David Ussishkin<\/b><\/p>\n
[David Ussishkin is head of the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, and the editor of TEL AVIV, the journal of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. He is also a member of the editorial board of QADMONIOT, the Executive Committee of the Israel Exploration Society and the Israel Archaeological Council.]<\/i><\/p>\n
Tel Lachish: general view from the northwest<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
Lachish was one of the most important cities of the Biblical era in the Holy Land. Situated southwest of Jerusalem, it is represented today by a huge, impressive mound, named Tel Lachish or Tell ed-Duweir. Lachish was already a large city during the third millennium B.C. During the Middle Bronze Age, in the first half of the second millennium B.C. Lachish was heavily fortified by a glacis and a fosse, which gave the mound its present conspicuous shape. During the Late Bronze Age it was a large Canaanite city-state, and a few letters from Lachish were found in the fourteenth century royal Egyptian archives at El-Amarna. Lachish played a major role in the story of the Israelite conquest of Canaan as related in Joshua 10. Joshua and the Israelites fought against Japhia, king of Lachish, destroyed the city and killed its inhabitants. Following the final destruction of the Canaanite city, Lachish was nearly abandoned for about two hundred years, till the tenth century B.C.<\/p>\n
During the first half of the first millennium B.C., at the period of the Kingdom of Judah, Lachish was again a fortified city, and in fact it was the most important Judean city after Jerusalem. It played a <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 34<\/p>\n
special role in 701 B.C., when Sennacherib, king of Assyria, invaded Judah, and conquered all the fortified cities except Jerusalem. His royal camp \u2014 as we learn from the Old Testament \u2014 was situated near Lachish, which he stormed and conquered. A unique set of stone-reliefs portraying in detail the conquest of Lachish was placed by Sennacherib in a special centrally situated room in his royal palace at Nineveh. These reliefs are now exhibited in the British Museum in London. The detailed reliefs and their position in the royal palace show that the conquest of Lachish was of singular importance. This was, perhaps, the most important military achievement of Sennacherib \u2014 undoubtedly the most powerful ruler of this part of the world \u2014 during the earlier part of his reign. In 588\/6 B.C., Lachish was stormed and burnt again, this time by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. After that, when the country was under Persian domination in the fifth-fourth centuries B.C., Lachish served as a district capital, and then finally was deserted.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 35<\/p>\n
The Previous Excavations<\/b><\/p>\n
Tel Lachish was excavated for six years, between 1933 and 1938, by a British expedition directed by J. L. Starkey. Starkey planned the work systematically and on a large scale for many years to come, and dedicated the first excavation seasons to digging areas beside the mound, and graveyards in its vicinity. Relatively little work was carried out on the mound proper. Special mention should be made of the latest Judean city gate, where the famous \u201cLachish Letters\u201d were discovered in 1934. These are eighteen ostraca dating to the final period before the Babylonian conquest of Judah, letters sent to a military commander in Lachish, which reflect the mood of the period.<\/p>\n
The excavations came to an end in 1938, shortly after Starkey was brutally murdered by Arab marauders while on his way from Lachish to the opening ceremony of the Palestine Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem. After Starkey\u2019s death, his assistant Olga Tufnell worked for twenty years on the data and finds of the excavations, and produced a meticulous excavation report.<\/p>\n
The mound remained untouched till the present excavations, except for a small dig carried out by Professor Yohanan Aharoni of Tel Aviv University in the eastern part of the mound to investigate some of his theories concerning the Judean shrine at Arad.<\/p>\n
The Present Excavations<\/b><\/p>\n
In 1973 the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University and the Israel Exploration Society resumed the excavations at the site under my direction. The work is sponsored by a few public bodies, primarily the Samuel H. Kress Foundation in New York, as well as The Northwest Christian College in Eugene, Oregon, The University of South Africa in Pretoria, The Australian Institute of Archaeology and the Jewish National Fund.<\/p>\n
The excavations are planned on a long-term basis, and aim at systematically studying the history of Lachish and its material remains. So far, six excavation seasons have been carried out in 1973\u20131978, and the next one will take place in the summer of 1980. In the future, we plan to start an archaeological survey in the region of Lachish and to build an expedition camp nearby. Also, we hope to turn the mound into a national park, this way preserving the ancient remains and opening them to the public.<\/p>\n
