain key texts provide the evidence.
2 Samuel 7.5-16. This text relates the divine oracle given to David about
the establishment of David's house. The language is very clearly that of
Yahweh's patronage of David and his descendants. Although the term JTm
"TH is never used, it is implied numerous times. Of particular importance is
the consistent parallelism between the terms PPD ('house') and rD^QQ
('kingdom'). This indicates that the label 111 mi did not refer primarily to
Yahweh's patronage of Jerusalem's kings, but to the kings' patronage of
the town of Jerusalem. In distinction, Yahweh's divine patronage of Jerusa-
lem's kings is described with different patronage terminologynamely, DK
('father') and p ('son'). That is, the relationship between Yahweh and Jeru-
salem's kings was not one of extended family (m, 'house') which saw
102. Thompson, '"House of David": An Eponymic Referent', p. 62.

homage rendered to the 'first among equals' as it were, but of seniority in

which an inferior (p, 'son') rendered homage to a superior (38, 'father').
This relationship of seniority is further demonstrated in David's response (2
Sam. 7.17-29) which describes the relationship as one between DTI^N
('god') or] TIN ('master') andlDU ('servant'). Thus, the termlH rrn cer-
tainly describes patronage, but it is not that between Yahweh and the kings,
nor even between Yahweh and his people.
1 Kings 12.16-33. This famous text deals with the response of the Israelite
tribes to Rehoboam's harsh demands, as well as Jeroboam's subsequent
construction of shrines at Bethel and Dan. The Israelite tribes are said to
rebel against the House of David (1 Kgs 12.19). If this actually referred to
Yahweh, then the rhetorical question on the Israelites' lips, 'What share do
we have in David?' (1 Kgs 12.16), makes little contextual sense. Indeed,
Jeroboam's program of building new Yahwistic shrines would seem to
defeat the purpose of this complaint which leads to secession and his
subsequent desire to prevent the kingdom returning to the House of David
(1 Kgs 12.26). Rather, the rebellion of Israel is against the king of Jeru-
salem, Rehoboam, and his patronage of the tribes. The only way we can
see the House of David as referring to Yahweh in this text is through
metonymy, and it certainly seems that the text intends the reader to make
that metonymic association. That is, in rebelling against the House of
David, the Israelite tribes rebel against Yahweh by effectively questioning
their own share in Yahweh. Yet, they rebel not just against Yahweh as
patron of Jerusalem's kings, but as divine patron of all the Israelite tribes.
However, the prime referent of the name 11 "T is the human king of
Jerusalem, not the divine one. Only through metonymic association can
there be a connection between Yahweh and the House of David. Should
this metonymic association fail, the term "TH ITU ('House of David') is
still meaningful as a reference to the kings of Jerusalem, exemplified speci-
fically here by Rehoboam.
1 Kings 14.7-11. This text, representing a divine utterance of Yahweh to

Jeroboam, is particularly important, for in it Yahweh portrays himself as
Jeroboam's patron. This, however, does not make Jeroboam a member of
the House of David. Rather, there is a deliberate contrast between the
House of Jeroboam and the House of David (1 Kgs 14.8,10). As such, the
referent of 111 ('David') is not Yahweh as patron, but rather the kings of
Jerusalem. More specifically, 111 ('David') is the king whom Yahweh
describes in this utterance as his faithful servant. This cannot refer to the
man who is king in Jerusalem at this particular point in the narrative (Reho-
boam) because he is earlier portrayed as a fool in order to accomplish
Yahweh's turn of events (1 Kgs 12.15). Rather, 111 must refer back to the
eponymous ancestor of Jerusalem's kingnamely, David ben-Jesse.
Jeremiah 21.11-12. This prophetic speech calls on the House of David,

represented by the king of Judah, to fulfil the role of patron by administer-
ing justice to the oppressed. It is telling that this saying uses the patron
label 111 ITU ('House of David') since it is in the capacity of patron that
the House of David is addressed. The inference is that the House of
David's patronage reflects back on Yahweh, hence the threat of Yahweh's
rage. However, there is a very clear difference between Yahweh and the
House of David. In fact, the inference that Yahweh's reputation is being
tarnished highlights that the connection between Yahweh and the House of
David is one of contrast.
2 Chronicles 21.7. The Chronicler's comment about Yahweh being un-

willing to destroy the House of David sees a definite distinction between
Yahweh and the House of David. There is no metonymic association
between the two.
These texts are merely a selection, demonstrating that any connection

between Yahweh as patron deity and 111 fT3 ('House of David') is purely
metonymic. They are certainly not interchangeable labels and there is no
reason to suggest the latter is derived from the former. On the contrary, the
evidence demonstrates that the term 111 ITU specifies an aristocratic
family as patrons of Jerusalem and the surrounding peoples. Thompson is
close to the mark when he sees the term 111 ITU representing a godfather,
but the actual referent is the king of Jerusalem, not the deity Yahweh.103
Though we can no longer see Yahweh as the referent in the biblical term
111 ITU, we must still ask whether the Aramaic term 111ITD originated as
a reference to a temple. Numerous toponyms with the element ITU ('House
of...') reflect the nuance of 'temple'. This is seen in such toponyms as
^Krrn (Bethel: 'House of El'), ranTS (Beth-Shemesh: 'House of [the
sun god] Shamash') and] 11 PITT 3 (Beth-Horon: 'House of Hauron'). How-
ever, TTD toponyms are not exclusively connected with deities. Some such
103. Note the title of Thompson's article: '"House of David": An Eponymic

Referent'.
toponyms are named after geographical features, such as i"D"lirrrPD

(Beth-Arabah: 'House of the Arabah') andpEUnirn (Beth-Emeq: 'House
of the Valley'), while others are named after various attributes, such as
]K2nr:i (Beth-Shean: 'House of Ease'), B^STm (Beth Pelet: 'House of
Escape'), "ITHm (Beth-Gader: 'House of a Wall') and r6:rrrP3 (Beth-
Hoglah: 'House of a Partridge'). If Tnrf 2 of the Tel Dan Inscription did
originate with a temple of some kind, then we must interpret the toponym
as meaning 'House of (the) Patron'. This may or may not have referred to
a deity. Thus, although the toponym 11 "FIT 13 in the Tel Dan Inscription can
be connected indirectly with a deity, such a connection is not demanded by
the toponym itself.
It is not uncommon for cities in antiquity to be named after individuals.
That this was a common phenomenon is evidenced by finds across the entire
Near East. In the Inscription from Karatepe, Azitawadda names a city after
himself, the city of Azitawaddiya. From Assyria, we have many cities
named after kings, such as Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, Kar-Shulmanasharidu and
Dur-Sharrukin. That Jerusalem was named after David is a tradition pre-
served in biblical literature, and there is certainly nothing extraordinary
about such a story. The only moot point is the existence of an historical
David. This opens up two possibilities for us: Jerusalem may have been
renamed after an historical personage named 'David', or it may have been
renamed after a mythic eponymous ancestor given that name.
Undeniably, at a certain stage in history, Jerusalem was known as TU
~n"T (Ir David: 'City of David'). That the toponym TnjTD is the Aramaic
equivalent for the same location has already been established. Thus, we
need to understand how Jerusalem came to be given the name TO TI7 or
Tnrrn. From the Amarna Letters, we know that the city was known as
Urusalim ('Jerusalem') during the Amarna Period (fourteenth century
BCE). From Sennacherib's annals we know that by the late eighth century
BCE, during the time of Hezekiah, the city was known by this name again.
The Tel Dan Inscription, however, indicates that less than a century before
Hezekiah, Jerusalem was known by another name, 111 "IT (Ir David:
'City of David').
This interval between the Amarna Period and the time of Sennacherib
(Late Bronze II-Iron II) was a veritable dark age as far as Jerusalem is
concerned. The city seems to have declined during and shortly after the
Amarna Period, presumably because of Egyptian hegemony and the social
upheaval reflected in the Amarna correspondence. However, the town
never appears to have been uninhabited during this time. Occupying the
Ophel Ridge between the Qidron and Tyropoean Valleys, the remains of
the site resemble a small fort rather than an actual town or village. Excava-
tions have yielded meagre remains, both in terms of structures and wares.
Jerusalem at this time appears to have been a humble, even backward,
family estate. As such, what seems to have made Jerusalem famous, or
rather notorious, was not the physical town itself, if we can even call it a
town during this period. Rather, it was its few inhabitants that gave Jeru-
salem any sort of relevance on the political stage. Evidence suggests that
Jerusalem, known at this time as Til "I1117 (or TUfTD in Aramaic), was
probably the home of an aristocratic family with a notorious reputation or
pasta kind of self-important 'mafia' clan.
In comparison, the biblical record presents a very similar picture. Tradi-
tional notions down through the ages and into our time have built up fanci-
ful pictures of Jerusalem which, on closer inspection, do not actually reflect
the biblical picture itself. 1 Samuel 5.6-9 portrays David as living in his
newly conquered compound and renaming the compound from jTiJ ('Zion')
to TH TI7 ('City of David'). This particular pericope corroborates quite
well with the archaeological record. It is clear from archaeology that in the
tenth century BCE, Jerusalem was only a fortified compound with a small
populationnot a bustling metropolis. The Tel Dan Inscription fills this
picture out more by showing that at c. 800 BCE, Jerusalem was known by
another name, TnrP3 (or TR "IT in Hebrew).
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that in the book of Kings, the usage of the
name 111 T JJ ('City of David') ceases with the reigns of Ahaz and his son
Hezekiah. The name is most often referred to in the biblical texts as the
burial site of Jerusalem's kings. Ahaz is the final king explicitly said to
have been buried in TH TU, the 'City of David' (2 Kgs 16.20), though the
Chronicler may give slightly different information when he puts Ahaz's
burial place 'in the city, in Jerusalem' (2 Chron. 28.27).104 Hezekiah's
burial is glossed over without details in 2 Kgs 20.21, but the Chronicler
tells us that he was buried 'in the upper of the tombs of David's sons'
104. Exactly what the Chronicler meant by this phrase is difficult to ascertain. It
could be inferred that Ahaz was not buried in the royal compound, ~IH TU, but was
rather buried in another part of the burgeoning city of Jerusalem. This would contradict
with the information given in 2 Kings. Alternatively, the Chronicler could be stating
that Ahaz was buried 'in the city', referring to the royal compound, "Til TU, which he
further describes as being situated 'within Jerusalem'. In that case, the Chronicler
would agree with the information given in 2 Kings.
(2 Chron. 32.33). Presumably, this means Hezekiah was also buried in the
royal compound known as TO "IT ('City of David').
During the reigns of both Ahaz and Hezekiah (c. 732687 BCE), Jeru-
salem was expanding beyond the fortified compound and the entire Ophel
Ridge. Jerusalem reaped the economic benefits of its expanding sover-
eignty during the eighth century BCE and the site expanded from a simple
family compound to the capital city of a bustling small state. It was during
Hezekiah's reign that the city was besieged by Sennacherib (701 BCE) who
recalls the name of the city as Ursalimu ('Jerusalem').105 It was during this
time that the new suburbs of Jerusalem were walled around and the water
system expanded. From this we can deduce that the name TH "IT ('City
of David') referred in the strictest sense to the fortified compound of
Jerusalem's kings, but was used in a wider sense as a reference for all of
Jerusalem, especially at a time when all of Jerusalem hardly exceeded the
compound itself. The name 'Jerusalem' again came into vogue by the time
of Hezekiah (late eighth century BCE) when the city had expanded into a
true urban entity beyond the royal compound. This means that the name
'Jerusalem' was preserved throughout this period as the general name of
the location of the fortified compound. Since Jerusalem can hardly be
called a city before the eighth century BCE, it was better known during this
period by the name of the fortified compound that was its main feature.
Furthermore, the progression of kings in the biblical record appears
accurate when we bring the archaeological record to bear on it. This means
that there must be a very real connection between the writer(s) of Samuel-
Kings, as well as the Chronicler, and the kings themselves. If many of
Jerusalem's kings were entombed within the original royal compound
the 'City of David'then the connection becomes clearer: the royal
compound itself, down to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, must
have been a veritable historical capsule containing the remains of numer-
ous generations of Jerusalem's rulers. Although this probably does not
completely bridge the gap between Jerusalem's kings and the biblical
writers, it certainly closes it considerably.
Thompson's assessment of the connection between referee and referent
is, however, far more conservative:
Continuity in historical records and historical knowledge in ancient
Palestine has been broken, and it has been broken repeatedly. Therefore the
historical referent of our earliest usage within the tradition to a Davidic/
105. ANET,pp.2S7-l++
Solomonic empire may go back only as early as our sources allow us to.
Their historical context also belongs to the Hellenistic period, when our
texts' referents to this empire first unequivocally took a form comparable to
what they have now. However, this referent could far more easily be to the
Hasmoneans than to someone living in the remote and nearly wholly
unknown tenth century...106
Being reluctant to connect a source with a far distant referent seems, at

