Skip to main content

Full text of "Bible side-lights from the mound of Gezer, a record of excavation and discovery in Palestine;"

See other formats


235 East 45th St 
Uew Ysrk, N, V- 




A Record of Excavation and 
Discovery in Palestine 



M.A., F.S.A 

Director of Excavations, Palestine Exploration Fund 


“ Tbou bast made of a dip an heap ; of a defenced dtp a rutn." 
—Isaiah xxv. 2 






Sutler and Tanner , 7V Sehvood Printing ll'oris, Fro me, and London 




Gezer—Its Site and History 


The Horites 


The Iniquity of the Amorite 





The Home of Rebekah 

• « 

. 83 



The Golden Calf 

• • 

. 109 



Achan’s Spoil 


. 121 



The Death of Samson 

• • 

. 127 



The Citt Walls 

* ♦ 

. 141 



The Craftsmen of Judah 

• • 

. 149 





The Rebuilding of Jericho . . 165 


The Maccabean Conquest . . 175 



The Previous Work of the Palestine 

Exploration Fund .... 203 

Index .225 

Index of Scripture References . . 231 


Frontispiece — 

The Trench across the Western 
End of the Mound 



Fig. 1. The Mound of Gezer at the Con* 

elusion of the Excavation . 7 

„ 2. General View of a Section of the 

Excavation .... 8 

„ 3. Scarab of Amenhotep III . 10 

„ 4. A “ Brazen Serpent ” . .10 

„ 5. One of the Boundary Inscriptions 23 

„ 6. Two Modern Gezerites . . 27 

„ 7. Assyrian Contract Tablet (first 

face) . . . . .33 

„ 8. Assyrian Contract Tablet (second 

face) ..... 33 

„ 9. Cave-dwellers’ Pottery . . 45 





The “ High Place ” of the Cave- 



dwellers .... 




“ Crematorium ” of the Cave- 

dwellers .... 




Standing Stones of the High 

Place of Gezer 




Altar found at Taanach . 




The Seventh Stone in the High 

Place ..... 




The Laver .... 




The Sacred Cave 




Skeleton of a Girl sawn asunder 




Sacrificed Infant buried in a Jar 




Figure of the “ Two-horned 

Astarte ” . 




Baking Oven .... 




‘Ain Yerdeh, the principal Spring 

near Gezer .... 




Waterpots found in ancient Cis¬ 

terns . 








Stone Trough from a Cistern 

Mouth .... 




Large Jar from a Granary at 

Gezer ..... 




Diagram of a Gezerite House, 

Restored .... 




Lamp in Form of a Bird 


9 9 


Stone Quern .... 




Corn Grinder .... 




Bronze Spear-heads, etc. 




Gold Earrings.... 




Limestone Seal 




Stone Amulets 




Figure of the Cow Divinity 




Bronze Pin and Brooches . 




A “ Household God ” 




The “ Tongue of Gold ” . 




Foundations of a House showing 

Column Bases 




Portion of the two City Walls . 




Bastion of Bacchides 








The same Bastion, with a corner 

removed to expose the Solo¬ 
monic Tower 




Jarhandle Stamps . 




Foundation Sacrifice 




Lamp and Bowls, a symbol of 

Foundation Sacrifice 




The Imprecation of Pampras . 




Votive Altar .... 




The Castle of Simon Maccabaeus 




Syrian Bath Establishment at 





A N objection to the work of the 
^ Palestine Exploration Fund has 
not infrequently been stated in words 
such as these: “ However interesting the 
researches of the v Society may be to 
geographers or anthropologists, the plain 
Bible student, who is not concerned with 
abstract science, derives little or no benefit 
from them; and they do not help him 
to an explanation of any difficulties that 
may meet him in his reading.” 

This objection might very simply be 
answered by pointing out the far-reaching 
interdependence of facts, which make it 

B.S. i i 


impossible to assert definitely that any 
given scientific truth, stored up in the 
Quarterly Statement of the Society, will 
not at some time prove of importance 
even to the non-scientific reader. But 
another answer is offered in the following 
chapters, in which an attempt is made 
to show that, while recording scientific 
facts as fully and accurately as possible, 
the Society and its officers are by no 
means blind to the immediate claims of 
the Bible student. One single under¬ 
taking of the Palestine Exploration Fund 
—the recently closed excavation of Gezer 
—is adopted as a text on which to base 
the essay, and a series of Biblical inci¬ 
dents or passages are chosen and studied 
with special reference to the light which, 
it is claimed, the results of the excavation 
have thrown upon them. 


It need scarcely be said that this is not 
the final memoir on the Gezer excava¬ 
tions. That work is in active prepara¬ 
tion ; but publication is necessarily de¬ 
layed by the magnitude of the task. Ten 
thousand descriptions of specific objects, 
three thousand drawings, five hundred 
photographs, and about two hundred 
plans have to be classified, and a selection 
from them prepared for press, before the 
labour is complete. This book is merely 
an earnest—a few sheaves selected from 
a great harvest. 




(The Mound is the ridge in the background. The Threshing Floor of the Modern Village is in the middle, to the left.) 



f\N the boundary line separating the 
^ foot-hills of the Judean moun¬ 
tains from the fertile maritime plain, 
which was occupied during nearly the 
whole of the Old Testament history by 
the Philistines; and about five miles 
south-east of the modern town of Ramleh; 
there rises a long low mound, rendered 
conspicuous by a modern two-storey house 
erected on its summit. This is the mound 
which conceals the ruins of the ancient 
town of Gezer (see fig. 1). 

If the reader could have visited the 
hill any time between June, 1902, and 



August, 1905, save when the winter rains 
or summer heats made work impossible, 
he would have viewed some such scene 
as is represented in fig. 2. At the bottom 
of a deep trench, cut straight across the 
hill, would be a crowd of labourers, some 
with picks loosening the earth, others 
with peculiar adze-like hoes scraping it 
into baskets; while a ceaseless proces¬ 
sion of boys and girls, filing backwards 
and forwards, carried away the baskets 
thus filled, and emptied their contents on 
to a rapidly growing “ dump-heap.” He 
would notice that the area in which the 
work was carried on was all subdivided 
into small compartments by low walls, 
crossing one another rather irregularly, 
exactly as is shown in the figure. These 
little compartments, he would learn, are 
the floors of rooms, and the low walls 


gHr$§ f p.; * 


KM 1 . . 

, KA n 

■r®P > ^ w|| 

*•-*, . J j^f" >» ' r , v 

tt&JjLtM'* ^Sl" i| 

M? TEj 

Jv ^ V.., 

SL*« #: Ibk W 



are the foundations of partitions. As 
he watched, possibly the foreman might 
bring for his inspection a small object of 
interest that had just been found by one 
of the labourers when sifting the earth 
before basketing it away: it might be a 
scarab of Amen-hotep III (see fig. 3), 
adding its testimony to that of the 
other objects already found among the 
houses, which experience had taught the 
excavator were to be assigned to the date 
of that monarch—say about 1450 b.c. 

If the visitor should return a day or 
two later, he would find a change. The 
labourers would still be at work in the 
same pit; but the walls would have 
completely disappeared. If he should 
ask the cause of this, he would be told 
that after they had been carefully meas¬ 
ured, planned, and, if of special interest, 



photographed, they had been removed, 
in order to find what was underneath 
them. And if he should remain by the 
pit a certain length of time, he would see, 
as the work advanced, one stone appearing 
here and another there, till gradually a 
second series of walls, in style resembling 
the first but of a plan entirely different, 
would be exposed before him. So the 
process would continue from day to day 
and from week to week, till at last the 
rock at the core of the hill was reached. 
When the entire rock surface at the 
bottom of the pit was exposed, a second 
pit was begun, unless under the accumu¬ 
lated earth a rock hewn cave or cistern 
were discovered, which would of course 
require to be emptied. 

The history of the growth of the great 
mound of earth—in some places as much 





as forty feet in depth—which to-day 
covers the rock and marks the once 
flourishing and important city of Gezer, 
is the same here as in the other ancient 
cities of Palestine. Defence was a neces¬ 
sity in the times when every city was 
a unit whose hand was against all its 
neighbours — a state of society re¬ 
flected in the record of the Canaanite 
cities, each with its own king, which 
Joshua subdued, and even more prom¬ 
inently in the Tell el-Amama Tablets. 
The city therefore, like that used as an 
illustration in Matthew v. 14, was set on a 
hill when it was founded, the steeper 
and more unscaleable the hill the better. 
Sanitary precautions are but little heeded 
even in the modern Orient, and there is 
no reason to believe that there was any 
restraint in the ancient cities against 



flinging rubbish of all sorts into the 
narrow winding causeways by which they 
were intersected. It was nobody’s busi¬ 
ness to clear away garbage, which was 
thus allowed to accumulate and to decay. 
The houses were built of rude stones, 
hardly if at all dressed, and cemented 
together with mud. This mud the rains 
of winter would little by little wash out 
of the crevices into the adjacent streets. 
By these and similar processes the level 
of the streets would from year to year 
become perceptibly raised. Moreover, 
badly built huts, such as formed the 
majority of the habitations in the city, 
could not be expected to stand for any 
considerable length of time; they fell 
before long into ruin, sometimes suddenly. 
A very remarkable illustration of this was 
found in the Austrian excavations of 



Tell Ta‘anuk (the Taanach of Deborah’s 
Song, Judges v. 19). The ruins of a fallen 
house were unearthed, and under them 
were the remains of the persons who had 
been killed by the accident. They were 
a Canaanite mother and her five children, 
aged from about sixteen to about four. 
From the knife in the mother’s hand, and 
the food-vessels round about, she had 
evidently been preparing the domestic 
meal when the tragedy took place. On 
her skeleton were her ornaments and 
amulets still in their places, and on the 
wall was fixed the image of the goddess 
whom the ill-fated family had regarded 
as their patron. 