When selecting our excavation areas on the huge mound, we had to take three factors into account: firstly, the difficulties of digging a large mound on a relatively small scale; secondly, the need to continue <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 36<\/p>\n
the work in the old excavation areas and follow the results of the previous excavations; and thirdly, the special importance of this Judean city. After many deliberations we decided to work in three areas: the Judean palace-fort and the Canaanite buildings underneath (under the supervision of Mrs. Christa Clamer); the area of the Judean city gate (under the supervision of Mr. Y. Eshel); and a section area at the western part of the mound (under the supervision of Mr. G. Barkay). The areas of the palace-fort and the city gate were partly dug by Starkey and here we are continuing his work. The section area is a relatively narrow trench which cuts through the edge of the mound and will eventually extend to the lower slope. Here we plan to penetrate the lower levels of the mound, and get a sectional view of the various levels down to the natural rock, following the pattern set by Dame Kathleen Kenyon in her excavations at Jericho.<\/p>\n
Tel Lachish: (1) The Bastion (2) The Outer Wall (3) The Level IV-III Inner Gate (4) Area S (5) The Judean Palace-Fort (6) The Late Bronze Age Temple (7) The Fosse Temple (8) The Well (9) The Solar Shrine (10) The Great Shaft (11) The Siege Ramp.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 37<\/p>\n
The Middle Bronze Age Palace<\/b><\/p>\n
The Canaanite remains are being investigated by us in the high, central part of the mound, which almost certainly formed part of the acropolis of Lachish at that time. The earliest level so far penetrated dates from the end of the Middle Bronze Age, i.e. the sixteenth century B.C. Here we unearthed small sections of a huge, monumental edifice, probably the contemporary royal palace. The walls of the building are massive, over two meters thick, constructed of brick on stone foundations and plastered over. Three architectural stages could be discerned in the building. It was destroyed by a terrible fire, the remains of which could be seen everywhere. One room evidently served as a storeroom; it contained large storage jars, and remains of peas, pomegranates and vetch indicate their use. Another larger room was of ceremonial character. Remains of charred wood recovered there were identified by Dr. Nili Liphschitz as Cedar of Lebanon. This is rather an expensive wood, the trees having been imported to Lachish from Syria and Lebanon. It is mentioned many times in the Old Testament and other written sources, and in our sixteenth century burnt edifice we have the earliest samples of this tree so far identified in a Palestinian excavation. Parts of this edifice seem to have been reconstructed after its destruction, and various pits were dug from above into its ruins.<\/p>\n
The Late Bronze Age Temple<\/b><\/p>\n
Superimposed on the burnt palace we found the remains of a Late Bronze Age monumental building, probably a temple. It should be stressed that our conclusion that the edifice was a temple is based solely on circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof, and theoretically it could have had some secular function. Considering its situation in the acropolis of Lachish, the temple may well have formed part of the contemporary royal palace complex. The temple was very poorly preserved. Apparently, the building had been robbed prior to its final destruction, and it was badly damaged when the later Judean palace-fort was constructed here. The temple was willfully destroyed by a strong fire \u2014 with the rest of the Canaanite city \u2014 at the end of the Late Bronze Age, i.e. at the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the twelfth century B.C. This destruction can, perhaps, be assigned to the Israelite conquest as described in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
The main complex of the temple contained three units: antechamber, main hall and cella. These units are arranged one behind the other on sloping ground, so that the cella is built at a <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 38<\/p>\n
Late Bronze Age Temple; the main complex: 1. Antechamber 2. Main hall 3. The cella 4. Installation 5. Storeroom 6. Staircase (?) 7. Stone slabs with graffiti 8. Subsidiary units<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
higher level than the adjoining main hall which, in turn, is built at a higher level than the adjoining antechamber. The three main entrances to the antechamber, the main hall and the cella, are built <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 39<\/p>\n
The Late Bronze Age temple: general view of the main complex from the west<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
along a straight west-east oriented axis. The ground-plan of the main complex of the temple can be compared to that of Canaanite temples in Alalach and Hazor. Significantly, this ground-plan is similar in principle to that of Solomon\u2019s temple in Jerusalem; thus it seems that our temple was built according to the ground-plan which later served as a prototype for Solomon\u2019s architects.<\/p>\n