first, to have a healthy dose of caution. However, the archaeological
record, which becomes fuller with the Tel Dan Inscription, shows that
such treatment of the biblical literature does not simply err on the side of
caution, but denies the significance of very real connections between the
kings of Israel and Judah in the biblical narrative and the appearance of
these kings in the archaeological record. In terms of progression or chron-
ology, there is little to poison our confidence in the catalogue of these
kings. Some may question or doubt the historical events attributed to them,
but the archaeological record affirms the existence of many of these kings.
The evidence, then, suggests that the kings in the biblical catalogue did
indeed exist, even if we do question what they did historically. In this vein,
the mention of Jerusalem as Tnrvn (Bayt-Dawid) in the Aramaic Tel Dan
Inscription overlaps considerably with the biblical Hebrew evidence,
which sees Jerusalem referred to as "Til TI7 ('City of David'). And if, in
this significant overlap of evidence, the fortress known as TI~I TU con-
tained the remains of the majority of these kings, then our confidence can
be boosted that the catalogue is accurate.
Thompson may well be correct in his suggestion that the Hellenistic era
is the milieu belying the biblical narratives of the kings. However, as the
archaeological record becomes fuller, it becomes less likely that the
referents in the narrative belong to the Hellenistic era. Circumstances in
the Hellenistic era (or even the Persian era) may have been ripe enough to
motivate the writing or compilation of the narrative, but this is altogether
different from claiming that the referents in the narrative actually are from
that era. Similarly, we must be careful not to confuse the referent of a
narrative character with the function of that character within the narrative.
The figure of Omri is a case in point. There is no concomitant reason to
see the referent of Omri in the biblical narrative as being in the Hellenistic
era, or whichever era the biblical narrative was written in. There are, how-
ever, very good reasons for seeing the referent as being the same as the
entity to whom Mesha refers in his stele as Omrinamely, a ninth century
106. Thompson,' "House of David": An Eponymic Referent', p. 74.

BCE king of Israel. Of course, the character of Omri in the biblical text
serves a different function to the Omri in the Mesha Stele, but the referent
of both is undoubtedly the same. The different functions of Omri within
these two contexts do not derive from two different referentsone in ninth
century BCE Moab and the other in second century BCE Judaea. Rather, th
different functions and characteristics of each derive from the two differ-
ent milieus that lay behind the writing of each text.
When it comes to the biblical figure of David, we can be confident that
the referent is not an entity in the author's own era, nor a figure purely per-
sonifying Yahwistic patronage for the kings of Jerusalem. This is espe-
cially so given the accuracy of the catalogue of rulers for Judah and Israel,
not to mention the catalogues for other neighbouring states. Rather, we can
be confident that the referent is a historical personage and one who lived in
the early Iron Age. We may need to revise our previous understanding of
the circumstances surrounding this David; he may well be the warrior
chieftain whom Jamieson-Drake surmises roamed the Judaean hills in the
tenth century BCE and who gave rise to the Davidic traditions of the bib
lical texts,107 rather than the imperial persona at the head of a great civili-
zation as we are often led to believe. Since Jerusalem was evidently a small
feudal estate in the late ninth to early eighth century BCE, this is a reason-
able scenario.
Having said this, however, we must be very cautious with the Tel Dan
Inscription. Its author, Bar Hadad II, was simply not interested in telling us
about David. Rather, he was interested in propagating his version of events
in his own lifetime c. 800 BCE. Also, the lexeme "inn''!} (Bayt-Dawid)
refers not to a dynasty, but to the settlement in Jerusalem at that same time.
As such, David is simply not in the inscription's scope. The inscription
does, however, bring us a step closer to David by filling in more of the
picture of Syria-Palestine during the Iron Age. The inscription presents us
with a location incorporating the word TH in its name, and Jerusalem is
the logical identity of that location. To say that David is the original refer-
ent of that word, as the biblical literature purports, is certainly a logical
conclusion to make, but it is one which cannot be proven beyond a doubt
as the actual permutation that occurred. It is certainly plausible, though.
To put it another way, the Tel Dan Inscription neither confirms nor denies
the biblical assertion that a certain David lent his name to a fortress in Jeru-
salem. This, however, is because that naming event is outside the inscrip-
107. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools, pp. 138-45.

tion's scope, the inscription being interested in other matters. Given the
evidence, however, it certainly looks as though it was the case. As such,
we cannot say that we have pinned David down outside the pages of the
Bible. We may well, so to speak, have found a footprint, even a fresh one,
but he himself still eludes us. We are, however, hot on his heels and our
confidence in finding him has greatly increased. The Tel Dan Inscription
does not give us proof of an historical David, but it may certainly be
admitted as evidence.
Cultic Implications
The Tel Dan Inscription alerts us to certain cultic developments that were
occurring in Syria-Palestine at the time the inscription was producedthat
is, in the first years of the eighth century BCE. These developments have to
do with the nature of the cult of El, as well as that ofmassebot,++++++
stones.
In the Tel Dan Inscription, we find a reference to the deity El-Baytel in
Line A4. This deity appears to be connected with the later deity, Bethel.
The name of Bethel appears in Esarhaddon's treaty with Baal, king of
Tyre (IV 6; c. 676 BCE), and in his Succession Treaty (line 467; c. 672
BCE).108 It also appears as a theophoric element in many Aramaic personal
names throughout the Near East from the sixth century BCE onwards.
Bethel is, in all likelihood, an evolution of the more archaic deity, El. This
is supported by the fact that ^K ('El') largely disappears as a theophoric
element in Aramaic personal names after the seventh century BCE,
replaced instead by ^n-3 or ^Nnn ('Baytel'/'Bethel').109
Since the Tel Dan Inscription may be dated to c. 796 BCE, it is
particularly useful in tracing the development of this deity from the more
archaic 'El' to subsequent 'Bethel'. The name [^KHÎl^N ('El-Baytel') in
Line A4 should be seen as a stage in the deity's evolutionary development.
The fact that Esarhaddon entreats Bethel in his treaty with Baal, king of
Tyre, implies that by the early seventh century BCE, the cult of Bethel was
well established in the region of Phoenicia. If Jer. 48.13 is historically reli-
able, then we may presume the presence of the Bethel cult in Israel by the
108. Written as d6a-a-a-/z-DiNGiRmel See S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian

Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (State Archives of Assyria, 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University
Press, 1988), pp. 27, 49.
109. K. Van der Toorn, B. Becking and P.W. Van der Horst, (eds.), Dictionary of
Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1995), pp. 331-33.
time of the Assyrian destruction of the state in 722 BCE. The temple and
cult of Bethel among the Judaean community at Elephantine and Syene
also attests to the cult's existence in Palestine during and probably before
the sixth century BCE.
There is also good reason to suggest a connection between this deity and
sacred Bethel-stones (or 'Baetyls') which were venerated at cultic shrines.
The term 'Bethel' for such sacred stones is well known from both Aramaic
and later Greek texts where it appears as an element in numerous com-
pound names of deities. These include 'Anat-Bethel,110 Ishum-Bethel111
and Herem-Bethel112 in the Aramaic papyri of Elephantine, and Zeus
Betylos,113 Zeus Baitylos114 and Symbetylos115 in later Greek inscriptions
from Syria and Mesopotamia. Baitylos is also explicitly named as a
'stone-god'.116 The fact that 'Anat and Ishum appear in compound divine
names from Elephantine confirms that we are dealing with sacred Bethel-
stones, for these are also known as independent deities in Syria and Pales-
tine without compounds.117 Thus, the compound divine names may be
understood as appositional constructions. So, 'Anat-Bethel means 'The
Bethel-stone, 'Anat'.118 In regard to the divine name 'El-Baytel' in the Tel
110. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 22.125.

111. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 22.124.
112. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 7.7. See also K. Van der Toorn, 'Herem-Bethel and
Elephantine Oath Procedure', ZAW98 (1986), pp. 282-85.
113. This deity is named at Dura Europos as the deity of the people living along the
Orontes. See H. Seyrig, 'Altar Dedicated to Zeus Betylos', in P.V.C. Baur, M.I.
Rostovtzeff and A.R. Bellinger (eds.), Excavations at Dura-Europos Conducted by
Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: Preliminary
Reports of Fourth Season (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933), pp. 68-71.
114. From Qal'at Kalota (near Aleppo). See L. Jalabert and R. Mouterde, Inscrip-
tions grecques et latines de la Syrie (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1929), p. 383.
115. From Kafr Nebo (near Aleppo). See Jalabert and Mouterde, Inscriptions
grecques et latines, p. 376. Symbetylos is probably identical to Ishum-Bethel, and is
mentioned as a 'paternal god' along with Seimios and 'the Lion'.
116. See Van der Toorn, Becking and Van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities
and Demons, p. 299.
117. Ishum is most probably equated with Ashima or, according to Cowley, with a
Babylonian demon of that name; see Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. xix. An equation
with the Phoenician deity Eshmun is highly unlikely.
118. The divine name 'Anat-Yahu appears once in the Elephantine texts; see
Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 44.3. This, however, should be understood as a reference to
'Anat as the consort of Yahu. This is supported by Cowley (Aramaic Papyri, 22.123-
25) who notes that 'Anat-Bethel receives from the temple treasury only slightly less
Dan Inscription, we may understand this name in the same way, meaning
'The Bethel-stone, El'.
Sacred Bethel-stones are well attested in the Levant and in the Phoeni-
cian colonies. In all probability, the massebot uncovered at numerous
Levantine sites, including Tel Dan, were venerated as sacred objects. The
term^Kmi ('house of god' or 'divine house') may have been a reference
to the entire shrine in which a massebah stood. These massebot, or Bethel-
stones, seem to have been venerated as potent stones that were essentially
aniconic representations of a deity. Thus, the presence of more than one
massebah at a shrine is indicative of the veneration of more than one deity
at that shrine. Their significance may be likened to that of icons in Eastern
Orthodox religion.119
The Jacob narratives are particularly instructive here as to the nature and
function of Bethel-stones or massebot. After his nocturnal vision of Yah-
weh at Luz, Jacob sets up the stone on which his head rested as a masse-
bah. He then takes a vow concerning this massebah.m The implication of
this is that the massebah acts as a witness to his vow. Throughout the Bible,
stones (and altars) are set up as witnesses to vows, treaties and memorable
events and treated as shrines.121 Other texts, such as Gen. 31.13,122 Jer. 2.27,
Dan. 2.34-35122 and Zech. 3.9 also demonstrate how these sacred stones
were considered animate objects.124
money than Yahu. Ishum-Bethel, however, receives much less than both the other
deities. See also Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. xviii; K. Van der Toorn, 'Anat-Yahu,
Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine', Numen 39 (1992), pp. 80-101.
119. This is not to suggest an equivalence between sacred Bethel-stones and
Orthodox icons. Rather, icons are mentioned here as a latter day parallel to help
explain the significance of sacred Bethel-stones for the ancients of the Levant.
120. Gen. 28.18-22. It is ironic that Jacob then names that place 'Bethel'. It is
questionable, however, whether this appellation has anything specifically to do with the
massebah or sacred Bethel-stone which Jacob erects. The name is connected with
Jacob's vision rather than the massebah. However, the connection may have been
misconstrued, either accidentally or deliberately, in the aetiology.
121. E.g. Gen. 31.44-54; Josh. 4.1-9; 22.21-29; 24.26-27; Judg. 13.19; 1 Sam. 4.1;
6.14-15; 7.12; 1 Kgs 1.9; Isa. 19.19-20.
122. This verse is commonly mistranslated as a construct expression, 'I am the deity
of Bethel'. The syntax, however, suggests that it should properly be rendered
appositionally, 'I am the deity Bethel'.
123. This verse may carry overtones of Greek mythology in which either Kronos or
Ouranos ('heaven') endows certain stones ((3aiTuAta) with life. These particular
stones are considered to be of divine origin, perhaps meteoric stones; see M. Ugolini,
'II dio (di) pietra', Sandalion 4 (1981), pp. 7-29. Damascius (Vita hid. 94, 203) uses
In this way, it is not surprising to find massebot in the ninth-eighth

century BCE gate complex of Tel Dan. Just inside the so-called 'Outer
Gate', we find five massebot set up along a fortification wall to the
immediate right of the gate's threshold. These massebot range in size from
30 cm to 50 cm tall. Next to them, in the destruction layer that covered
them, the excavators uncovered a small assemblage of pottery, including
incense bowls, oil lamps, bowls and plates. This confirms that the masse-
botwere venerated as sacred stones or Bethel-stones. Their position in this
gate chamber is interesting because of the discovery of a canopied plat-
form in the same chamber. This platform would have borne the throne of
either the king or a high official who acted as judge.125 In this way, the
sacred stones were witnesses of the justice dispensed at the gate as well as
of contracts and covenants concluded there. In all likelihood, the relevant
parties of a dispute or contract made some kind of offering to the massebot
deities.126 Since the deity El was widely viewed as both wise and just, able
to judge disputes correctly,127 we may reasonably expect that he was repre-
sented by at least one sacred Bethel-stone or massebot at the city gate of
Tel Dan and of other sites with similar constructions.
MassebotwQTQ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
of the gate chambers where justice was dispensed. One cluster of three
such massebot was discovered at the rear of a rectangular stone construc-
tion with dimensions 4.5 x 2.5 m.128 This construction acted as a platform,
raised slightly above the surrounding ground level. The largest massebah
measured 1.17m tall and a basalt bowl, with traces of fire in it, were found
directly in front of it on a decorative capital. Much ash was also found
around all the stones, confirming this as a cultic shrine at which offerings
were made. I propose that the largest massebah was representative of El-
Baytel and that the decorative capital may have been a sacred hearth
the same term (âiTuXia) for certain stones which fell from the sky in the Lebanon.
See also Van der Toorn, Becking and Van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and
Demons, pp. 299-300.
124. Isa. 8.14 and Hab. 2.11 may also encapsulate the idea of animated stones.
125. Biran, Biblical Dan, pp. 238-45.
126. Compare Gen. 28.18; 31.46; 35.14; Deut. 4.28; 28.36,64; 29.17; Judg. 9.5,18;
13.19; 1 Kgs 1.9; Jer. 3.9; Ezek. 20.32.
127. This attribute of El is clearly seen in Ugaritic literature. See M. Dietrich, O.
Loretz and J. Sanmartin, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1976), KTU 1.3.V.30; KTUlA.ivAl, v.3-4; KTU 1.16.iv.l-2.
128. Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription', pp. 1-3, esp. Figs. 1 and 2.
(^"18), or even that the entire platform was considered a sacred hearth.129
Since Fragment B1 was found in debris just 2 m south of this construction,
the stele of the Tel Dan Inscription may have originally stood next to it.
This would provide a tangible connection between the content of the
inscription and its archaeological context.
Also interesting in explaining the function of sacred stones are the texts
of Gen. 35.19-20 and 2 Sam. 18.18. In Gen. 35.19-20 we read that after
Rachel's death, Jacob set up a massebah on or next to her grave. Thus,
sacred stones were also considered to perpetuate the memory of a deceased
person. This is also clear from the text of 2 Sam. 18.18, where we read that
Absalom, during his lifetime, had set up a massebah in order to preserve
the memory of his name because he had no son. Interestingly, he is said to
have named the massebah after himself. This is particularly noteworthy for
the Tel Dan Inscription. In wishing that his father be remembered 'at every
ancient hearth on [sacred] ground of El-Baytel', the author, Bar Hadad, can
be understood as expressing the desire to see a sacred Bethel-stone erected
at every such hearth in order to perpetuate his father's memory. It might
also indicate that the deceased king was considered to have joined or
merged with the deity, El-Baytel, in his death. We see this belief at Ugarit
where deified kings 'joined' El in the afterlife. 13 It seems plausible that this
belief was carried on considering the connection between El and El-Baytel.
Alternatively, we may understand Bar Hadad's wish here as simply to
have his father, Hazael, remembered at every ancient hearth of the deity
El-Baytel. In wishing this, Bar Hadad may have desired that his father be
remembered at all proceedings in the city gate, presumably as a wise and
just king, so that his memory could be perpetuated by all those at the city
gate.
The Tel Dan Inscription affords us a glimpse into the significance of not
only the cultic platform at Dan, but also those found at the gates of other
Iron II cities. Of particular note is the cultic platform found in Area A at
Bethsaida, from Stratum V (ninth-eighth centuries BCE).131 This cultic
platform measures 2.31 x 1.53 m at the base. Two steps, however, lead up
to a raised square platform that is 1.53x1.53m in area. The platform was
129. Biran and Naveh call the entire platform a bamah (HQ3). However, bamot were
most likely larger sacred complexes such as that in the northwest corner of Tel Dan.
130. J.C. de Moor, The Rise ofYahwism (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990),
p. 242. Compare also the idea of deceased kings dining with Hadad in Panammu I,
lines 17-18.
131. R. Arav, 'Bethsaida 1996-1998', IEJ49 (1999), pp. 128-36 (132-34).
located at the base of the northern gate tower of Bethsaida. In the centre of
the raised platform, excavators found a rectangular basalt basin in which
two incense burner cups were found. This find probably indicates that the
basin was a sacred hearth (^K~IK). It is also evident from a depression at
the far end of the platform that the basin stood before a massebah. A deco-
rated iconic massebah found nearby had been deliberately knocked down
and broken into five pieces. The relief on this iconic massebah has been
interpreted as an Aramaean manifestation of the moon god.132 However, it
is debatable whether this massebah was the one originally located on the
platform.133 Whatever the case, it is evident that these massebotwere asso-
ciated with legal proceedings at the city gate, as well as the memory of
prominent deceased persons.
The fact that the name of'El' is largely replaced by 'Baytel' or 'Bethel'
from the seventh century BCE onwards suggests that El came to be known
as 'El-Baytel', meaning 'The Bethel-stone, El', prior to the seventh cen-
tury. This is because El would have been commonly represented by a
sacred Bethel-stone at the city gate, which acted as a witness to legal
proceedings there. The cult of El, as represented in specific temple com-
plexes, seems to have waned in the Iron Age because of the dominance of
the Baal cult throughout the Levant. However, the attributes of El allowed
his cult to be perpetuated on a lesser scale in a more nominal role as the
proverbially wise and just god who witnessed legal proceedings from the
shrine at the city gate. As such, El came to represent wisdom and justice in
his form as El-Baytel and Bethel.
This personification of El as a sacred Bethel-stone, presumably the chief
Bethel-stone at the city gate, probably led to the subsequent apocopation
of'El-Baytel' to simply 'Baytel'. Thus, from the seventh century BCE on-
wards, reference to the deity 'Baytel' or 'Bethel' without any prefixed
compound element should be understood as a reference to the deity El in
132. Arav, 'Bethsaida 1996-1998',p. 134; M. Bernett and O. Keel, Mond, Stier und
Kult am Stadttor: Die Stele von Betsaida [et-Tell] Unter Mitarbeit von Stefan Mtinger
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998).
133. R. Arav, 'Bethsaida 1996-1998', p. 134, Fig. 5. Arav says that this massebah,
found at the bottom of the platform's stairs, was the one before which the incense basin
stood. Oddly, however, the length and width of the massebah'?, base (59 x 31 cm) is
too large to fit into the depression on the platform (53 x 35 cm). The depression on the
platform also measures 10 cm in depth. At this depth, the bottom portion of iconic
relief on the massebah would have been obscured from view. If this massebah was
indeed the one originally located on the platform, then we must surmise that it was
placed on some kind of plinth that was fitted into the depression.
his evolved state. Other deities whose names are compounded with bwru
('Bethel') may, however, be understood as distinct from the deity Bethel,
their names being appositional constructions as mentioned previously.
Thus, Esarhaddon's call upon Bethel and' Anat-Bethel in his treaty with
Baal, king of Tyre (IV 6), and in his Succession Treaty (line 467), should
be understood as a call to El and ' Anat in their representations as Bethel-
stones and witnesses to the treaty, to deliver the defaulting parties 'to the
paws of a man-eating lion'.134 From Elephantine, the letter of Yedonyah
and his colleagues to Bigwai, governor of Judaea, informs us that the tem-
ple at Elephantine had stone pillars.135 These are specifically mentioned
first among the objects destroyed by the forces of Waidrang and Nephayan
in their pillage of the temple. One wonders whether 'the pillars of stone'
(NHK 'T KmaU) 136 in the temple were sacred Bethel-stones representing
the five deities mentioned specifically as revered by the Judaean commu-
nity in Elephantine.137
In any case, the Tel Dan Inscription provides us with a key insight into
the evolutionary development of the deity El. It also affords us a valuable
glimpse into the cultic significance ofmassebot, especially those found at
various Iron Age gate complexes.
134. See Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, pp. 27,49.
135. See Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 30.9-10.
136. Note the definite article accompanying the word 'pillars'.
137. These five deities were Yahu, 'Anat-Bethel (or 'Anat-Yahu), Ishum-Bethel,
Herem-Bethel and Bethel (that is, the evolution of El-Baytel). Although the entire
temple complex seems to have been dedicated to Yahu, god (or lord) of the Heavens,
the five gates of this temple would seem to correspond with the five deities of the
community. As such, we expect that each of these deities were represented by an
object. The compound element T>KrPD ('Bethel') in the names of most of the deities
suggests that they were represented by sacred Bethel-stones. See also Cowley, Aramaic
Papyri, p. xviii.
Chapter 8
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Tel Dan Inscription presents us with a very valuable text to shed light
on the history of Syria-Palestine. Perhaps one of its greatest contributions
to the field of ancient Near Eastern studies is in highlighting the dem+ise o
Aram-Damascus as the dominant power of the Levant and the subsequent
rise of Israel. One has to view the inscription as a work of propaganda for
the regime of Bar Hadad II. Unable to maintain control of the southern
trade routes through Palestine and Transjordan, Bar Hadad resorted to a
propaganda campaign that highlighted his prowess in previous military
campaigns as well as drawing a comparison with his enormously success-
ful father, Hazael. Bar Hadad's claims must be viewed in the light of the
geopolitical developments which both Assyrian and biblical texts bring to
light. As such, we gain a picture of Aram-Damascus' diminishing power.
The inscription also further defines our picture of ancient Jerusalem. In
c. 800 BCE Jerusalem is seen to have been little more than a fortifie
compound belonging to an ancient family. It did, however, form its own
political unit and was recognized as a distinct unit by Bar Hadad. We can-
not talk of a regional Judaean state at this time. At best, Jerusalem was a
principality with very limited sovereignty. Yet in less than a century after
the composition of the Tel Dan Inscription, this small estate had gained
suzerainty over the entire region of Judah and so evolved into a fully
fledged state entity.
Epigraphically, the Tel Dan Inscription is one of the best-preserved
pieces from antiquity and also one of the neatest, even if it is not one -of
the most complete artefacts. The discovery of Fragments Bl and B2
almost a year after the discovery of Fragment A raises hopes that more
fragments can be found. However, as the seasons of excavation continue at
Tel Dan, this becomes a less likely prospect.
With regards to the biblical texts, the Tel Dan Inscription demonstrates
that there are definite historical kernels in the Bible that cannot readily be
8. Concluding Remarks 317
dismissed. Indeed, the biblical records are an integral part in reconstructing