It may seem strange that no attempt 
was made by the contemporaries of this 
household to uncover and remove the 
bodies ; but so it was. This leads me to 



notice that it was not the rule completely 
to clear away the ruins of a house when 
it decayed and fell. The loose debris 
may have been taken up to use again, but 
the foundations, which must have been 
partly concealed by the accumulation of 
rubbish in the streets, were allowed to 
remain. The new house was built over 
the ruins of the older habitation, and with 
no reference to its plan. No town coun¬ 
cil existed to make regulations affecting 
the permanence of thoroughfares; the site 
of the city was apparently a common, not 
subdivided into allotments under private 
ownership; so that the builder of a new 
house might even block up or divert a 
street, if it so pleased him. 

If a dweller in a European city could 
return to earth and revisit his old home, 
say two hundred years after his death, 



he would be perplexed by the change of 
architectural style that had taken place 
in the meanwhile. He would, however, 
find the churches and other ancient 
public buildings more or less as he remem¬ 
bered them; and with these as land¬ 
marks he would before long recognize 
the thoroughfares to which in his life¬ 
time he had been accustomed, though 
probably there would hardly be a single 
house that had not been rebuilt, or at 
least radically altered. The case of a 
resident in an ancient Palestinian city, 
returning in the same manner, would 
be different. No unwonted architectural 
developments would meet his eye; he 
would find his great-great-grandchildren 
occupying huts exactly similar to those in 
which he and his contemporaries had 
dwelt. But it would strike him at first 



sight that the city-crowned hill was a 
trifle higher than in the days when his 
daughter used daily to climb it with her 
waterpot from the spring in the valley; 
and as soon as he entered the city gate 
he would be hopelessly bewildered. In 
his day the city had been a maze of narrow 
crooked causeways and blind alleys, which 
however he knew perfectly. On his 
return he would find a new labyrinth, to 
which he had no clue, substituted for the 
old. And even if by some chance there 
were a palace, or other building of a more 
permanent character, which had lasted 
from the city of his recollection, it would 
give him no help towards finding his way 
through the entirely altered lanes that 
surrounded it. 

In dealing with the remains of an ancient 
city such as Gezer, therefore, we may 


think of the different series of founda¬ 
tions, one above the other, as being like 
a set of bookshelves. The analogy is not 
quite perfect, for the change of level 
did not take place over the whole city 
at the same time, except in the not infre¬ 
quent case of its being totally destroyed 
by an enemy and afterwards entirely 
rebuilt. For practical purposes, how¬ 
ever, the bookcase illustration serves 
very well. In the top shelf will be 
written, for those who have eyes to read 
them, the records of the last inhabitants. 
The history, manners, customs, and be¬ 
liefs of their immediate predecessors 
find illustration in the shelf next below. 

So we proceed to the bottom shelf, 
where we learn what we may regarding 
the ancient people who were the first 
to dwell on the site we are examining. 





Let us now apply these principles to 
Gezer, and endeavour, so far as the 
material at our disposal permits, to recon¬ 
struct its history. At the outset, how¬ 
ever, an important question presents 
itself ; namely, how do we know that the 
mound in which we are digging is the 
veritable site of the city with which it has 
been identified? 

Fortunately we are able to assert the 
identity of our mound and Gezer with an 
assurance that would be highly indiscreet 
in the case of many other identifications 
of Biblical sites that have been suggested 
from time to time. The discovery of 
Gezer is due to the distinguished French 
Orientalist Professor Charles Clermont- 
Ganneau, and its story is one of the most 
interesting of the romances of modern 



The site of this famous ancient city had 
been forgotten in modern times, and the 
guesses that had been made at its identi¬ 
fication were random and futile. One day 
Professor Clermont-Ganneau happened to 
be engaged in the study of Mujir ed-Din, 
a mediaeval Arab historian. He came 
upon a passage describing a raid made by 
certain Bedawin on the coast-plain of 
Palestine, and their subsequent sup¬ 
pression by the governor of Jerusalem. 
The historian stated that the governor’s 
lieutenant had preceded him, starting from 
the town of Ramleh; that some hours 
later, the governor, following his lieu¬ 
tenant from Ramleh, advanced as far as 
“ the Mound of Jezar,” and on arriving 
there heard the shouts of the combatants 
at Khuldeh. The thought at once struck 
the scholar that Jezar exactly represented 



the Hebrew Gezer, the Arabic soft J 
taking, as usual, the place of the Hebrew 
hard G; and the question occurred to him 
whether the site of the lost city were not 
to be found in the place thus designated. 
He was obliged to postpone the inves¬ 
tigation of the question till an opportun¬ 
ity should arise for visiting the district, 
as no map till then published showed 
“Tell el-Jezar” marked upon it, though 
the other two places mentioned, Ramleh 
and Khuldeh, were indicated. In the fol¬ 
lowing year Professor Clermont-Ganneau 
was in the Holy Land, and commenced 
his research. The conditions of the 
problem were that the site to be found 
must be between Ramleh and Khuldeh, 
and within earshot of the latter place. 
Inquiry at these two known points very 
soon enabled Professor Clermont-Ganneau 



to find the mound, which still preserved 
its traditional name among the local 
peasantry; and the scholar’s practised 
eye at once saw that this mound was the 
rubbish heap covering a large and im¬ 
portant city. His previous investigations 
had shown him that if Gezer were situated 
in the region indicated by the Chronicle 
of Mujlr ed-Dln, it would answer all the 
geographical requirements that the various 
known events in the history of the city 
impose. He felt justified therefore in 
announcing that the long-lost site had at 
last been recovered. 

The announcement was met with some 
scepticism. It was remarked by the 
president of the French society before 
which Professor Clermont-Ganneau made 
his statement, that if some inscription 
were forthcoming, mentioning the name 



of the city, the identification would com¬ 
mand more respect. The discoverer very 
naturally replied that such a demand 
was unreasonable; for in any case Pales¬ 
tine had proved a country remarkably 
poor in ancient inscriptions, and the 
chance that such an inscription should 
be preserved at the very place where it 
was required was exceedingly remote. 

But the mound of Gezer has a peculiar¬ 
ity, which it displayed throughout the 
whole period of the excavation recently 
closed. It is essentially a mound of sur¬ 
prises ; and it commenced, even at that 
early period in the history of its investiga¬ 
tion, to display this pleasing character¬ 
istic. In 1874 Professor Qermont-Gan- 
neau was once more in Jerusalem, and 
he became known to the inhabitants as 
a collector and investigator of antiquities. 


M * * ' 



A peasant from the neighbourhood where 
the mound is situated brought him a paper 
on which he had rudely copied an inscrip¬ 
tion cut on a rock in the district. As 
might be expected, the unlettered copyist 
was unable to make an accurate or even 
an intelligible transcript; but the French 
scholar took a note of the place in order 
to examine the original whenever occasion 
should arise. In due time he visited the 
inscription, which was cut on a rock out¬ 
crop about three quarters of a mile east 
of the foot of the hill of Gezer (see fig. 5). 
It proved to be in two languages; one 
part in Greek reading: 


—this being probably the name of the 
governor under whose auspices the in¬ 
scription was engraved; the other part 
in Hebrew, reading: 




Subsequently other inscriptions were 
found, apparently marking out an en¬ 
closure of land surrounding the hill, and 
affording the unhoped-for corroboration 
of the identification suggested three years 

It is not too much to say that of few 
Biblical sites is the identity so definitely 
assured as is that of Gezer. We may 
therefore without hesitation return to 
the point where we digressed, and trace 
out the history of Gezer, knowing that 
it is in very truth the history of the mound 
now kndwn as Tell el-Jezar. 

The name of the city does not appear 
in the Biblical record until the time of 
Joshua. For the long stretch of history 
anterior to the Israelite conquest we 



must rely on extra-Biblical sources. 
These are very meagre, and do not carry 
us back further than Thothmes III, that 
is, about 1500 b.c. Yet the excavation 
has revealed that behind this date there 
stretches for Gezer a further period of 
some 1,500 years, concerning the life of 
which written history is absolutely silent. 