The antechamber and the cella which were very badly preserved, and the subsidiary units of the temple which were located to the northeast of the main complex, will not be discussed here. The main hall is approximately rectangular, measuring ca 16.5 x 13.2 m. Its walls were constructed of bricks on stone foundations and plastered over, and the floor was made of well laid bricks. Two large stone bases found in the center of the hall apparently carried round pillars which supported the roof. The latter was spanned with massive wooden beams; their charred remains were dispersed all over the <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 40<\/p>\n
floor, and they were all identified as Cedar of Lebanon. The lavish use of such an expensive wood here also points to the richness of the building. A side entrance decorated with wooden beams leads to the subsidiary units from the northern side of the hall. A monumental staircase, built of beautifully-cut stone slabs, led from the floor of the hall to the raised cella. The staircase originally contained seven steps, and its axis has an exact east-west orientation. A stone slab placed in front of the lower step had a wide, incised circle, probably to mark the position of some object. The staircase was flanked by a stone parapet as well as by two columns which apparently supported a small roof or a canopy.<\/p>\n
A large installation was constructed to the right of the staircase. It was plastered over, and probably contained liquids. Many fragments of painted plaster were recovered in the area of the staircase and the installation. The fragments are painted with various colors, notably light blue, white, yellow, red and black; some show remains of patterns.<\/p>\n
Three decorative columns stood along the eastern wall of the main hall, to the left of the staircase, and their round stone bases were found in situ<\/i>. The columns were attached to the walls, each forming a kind of pilaster. The broken stone columns were discovered near the side entrance. They were tapering and octagonal and they were crowned by square capitals. Similar stone bases, columns and capitals were fashionable in Egypt; thus our columns form another indication of the Egyptian influence at Lachish during that period.<\/p>\n
The rich equipment of the temple was robbed or smashed prior to the destruction of the building by fire. A small room which opened into the central hall served as a storeroom, and most of the finds were found there. They included pottery stands and bowls, fragments of imported Mycenaean vessels as well as Egyptian alabaster and faience vessels, beads and pendants, a decorated stone cover, a bronze chisel, many gold leaves and broken ivory plaques and, finally, pieces of oxidized iron \u2014 a metal which was still rare during that period.<\/p>\n
The Judean Palace-Fort<\/b><\/p>\n
The Judean palace-fort is the largest, most massive and most impressive building of the Iron Age yet known in the Holy Land, even though its superstructure is completely destroyed. Presently, it crowns the central part of the mound and dominates its surroundings, covering an area of nearly 2.5 dunams (about \u00bd acre). Standing <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 41<\/p>\n
Plan of the Judean Palace-Fort<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 42<\/p>\n
Foundation walls of the palace-fort<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
on its ruins on a clear day one can see as far as the Hebron hills to the east and the coastal plain to the west. The building must have been a central governmental or royal palace-fort in the kingdom of Judah. It was probably founded by Rehoboam who, according to 2 Chronicles 11:9, fortified Lachish, and probably continued to be used till its destruction by Sennacherib in 701 B.C. We are inclined to associate it with a biblical event. In about 769 B.C. Amaziah, king of Judah, fled to Lachish when a revolt against him broke out in Jerusalem. The rebels \u201csent after him to Lachish and slew him there\u201d (2 Kings 14:19; 2 Chronicles 25:27), and it seems reasonable to assume that he took refuge in this palace-fort and was murdered there.<\/p>\n
Starkey traced the character of the building and its history, and our investigations confirmed his conclusions in the main. The present remains are mostly the raised foundations of the structure. The builders constructed high stone foundation walls \u2014 for the outer as well as the inner walls \u2014 which reached the floor level of the building. The high foundation walls \u2014 reaching a height of more than 12 m. at one point \u2014 were filled with soil, and thus the substructure of the edifice resembles a big box with the outer foundation walls encasing the fill. The box-like structure was labelled \u201cpodium\u201d by Starkey. The building was constructed in three stages, labelled A, B, C, which can be well discerned in the preserved substructure. Now nothing but sections of plastered floors remains of the superstructure which was probably built of bricks. All the remains of the superstructure were completely removed when a small palace was built here in the Persian Period.<\/p>\n