the history of Syria-Palestine. However, these need to be first evaluated in
the light of archaeological discoveries, such as the Tel Dan Inscription. The
method that should be followed is to examine inscriptions independently of
biblical texts in the first stage. In this way, the epigraphical, palaeographi-
cal and philological considerations may proceed without external influence.
Once the inscription has been appraised, we may corroborate it with the
biblical texts.
What this process shows is that there are definite historical memories in
the biblical literature. However, these memories have developed. With the
light that archaeology sheds on the biblical literature we can see something
of how these memories have developed and been embedded in the biblical
text. Since such archaeological finds as the Tel Dan Inscription are rare,
we do not have clarity for all the history of Syria-Palestine in the Iron Age.
However, with more similar discoveries, our image of the history will
hopefully sharpen.
The importance of archaeology is also underlined when we consider the
issue of dating the Tel Dan Inscription. The archaeological context is per-
haps the most important factor here. Dates determined on purely epigraphi-
cal and palaeographical avenues are far from being reliable and need to be
corroborated with the archaeological context of the inscription before they
can be useful. In the case of the Tel Dan Inscription, all these factors
worked together and confirmed a date for the inscription at c. 800 BCE, or
more specifically, in the early eighth century BCE. It was then with other
evidence, such as the Assyrian and biblical texts, that we could refine this
date even further. These methods allowed us to determine that the Tel Dan
Inscription had a display life between c. 796-791 BCE before it was broken
down and recycled as building material during the Israelite renaissance at
Dan. The value of archaeology cannot be denied.
The Tel Dan Inscription also brings us a definite step closer to finding a
historical David. This was perhaps the most hotly contested issue among
scholars when the fragments were first discovered. The reappraisal and
subsequent new reading and interpretation offered in this study have not
settled the issue beyond all doubt. The evidence proceeding from the in-
scription cannot be construed as proof. Rather, the inscription has in-
creased the likelihood of a historical David.
The Tel Dan Inscription and the questions it raises must warn scholars
of a future generation about the process of drawing historical conclusions
from archaeological artefacts. It is not surprising that an epigraphical find
in the Levant would cause such excitement among scholars and students.
However, with future finds we must take care not to fan our excitement
into either hysteria or parochialism. The Tel Dan Inscription produced one
of the biggest divides in the scholarly community. In the attempt to defend
certain perspectives, the integrity of the investigative process was too
often compromised, as was decorum sometimes foregone.
The primary lessons that we must learn are with regard to the investiga-
tive process itself. First, although resources are often frustratingly limited,
scholars must not be tempted to make conclusions over inscriptional arte-
facts based on photographic or hand-drawn images while the actual inscrip-
tional remains are still extant. As was the case with the Mesha Inscription,
there are occasions when scholars cannot rely on anything but manufac-
tured images of the inscription because of destruction to the artefact itself.
However, in the case of the Tel Dan Inscription where we had access to
the artefacts themselves, many conclusions were reached before a thor-
ough (rather than preliminary) investigation of the actual fragments was
made. As a result, the fragments have been displayed at the Israel Museum
in Jerusalem in the wrong configuration for a number of years now. As
tempting as it may be, scholars must put off conclusions before a thorough
analysis is carried out, or else future research taking into account these
premature conclusions will be fundamentally flawed.
Second, scholars should be warned about preconceptions when it comes
to the biblical texts. The historicity of the United Monarchy has been
steadily eroded by the lack of supporting evidence from excavations. Yet
we must question what it actually is we are looking for in excavations to
inform us about the biblical texts concerning David, Solomon and Jerusa-
lem, if indeed it is even a question that should be asked. The extensive
conclusions of Jamieson-Drake1 against a Davidic empire signalled the
death knell for the United Monarchy. However, it by no means banished
the persons of David or Solomon into the ether of mythical characters.
Rather, it appears that for too long we have been understanding the term
'United Monarchy' from a modern European perspective that inherently
requires state entities to possess land and officialdom. However, upon
closer inspection of the biblical texts, it becomes clear that the texts them-
selves do not press for such an understanding. We have, therefore, been
misunderstanding the biblical texts or have trained our sights too high. It
may well be argued that when it comes to the 'United Monarchy' terms
1. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools.