For it cannot have been much later 
than 3000 b.c. when a primitive race of 
men first realized that the bare rocky hill 
(as it then was) would be a suitable 
dwelling-place. This tribe was a cave¬ 
dwelling race, and the hill already had 
many natural caves hollowed in it, which 
were capable of being added to or enlarged 
if required, even with primitive tools, 
owing to the softness of the limestone. 
Water, the first necessity of life, was in 
abundance. The three primitive modes 


of livelihood—hunting, pasturing, and 
agriculture—could be practised here bet¬ 
ter than in many places; for the rocky 
hillsides west and south of Gezer afford 
cover to a great variety and quantity of 
game; they also bear a scanty but 
sufficient crop of vegetation, and are to¬ 
day in the spring-time black with herds 
of the native sheep and goats; and the 
fields north and west of the hill are of 
extraordinary fertility. Further, for de¬ 
fence—another prime necessity in early 
days—the hill is admirably fitted. It is 
steep and not easy to climb; and being 
fairly high it commands a wide prospect, 
so that the approach of enemies can be 
seen and prepared for. 

For perhaps five hundred years this 
primitive race occupied the hill; then 
they were driven out by a stronger and 


more civilized people. This was the first 
of the successive waves of Semitic immi¬ 
gration which have ever since been beat¬ 
ing on Palestine. Canaanites, Israelites, 
Arabs—all probably much alike in body, 
in mind, in habits, and in language— 
have successively inhabited the mound 
through the centuries. The modern in¬ 
habitants, typical specimens of which are 
shown in fig. 6, must greatly resemble 
their ancient predecessors in general 

At about the same time the influence 
of a nation, yet greater than the Early 
Semites, began to make itself felt in 
Gezer. This was Egypt, then at the 
height of the glories of her “ Middle 
Empire.” Many scarabs and other ob¬ 
jects, referable to this period, were found 
in the lower strata of the mound, showing 

2 7 


that intercourse of some kind was carried 
on between its inhabitants and the great 
empire of the Nile. But, so far as they 
have been discovered, the monuments of 
Egypt itself remain silent regarding any 
event accounting for this intercourse, 
and its nature must for the present be 
regarded as obscure. 

Gezer was [captured by Thothmes III, 
and the bare record of the fact, in the 
inscription which that king left behind 
in the Temple of Karnak, is the earliest 
written reference to the city that has 
yet been found. More interesting is the 
information to be gleaned from three 
letters found among the great collection 
of tablets recovered some years ago at 
Tell el-Amarna in Egypt, which, as has 
so often been said, constitutes the “ For¬ 
eign Office ” correspondence of Kings 


Amen-hotep III and IV, about 1450 b.c. 
From these we learn that Gezer, like the 
rest of the Palestinian cities of the time, 
was under the suzerainty of the Egyptian 
Pharaoh, being governed by a “ king ” 
named Yapakhi, who was answerable to 
the Egyptian monarch. Three letters 
from the collection were written by 
Yapakhi himself, and consist of petitions 
addressed to the king for assistance against 
the nomadic tribes that were a constant 
menace to safety in those days—as indeed 
they still are in some districts—who were 
pressing hard on the inhabitants of the 
city. There are letters, on the other 
hand, written from other cities (such as 
Jerusalem), which make complaints against 
Gezer, and accuse it of being disaffected 
towards the Egyptian overlord. Abd- 
khiba, king of Jerusalem, is especially 



bitter. He complains that the Gezerites, 
leagued with the men of Lachish, have 
invaded his own territory and done him 
much injury. As the best means of 
revenging his personal wrongs, he en¬ 
deavours to turn the Pharaoh’s atten¬ 
tion towards the hostile city, and invokes 
the strong arm of Egypt against it. 

The records are again silent for about 
200 years—a silence broken only by the 
solitary mention of Gezer on the famous 
“ Israel ” stele of Meren-Ptah—and the 
written history recommences with the 
books of Joshua and Judges. There is 
no record of a formal siege of Gezer at the 
time of the Israelite conquest; but the 
king of Gezer and a detachment of men 
came to the assistance of Lachish when 
Joshua was besieging the latter city, 
and paid for their interference with their 



lives (Josh. x. 33). When the land was 
divided among the tribes, Gezer was 
allotted to the Levites (Josh. xxi. 21) 
dwelling in the tribe of Ephraim (Josh, 
xvi. 3); but as was the case in several of 
the strong cities of Palestine, the conquest 
was partial only: the Ephraimites drave 
not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer 1 
(Josh. xvi. 10; Judg. i. 29). 

In the days of David the Philistines, 
that mysterious people of whom we have 
heard so much and know so little, first 
appear on the scene in connexion with 
Gezer. It would appear as though the 
city were at the time actually in their 
possession, for, in 1 Chronicles xx. 4, we 
read of a fight at Gezer between the men 
of David and the Philistines; and in 

1 The Biblical quotations throughout this 
book are taken from the Revised Version. 



1 Chronicles xiv. 16, Gezer is mentioned 
as the terminus of the pursuit of the Philis¬ 
tines by David after the battle of Rephaim. 
Probably he stopped the pursuit at this 
point because the fugitives had reached 
their own territory. 

The Canaanites, however, still lingered 
on in Gezer till the reign of Solomon. 
When Solomon celebrated his marriage 
with the daughter of the king of Egypt, 
the Pharaoh went up and took Gezer, and 
burnt it with fire, and slew the Canaanites 
that dwelt in the city, and gave it for a 
portion unto his daughter, Solomon's wife 
(1 Kings ix. 16). This incident teaches us 
that Solomon’s dominion did not extend 
westward so far as Gezer, as the Pharaoh 
would hardly have treated a possession 
of his ally and son-in-law in such a fashion. 
If it be asked why the Pharaoh destroyed 



the city, the answer probably would be 
that Gezer had too easily commanded the 
great coast-line trade route from Egypt 
to Babylon, and probably the Canaan- 
ites had from time to time compelled 
caravans to pay toll to the city as they 

We must here notice two interesting 
objects discovered at Gezer, as they are 
so far the only known written documents 
yet discovered that bridge the gap between 
Solomon’s repair of the city and the 
events in which Simon Maccabaeus was 
the principal actor. These are a pair of 
contracts relating to the sale of property, 
drawn up in Gezer in the Assyrian lan¬ 
guage and character, and written on clay 
tablets. Both are unfortunately imperfect; 
but enough remains to enable us to deter¬ 
mine their purport. The first (figs. 7,8), 





which is dated 649 b.c., 1 relates to the sale 
of the estate of one Lu-ahe by two men, Mar- 
duk-eribaandAbi-eriba: theestate included 
the slave Turiaa and his family, but the 
rest of the inventory is lost. The vendors 
give a guarantee that the persons sold 
shall be free from certain specified diseases 
for a hundred days, and from other de¬ 
fects for all time. An assurance is given 
of the completion of the transaction, and 
a definite agreement concluded, that 
any action in a court of law regarding 
it would be void. One interesting fact 
that we learn from this tablet is given us 
by the list of witnesses, which includes 
the name of the governor of Gezer, Hur- 
wasi. This is an Egyptian name, and it 
indicates that the handing over of Gezer 
as a dowry to Solomon’s wife did not 
1 Or perhaps 651. 



necessarily imply handing it over to 
Solomon. It was the wife’s dowry, the 
revenues from which were set apart for 
her maintenance and well-being, the 
equivalent of the “ money ” of Laban’s 
daughters which they complained that 
their father had quite devoured (Gen. xxxi. 
15). It remained in the hands of the 
Egyptian princess, and the Egyptians took 
care that it did not pass out of their 
grasp after her death. Thus we explain 
the existence of an Egyptian governor of 
the city in 649 b.c. 

The second tablet is even more frag¬ 
mentary. It preserves the name of 
Nethaniah, a Hebrew resident, and relates 
to the sale by him of a field. It is about 
two years later than the first tablet. 

The chief interest in these two tablets 
lies in the evidence they give of an Assyrian 


occupation of Gezer in the time of Ma- 
nasseh: evidence that may ultimately 
be found to have some bearing on the 
story of the capture of Manasseh himself 
by the Assyrian captains (2. Ghron. 
xxxiii. 11). This occupation was so strong 
that even Egyptians and Hebrews con¬ 
formed to the procedure and adopted the 
language and legal forms of the Assyrian 

A word may be said regarding the 
history of the city in post-exilic times. 
It had varying fortunes during the wars of 
the Jews and the Syrians, being captured 
about the year 160 b.c. by Bacchides, 
the Syrian general, and fortified and held 
by him for a year; and afterwards recap¬ 
tured by Simon Maccabaeus, the great high 
priest, who fortified it and built for him¬ 
self a dwelling-place]within its walls. The 



discovery of this dwelling-place was one 
of the rewards of the excavation. 

The history of Gezer in the Roman, 
Crusader, and Arab periods, interesting 
though it be, does not fall within the 
scope of this book. 




Chedorlaomer . . . smote . . . the Horites in 
their mount Seir (Gen xiv. 6). 

The Horites also dwelt in Seir aforetime, but 
the children of Esau succeeded them (Deut. ii. 12). 

As he did for the children of Esau, which dwelt 
in Seir, when he destroyed the Horites from before 
them (Deut. ii. 22). 

nT'HE three verses quoted at the head- 
ing of this chapter embody the 
tradition that in the land of Edom there 
dwelt, before the Semitic descendants 
of Esau, a race known as Horites. 

Of this people nothing is known, and 
the genealogies in Genesis xxxvi. 20, 
which give the sons of Seir the Horite and 
the dukes that came of the Horites , throw 



no light upon them. The only fact that 
we can learn about them is derived from 
their name, which is supposed to mean 
“ cave-dwellers,” and which thus gives 
a hint as to the level of their civilization. 