The area surrounding the palace-fort was no less impressive <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 43<\/p>\n
A section of the foundation wall after it was cleared during the excavations of the 1930s<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
when the building reached its prime in stages B-C. On its western and southern sides a constructional fill was thrown in stage B against the outer foundation walls of the palace-fort, creating an artificial <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 44<\/p>\n
ramp, partly plastered, which sloped down towards the city walls. In stage C many poor houses were built in different levels on the artificial slope, adjacent to the huge palace-fort. On the eastern side extended a large, lime-plastered courtyard, and a monumental staircase led the way to the entrance on a level with the raised floor of the building. Incidentally, on the last day of the British dig, Tufnell discerned a short inscription in ancient Hebrew incised on one of the steps; it contained the first five letters of the Hebrew alphabet and, until the discoveries at Ugarit, this inscription was the earliest known abecedarium.<\/p>\n
The Judean Fortifications<\/b><\/p>\n
Judean Lachish was a heavily fortified city, and many efforts are being invested in studying its fortification system. An outer, massive revetment wall surrounded the entire site half-way down the slope. An inner city wall extended along the edge of the mound. Both city walls adjoined the city-gate complex. The outer city wall was bonded to the outer city gate, built in the form of a formidable bastion, while the inner city wall adjoined the inner gate-house. There are in fact three superimposed inner city walls and city gates. The latest fortification system, labelled Level I, dates to the Persian Period. Beneath it stretches the latest Judean city wall and city gate (Level II), which was destroyed by fire in 588\/6 by Nebuchadnezzar, and in the destruction debris of which the \u201cLachish Letters\u201d were discovered. Beneath extend the city wall and city gate of Levels IV-III, which were probably built in the 9th century B.C. and destroyed by a conflagration during the Assyrian conquest of 701 B.C. The outer city wall and the outer city gate or bastion seem at present to have been constructed as part of the same architectural scheme and concurrently with inner wall and inner city gate of Levels IV-III.<\/p>\n
So far, we have concentrated our efforts on studying the inner city gate of Levels IV-III. This is the largest and most massive city gate from the Israelite period in the Land of Israel, even without taking into account the adjoining outer city-gate complex. The gatehouse is ca 25 m. long and 24.5 m. wide. It is a four-entry style gate; this means a gatehouse with four \u201centries\u201d along the gate-passage and three pairs of narrow chambers between them. The ground plan resembles in principle that of the \u201cSolomonic\u201d city gates in Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer and a recently discovered gate at Ashdod. Two massive towers flanked the outer entrance and they were bonded to the inner city wall which extended to the two sides of the gatehouse along the edge of the mound. The city wall was <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 45<\/p>\n
General view of the inner city gate of Levels IV-III<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
more than 4 m. in width, and had protruding towers which were more than 6 m. in width. Both the inner city gate and the city wall were constructed of bricks on stone foundations.<\/p>\n
Sennacherib\u2019s Destruction of Lachish1 <\/b><\/p>\n
A problem of prime importance is the identification of the archaeological level representing the city which was destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 B.C. The historical evidence clearly indicates that Lachish must have been a formidable fortress which was stormed by the Assyrian army and then razed to the ground. The following strata were discerned in the British excavation (counting down from the top of the mound): Level I \u2014 Persian-Hellenistic Periods, 5th-3rd centuries B.C.; Level II \u2014 Judean city destroyed by fire in 588\/6 B.C.; Level III \u2014 an earlier Judean city destroyed by fire; Level IV and Level V \u2014 earlier Judean cities which were hardly <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 46<\/p>\n
LACHISH LETTER IV, WRITTEN JUST PRIOR TO NEBUCHADNEZZAR\u2019S INVASION<\/b><\/p>\n
May Yahweh cause my lord to hear this very day tidings of good! And now according to everything that my lord hath written, so hath thy servant done; I have written on the door according to all that my lord hath written to me. And with respect to what my Lord hath written about the matter of Bethharaphid, there is no one there.<\/p>\n
And as for Semachiah, Shemaiah hath taken him and hath brought him up to the city. And as for thy servant, I am not sending anyone thither [today(?), but I will send] tomorrow morning.<\/p>\n