8. Concluding Remarks 319
such as 'monarchy', 'state' or 'empire' are false or anachronistic at best. It

may be the case that a period of 'United Monarchy' should be rebadged as
the 'United Quasi-State' or 'United Para-State' or even 'United Racket'.
The answers to such questions must await further research. However, when
interpreting archaeological remains and then comparing them with biblical
texts, archaeologists and historians alike must be careful not to be com-
paring the archaeological record with false expectations or misunderstand-
ings. In other words, it is a close and accurate reading of the biblical texts
that must work alongside (not in replacement of) the interpretation of arte-
factual evidence. When it comes to the books of Samuel-Kings, we must
look again at what the literature itself is saying.
It is doubtless that discussion over the Tel Dan fragments will continue.
It is envisaged, however, that this study will do much to quell the unhelp-
ful passion and euphoria that the Tel Dan Inscription has evoked among
scholars and interested persons alike. Although the Tel Dan fragments
bring great excitement to the field of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern
Studies, we must not be lured into pursuing emotional scholarship. Ration-
ality must prevail. It is also hoped that the conclusions from this study will
generate a rational interest in the inscription, the history of Syria-Palestine
in the Iron Age, as well as the study of biblical texts.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abou-Assaf, A., P. Bordreuil and A.R. Millard, La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription
bilingue assyro-arameenne (Recherche sur les civilisations, 7; Paris: ADPF, 1982).
Aharoni, Y., The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (London: Westminster Press, 2nd
rev. edn, 1979).
Aharoni, Y., and M. Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas (New York: Macmillan, 3rd rev.
edn, 1993).
Ahituv, S., 'Suzerain or Vassal? Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan', IEJ 43
(1993), pp. 246-47.
Ahlstrom, G., The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's
Conquest (JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).
Albright, W.F., 'New Light on the Early History of Phoenician Colonization', BASOR 83
(1941), pp. 14-22.
Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
2nd edn, 1946).
Alfrink, B., 'L'Expression rniDK Dtf 332)', OTS2 (1943), pp. 106-18.
Andersen, F.I., 'I Have Called You By Name...', BH34 (1998), pp. 37-52.
Arav, R., 'Bethsaida 1996-1998', IEJ49 (1999), pp. 128-36.
Aufrecht, W.E., A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press,
1989).
Avigad, N., 'The Epitaph of a Royal Steward from Siloam Village', IEJ3 (1953), pp. 137-52.
'An Inscribed Bowl from Dan', PEQ 100 (1968), pp. 42-44.
'Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, 1969/1970', IEJ20 (1970),
pp. 1-8, 129-40.
'Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, 1971', IEJ22 (1972), pp.
193-200.
Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983).
Barstad, H.M., and B. Becking, 'Does the Stele from Tel-Dan Refer to a Deity Dod?', 57V 77
(1995), pp. 5-12.
Becking, B., The Second Danite Inscription: Some Remarks', 5/V81 (1996), pp. 21-29.
'Did Jehu Write the Tel Dan Inscription?', SJOT13 (1999), pp. 187-201.
Bernett, M., and O. Keel, Mond, Stier undKult am Stadttor: Die Stele von Betsaida [et-Tell]
Unter Mitarbeit von Stefan Munger (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998).
Biran, A., Biblical Dan (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994).
'Two Bronze Plaques and the Hussot of Dan', IEJ 49 (1999), pp. 43-54.
Biran, A., and J. Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan', IEJ43 (1993), pp. 81-
98.
'The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment', IEJ 45 (1995), pp. 1-18.
Birnbaum, S.A., The Hebrew Scripts. II. The Plates (2 vols.; London: Palaeographia, 1954-57).
The Hebrew Scripts, Part One: The Text (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971).
Bibliograph++++++++++++++++++++
Chapman, R.L., 'The Dan Stele and the Chronology of Levantine Iron Age Stratigraphy',
Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 13 (1993-94), pp. 23-29.
Coogan, M.D., Stories from Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978).
Cook, S.A., 'Inscribed Hebrew Objects from Ophel', PEFQS 56 (1924), pp. 183-86.
Cowley, A., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century EC (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923).
Cross, P.M., 'The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet', 78 (1967), pp. 8-24.
'The Stele Dedicated to Melcarth by Ben-Hadad of Damascus', BASOR 205 (1972), pp.
36-42.
'Leaves from an Epigraphist's Notebook', CBQ 36 (1974), pp. 486-94.
'Early Alphabetic Scripts', in idem (ed.), Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniver-
sary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research, I (2 vols.; Cam-
bridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1979), pp. 97-123.
'Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Script', BASOR 238
(1980), pp. 1-20.
'King Hezekiah's Seal Bears Phoenician Imagery', BARev 25.2 (1999), pp. 42-45, 60.
Cryer, F.H., 'On the Recently-Discovered "House of David" Inscription', SJOT8 (1994), pp.
3-19.
'A "Betdawd" Miscellany: Dwd, Dwd' or Dwdh?', SJOT+(1995), pp. 52-58+ .
'King Hadad', SJOT9+(1995), pp. 223-35.
'Of Epistemology, Northwest-Semitic Epigraphy and Irony: The "bytdwd/House of David"
Inscription Revisited', JSOT69 (1996), pp. 3-17.
Davies, P.R., 'BYTDWD and SWKT DWYD: A Comparison', JSOT64 (1994), pp. 23-24.
'"House of David" Built on Sand: The Sins of the Biblical Maximizers', BARev 20.4
(1994), pp. 54-55.
In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).
'Method and Madness: Some Remarks on Doing History with the Bible', JBL 114 (1995),
pp.699-705.
Dearman, A. (ed.), Studies in the Mesha Inscription andMoab (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
DeCaen, V., 'The Morphosyntactic Argument for the waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic', VT
51 (2001), pp. 381-85.
Degen, R., Altaramdische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10.-8. Jh. v. Chr. (Wiesbaden:
Kommissionsverlag F. Steiner [fur die] Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft, 1969).
De Moor, J.C., The Rise ofYahwism (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990).
Demsky, A., 'On Reading Ancient Inscriptions: The Monumental Aramaic Stele Fragment
from Tel Dan\ JANES 23 (1995), pp. 29-35.
Deutsch, R., and M. Heltzer, New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical Period (Tel Aviv:
Archaeological Center Publications, 1995).
Dietrich, M., O. Loretz and J. Sanmartin, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976).
Dijkstra, M., 'An Epigraphic and Historical Note on the Stela of Tel Dan', BN 74 (1994), pp.
10-14.
Diringer, D., Le iscrizioni antico-ebraiche Palestinesi (Florence: Le Monnier, 1934).
Donner, H., and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und Aramdische Inschriften(3 vols.; Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1964).
Ehrlich, C.S., 'The BYTDWD-lnscnplion and Israelite Historiography: Taking Stock after Haifa
Decade of Research', in P.M. Michele Daviau, J.W. Wevers and M. Weigl (eds.), The
World of the Arameans. II. Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugene
Dion (3 vols.; JSOTSup, 325; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 57-71.
Emerton, J.A., 'New Evidence for the Use of Waw Consecutive in Aramaic', VT44 (1994), pp.
255-58.
Eph'al, I., and J. Naveh, 'Hazael's Booty Inscriptions', IEJ39 (1989), pp. 192-200.
Finkelstein, I., 'The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View', Levant 28
(1996), pp. 177-87.
Fitzmyer, J.A., The Aramaic Inscriptions ofSefire (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, rev.
edn, 1995).
Galil, G., 'A Re-Arrangement of the Fragments of the Tel Dan Inscription and the Relations
between Israel and Aram', PEQ 133 (2001), pp. 16-21.
Galling, K., 'The Scepter of Wisdom: A Note on the Gold Sheath ofZenjirli and Ecclesiastes
12:11', BASOR 119 (1950), pp. 15-18.
Garbini, G., 'L'iscrizione aramaica di Tel Dan', Atti della Accademia nazionale del Lincei,
Scienze morali, storiche efilologiche, rendiconti 9.5.3 (1994), pp. 461-71.
Garr, W.R., Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 BCE (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1985).
Gaus, U., V. Von Grave and M. Kerschner, 'Milet 1990: Vorbericht iiber die Arbeiten des Jahres
1990',/s/Mtf 41 (1991), pp. 125-86.
Gibson, J.C.L., Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1971).
Ginsberg, H.L., 'MMST and MSFT, BASOR 109 (1948), pp. 20-21.
Gitin, S., T. Dothan and J. Naveh, 'A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron', IEJ 47
(1997), pp. 1-16.
Grant, E., and G.E. Wright, Ain Shems Excavations. V. Text & Plates (5 vols.; Bible and
Kindred Studies, 8; Haverford: Haverford College, 1939).
Greenfield, J.C., 'Studies in West Semitic Inscriptions. I. Stylistic Aspects of the Sefire Treaty
Inscriptions', AcOr 29 (1965), pp. 1-18.
Greenfield, J.C., and A. Shaffer, 'Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual Statue from Tell
Fekherye', Iraq 65 (1983), pp. 109-16.
Hackert, J.A., The Balaam Text from Deir 'Alia (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980).
Halpern, B., 'The Stela from Dan: Epigraphic and Historical Considerations', BASOR 296
(1994), pp. 63-80.
Harris, W.V., Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).
Killers, D.R., and E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, 1996).
Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (2 vols.;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995).
Hoftijzer, J., and G. Van der Kooij (eds.), Aramaic Texts From Deir 'Alia (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1976).
Horn, S.H., 'The Amman Citadel Inscription', BASOR 193 (1969), pp. 2-19.
Ingholt, H., 'Un Nouveau thiase a Palmyre', Syria 1 (1926), pp. 128-41.
Rapportpreliminaire sur la premiere campagne desfouilles a Hama (Copenhagen: Levin &
Munksgaard, 1934).
Jalabert, L., and R. Mouterde, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie (Paris: Paul Geuthner,
1929).
Jamieson-Drake, D.W., Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological
Approach (JSOTSup, 155; The Social World of Biblical Antiquity, 9; Sheffield: Almond
Press, 1991).
Bibliography 323
Jaros, K., Hundert Inschriften aus Kanaan und Israel (Fribourg: Verlag Schweizerisches
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1982).
Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim: The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the
Midrashic Literature (2 vols.; New York: Judaica Press, 1993).
Jepsen, A., 'Israel und Damaskus', AfO 14 (1941^5), pp. 153-72.
Joiion, P., and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2 vols.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1993).
Kallai, Z., 'The King of Israel and the House of David', IEJ43 (1993), p. 248.
Kaufman, S.A., 'Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh',
Maarav3(1982),pp. 137-75.
Kitchen, K.A., 'A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and Deity *Dod
as Dead as the Dodo?', JSOT 16 (1997), pp. 29-44.
Knauf, E.A., A. De Pury and T.R. Romer, ' *BaytDawld ou *BaytDodT, BN12 (1994), pp
60-69.
Kuan, J.K.J., Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine (Hong Kong: Alliance
Bible Seminary, 1995).
Lapp, P.W., and N.L. Lapp, Discoveries in the Wadi ed-Ddliyeh (Cambridge, MA: American
Schools of Oriental Research, 1974).
Lehmann, R.G., and M. Reichel, 'DOD und ASIMA in Tell Dan', BN77 (1995), pp. 29-31.
Lemaire, A., 'Les Inscriptions de Khirbet el-Q6m', RB 84 (1977), pp. 595-608.
'"House of David" Restored in Moabite Inscription', BARev 20.3 (1994), pp.
30-37.
'The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography', JSOT 81 (1998), pp. 3-14.
Lemaire, A., and J.-M. Durand, Les inscriptions arameennes de Sfire et I 'Assyrie de Shamshi-
Ilu (Geneva: Droz, 1984).
Lemche, N.P., 'Is it Still Possible to Write a History of Ancient Israel?', SJOT 8 (1994), pp.
165-90.
'Bemerkungen iiber einen Paradigmenwechsel aus Anlass einer neuentdecken Inschrift', in
M. Weippert and S. Timm (eds.), Meilenstein. Festgabefur Herbert Donner zum 16
Februar 1995 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1995), pp. 99-108.
Lemche, N.P., and T.L. Thompson, 'Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the Light of Archae-
ology', JSOT'64 (1994), pp. 3-22.
Lidzbarski, M., Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik nebst A usgewdhlten Inschriften (2
vols.; Hildesheim: Olms, 1962).
Lipiriski, E., 'Le Ben-Hadad II de la Bible et 1'histoire', in P. Peli (ed.), Proceedings of the
Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (4 vols.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish
Studies, 1969), I, pp. 157-73.
'Aram et Israel du Xe au VIII6 siecle av. N.E.\Acta Antiquita 27 (1979), pp. 49-102.
Luckenbill, D.D., Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (New York: Greenwood, 1927).
Luschan, F. von, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. V. Die Kleinfunde von Sendschirli: Herausgabe
undErgdnzung besorgtvon Walter Andrae (5 vols.; Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen
Sammlungen, Konigliche Museen zu Berlin, 15; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1943).
Maisler, B., 'Two Hebrew Ostraca from Tell Qasile', JNES 10 (1951), pp. 265-67.
Margalit, B., 'The Old-Aramaic Inscription of Hazael from Dan', UF26 (1994), pp. 317-20.
Mazar, B., 'Bin Gev: Excavations in 1961', IEJ 14 (1964), pp. 27-29.
Mazar, E., and B. Mazar, Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical
Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989).
Messerschmidt, L., Keilschrifttexte as Assur: historischen Inhalts (2 vols.; Osnabriick: Otto
Zeller, 1970).
Millard, A.R., 'Alphabetic Inscriptions on Ivories from Nimrud', Iraq 24 (1962), pp. 45-49.
Millard, A.R., and H. Tadmor, 'Adad-Nirari III in Syria: Another Stele Fragment and the
Dates of his Campaigns', Iraq 35 (1973), pp. 62-64.
Miller, J.M., 'The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars', JBL 85 (1966), pp.
441-54.
'The Fall of the House of Ahab', VT17 (1967), pp. 307-24.
'The Rest of the Acts of Jehoahaz', ZAW 80 (1968), pp. 337-42.
Miller, J.M., and J.H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel andJudah (London: SCM Press, 1986).
Muraoka, T., 'Linguistic Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan', IEJ45 (1995), pp.
19-21.
'The Tel Dan Inscription and Aramaic/Hebrew Tenses', Abr-Nahrain 33 (1995), pp. 113-15.
'Again on the Tel Dan Inscription and the Northwest Semitic Verb Tenses', ZAH11 (1998),
pp.74-81.
'The Prefix Conjugation in Circumstantial Clauses in the Tel Dan Inscription?', VT 51
(2001), pp. 389-92.
Muraoka, T., and M. Rogland, 'The waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic? A Rejoinder to Victor
Sasson', FT 48 (1998), pp. 99-104.
Na'aman, N., 'Hezekiah's Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps', BASOR 261 (1986), pp. 5-
21.
'Hazael of 'Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob', UF 27 (1995), pp. 381-94.
'The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions for a Re-Evaluation of the Book of Kings as a
Historical Source', JSOT82 (1998), pp. 3-17.
Naveh, J., 'The Scripts in Palestine and Transjordan in the Iron Age', in J.H. Sanders (ed.),
Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), pp. 277-83.
Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and
Paleaography (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982).
Noll, K.L., 'The God Who is Among the Danites', JSOT80 (1998), pp. 3-23.
Parpola, S., and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (State Archives of
Assyria, 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988).
Pitard, W.T., Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City-State from the Earliest
Times until its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 BCE (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987).
'The Identity of the Bir-Hadad of the Melqart Stela', BASOR 272 (1988), pp. 3-22.
Pritchard, J.B. (ed.), The Ancient Near East in Pictures (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1954).
The Times Concise Atlas of the Bible (London: Times Books, 1991).
Puech, E., 'La Stele Arameene de Dan: Bar Hadad II et la coalition des Omrides et de la
maison de David', RB 101-102 (1994), pp. 215-41.
Rainey, A., 'The "House of David" and the House of the Deconstructionists', BARev 20.6
(1994), p. 47.
Reed, W.L., and F.V. Winnett, 'A Fragment of an Early Moabite Inscription from Kerak',
BASOR 172 (1963), pp. 1-9.
Reisner, G.A., C.S. Fischer and D.G. Lyons, Harvard Excavations at Samaria (2 vols.;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924, 1964).
Rendsburg, G.A., 'On the Writing TnjTD in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan', IEJ45
(1995), pp. 22-25.
Rosenthal, F., A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1963).
Sanders, J.H. (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of
Nelson Glueck (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970).
Bibliography 325
Sasson, V., 'The Old Aramaic Inscription from Tell Dan: Philological, Literary, and Historical
Aspects', JSS 40.1 (1995), pp. 11-30.
'Murderers, Usurpers, or What? Hazael, Jehu, and the Tell Dan Old Aramaic Inscription',
C/F28(1996), pp. 547-54.
'Some Observations on the Use and Original Purpose of the Wow Consecutive in Old
Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew', VT 41 (1997), pp. 111-27.
Schniedewind, W.M., 'Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt', BASOR 302
(1996), pp. 75-90.
Schniedewind, W.M., and B. Zuckerman, 'A Possible Reconstruction of the Name of Haza'el's
Father in the Tel Dan Inscription', 7E751.1 (2001), pp. 88-91.
Segert, S., 'Zur Schrift und Orthographic der altaramaischen Stelen von Sfire', ArOr 32
(1964), pp. 110-26.
Altaramdische Grammatik mil Bibliographic, Chrestomathie und Glossar (Leipzig: Verlag
Enzyklopadie, 1975).
Seyrig, H., 'Altar Dedicated to Zeus Betylos', in P.V.C. Baur, M.I. Rostovtzeff and A.R.
Bellinger (eds.), Excavations at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale University and the
French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: Preliminary Reports of Fourth Season
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933), pp. 68-71.
Spycket, A., 'La statue bilingue de Tell Fekherye', RA 19 (1985), pp. 67-68.
Tadmor, H., 'Historical Implications of the Correct Rendering of Akkadian "daku" \JNES 17
(1958), pp. 129-41.
Thiele, E.R., The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rev.
edn, 1983).
Thompson, T.L., 'Dissonance and Disconnections: Notes on the BYTDWD and HMLK.HDD
Fragments from Tel Dan', SJOT9 (1995), pp. 236-40.
' "House of David": An Eponymic Referent to Yahweh as Godfather', SJOT9 (1995), pp.
59-74.
Thureau-Dangin, F. et al, Arslan Task (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1931).
Torczyner, H., Lachish. I. The Lachish Letters (4 vols.; The Wellcome Archaeological Research
Expedition to the Near East, 1; London: Oxford University Press, 1938).
Tropper, J., 'Eine altaramaische Steleninschrift aus Dan', UF25 (1993), pp. 395-406.
'Palaographische und linguistische Anmerkungen zur Steleninschrift aus Dan', UF 26
(1994), pp. 487-92.
'Aramaisches wyqtl und hebraisches wayyiqtoV, UF 28 (1997), pp. 633-45.
Tufnell, O., M.A. Murray and D. Diringer (eds.), Lachish. III. The Iron Age (4 vols.; The
Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East, 3; London:
Oxford University Press, 1953).
Tushingham, A.D., 'The Western Hill under the Monarchy', ZDPV95 (1979), pp. 39-55.
Ugolini, M., 'II dio (di) pietra', Sandalion 4 (1981), pp. 7-29.
Ussishkin, D., 'Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions', BASOR 223 (1976),
pp. 1-13.
'The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean Storage
Jars', Tel Aviv 4 (1977), pp. 28-60.
Van der Toorn, K., 'Herem-Bethel and Elephantine Oath Procedure', ZAW98 (1986), pp. 282-
85.
'Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine', Numen 39 (1992), pp. 80-
101.
Van der Toorn, K., B. Becking and P.W. Van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and
Demons in the Bible (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995).
Van Zijl, A.M., The Moabites (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1960).