It was hardly to be expected that ex¬ 
cavations conducted at Gezer, west of 
the Jordan, would have any light to 
throw on a race so definitely located east 
of the Dead Sea. That this was the case 
was one of the many surprises which the 
mound proved to have in store. Of course 
it must be understood at the outset that 
it is not claimed that actual remains of 
the Horites themselves were unearthed 
in the excavation; but that the race 
to be described in this chapter was con¬ 
nected with and was similar to them in 
race and civilization is highly probable. 

The primitive race whose remains were 



unearthed at Gezer were a small but 
muscular people. It is curious in this 
connexion that in Deuteronomy ii. 12 
they seem contrasted with the Emim and 
Anakim, who were accounted Rephaim , 
or giants: the passage appears almost 
to imply that the Horites were not in¬ 
cluded under this classification. Certainly 
the aborigines of Gezer were not giants, 
their average height being but an inch 
or two over five feet. 

They dwelt in caves, hollowed in the 
soft rock of the mountain—some wholly 
natural, others partly enlarged, others 
apparently entirely artificial. These caves 
were irregular chambers (occasionally 
groups of chambers, two or three in 
number, connected by narrow doors) from 
twelve to thirty feet, more or less, across. 
Usually they were entered by a door in 



the roof, from which a rock-cut flight of 
steps led down to the floor of the cave. 
In a few cases some attempt had been 
made to carry off rain-water by a channel 
round the mouth of the entrance, but in 
the majority it must have run in unchecked 
throughout the rainy season, and formed 
large pools on the floor of the cave. In 
one cave a cistern had been cut for the 
purpose of collecting and storing the rain¬ 
water that thus penetrated. There was 
not the slightest attempt at decoration 
of any sort on the cave walls. 

The furniture of the caves was of the 
simplest and most primitive description. 
Of course objects made of wood, skins, or 
other perishable substances, have neces¬ 
sarily disintegrated long ago, and nothing 
can be said about the articles in these 
materials that may have been in use. 


FIG. 9.—cave-dwellers’ pottery. 


The pottery (fig. 9) was of the rudest 
possible description, moulded by hand and 
sometimes decorated with roughly painted 
red or white lines. Metal seems to have 
been unknown. Knives and other cutting 
implements of flint were employed, and 
fine examples were sometimes to be 
found ; the majority, however, were but 
roughly flaked. An important item in 
the furniture of these primitive dwell¬ 
ings was a quantity of smooth round 
stones, which probably served a variety of 
purposes. One would be used as a pot¬ 
ter’s palette, and was still stained with the 
red paint that had been ground upon it 
for applying to the vessels to be decorated. 
Others, found to be smooth on one side, 
would have been used for polishing or 
rubbing. Others, again, may have been 
used for hearth or heating stones; and 



others were probably stored for missiles 
in case of wild beasts, or other undesirable 
intruders, finding their way into the cave. 

The religion of the cave-dwellers is a 
difficult and obscure subject. Our prin¬ 
cipal information on this question comes 
from a pit about the middle of the mound. 
Here the rock-surface was found to be 
completely covered with saucer-like inden¬ 
tations (fig. 10), between eighty and ninety 
in number, and with a few larger vats. 
Underneath this rock-surface were two 
large caves. Of these, one, which bore 
evident marks of having been cut out 
with flint tools, was an extensive cham¬ 
ber approached by a staircase. It was 
divided into two parts by a partition, 
and was well adapted for the per¬ 
formance of the mysteries of religious 
medicine men, or whatever equivalent 


of these functionaries existed among 
the primitive race we are describing. 
The other cave is yet more interesting. 
It is a low irregular excavation, in the 
roof of which is a funnel-shaped per¬ 
foration. A broad shallow channel is 
cut in the upper surface of the rock 
leading into this perforation. Within 
this channel an animal might be placed 
for slaughter, the blood being allowed 
to trickle through the hole in the 
roof of the cave. The cave was 
probably regarded as the habitation of 
earth-gods, to whom the blood was poured 
out as a sacrifice. The pouring out of 
blood as well as other liquids as offer¬ 
ings is a familiar idea: a well known 
instance is David’s pouring out the water 
of Bethlehem unto the Lord (1 Chron. 
xi. 18 ); the blood of the sacrificed 


bullock was to be poured out beside the 
altar (Exod. xxix. 12); and Jeremiah, 
in vii. 18, and again xliv. 17, refers to 
the pouring out of drink offerings to 
various divinities. 

It is a curious and suggestive fact that 
in the cave, underneath this orifice, were 
found a number of pig bones. This 
seems to indicate that the cave-dwellers 
sacrificed the pig in their religious rites— 
a fact that has some bearing, probably, 
on the aversion with which this animal 
was regarded by the Semites who suc¬ 
ceeded them in the occupation of the 
country. The swine was unclean (Lev. 
xi. 7), and Isaiah speaks with horror of 
eating swine’s flesh (lxv. 4) and sacrificing 
swine’s blood (lxvi. 3). 

The cave-dwellers disposed of the dead 
by cremation. In this they were sharply 


distinguished from the Semites who fol¬ 
lowed them; among the Arabs of to¬ 
day the notion of burning the body of the 
dead is abhorrent. (“ May God burn the 
sinners who burn the dead, ” said an old 
Arab to me inside the great columbarium 
at Beit Jibrin, on being informed of the 
purpose of the loculi in its sides). Burn- 
the dead is only twice mentioned 1 in the 
Old Testament, and each time in very 
special circumstance—in the case of the 
bones of Saul (1 Sam. xxxi. 12), which 
were burnt to save them from indignity; 
and in Amos vi. 10, where there is a refer¬ 
ence to burning after a plague. But the 
cave-dwellers had set aside a cave as a 
place for cremating the bodies of their 

1 Excluding penal and sacrificial cases, such 
as that of Achan (Josh. vii. 25), or human 
victims offered as a burnt sacrifice. 

B.s. 49 4 


deceased companions. Like most of the 
other caves, it is irregular and low- 
roofed, and has a flight of rock-cut steps 
giv ing access to it. Its entrance is shown 
in fig. 11. It is distinguished from the 
others, however, by a chimney, at the 
foot of which were lying heaps of cal¬ 
cined ashes when the cave was first opened. 
The greater part of the surface of the 
floor was strewn over with ashes of human 
bodies, mingled with very rude pottery 
of the cave-dwellers’ types. 

Thus the excavations enable us to form 
for the first time what not improbably is a 
fair conception of the Horites—a race 
which seems to have been little more 
than a name even to the Biblical writers. 





The iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full 
(Gen. xv. 16). 

TN his address at the Annual Meeting 
of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 
on 14 July, 1905, Professor George Adam 
Smith, reviewing the results of the ex¬ 
cavation of Gezer, said that they were 
“not more illustrative in anything than 
“ in the exhibition they afford of the 
“ primitive religious customs which Israel 
“ encountered upon their entry into Pales- 
“ tine, and which persisted in the form 
“ of idolatry and the moral abominations 
“ which usually accompanied this up to 


“ the very end of the history of Israel 
“ upon the land.” 

One of the most important discoveries 
made during the three years’ campaign 
was that of the High Place of Gezer, the 
largest early Palestinian sanctuary yet 
unearthed. It enabled us to form a clear 
picture of the nature and disposition of 
these shrines; and from the discoveries 
made within its precincts it is easy to 
understand why, in an age of greater 
enlightenment, the worship of the High 
Place was so fiercely denounced. 

The essential features of the High Place 
would be:— 

(1) The Altar; 

(2) The Standing Stones and Asherah ; 

(3) The Laver for ceremonial washings; 

(4) The Sacred Gave; 

(5) The Depository for refuse; 



and to some extent all of these were illus¬ 
trated by the discoveries at Gezer. 

(1) The Altar. Nothing at all re¬ 
sembling a stone altar was discovered 
within the precincts of the sanctuary; 
but it is not necessary to suppose that 
the altar was a permanent structure. It 
is evident from all we can learn or deduce 
from the hints given us about early 
worship that simplicity was aimed at, 
and that the primitive altar was a mere 
heap of earth, or at most a pile of stones. 
The altars erected to Jehovah by the 
Israelites, before the centralization of 
worship at the Temple, were of this 
elementary description. Exodus xx. 24 
prescribes that altars should be made of 
earth, or if of stone, that the stone 
should not be hewn. 

In the Austrian excavation of Taanach, 



an extraordinary altar was discovered of 
baked earth , ornamented with figures of 
animals in relief (fig. 13). Nothing like 
this has been found at Gezer, or indeed 
anywhere else; but it indicates the 
material of which the Gezer altar prob¬ 
ably was made. 1 

Some distance to the south of the great 
row of pillar-stones presently to be de¬ 
scribed, there was a bank of earth, about 
11 feet in length, through which it was 
excessively difficult to cut, as the earth 
seemed to have been baked very hard; 
for a long time it resisted the picks of the 
workmen. Embedded in this earth bank 
were a number of human skulls, much 
injured and broken ; the rest of the bodies 

1 The accompanying illustration is from a 
photograph kindly put at the disposal of the 
Palestine Exploration Fund by Dr. Sellin, the 
director of the excavation at Taanach. 



were not to be found. It is not impos¬ 
sible that this bank was actually the 
earthen altar of the High Place of Gezer. 
That a Canaanite altar should consist 
of a heap of human heads covered with 
earth is a new idea, though it is not 
inherently improbable; for it is evident 
from the excavations that the Canaanites 
showed an Aztec-like disregard of the 
value of human life. With the skulls were 
deposited a number of cow-teeth. 