And let (my lord) know that we are watching for the signals of Lachish, according to all the indications which my Lord hath given, for we cannot see Azekah.<\/p>\n
(Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 322.)<\/i><\/p>\n
Note: Azekah was a Judean city about 11 miles northeast of Lachish. According to Jeremiah 34:7, Lachish and Azekah were the last two Judean cities to fall to Nebuchadnezzar before he besieged Jerusalem. \u2014 Ed.<\/p>\n
investigated; Level VI \u2014 the last Canaanite city which was also destroyed by fire in 1200 B.C. approximately. Starkey believed at the time that the city of Level III was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar during an earlier campaign, in 597 B.C., thus leaving a range of about only eleven years for Level II. Starkey, who was followed by Albright, Dame Kathleen Kenyon and other prominent scholars, believed that the remains of the ruined city representing the calamity of 701 B.C. lay underneath and had not yet been properly unearthed. On the other hand, Olga Tufnell, when preparing the final excavation report, reached the conclusion that Level III represents the city destroyed in 701 B.C. Tufnell\u2019s opinion was supported by a few scholars, mainly by Aharoni. Both opinions regarding the destruction date of Level III are based on evidence of rather indirect nature, mainly typology of pottery.<\/p>\n
It seems needless to add that one of our principal aims is to try to find some conclusive evidence which will help in solving the above <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 47<\/p>\n
problem one way or another, and to identify the destruction remains of 701 B.C. After deliberating on all aspects of the problem for four excavation seasons, we reached a conclusion which is based on direct stratigraphical evidence. After the previous excavations as well as ours, we now have seven different places where the stratigraphy has been checked down to Level VI, the latest Canaanite level, and thus the stratigraphy of the Judean city seems by now to be fairly clearly established. Between the earlier Level VI and the later Level II there is only one level \u2014 Level III \u2014 representing a large fortified city destroyed by fire, which could be dated to the eighth century B.C. Level IV was apparently not destroyed by fire and its fortifications \u2014 the inner city gate and city wall \u2014 continued to function in Level III. The earlier Level V is characterized by tenth century pottery, and its date can hardly be lowered down to the eighth century B.C. Of special importance are the data from the area of the city gate, which is portrayed as being under attack by Assyrian battering-rams in the Lachish Reliefs. The inner city gate (as well as the adjoining city wall) was constructed at Level IV and was destroyed once<\/i> at the end of Level III. The outer city gate and the outer city wall have not yet been sufficiently investigated and fully understood, but it seems hardly possible that they could radically change the above conclusions.<\/p>\n
It thus seems clear that being the sole \u201ccandidate,\u201d Level III was destroyed in 701 B.C. This was a prosperous, densely populated city, and its destruction and devastation was complete. The inner city-gate, palace-fort (stage C) and all the private houses were burnt by fire and razed to the ground. The evidence of the conflagration can be seen all around. In some cases the accumulation of destruction debris reaches a height of nearly 2 m. We found sun-dried bricks which fell from the upper part of the walls and were hardened by the intense fire and, at least in one case, fragments of crushed pottery vessels were distorted due to the strong heat. In addition, hundreds of arrowheads were discovered in the British excavation and in ours in association with Level III. They were arrowheads shot at the attacked city by the Assyrian soldiers as well as arrowheads prepared for use by the Judean defenders.<\/p>\n
The Assyrian Siege Ramp<\/b><\/p>\n
Tel Lachish is almost completely surrounded by deep valleys except at its southwest corner, where a relatively high topographical shoulder connects the mound to the adjacent hill. This raised area \u2014 called the \u201csaddle area\u201d by Starkey \u2014 provides the easiest approach <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 48<\/p>\n
Sling stones and arrowheads from Lachish, either from Sennacherib\u2019s assault in 701 B.C. or Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s attack in 588\/6 B.C<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 49<\/p>\n
to the mound. The road leading up to the city gate, at least during the period of Judah, started here. Since the raised saddle area obviously provided the best point from which to launch an attack on Lachish, the Judean fortifications (and perhaps even the earlier defense systems) were especially strengthened around this vulnerable spot. The southwest corner of the mound rises above its surroundings and here undoubtedly lie the remains of massive fortifications intended to fortify this Achilles heel in the defense system of the city. The excavation of the wall here revealed a brick section which projected to form the base of a tower. It thus seems clear that also the outer wall was specifically reinforced at the southwest corner.<\/p>\n