Von Soden, W.,Akkadisches Handworterbuch unter Benutzung des lexikalischen Nachlasses
von B. Meissner (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981).
Weippert, H., Paldstina in vorhellenstischer Zeit (Handbuch der Archaologie, Vorderasien,
2.1; Munich: Beck, 1992).
Wesselius, J.W., 'De eerste koningsinscriptie uit het oude Israel: Een nieuwe visie op de Tel
Dan-inscriptie', NedTT53 (1999), pp. 177-90, 243.
'The First Royal Inscription from Ancient Israel: The Tel Dan Inscription Reconsidered',
/Ori3(1999),pp. 163-86.
Whitley, C.F., 'The Deuteronomic Presentation of the House of Omri', VT2 (1952), pp. 137-52.
Winckler, H., Altorientalische Forschungen, I (3 vols.; Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur
des Alten Orients, 11; Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1897).
Yadin, Y., 'The Fourfold Division of Judah', BASOR 163 (1961), pp. 6-12.
Hazor (London: Oxford University Press, 1972).
Yamada, S., 'Aram-Israel Relations as Reflected in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan',
UF 27 (1995), pp. 611-25.
Young, I.M., 'Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence. Part I', VT4S (1998), pp. 239-53.
'Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence. Part IF, FT 48 (1998), pp. 408-22.
Zimhoni, O., Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological, Archaeological, and
Chronological Aspects (Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 1997).
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
BIBLE
Old Testament Joshua 5.7 224, 280,

Genesis 2.12 196 299
20.15-16 207 4.1-9 311 5.9 299
28.18-22 311 5.15 211 5.244 212
28.18 312 12.166 225 7.5-16 301
31.13 311 19.411 280 7.17-29 302
31.44-54 311 22.21-29 311 18.188 313
31.46 312 24.26-27 311
35.14 312 1 Kings
35.19-20 313 Judges 1.9 311,312
47.29 196 1.24 196 1.40 199
3 23 6.16 211
Exodus 4.14 212 8.8 211
3.5 211 5.27 207 11.28 224
13.21 212 9.5 312 12.15 303
14.199 212 9.18 312 12.16-33 302
23.23 212 9.22 195 12.16 302
26.33 211 13.19 311,312 12.19 302
32.11 212 16.3 207 12.26 302
38.24 211 14.7-11 302
1 Samuel 14.8 302
Numbers 4.1 311 14.10 302
14.144 212 5.6-9 9 305 15 287
16.133 195 6.14-15 311 15.2727 224
7.12 311 20.1-22 286, 290
Deuteronomy 24.11 262 20.2.2 287
1.30 212 25.13 3 199 20.13-14 287
4.288 312 29.1.1 236 20.1313 287
28.36 312 20.1414 287
28.64 312 2 Samuel 20.23-43 285
29.177 312 2.4 224 20.26 236
31.8 8 212 2.7 224 20.27 285
2.10-11 224 20.30 236
1 Kings (cont.) 22.14 276 20.32 312

22.1-40 283, 284, 22.29-37 281 43.15-16 209
289
22.40 284 1 Chronicles Daniel
11.7 299 2.34-35 311
2 Kings 14.15 212 2.38 238
4.11 207 4.9 238
6-7 290 2 Chronicles 4.12 238
7.6 290, 291 21.7 303 4.18 238
8.7-15 288, 289 28.27 280, 305 4.20 238
8.12 267 32.5 276 4.22 238
8.15 259 32.33 280, 306 4.29 238
8.28-29 282 34.22 276 4.31 204
9.14-16 282 4.33 204
9.14 267 Job
10.32-33 266, 267 39.4 238 Amos
12.17-18 266, 267 1.1 10,267,
12.17 289 Psalms 276, 278
12.18 279 47.3 233 1.3-2.16 276
12.20-21 291,295 74.2 208 1.3-5 266
12.21 281 95.3 233 1.4 266
13.1-3 269 119.152 208 6.2 266, 267
13.3 267 6.13 266, 290
13.4-5 269 Isaiah 7.12 276
13.5 264, 290 8.14 312 8.14 219,295
13.7 286 19.19-20 311
13.9 269, 284 22.10-11 276 Obadiah
13.14-19 286 29.1 209 18 224
13.17 236 29.2 209
13.22 267 29.7 209 Micah
13.24-25 270 45.2 212 1.10 266
13.25 286 52.12 212
14.7 276 Habakkuk
14.8-14 274 Jeremiah 2.11 312
14.10 276 2.27 311
14.11 275 3.9 312 Zechariah
14.19 277 21.11-12 303 3.9 311
14.22 276 46.18 233 14.5 267, 278
14.25 295 48.13 309
15.29 10 Malachi
16.20 280, 305 Ezekiel 1.14 233
20.21 305 4.9 207
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abou-Assaf, A. 41 Davies, P.R. 183,218,299