(2) The Standing Stones (fig. 12) form 
one of the most imposing monuments that 
survive from ancient Palestine. They are 
eight in number, but there have been ten, 
the stumps of two which have been broken 
remaining at the north end. They stand 
in a line due north and south, and range 
in height from 10 feet 6 inches to 5 feet 
5 inches. 



They are unhewn blocks, simply set 
on end and supported at the base by 
smaller stones. Commencing with the 
southernmost, we may describe in order 
their most interesting characteristics. 

The first is a gigantic pillar which 
cannot be encircled by less than four 
people clasping hands. The second is 
comparatively insignificant, being the 
smallest of the whole series. It may, 
however, have been the most sacred of 
all the stones—possibly because it was 
the oldest. The indication that suggests 
this is the existence on its top of certain 
smooth spots, that look exactly like the 
worn places polished by the kisses of 
devotees on stones in the Church of the 
Holy Sepulchre, and other places of pil¬ 
grimage in Palestine and elsewhere. The 
kissing of the images or other represen- 



tations of the divinity, such as these pillar- 
stones will presently be shown to be, 
was and is a rite common to almost all 
heathen worships. Compare all the knees 
which have not bowed unto Baal , and every 
mouth that hath not kissed him , in 1 Kings 
xix. 18, and the reference in Hosea xiii. 2 
to the kissing of the calf-images in the 
Israelite shrines. 

The third and fourth stones are com¬ 
parable, but inferior, in size to the great 
block with which the series commences. 
The fifth and sixth are comparatively small 
and insignificant. The seventh (fig. 14), 
which is rather larger, is of greater interest. 
It is the only stone of the row which 
differs in its composition from the rest. 
The other pillars were hewn from the local 
rock: this stone displays characteristics 
that show that it must have come from 



some other site. A groove has been cut 
on its face, apparently to prevent a rope 
by which it was dragged from slipping. 
From the nature of the rock, it is possible 
that this stone came from Jerusalem; in 
that case it was probably a sacred stone 
that stood in the corresponding High 
Place of the Jebusites, which was cap¬ 
tured, perhaps in a successful raid, and 
set up in the Gezer temple as a war- 
trophy. In this connexion it is interest¬ 
ing to recall the fact that the evidence of 
the Tell el-Amarna tablets indicates a 
hostility between Gezer and Jerusalem 
at the period of this temple; and that 
later, King Mesha of Moab boasts, in 
his triumphal inscription, of having set 
up just such a trophy. The passage 
on the inscription of Mesha is obscure, 
but the interpretation which seems 


most probable runs thus: “ The king of 
“ Israel built for himself Ataroth, and 
“ I fought against the town and took 
“ it, and put to death all the people of 
“the town, and I removed thenee the 
“ altar-hearth (?) of Dodah (name of a 
“ god ?), and I dragged it before Ghemosh 
“ (the Moabite god) in Kerioth.” Later 
he says “Ghemosh said to me, Take 
“Nebo against Israel: and I went by 
“ night and fought against it... and I took 
“thence the altar-hearths (?) of Jehovah 
“ and I dragged them before Ghemosh.” 
These passages seem to indicate a custom 
of seizing some heavy stone furniture of 
the holy place of a conquered town, and 
erecting it in the sanctuary of the con¬ 
queror. Some such custom may also 
explain the strange advice of Hushai to 
Absalom, and the latter’s equally strange 


acceptance of the advice (2 Sam. xvii. 
13, 14). It is possible, therefore, that 
the stone shown in figure 14 once stood 
in the High Place of the Jebusites, which 
would no doubt have been on the Moriah 
where Solomon afterwards built the 
Temple. If with this may be identified 
the “land of Moriah” of Genesis xxii. 2 
(which is, of course, open to doubt), 
it is quite admissible to believe that at 
the foot of this stone in its original 
position the author of Genesis located the 
attempted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. 

The eighth stone of the series is more 
shapely than the rest, and is peculiar in 
that it stands in a hollowed stone socket. 
It is flanked by the stumps of the two 
broken pillars. These three stones are 
divided from the remainder by a wide in¬ 
terspace, no doubt with intention. Ten, 


seven and three are all numbers that 
seem to have had a certain sanctity among 
the Western Semites, and cases illus¬ 
trating this are not wanting in the Old 
Testament. We cannot enlarge on this sub¬ 
ject at present, but must content ourselves 
here with referring to the article ‘ ‘ N umber ’ ’ 
in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. It can¬ 
not be an accident that the ten stones of 
our High Place are divided into two groups 
containing seven and three respectively. 

The erection of pillars like these as 
symbols and representatives of the divinity 
was a custom common to all Semitic 
races, not excepting, in their early stages 
of development, the Hebrews themselves. 
Jacob erected such a pillar in consecrating 
a place where the Lord had appeared to 
him, and specially named it the House of 
God (Gen. xxviii. 22). Even in the Temple 


of Solomon there were two sacred pillars, 
named Jachin and Boaz (1 Kings vii. 21); 
and Hosea, picturing the Israelite cap¬ 
tivity, says the children of Israel shall abide 
many days without king , and without 
prince , and without sacrifice , and without 
pillar, and without ephod, or teraphim 
(Hos. iii. 4). Special charges were laid on 
the Israelites to destroy the pillars of the 
Canaanites whom . they supplanted [break 
in pieces their pillars : Exod. xxiii. 24), 
and the erection of a pillar to Jehovah 
was forbidden in the Deuteronomic 
legislation (xvi. 22). 

There can be no doubt that with the 
pillar there was associated an Askerah, 
whatever that may exactly have been. 
Without occupying space here in the 
profitless discussion of a very obscure 
subject, we may content ourselves with 



noting that the most generally received 
theory is that it was a wooden pillar erected 
as a representative of a sacred tree. For 
details regarding the asherah reference 
may be made to the article on the subject 
in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary. The Old 
Testament contains numerous references 
to the asherah (in the Authorized Version 
under the name “ grove ”). Thus, Gideon 
cut down the asherah beside the altar of 
Baal (Judg. vi. 25, 28); and in summing 
up the sins of the Israelites which led to 
the captivity, the author of the Book 
of Kings includes their setting up pillars 
and asherim upon every high hill and 
under every green tree (2 Kings xvii. 10), 
an illustration, by the way, of the tree 
worship from which the asherah is com¬ 
monly supposed to have taken its origin. 
(3) The exact position of the asherah 
b.s. 65 5 


in the Temple of Gezer with respect to 
the supposed altar and the row of pillar- 
stones is a subject of uncertainty; for, 
of course, being made of timber, it would 
have long since perished in the damp 
climate of Palestine, if indeed it were not 
destroyed by some reformer. It was at first 
thought that a square block of stone beside 
the row of pillars (fig. 15), with a rectangular 
hollow cut in the top, was the socket in 
which the asherah stood. This may have 
been the case; but the probability is at least 
equal that this block was a laver intended 
for ablutions. On the whole the supposed 
socket appears rather too large 1 to have 
contained a wooden post of any likely size. 

The practice of ceremonial ablution was 

1 The stone block measures 6 feet 1 inch by 
5 feet by 2 feet 6 inches, and its socket 2 feet 
10 inches by 1 foot 11 inches by 1 foot 4 inches. 



a necessary preliminary to taking part 
in religious worship among the Semites, 
and is maintained by the modern Muham¬ 
madans as it was by the Hebrews in 
their own worship. 1 A similar laver was 
found in the Semitic temple recently 
investigated by Professor Petrie in the 
Sinai Peninsula, but in this case the brim 
was narrow. In the Gezer example the 
brim of the receptacle is broad, probably 
to allow of a person sitting upon it to 
wash his feet. 

(4) The Sacred Cave was situated just 
east of the northern end of the row of 
pillar stones, and it is probable that the 
existence of this cave was the cause which 
led to the choice of the site on which the 
High Place was established. The cave 
originally consisted of two separate cham- 

1 Exod. xxx. 18-21, cf. Heb. ix. 10. 

6 7 


bers, each of them at one time residences 
of cave-dwellers, with independent en¬ 
trances and probably with no internal 
communication between them. When dis¬ 
covered, however, the smaller cave was 
found to have been carefully closed by large 
blocks placed against the door inside, 
so that it was turned into a secret cham¬ 
ber. A narrow crooked tunnel was then 
opened between the two chambers. This 
tunnel was just wide enough to “ wriggle ” 
through: it was short, so that any 
sound made in one chamber was distinctly 
audible in the other; but it bent in the 
middle, so that it was not possible to see 
through it. This arrangement is evidently 
well suited for the giving of oracles, a boy 
being sent to the inner chamber before 
the inquirer was admitted to the outer. 
Far less credulity than is displayed by the 



Russian pilgrims to-day in the Church of 
the Holy Sepulchre, at the ceremony 
of the Holy Fire, would persuade the 
inquirer that in the boy’s voice coming 
from the mouth of the narrow tunnel 
he actually heard the voice of the god. 
Of course oracle-giving, in one form or 
other, was an essential function of shrines 
over the whole ancient world. Even in 
Solomon’s temple provision was made 
for an oracle (1 Kings vi. 16), though 
the exact details of this case are not 
recorded. (See the plan, fig. 16.) 