In spite of these fortifications, the southwest corner was nevertheless the most logical and attractive point of Judean Lachish to assault. The height of the slope at the southwest corner was only about 27 m., as compared to 39 m. in the northeast corner, 40 m. in the southeast corner, and 42 m. in the northwest corner of the mound. Here at the southwest corner, which bore the brunt of the Assyrian attack of 701 B.C., relics of the battle were discovered by both the British and our expeditions. However, it should be stated that the ascription of all the evidence of the battle in this area to Sennacherib\u2019s campaign is not proven and is based on the assumption that the Assyrian attack was on a grand scale and extremely ferocious. Theoretically, some of these remains could have resulted from the Babylonian attack of 588\/6 B.C., which is historically and archaeologically attested.<\/p>\n
The findings of the clearings in the southwest corner and the saddle area were only briefly described by the British. Starkey writes that \u201cthe lower wall bears dramatic witness to the intensity of the conflagration which marked the last attack on these defenses where the masonry from the upper walls had been reduced to lime, which overlaid the ruins of the lower wall\u201d and \u201cthe wall turning the S.W. corner stood the brunt of the besiegers\u2019 attack, which seems to have been followed by the complete conflagration of the city… In this burnt region, above the roadway, we found arrowheads and pikes…\u201d Tufnell writes that \u201cover the whole area there were abundant traces of burning, and the fuel for this destruction was still to be seen in the charred branches and blackened olive stones which were piled up against the walls. Stone slingshots and innumerable arrowheads testified to the war-like character of the assault.\u201d Of special interest is the ammunition found in this general area. It included flint sling <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 50<\/p>\n
stones and iron arrowheads. Most important is a crescent-shaped bronze piece, found with \u201ctraces of cloth and leather fastening\u201d which was identified as a mount of helmet crest of an Assyrian or a Babylonian soldier. It was found at the foot of the outer wall between the bastions and the southwest corner.<\/p>\n
The clearing of the roadway leading up to the city gate and the southwest corner necessitated the removal of large quantities of stone. As Starkey tells us: \u201cMany thousand tons of fallen masonry have been cleared from above the road.\u201d Although the subject is not discussed in detail, it seems clear that the masses of stones were considered by Starkey to have collapsed from above, i.e. from the upper fortification line which was destroyed during the attack.<\/p>\n
By the time that the British excavations were terminated, most of the southwest corner had been cleared. The eastern end of the cleared area ended in a vertical \u2018section\u2019 through the debris, which has been relatively well preserved to the present day. Here one could see large heaps of stones leaning against the slope of the mound. In 1973 Prof. Yigael Yadin pointed out to us the possibility that these stone heaps are the remains of a siege ramp rather than stones dislodged from the fortifications above. In 1977 we checked this possibility. With the aid of a shoveldozer we recleared part of the \u2018section\u2019 at the edge of Starkey\u2019s dig and then cut a narrow trench, about 2 m. in width, down to the surface beneath the heaped stones; in this narrow trench we dug three small probes. The recleared \u2018section\u2019 revealed numerous stone boulders irregularly heaped. The tremendous quantity of these stones seems to rule out the possibility that they collapsed from structures above. This conclusion is supported by the nature of the heaps, which consist mainly of boulders, whereas worked or dressed building stones are missing. Also lacking are the typical remains which we would have expected to find in the debris of a collapsed structure, such as plaster, bricks and pottery. Hence we came to the conclusion that the only convincing and logical interpretation of these stones is that they were used to build a siege ramp.<\/p>\n
On the basis of the existing surface remains and the information gathered in our cut, we may present the following summary. Our probes beneath the bottom of the siege ramp revealed a layer of ashes and remains of charred wood, which were identified as olive and terebinth. This layer probably represents fires which were set here prior to the construction of the siege ramp. The stones of the siege ramp were heaped on the surface of the open area at the foot <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 51<\/p>\n
The siege-ramp at the southwest corner of Tel Lachish<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