Aharoni, Y. 277 Dearman, A. 41
Ahituv, S. 217 DeCaen, V. 202
Ahlstrom, G. 264, 272, 273 Degen, R. 195,200,252
Albright, W.F. 99 DeMoor, J.C. 313
Alfrink, B. 284 Demsky, A. 1,2
Anderson, F.I. 217 DePury, A. 183,208,209,218-21,224
Arav, R. 313,314 Deutsch, R. 116
Aufrecht, W.E. 91,239,242 Dietrich, M. 312
Avi-Yonah, M. 277 Dijkstra, M. 63, 259, 284, 296
Avigad, N. 123, 256, 276, 279 Diringer, D. 95, 116
Donner, H. 41, 99, 100, 103, 207, 208
Barstad, H.M. 220 Dothan, T. 103
Becking, B. 146, 147, 150, 152, 154, 161, Durand, J.-M. 236
162, 164, 180,217,220,231-33,
236,242,257,309,312 Emerton, J.A. 202
Bernett, M. 314 Eph'al, I. 105
Biran, A. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-13, 18, 21, 22, 34,
36-38, 40, 55, 61, 62, 66, 71-75, 78, Finkelstein, I. 10, 12, 13, 22, 274, 275
81-85, 87, 91, 150, 153, 175-78, Fischer, C.S. 95
180-90, 194, 197, 199,201,202, Fitzmyer, J.A. 200, 213, 226, 236, 252
206-208, 210-15, 217, 226-28, 231-
35, 237, 238, 240, 242, 256, 259, Galil, G. 190
260,263,285,296,312,313 Galling, K. 99
Birnbaum, S.A. 105 Garbini, G. 23, 183,208
Bordreuil, P. 41 Garr, W.R. 214,235
Gaus, U. 31
Chapman, R.L. 5 Gibson, J.C.L. 41, 99, 103, 200, 204, 213,
Coogan, M.D. 233 222
Cook, S.A. 116 Ginsberg, H.L. 273
Cowley,A. 211,310,311,315 Gitin, S. 103
Cross, P.M. 99, 112, 124, 125,273 Grant, E. 272,274,275
Cryer, F.H. 8, 9, 12, 23, 34, 70-72, 83, Greenfield, J.C. 41,200
85,94, 106, 112, 117, 121, 124,
128, 145-47, 149, 150, 158, 161, Hackett, J.A. 202,204
162, 164, 178, 180, 183,209,210, Halpern,B. 6, 10-12,215
218,222,232,234,237,238 Harris, W.V. 26
Cussini, E. 222 Hayes, J.H. 273
Heltzer, M. 116 Na'aman,N. 241,261,273,283

Killers, D.R. 222 Naveh, J. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 18, 21, 34, 36-
Hoftijzer, J. 194, 196, 200-202, 207-10, 38,40,41,55,61,62,66,74,75,
219,220,231,238 78, 81-85, 87, 91, 94, 95, 102, 103,
Horn, S.H. 41 105, 113, 115, 125, 130, 150, 153,
175-78, 180-90, 194, 197, 199, 201,
Ingholt, H. 100,222 202, 206-208, 210-15, 217, 226-28,
231-35, 237, 238, 240, 242, 259,
Jalabert, L. 310 260,263,296,312,313
Jamieson-Drake, D.W. 26,308,318 Noll,K.L. 10,217,242
Jaros,K. 115-17
Jastrow, M. 206 Parpola, S. 309,315
Jepsen, A. 281 Pitard, W.T. 98, 99, 112, 258, 282, 288
Jongeling, K. 194, 196, 200, 201, 207-10, Pritchard, J.B. 18, 41, 223, 227, 266, 276,
219,220,231,238 278, 279,283,306
Joiion, P. 201 Puech, E. 63,217
Kallai,Z. 217 Rainey, A. 217

Kaufman, S.A. 41 Reed,W.L. 108
Keel, O. 314 Reichel, M. 218-21,226
Kerschner, M. 31 Reisner, G.A. 95
Kitchen, K.A. 217,224 Rendsburg, G.A. 217,224
Knauf,E.A. 183,208,209,218-21,224 Rogland, M. 202
Kooij, G. van der 200 Rollig, W. 41, 99, 100, 103, 207, 208
Kuan, J.K.J. 10, 195, 270, 288 Romer, T.R. 183, 208, 209, 218-21, 224
Rosenthal, F. 204
Lapp,N.L. 117
Lapp, P.W. 117 Sanmartin, J. 312
Lehmann, R.G. 218-21,226 Sasson,V. 4,202-204,241,260,261,
Lemaire, A. 32, 116, 217, 236, 262, 263 290
Lemche,N.P. 6,9,218,299 Schniedewind, W.M. 21, 36, 37, 42-44,
Lidzbarski, M. 41, 103, 105, 112 88-90, 179, 180,217,239,259
Lipinski, E. 282,283 Segert, S. 195,200,248
Loretz, O. 312 Seyrig, H. 310
Luckenbill, D.D. 241,259,264,288 Shaffer, A. 41
Luschan, F. von 99 Spycket, A. 41
Lyons, D.G. 95
Tadmor, H. 264, 300
Maisler, B. 116 Thiele,E.R. 16,295
Margalit, B. 260,261 Thompson, T.L. 6, 8, 9, 78, 83, 178, 183,
Mazar, B. 256,279,281 218,222,299-301,303,306,307
Mazar,E. 279,281 Thureau-Dangin, F. 95
Messerschmidt, L. 288 Torczyner, H. 116
Millard, A.R. 41,95,264 Tropper, J. 36,37,94,202,217
Miller, J.M. 273,281 Tufnell, O. 116
Mouterde, R. 310 Tushingham, A.D. 276
Muraoka, T. 201-204,206,215
Murray, M.A. 116 Ugolini,M. 311
Index of Authors 331
Ussishkin,D. 273,278 Winckler, H. 219

Winnett, F.V. 108
Van der Horst, P.W. 309, 312 Wright, G.E. 272, 274, 275
Van der Toorn, K. 309-12
VanZijl, A.H. 222 Yadin, Y. 243, 274, 292, 293
Von Grave, V. 31 Yamada, S. 177,218,260,282
Young, I.M. 26
Watanabe,K. 309,315
Weippert, H. 9 Zimhoni, O. 277,278
Wesselius, J.W. 217,229,257 Zuckerman, B. 21,44,259
Whitley, C.F. 281
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
113 Raymond Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law