The story of Saul’s visit to the witch of 
En-Dor is recalled to the memory by 
this cave. If the reader will turn to the 
narrative in 1 Samuel xxviii. 7-25, and 
study the story carefully, he will perceive 
that during tKe whole seance (if we may 
use the modernism) Saul saw nothing, but 


entirely relied on the woman’s vague de¬ 
scription for the identification of Samuel: 
an identification which his overwrought 
condition made it easy for him to accept. 
He heard a voice, however: it has often 
been suggested that this may have been 
a case of ventriloquism practised by the 
pythoness (such as seems to be indicated 
by Isaiah viii. 19), but she may also have 
had a confederate stationed in some such 
secret chamber as has been found at 
Gezer. Indeed, she herself may have 
played the part; for the sentence in verse 
21, and the woman came unto Saul (after he 
had fainted on hearing the denunciation), 
suggests that during his interview with 
the supposed spirit of Samuel he was alone. 
How far the Lord may have made use for 
His own purposes of the pretended power 
of the sorceress (like the “ lying spirit ” 


of 1 Kings xxii. 22) we cannot here inquire. 

(5) Lastly, there was a bell-shaped pit, 
resembling an ordinary cistern, a little 
to the east of the sacred cave and appar¬ 
ently a little outside the temple precincts. 
In this pit was found a great number of 
bones of human beings, cows, sheep, goats, 
and deer, in a confused heap. In all 
probability this was the receptacle into 
which the refuse from sacrifices was cast. 
Such a receptacle was a necessity where- 
ever victims were sacrificed in worship. 

Of the nature of the High Place worship 
Isaiah has preserved for us a vignette, 
in lvii. 5 and the following verses: 
Are ye not children of transgression, a 
seed of falsehood, ye that inflame yourselves 
among the oaks, under every green tree: 
that slay the children in the valleys, under 
the clefts of the rocks ? Among the smooth 



stones of the valley is thy portion; they, they 
are thy lot: even to them hast thou poured 
a drink offering, thou hast offered an obla¬ 
tion. Shall I be appeased for these things? 
Upon a high and lofty mountain hast thou 
set thy bed: thither also wentest thou up 
to offer sacrifice. And behind the doors 
and the posts hast thou set up thy memorial: 
for thou hast discovered thyself to another 
than me, and art gone up; thou hast en¬ 
larged thy bed, and made thee a covenant 
with them; thou lovedst their bed when thou 
sawest it. Here we have a succinct pic¬ 
ture, obviously based on the ordinary rites 
of the High Place. We see the situation 
of the sanctury, on the hill-top ; the tree 
worship ; the worship of stones, and their 
anointing (just as Jacob anointed the 
stone of Beth-el [Gen. xxviii. 18, compare 
xxxv. 14], and as in a similar manner 


the second stone of the Gezer row of 
pillars may have been anointed); the sacri¬ 
fice of children; and the general atmosphere 
of licentiousness pervading the whole 
worship. All of these are illustrated by 
the Gezer High Place. We have already 
sufficiently alluded to the tree and stone 
worship, and of the last of the above 
features it is necessary to say no more 
than that the character of numerous 
images left there, evidently as votive 
offerings, testified to the immoral char¬ 
acter of the worship. 

There remains the sacrifice of children, 
on which a few words must be said. All 
round the feet of the columns, and over the 
whole area of the High Place, the earth 
was discovered to be a regular cemetery, 
in which the skeletons of young infants 
were buried. These infants were never 



more than a week old. They were de¬ 
posited in large jars, and with them were 
placed smaller jars, possibly for food for 
the use of the little victim in the other 
world. Two at least of the skeletons 
showed marks of fire (fig. 18). 

We have here evidence of the widespread 
custom of devoting the firstborn; a part of 
the practice whereby the firstfruits of man, 
of beast, and of the field, were sacred to the 
divinity. 1 Abraham felt an impulse to 
sacrifice Isaac (Gen. xxii. 1), and Mesha, 
king of Moab, on an occasion of emergency, 
sacrificed his eldest son (2 Kings iii. 27). 
That the ancestors of the Hebrews, like 
the other Semites, practised this custom 
may be regarded as certain, though in their 
earliest legislation the savagery of the 

1 See Exodus xxii. 29, 30; xxiii. 19. 


human sacrifice is modified by the substi¬ 
tution of an animal victim (Exod. xiii. 13, 
which also prescribes substitution in the 
, case of an animal which it was not lawful 
to sacrifice), or by dedication to temple 
service, as in the case of Samuel. The 
sacrifice by fire of children to Molech is 
prohibited in Leviticus xviii. 21 under 
pain of death (cf. Lev. xx. 2); but this 
law was disregarded by Ahaz (2 Kings 
xvi. 3) and Manasseh (2 Kings xxi. 6). 
The futility of such sacrifices is eloquently 
emphasized by Micah (vi. 7): and they 
were finally ended by Josiah (2 Kings 
xxiii. 10). 

Outside the High Place other dis¬ 
coveries were made throwing a lurid 
light on the iniquity of the Amorite. 
One of these may be briefly alluded to 
here: a cistern at the bottom of which 


were fourteen skeletons, one of them that 
of a young girl who had evidently been 
sawn asunder (fig. 17). The skulls of two 
other girls, who had been decapitated, were 
found at the mouth of the same cistern. 
Evidently some savage tragedy here took 
place, though of its precise nature we 
are ignorant. It recalls the tradition of 
the death of Isaiah, generally supposed to 
be alluded to in Hebrews xi. 37; and 
the treatment of the Ammonites by David 
(1 Ghron. xx. 3). 

In an enclosure close to the standing 
stones was found a bronze model of a 
cobra (fig. 14), which may have been a 
votive offering. It recalls the story of the 
brazen serpent of Moses to whose worship 
Hezekiah put an end (2 Kings xviii. 4). 
Possibly this object of worship was simi¬ 
lar in appearance. Another very remark- 


able “ find ” made within the precincts of 
the High Place was the unique figure of 
the “ two-horned Astarte, ” one of the 
first representations of this mysterious 
goddess to be found (fig. 19. ) x 

In closing this chapter, which is neces¬ 
sarily nothing more than a brief outline 
of a very wide subject, we may fittingly 
conclude with another quotation from the 
speech of Professor G. A. Smith, to 
which we referred at the beginning:— 

“ We realize through this work what 
“ the purer religion of Israel had to con- 
“ tend with through all the centuries. I 
“ may say that we realize to a large extent 
“ for the first time what it had to fight 

1 For Astarte-worship, illustrated at Gezer by 
a large number of terra-cotta plaques bearing 
the figure of the goddess in relief, compare such 
passages as 1 Sam. vii. 3, 4,1 Kings xi. 33. 



“ with, what it had to struggle against 
“ all that time. We have been told 
“ that Monotheism was the natural off- 
“ spring of desert scenery and of desert 
“life. But it was not in the desert 
“ that Israel’s Monotheism developed 
“ and grew strong and reached its pure 
“ forms. It was in this land of Palestine, 
“ of which Gezer, with its many cent- 
“ uries and its many forms of idolatry, 
“ is so typical an instance. When we 
“contemplate all these systems, we are 
“surely the more amazed at the sur- 
“ vival, under their pressure and against 
“ their cruelty, of so much higher a spiri- 
“ tual and an ethical religion. Surely it is 
“ only a divine purpose, it is only the 
“ inspiration of the Most High which 
“ has been the cause. When we look at 
“ these things that are seen, surely we are 


“more able to appreciate than ever we 
“ have been the clear vision which the 
“ prophets of Israel had of the things that 
“ are unseen, and all their valour and per- 
“ sistence in pushing the consideration 
“ of these upon their countrymen. Surely 
“ we understand more than we did why 
“ Ezra and Nehemiah were so eager and 
“zealous to raise the fence of the Law 
“ against the heathenism which was bear- 
“ ing in upon Israel from all sides, and 
“ which overcame all other Semitic re- 
“ ligions. And surely, last of all, we can 
“ recognize and appreciate the valour of 
“the Maccabees who fought against the 
“last tide of heathenism, and brought 
“ Israel through it pure, constant, and 
“ with her Law untouched—that Israel 
“ out of which Christ our Lord was born, 
“ and out of which our religion has grown.” 







This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee 
up out of the land of Egypt (Exod. xxxii. 4, mar¬ 
ginal reading). 