of the mound and laid against the slope beneath the outer city wall. The siege ramp was relatively wide, probably fan-shaped, narrowing towards its apex, which reached the bottom level of the outer city wall. It is very difficult to judge how far the siege ramp stretches to the right beyond Starkey\u2019s \u2018section\u2019 and where its right-hand edge is located, but our impression is that it does not extend much further in that direction. On the other side, the remains of the left-hand part of the siege ramp can be discerned above the lower section of the roadway leading up to the city-gate. Here a revetment wall supports the slope of the mound above and along the roadway. The masses of stones which can still be seen above this supporting wall were almost certainly part of the siege ramp. Assuming that its right-hand edge is ca. 25 m. beyond Starkey\u2019s \u2018section\u2019, the overall width of the siege ramp at its bottom was about 55\u201360 m., while its height was about 16 m. At Starkey\u2019s \u2018section\u2019 the gradient of its surface is ca. 30\u00b0. The gradient of the siege ramp at the bottom seems to have been more pronounced; we assume that it was less steep further <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 52<\/p>\n
Assault of the main gate as depicted on Sennacherib\u2019s relief<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
up, but this point can be clarified only by further excavation. In our cut the stones are heaped to a height of several meters, but the accumulation of stones is less dense at the left-hand side of the ramp. As noted above, the core of the ramp is composed almost entirely of boulders, presumably collected from the area around the mound. No wooden beams could be discerned inside the core of the ramp. Only at one point, not far from the present surface, some small pieces of charred wood, identified as acacia and as terebinth or lentisk, were discovered.<\/p>\n
The stones of the upper layer of the ramp were found stuck together by hard mortar, forming a kind of stone-and-mortar conglomerate presently estimated to be about 1 m. or less thick (i.e. high). This \u2018conglomerate\u2019 was explained by Starkey as \u201cmasonry from the upper walls… reduced to lime\u201d by \u201cthe intensity of the conflagration\u201d <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 53<\/p>\n
and a \u201cmass of calcined stone\u201d which formed \u201ca scree of burnt debris from the upper walls.\u201d Our interpretation of the heaped stones as a siege ramp requires a different explanation: in our opinion, this layer was the mantle of the ramp, added on top of the loose boulders in order to create a compact surface; the large quantity of mortar was deliberately added by the besiegers in order to \u201ccement\u201d the stones together, rather than having resulted from the fires of battle and destruction.<\/p>\n
Samples of the mortar were studied by Prof. A. Lupu, who reports that they are calcium carbonate mixed with sand (silica), i.e. the remains of lime plaster. Apparently very large amounts of lime plaster were used in the construction of the upper layer of the siege ramp and thus the whole area seems to have been covered with its remains prior to the beginning of the excavations.<\/p>\n
We assume that our siege ramp should be identified with Sennacherib\u2019s main siege ramp portrayed in the Lachish reliefs to the right of the city gate. There we see no less than five(!) battering rams standing one beside the other on top of the siege mound, attacking the walls of the city. This is indeed the largest number of battering rams depicted together in a single attack on any of the royal Assyrian reliefs. Assuming that the overall width of a battering ram was about 1.5-2.0 m., then five battering rams could have easily been arrayed for battle one beside the other on top of our siege ramp. The relief depicts each battering ram standing on a track made of large wooden logs. Possibly the whole surface area of the siege ramp was covered with such logs, but it seems more likely that a narrow track, made of wooden logs or beams, was laid along the sloping surface of the ramp for each of the attacking machines to enable its smooth ascent to the top of the siege mound. This interpretation forms the basis for the reconstruction of the siege ramp by the South African artist Gert le Grange, based on the actual remains as well as the reliefs.<\/p>\n
At this point we should briefly turn to the complementary written sources and the comparative archaeological data. Our siege ramp illustrates the references to Sennacherib\u2019s siege ramps appearing both in his annals and in 2 Kings 19:32 and Isaiah 37:33. The annalistic account describing his campaign in Judah tells how he \u201claid siege to 46… strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered (them) by means of well-stamped (earth-) ramps, and battering-rams brought (thus) near (to the walls) (combined with) the attack by foot soldiers, (using) mines, <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 54<\/p>\n
Sennacherib\u2019s main siege ramp as shown on his Nineveh relief<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