114 Dan Cohn-Sherbok (ed.), A Traditional Quest: Essays in Honour of Louis Jacobs
115 Victor (Avigdor) Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building
in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings
116 Hugo Gressmann, Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gress-
mann and Other Scholars, 19061923
117 Philip R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies: 1. Persian Period
118 Raymond Jacques Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The
Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem
119 David J.A. Clines and Tamara C. Eskenazi (eds.), Telling Queen Michal 's Story:
An Experiment in Comparative Interpretation
120 R.H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cult and Society in First Temple Judah
121 Diana Vikander Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah
122 Loveday Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire
123 Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead
124 Baruch Halpern and Deborah W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic
Israel
125 Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient
Israel
126 John W. Rogerson, W.M.L. de Wette, Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An
Intellectual Biography
127 Diana Vikander Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's
Past
128 Thomas P. McCreesh, OP, Biblical Sound and Sense: Poetic Sound Patterns in
Proverbs 10-29
129 Zdravko Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic
130 Mike Butterworth, Structure and the Book ofZechariah
131 Lynn A. Holden, Forms of Deformity
132 Mark Daniel Carroll R., Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin American
Perspective
133 Roger Syren, The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the
Patriarchal Narratives
134 Gordon Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua
135 Gordon F. Davies, Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2
136 Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer (eds.), A Walk in the Garden: Biblical,
Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden
137 Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman (eds.), Justice and Righteousness:
Biblical Themes and their Influence
138 R.P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson
139 James W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative
140 Walter Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Bib-
lical Law
141 Gregory C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East
142 Frederick H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern
Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation
143 J. Cheryl Exum and David J. A. Clines (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the
Hebrew Bible
144 Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), Among the Prophets: Language,
Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings
145 Charles S. Shaw, The Speeches ofMicah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis
146 Gosta W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic
Period to Alexander's Conquest [Out of print]
147 Tony W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East
148 Philip R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel': A Study of Biblical Origins
149 Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Carroll and Philip R. Davies (eds.),
Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of
Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp
150 Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8
151 Joel Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community
152 A. Graeme Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of
George Wishart Anderson
153 Donald K. Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for Psalm
18
154 Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane (eds.), Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and
Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday
155 Jeffrey A. Fager, Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee: Uncovering Hebrew
Ethics through the Sociology of Knowledge
156 John W. Kleinig, The Lord's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of
Choral Music in Chronicles
157 Gordon R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible
158 Mary Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of
Numbers
159 J. Clinton McCann, Jr (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter
160 William Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation
of History
161 George W. Coats, The Moses Tradition
162 Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets' Visions and the
Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour ofR. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth
Birthday
163 J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical
Narratives
164 Lyle Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7
165 Martin McNamara, The Psalms in the Early Irish Church
166 D.R.G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their
Historical Context
167 Raymond F. Person, Jr, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School
168 R.N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs
169 Bert Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in
Biblical Prophecy and Story
170 Wilfred G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse
111 Henning Graf Reventlow, Yair Hoffman and Benjamin Uffenheimer (eds.),
Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature
172 Volkmar Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology
173 M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown and Jeffrey K. Kuan (eds.), History and
Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes
174 Joe M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant': A Literary Approach
175 Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies: 2
Temple and Community in the Persian Period
176 Gershon Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea
Scrolls
177 David Allan Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew
178 Martin Ravndal Hauge, Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and
Function in the I-Psalms
179 J.G. McConville and J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy
180 Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets
181 Bernard M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law:
Revision, Interpolation and Development
182 Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The History of Israel's
Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth
183 William Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Second and
Third Series)
184 John C. Reeves and John Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of
Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday
185 Seth Daniel Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew
Mythology
186 Linda Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther
187 Charles V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity
188 Robert H. O'Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of
Isaiah
189 William Johnstone (ed.), William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment
190 Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken:
Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom
191 Magne Saeb0, On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old
Testament
192 Henning Graf Reventlow and William Farmer (eds.), Biblical Studies and the
Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914
193 Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic
History of the Restoration
194 Else Kragelund Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel's History in the
Book ofHosea
195 Jon Davies, Graham Harvey and Wilfred G.E. Watson (eds.), Words Remem-
bered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer
196 Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible
197 William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to
Exegete in the Second Temple Period
198 T. J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison
199 J.H. Eaton, Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the
Commentators
200 M. Daniel Carroll R., David J.A. Clines and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in
Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson
201 John W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles ofF.D.
Maurice and William Robertson Smith
202 Nanette Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible
203 Jill M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs
204 Philip R. Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway?
205 David J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of
the Hebrew Bible
206 M0gens Miiller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint
207 John W. Rogerson, Margaret Davies and M. Daniel Carroll R. (eds.), The Bible
in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium
208 Beverly J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 23
209 Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case ofAthaliah
andJoash
210 Jacques Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient
Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry
211 Brian E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles
212 Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea's Marriage in
L iterary- Theoretical Perspective
213 Yair Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context
214 Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah
215 J. Cheryl Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical
Women
216 Judith E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and
Drink
217 Jerome F.D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter
218 Harry P. Nasuti, Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition, and the Post-
Critical Interpretation of the Psalms
219 Gerald Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea
220 Raymond F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis,
Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah
221 Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative'
222 R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book
223 Scott B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job
224 Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses,
Joshua, Elijah and Elisha
225 Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays
on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders
226 Lori L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis
221 John F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas
228 Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite
States
229 Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M.
Tucker
230 Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher (eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies:
Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara
231 Weston W. Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical
Narrative
232 Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament
233 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms ofAsaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the
Psalter, III
234 Ken Stone, Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History
235 James W. Watts and Paul House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on
Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts
236 Thomas M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah Re-
examined
237 Neil Asher Silberman and David B. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel:
Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present
238 M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The
Chronicler as Historian
239 Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus
240 Eugene E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and
Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats
241 Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel
242 K.L. Noll, The Faces of David
243 Henning Graf Reventlow (ed.), Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and
Christian Tradition
244 Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau and Steven W. Gauley (eds.), Urbanism in
Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete
245 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written?
246 Gillian M. Bediako, Primal Religion and the Bible: William Robertson Smith
and his Heritage
247 Nathan Klaus, Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets
248 Etienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the
Mishnah
249 William Paul Griffin, The God of the Prophets: An Analysis of Divine Action
250 Josette Elayi and Jean Sapin, Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Trans-
euphratene
251 Flemming A. J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuterono-
mistic History
252 David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme
in the Book of Psalms
253 William Johnstone, 1 and2 Chronicles, Volume 1:1 Chronicles 12 Chronicles
9: Israel's Place among the Nations
254 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume 2: 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt
and Atonement
255 Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa: The Resonance of
Tradition in Parabolic Narrative
256 Roland Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric
257 Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), The World of Genesis: Persons,
Places, Perspectives
258 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150):
Studies in the Psalter, IV
259 Allen Rosengren Petersen, The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient
Israel and Ugarit?
260 A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O'Connor and Louis Stulman (eds.), Troubling
Jeremiah
261 Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near
Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible
262 Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (eds.),
Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East
263 M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author: Studies
in Text and Texture
264 Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics,
Poetics, and Polemics in a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel 5.17
7.29)
265 John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan
266 J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Biblical Studies/Cultural Studies:
The Third Sheffield Colloquium
267 Patrick D. Miller, Jr, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays
268 Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Those Elusive Deuterono-
mists: 'Pandeuteronomism' and Scholarship in the Nineties
269 David J.A. Clines and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of
the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies
270 John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Pro-
ceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar
271 Wonsuk Ma, Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah
272 James Richard Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of
Social Identity
273 Meir Lubetski, Claire Gottlieb and Sharon Keller (eds.), Boundaries of the
Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon
274 Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in its Context
275 William Johnstone, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application
276 Raz Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom ofJudah
211 Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs
278 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and
Ideology
279 Kari Latvus, God, Anger and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges
in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings
280 Eric S. Christiansen, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes
281 Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah 3435: A Nightmare/A Dream
282 Joan E. Cook, Hannah's Desire, God's Design: Early Interpretations in the
Story of Hannah
283 Kelvin Friebel, Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal
Communication
284 M. Patrick Graham, Rick R. Marrs and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Worship and
the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of John T. Willis
285 Paolo Sacchi, History of the Second Temple
286 Wesley J. Bergen, Elisha and the End ofProphetism
287 Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation ofTorahfrom Scribal Advice
to Law
288 Diana Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal
Dreams of Genesis
289 Jose Krasovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Sym-
posium in Slovenia
290 Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old
and New Testaments
291 Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period
292 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967-
1998 Volume 1
293 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967-
1998 Volume 2
294 Charles E. Carter, The Emergence ofYehud in the Persian Period: A Social and
Demographic Study
295 Jean-Marc Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew
Narratives
296 Mark Cameron Love, The Evasive Text: Zechariah 1-8 and the Frustrated
Reader
297 Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment
298 John D. Baildam, Paradisal Love: Johann Gottfried Herder and the Song of
Songs
299 M. Daniel Carroll R., Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from
the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation
300 Edward Ball (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament
Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements
301 Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father's House: The Social Location ofna 'ar
and na 'arah in Ancient Israel
302 Xuan Huong Thi Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew
Bible
303 Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis
304 Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubabbel: Messianic Expectations in the Early
Postexilic Period
305 Jo Bailey Wells, God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology
306 Albert de Pury, Thomas Rb'mer and Jean-Daniel Macchi (eds.), Israel Constructs
its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research
307 Robert L. Cole, The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73-89)
308 Yiu-Wing Fung, Victim and Victimizer: Joseph's Interpretation of his Destiny
309 George Aichele (ed.), Culture, Entertainment and the Bible
310 Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew
Bible as a Woman
311 Gregory Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in
Biblical Prophecy
312 Francis Landy, Beauty and the Enigma: And Other Essays on the Hebrew Bible
313 Martin O'Kane (ed.), Borders, Boundaries and the Bible
314 Bernard S. Jackson, Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law
315 Paul R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise
and its Covenantal Development in Genesis
316 Dominic Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes
317 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and
Scripture in the Hellenistic Period
318 David A. Baer, When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX 56-66
319 Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman (eds.), Creation in Jewish and
Christian Tradition
320 Claudia V. Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making
of the Bible
321 Varese Layzer, Signs of Weakness: Juxtaposing Irish Tales and the Bible
322 Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book ofMicah
323 Martin Ravndal Hauge, The Descent from the Mountain: Narrative Patterns in
Exodus 19-40
324 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of
the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 1
327 Gary D. Salyer, Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes
328 James M. Trotter, Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud
329 Wolfgang Bluedorn, Yahweh Verus Baalism: A Theological Reading of the
Gideon-Abimelech Narrative
330 Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (eds.), 'Every City shall be Forsaken ':
Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East
331 Amihai Mazar (ed.), with the assistance of Ginny Mathias, Studies in the
Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan
332 Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox and Peter J. Gentry (eds.), The Old Greek
Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma
333 Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical
Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman
334 Ken Stone (ed.), Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible
335 James K. Bruckner, Implied Law in the Abrahamic Narrative: A Literary and
Theological Analysis
336 Stephen L. Cook, Corrine L. Patton and James W. Watts (eds.), The Whirlwind:
Essays on Job, Hermeneutics and Theology in Memory of Jane Morse
337 Joyce Rilett Wood, Amos in Song and Book Culture
338 Alice A. Keefe, Woman's Body and the Social Body in Hosea 1-2
339 Sarah Nicholson, Three Faces of Saul: An Intertextual Approach to Biblical
Tragedy
340 Philip R. Davies and John M. Halligan (eds.), Second Temple Studies III: Studies
in Politics, Class and Material Culture
341 Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger Jr (eds.), Mesopotamia and the Bible
343 J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The Land that I Will Show
You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in
Honor ofj. Maxwell Miller
345 Jan-Wim Wesselius, The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus' Histories as
Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible
346 Johanna Stiebert, The Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The
Prophetic Contribution
347 Andrew G. Shead, The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its
Hebrew and Greek Recensions
348 Alastair G. Hunter and Phillip R. Davies, Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on
Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll
350 David Janzen, Witch-hunts, Purity and Social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the
Foreign Women in Ezra 910
351 Roland Boer (ed.), Tracking the 'Tribes ofYahweh': On the Trail of a Classic
352 William John Lyons, Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom
Narrative
353 Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten (eds.), Bible Translation on the
Threshold of the Twenty-First Century: Authority, Reception, Culture and
Religion
354 Susan Gillingham, The Image, the Depths and the Surface: Multivalent
Approaches to Biblical Study
356 Carole Fontaine, Smooth Words: Women, Proverbs and Performance in Biblical
Wisdom
357 Carleen Mandolfo, God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament
359 David M. Gunn and Paula N. McNutt, 'Imagining' Biblical Worlds: Studies in
Spatial, Social and Historical Constructs in Honor of James W. Flanagan
361 Franz V. Greifenhagen, Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map: Construct-
ing Biblical Israel's Identity
364 Jonathan P. Burnside, The Signs of Sin: Seriousness of Offence in Biblical Law

George Athas-The Tel Dan Inscription - A Reappraisal and A New Interpretation (Journal For The Study of The Old Testment Supplement) (2006)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

George Athas-The Tel Dan Inscription - A Reappraisal and A New Interpretation (Journal For The Study of The Old Testment Supplement) (2006)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

George Athas-The Tel Dan Inscription - A Reappraisal and A New Interpretation (Journal For The Study of The Old Testment Supplement) (2006)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

COPENHAGEN INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR

Sheffield Academic Press

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Copenhagen International Seminar 12

Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press

List of Figures vii

Figure 2.1. Fragment A 7

Figure 3.15. Detail of the facsimile showing damaged letter in

This work is essentially a reproduction of my doctoral dissertation sub-

Muraoka (Leiden), Reinhard Lehmann (Johannes Gutenberg Universitt,

AcOr Acta orientalia

1. See A. Demsky, 'On Reading Ancient Inscriptions: The Monumental Aramaic

between the three fragments with regards to their epigraphical

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE FRAGMENTS

qualification of one's arguments. In this regard, the comments of Lemche

4. That is, Area A, sector P-3.

9. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 86.

as Ramoth-Gilead), the Assyrian texts of Tiglath-Pileser III14 and the bib-

context as described in the initial publications of the fragments. The thrust

23. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques', p. 46, Fig. 4.

this pavement had used Fragment B2 as a flagstone where the pavement

Figure 2.4. Fragment B2 (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College,

Synthesis of the Archaeological Data

Figure 2.5. Fragment B, comprised of Fragment Bl (top) and Fragment B 2 (bottom)

30. As calculated by Thiele, Jeroboam II shared an 11-year co-regency with his

Fragment A: Physical Characteristics and the State of Preservation

1. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 84.

ological context in which it was found. Differing patterns of erosion on the

Figure 3.2. Paradigmatic cross section of the written surface

had a thriving metal industry, as is evidenced by the discovery of numer-

Fragment A: Epigraphical Analysis

The direction of carving is very important if we are to calculate where the

trol during engraving because neither posture requires one arm to be

Significance of the Slope of Each Textual Line

Table 3.1. Slope of each line in Fragment A 19

Dimensions of the Original Inscription

Figure 3.6. Illustration showing the position of the engraver

Grip and control of a chisel with the simultaneous swinging of a mallet,

26. The fist is clenched so as to grip the chisel.

Written face Newly exposed face

evidence from other similar monumental lapidary inscriptions that do

on).45 In fact, in his initial transcription of the fragments as he arranges

Epigraphically, the suggestion of restoring a lamed before the word

49. Schniedewind and Zuckerman, 'A Possible Reconstruction', p. 89.

3. The scarification represents a deliberately chiselled stroke that

50. Compare examples of taw in Lines 8, 9 and 10.

Restoring this stem to an 'aleph is probably the least likely option. It

quite regular in shape. It bears resemblance to a large word divider. How-

Beyond this word divider is our first/w//y preserved attestation ofqoph.52

53. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 87 n. 6.

we would need to posit a taw with a significant downward bend in the

55. E.g. in Line 8.

sustained during or after breakage of the inscription. The bottom horizon-

58. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 87.