TTTHEN Moses delayed to come down 
** from the mount, the impatient 
people applied to Aaron, his brother, for 
guidance. That a new covenant was 
being made for them they were aware, 
but “ the manner of their god ” was as un¬ 
known to them at the moment as it was, 
centuries afterwards, to the mixed multi¬ 
tude of Babylonians and Guthahites and 
Sepharvites that the king of Assyria 
established in the despoiled land of Sa- 


maria (2 Kings xvii. 24). If we take the 
account of Exodus as we find it, it appears 
that the stringent law of the Ten Words 
had not yet been publicly taught to the 
people, or at any rate that they had not 
comprehended its public announcement. 
Exodus xx. 18, 19 seems to show that 
they were too bewildered and terrified by 
the theophany to realize the meaning of 
anything they might hear. Moses was 
on his way down, with the tables in his 
hands, when he discovered what had 
taken place in his absence. 

Aaron accepted the responsibility— 
indeed such a responsibility had been 
expressly delegated to him, according to 
Exodus xxiv. 14; and in ignorance, it 
would appear, that henceforth the use of 
symbolic images was to be forbidden, he 
made a calf of gold, round which, as he 



proclaimed, a feast of Jehovah —not of 
any foreign or traditional cow-divinity 
—was to be held. The ceremonies evi¬ 
dently partook of the character of one of 
the merry-making vintage or s harvest fes¬ 
tivals common in all primitive societies 
—a day of feasting and merry-making, 
not unmixed with license. 

In view of the spiritual development 
to which the worship of Jehovah was, 
by divine guidance, ultimately led, it is 
not easy at first sight to believe that 
this act of Aaron and his followers was not 
a mere lapse into idolatry, such as stained 
Solomon, Ahaz, and other later leaders 
of the people; but rather an outburst of 
the natural religious feelings and traditions 
of the as yet untaught tribes, who, in wor¬ 
shipping their own god, were following the 
immemorial observances of their Semitic 



kinsmen. To an untutored pastoral or 
agricultural community the strongest force 
familiar in the daily routine of life is 
the strength of a powerful young bull, and 
it seems clear that, half symbolically, 
half materially, the primitive Semites 
pictured their tribal divinity under some 
such bodily form. 

It might have been expected that the 
sharp judgment which the error of Aaron 
and the people incurred would have 
eradicated these traces of natural religion 
from their minds; yet, so tenacious is 
religious conservatism, a strikingly parallel 
incident took place some three hundred 
years later. Jeroboam, fearing lest his 
successful revolt against the house of 
Solomon should be counteracted by influ¬ 
ences brought to bear on his subjects at 
Jerusalem, the central shrine of the united 



monarchy, resolved to erect shrines in¬ 
side his own territory in order to divert 
the stream of worshippers from the land 
of his rival. One of these he placed at 
Dan, probably with the intention of set¬ 
ting up an attraction as far removed from 
Jerusalem as the limits of his kingdom 
permitted. The other he established at 
Beth-El, thereby not only reviving an 
important holy place that had long been 
traditionally connected with the worship 
of Jehovah, but erecting a barrier on the 
high road to Jerusalem which could not 
fail to intercept pilgrims who might still 
desire to visit the authorized centre of 
the national religion (1 Kings xii. 25-33). 

Now these shrines were in no sense 
heathen temples. The feasts and sacri¬ 
fices were modelled on those of Jerusalem 
(1 Kings xii. 32), and the shrine was, in 

113 8 



its way, as much a place of Jehovah- 
worship as was that of Jerusalem ; but 
the central object of adoration at each 
shrine was a calf of gold, exactly like the 
symbolical representation of Jehovah that 
Aaron had made in the wilderness. 

These passages seem to show that how¬ 
ever lofty and spiritual the conception of 
Jehovah may have been to the prophets, 
yet the common people of Israel retained 
a materialistic conception of Him, derived 
from an age-long tradition, which it 
needed the cleansing fires of the captivity 
wholly to destroy; and that from time 
to time leaders pandered to this popular 
conception, in order to secure popular 

It is an interesting fact in this con¬ 
nexion that one of the commonest types 
of objects found in the excavation was a 


pottery model of a cow, generally rudely 
formed, but always recognizable (fig. 33). A 
good example is shown, in the accompany¬ 
ing figure. It is impossible to explain the 
prevalence of such models otherwise than 
on the hypothesis that they had a religious 
significance, and were the god-figures of the 
families who dwelt in the houses where 
they were found. 

The worship at these shrines included 
sacrifice, incense-burning (1 Kings xiii. 1), 
and kissing the images of the deity (Hos. 
xiii. 2), just as we have seen that the 
standing stone in the High Place of Gezer 
was probably kissed. The shrines them¬ 
selves were probably not unlike that of 
Gezer: in the denunciation of Hosea 
(x. 1-6) altars and pillars are enumerated 
with the calves. 

It is often supposed that these calves 


were modelled on the sacred bulls wor¬ 
shipped in Egypt; but this cannot be so. 
In the first place, the Egyptian bull was 
always a living incarnation of the deity, 
never a dead image; it was not worshipped 
for itself, but for the god that quickened 
it. In the second place, Aaron could not 
have said that an Egyptian god had spoiled 
Egyptian territory. In the third place, 
Jeroboam would not have done anything 
so impolitic as to introduce a foreign god 
upon Israelite soil at so critical a moment 
of his career. 

The prophets of Israel had more to 
contend against than the influences of 
foreign worship, so graphically portrayed 
in the passage we have already quoted 
from Professor G. A. Smith. Our wonder 
at the prophets and their teaching is the 
more increased when we realize that they 


came from, and were sent to, a people who 
had formed no higher conception of their 
Deity than that of a Being endowed with 
the strength and even the form of a bull- 



A goodly Babylonish mantle, and two hundred 
shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels 
weight (Josh. vii. 21). 

^T^HESE articles are enumerated as 
having been stolen from the spoil 
of Jericho by Achan. 

Of the first, the Babylonish or Shinar 
mantle, we can say nothing, such an 
article being too perishable to last. The 
most natural and probable conjecture 
is that it was a cloak decorated with 
the embroidery for which Babylon was 
famous. Nor is there any definite inform- 



ation about the two hundred shekels’ 
weight of silver. 

Of the gold “ wedge ” more of interest 
can be said. The Hebrew word trans¬ 
lated “ wedge ” literally means “ tongue.” 
Now, in a stratum which was approx¬ 
imately contemporary with Joshua two 
gold ingots were found; one of them a 
bar whose weight was not far from fifty 
shekels 1 —the weight of the ingot stolen 
by Achan. Its shape was long, narrow, 
and slightly curved; it might well be 
described as a “ tongue,” and it is pro¬ 
bably similar to Achan’s prize (see fig. 36). 

It may be guessed with reasonable 
likelihood that into such tongue-like bars 

1 That is the heavy Babylonian shekel of 
252f grains. Fifty such shekels would be 12,633J 
grains. The actual weight of the ingot is 860 
grammes, or 13,244 grains. 



trade gold was beaten for commerce; 
possibly with such bars the various com¬ 
mercial negotiations in which the patri¬ 
archs took part were transacted. 

The original ingot from Gezer has, of 
course, with the rest of the antiquities, 
been delivered over to the Turkish author¬ 
ities in accordance with Ottoman law. 
A gilt cast is, however, to be seen in the 
museum of the Palestine Exploration 
Fund in London. 





The cities are great and fenced up to heaven 
(Deut. i. 28). 

"XTOTHING illustrates the size and 
^ strength of the Canaanite cities 
so much as a study of the walls with 
which they were fenced ; and in examining 
the city walls of Gezer it is easy to under¬ 
stand why the spies, accustomed to the 
simple camp life of the desert, were ap¬ 
palled by the prospect of attacking a 
people so powerful. 

Gezer was surrounded by two great 
walls, not, however, of the same date, 
the one having been built outside the line 


of the other when the latter had fallen into 
disuse and ruin (fig. 38). This took place 
about 1450 b.c., so that the outer city 
wall is the more interesting for us at 
present, concerned as we are now with the 
illustrations of the Biblical history afforded 
by the excavation. The older wall be¬ 
longs to a period that the Biblical history 
of Palestine does not directly touch. 

Even in its present ruined form the 
outer city wall is an imposing structure. 
In places it still stands to a height of 
from 10 to 14 feet, and these can hardly 
be regarded as being much more than 
the underground foundations. The outer 
face of the city wall, towering above the 
hill on which the city was built, may well 
have seemed impregnable to the messen¬ 
gers of Moses. 

Nor would they feel any more encour- 



aged when they contemplated the breadth 
of this massive structure. It is 14 feet in 
thickness. When complete, two ordinary 
cars could have been driven abreast 
round its top with the greatest ease. 

At intervals round the outer walls of 
Gezer there are towers, thirty in number. 
These towers, as a study of the masonry 
shows, were inserted in the wall after the 
original structure was built, and prob¬ 
ably indicate a refortification of the city. 
It is not unlikely that they belong to 
the restoration by Solomon mentioned in 
1 Kings ix. 16. 

In this connexion it is interesting to 
notice that there is one part of the wall 
itself which is of similar masonry to 
these supposed Solomonic towers. It 
almost appears as though the wall had 
here been breached and repaired, and 



that to strengthen it the towers had at 
the same time been built. It is quite 
within the bounds of probability that 
here Pharaoh breached the city wall when 
he captured Gezer, and gave it for his 
daughter’s wedding portion. 