breaches as well as siege engines\u201d (Ancient Near Eastern texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 288<\/i>). The siege ramp nearest in date to ours was discovered in Old Smyrna in Asia Minor; it was laid ca. 600 B.C. by Alyattes, king of Lydia, against the walls of the Ionian city of Smyrna. Somewhat later in date is the siege ramp discovered by F.G. Maier in Kouklia in western Cyprus. It was laid in 498 B.C. by the Persian army against the walls of the Greek city of Palaepaphos, while conquering this city during the supression of the Ionian revolt. Very interesting for comparison is the siege ramp laid in Massada in A.D. 73 by the Roman army. The topographical situation here may be compared to that at Lachish: the fortress hill was surrounded by deep valleys on all sides, except at one spot, where a topographical shoulder connected it to the neighbouring hillock. This topographical shoulder \u2014 the \u201csaddle area\u201d of Massada \u2014 <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 55<\/p>\n
was naturally chosen by the besiegers as the place to lay their siege ramp.<\/p>\n
Finally it should be noted that if indeed we have in Tel Lachish the remains of a siege ramp, and if this ramp was laid by the Assyrian army in 701 B.C. \u2014 two suppositions which in our opinion are warranted by the evidence \u2014 then our siege ramp is (a) the most ancient siege ramp so far discovered in the Near East; (b) the only archaeologically attested Assyrian siege ramp and (c) the only such ramp to have been \u201cphotographed\u201d in detail by a contemporary artist.<\/p>\n
Following the calamity which befell the Level III city, Lachish seems to have been left in ruins, and nearly abandoned, for a long period. Many Lachishites were indeed killed by the Assyrians, and most of the surviving population was probably deported \u2014 as shown in the Lachish Reliefs \u2014 among the 200,150 Judean deportees mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions. The Judean towns conquered by Sennacherib were given by him to the Philistine cities in the coastal area, Ashdod, Ekron and Gaza, and Lachish was probably no exception. By the time king Josiah reigned in Judah during the later part of the seventh century B.C., the area of Lachish was probably returned to Judah, and we can safely assign to him the rebuilding and refortification of the city, as represented in Level II.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 56<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 57<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 58<\/p>\n
AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT THE LACHISH EXCAVATIONS<\/b><\/p>\n
December 10, 1978<\/p>\n
Dear Mr. Wood,<\/p>\n
Following our conversation in Toronto where I am spending my sabbatical leave, I am writing to you concerning the possible support of the Lachish excavation project by Word of Truth.<\/p>\n
The excavations of Tel Lachish in Israel were renewed in 1973 by Tel Aviv University and the Israel Exploration Society under my direction. So far, six excavation seasons took place in 1973\u20131978. The coming year, 1979, will be dedicated to the processing of the material already excavated. We shall return to the field in the summer of 1980.<\/p>\n
The importance of Tel Lachish need not be stressed. It is one of the most important sites of the biblical period in the Holy Land, and it is a key site concerning crucial problems of biblical history and archaeology. I shall mention here the problems of Joshua\u2019s conquest and the Israelite settlement, Sennacherib\u2019s campaign to Judah during the reign of King Hezekiah, and the famous royal Judean storage-jars. Our excavations contributed towards further understanding of these issues, and more data will be revealed in the future.<\/p>\n
The financial situation of the Lachish excavation project is not good; we are facing large expenses, and rising costs. I very much hope that Word of Truth will be able to join us and to give us support in our work.<\/p>\n
Thanking you for your consideration.<\/p>\n
With kindest regards,<\/p>\n
Sincerely Yours,<\/p>\n
David Ussishkin<\/p>\n
In order to support the work at Tel Lachish, Word of Truth is setting up a special Lachish Excavation Fund. Readers who wish to support archaeological research in a practical way are invited to contribute to this fund. Since part of the charter of Word of Truth Productions is to support such archaeological research, all contributions to the Lachish Excavation Fund are income tax deductible. Send your check, designated \u201cLachish Excavation Fund,\u201d to: Word of Truth Productions, Box 288, Ballston Spa, N.Y. 12020.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 8:2 (Spring 1979) p. 59<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
David Ussishkin [David Ussishkin is head of the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, and the editor of TEL AVIV, the journal of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. He is also a member of the editorial board of QADMONIOT, the Executive Committee of the … Continue reading “EXCAVATIONS
\nAT LACHISH”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14927"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14927\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}