Later, in the Book of Maccabees (1 Macc. 
ix. 52) we learn that Bacchides, the general 
of the Syrian army, fortified the city. 
His fortification has been found in a series 
of six great bastions built at intervals 
along the walls. These bastions encase 
and strengthen the older towers, as is 
shown in the accompanying photographic 
plates (figs. 39, 40). 

This short description has been in¬ 
cluded in the present work to show 
that we may often expect to find, in the 
actual buildings unearthed, tangible traces 
of the direct influence of recorded historical 



events. By excavation we can be brought 
into personal contact with Biblical heroes, 
and can see and touch structures which 
they built and inhabited. 


1 45 





The records are ancient. These were the potters 
and the inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah : there 
they dwelt with the king for his work (1 Chron. 
iv. 22, 23). 

T N the last chapter we briefly illus- 
trated how excavation can illustrate 
the Biblical history. In this we shall 
bring forward a striking instance of the 
light it throws on the Biblical text and 
its interpretation. 

The second, third and fourth chapters 
of 1 Chronicles, containing the genealogy 
of the tribe of Judah, have long been recog¬ 
nized as a passage of peculiar difficulty. 



The names seem to have suffered in copy¬ 
ing, and their mutual connexion is not clear. 
Moreover, some of the names being those 
of cities—Hebron, Ziph, Eshtemoa, Gedor 
and the rest—it had become a matter of 
agreement among critics, unable to ex¬ 
plain these as genealogies of men, that 
the passage is rather to be treated as a 
genealogy of tribes and communities; 
and that when, for example, we read in 
chapter ii. 42 “ Mareshah, the father 
“ of Hebron,” we are not to understand a 
genealogical relationship between two men, 
but a statement that the town of Hebron 
was inhabited by a colony from the town 
of Mareshah at some unknown period of 
history. This interpretation, though gen¬ 
erally received as being the most satis¬ 
factory, is involved in an inextricable 
tangle of anachronisms and discrepancies; 


and it was admitted that for the full 
understanding of these difficult chapters 
more light from the monuments must be 

Though desired, this light was hardly 
expected; yet it has come from recent 
excavations, and we now know something 
definite of the proper names mentioned 
in the genealogy. We know that the 
names are those of men, not of cities; 
we know the period at which they lived; 
we know that the genealogy is a definite 
record of physical relationship, not a 
vague catalogue of migrations of com¬ 
munities ; and we are in a position to 
check the successive errors of copyists, 
which have made the passage obscure. 
These errors exist, but they are by no 
means so wide and far-reaching as had 
been supposed. 



The section on which a bright light has 
been thrown is more especially 1 Chron. 
iv. 16-23. The sources which are at our 
disposal for correcting the Hebrew text 
are two-fold—the Greek version, com¬ 
monly called the Septuagint, which was 
made from a Hebrew text earlier than that 
which we now possess; and a series of 
jar-handles bearing names and devices 
stamped upon them, which have been 
discovered in recent excavations. 

It is impossible here to enter fully into 
the technical details of the corrections of 
scribal errors in this passage which these 
independent sources of information enable 
us to make. They have been fully dis¬ 
cussed in a paper by the present writer, 
“ The Craftsmens’ Guild of the Tribe of 
“ Judah,” published in the Palestine Ex¬ 
ploration Fund Quarterly Statement for 


1905, pp. 243, 328. Their nature can 
best be shown by exhibiting the passage 
in parallel columns, showing the render¬ 
ings of the existing Hebrew text, and the 
corrected text; alterations in the latter 
are indicated by italics. 

Hebrew Text Corrected Text 

And the sons of 
Jehallelel; Ziph, and 
Ziphah, Tiria, and 
Asarel. And the sons 
of Ezrah ; Jether, and 
Mered, and Epher, and 
Jalon: and she bare 
Miriam, and Shammai, 
and Ishbah the father 
of Eshtemoa. And his 
wife the Jewess bare 
Jered the father of Ge- 
dor, and Heber the 
father of Soco, and 
Jekuthiel the father of 
Zanoah. And these are 
the sons of Bithiah the 
daughter of Pharaoh, 

And the sons of 
Jerahmeel ; Ziph, and 
Ezrahi Tiria, and Asarel. 
And the sons of Ezrah ; 
Jether, and Mered, and 
Epher, and Jalon : and 
Ezrah had another wife 
whose name was Miriam, 
and Miriam bare Sham¬ 
mai, and Skebaniah the 
father of Eshtemoa. 
And his wife Ha-Jehu- 
dijah bare Jered the 
father of Gedor, and 
Hebron the father of 
Soco, and Jekuthiel the 
father of Zanoah. And 
these are the sons of 



which Mered took. And 
the sons of the wife of 
Hodiah, the sister of 
Naham, were the father 
of Keilah the Garmite, 
and Eshtemoa the 
Maacathite. And the 
sons of Shimon ; Am¬ 
non, and Rinnah, Ben- 
hanan, and Tilon. And 
the sons of Ishi; Zo- 
heth, and Ben-zoheth. 
The sons of Shelah the 
son of Judah; Er the 
father of Lecah, and 
Laadah the father of 
Mareshah, and the 
families of the house of 
them that wrought fine 
linen, of the house of 
Ashbea; and Jokim, 
and the men of 
Cozeba; and Joash, 
and Saraph, who had 
dominion in Moab, and 
Jeshubi - lehem. And 
the records are ancient. 
These were the potters, 
and the inhabitants of 
Netaim and Gederah: 

the scarabaeus, which 
they adopted in apostasy. 
And the sons of the 
wife of Hodiah, the 
sister of Naham, were 
Dalilah the father of 
Keilah, and Shimon the 
father of Amnon, and 
Menahem the father of 
Keilah the Garmite, and 
Eshtemoa the Maa¬ 
cathite. And the sons of 
Shimon; Amnon, and 
Rinnah, Abd-kadad, 
and Tilon. And the 
sons of Ishi; Zoheth, 
and Ben-zoheth. The 
sons of Shelah the son 
of Hodiah ; Er the 
father of Lecah, and 
Laadah the father of 
Micah, and the families 
of the house of Obed- 
Thebez, of the house of 
Ashbea, and Jokim, and 
the men of Cozeba, and 
Joab son of Seraiah 
who had dominion in 
Moab and returned to 
Beth-Lekem. And the 



there they dwelt with records are ancient, 
the king for his work. These were the potters, 

and the inhabitants of 
Netaim and Gedor: 
there they dwelt with 
the king on his pro¬ 

It may fairly be claimed that of these 
two columns the corrected text is the 
more coherent. A genealogical tree can 
be constructed from it, which is an im¬ 
possibility in the case of the uncorrected 
text: see the Quarterly Statement , 1905, 
p. 333, where the relationship between the 
persons mentioned is tabulated. The 
following names have been found on the 
seals and jar-handles above mentioned : 
Ziph, Ezrah, Shebaniah, Hebron, Soco, 
Menahem, Abd-Hadad, and Micah. Of 
the two long passages inserted in the text, 
one (“ and Ezrah had . . . Miriam ”) is 


a conjectural emendation of my own, to 
fill up a gap whose existence has long 
been recognized: the other (“Dalilah . . . 
“ Menahem ”) is inserted from the Greek 
version. Specially striking is the light 
thrown on the obscure reference to “ Bith- 
“ iah daughter of Pharaoh, ” which has 
been a puzzle to every generation. No one 
could explain what connexion Bithiah had 
with the genealogy, and how a Hebrew 
person of no apparent importance came 
to marry an Egyptian princess. It is now 
suggested that this passage was an obscure 
way of hinting that the persons mentioned 
adopted the “ scarabaeus ” for their coat 
of arms, for we have found it on their 
seals. The scarabaeus is an Egyptian 
religious emblem, and this is what the 
chronicle means by the “ Daughter of 
‘ ‘ J ehovah [the meaning of Bithiah] daughter 


(The handle in the centre bears the name of Hebron, the other two of Soco.) 


“ of the king of Egypt.” It is an allusive 
method of description in accordance with 
Hebrew methods of expression. And to 
establish the connexion yet more closely, 
in the case of four potters we find not only 
the name as it appears in the list (ex¬ 
actly in two ; in the other two the copyists 
of the genealogy have introduced slight 
modifications) and the scarab, but also the 
words “ for the king ” on the seal stamped 
on the jar-handle, recalling the sentence 
with which the passage quoted closes 
(fig. 41). But for a further analysis of 
the corrections proposed, and their justi¬ 
fication, reference must be made to the 
paper already alluded to, where also the 
following deductions are set forth:— 

(1) That the genealogy is that of a 
family called from an ancestor named 
Menahem the Menuhoth, who owned as 


their ultimate founder Caleb, son of 
Jephunneh, and who are mentioned in 
1 Chronicles ii. 52, 54. 

(2) That they inhabited a region south 
of Hebron, and there followed various 
crafts, principally pottery-making (1 Chron. 
iv. 14, 23). 

(3) That the family was first brought 
to the notice of the king of Judah in the 
early part of the reign of Joash: one of 
their number, Memshath (written Mare- 
shath), who lived in that reign being the 
first of the clan whom we find under royal 
patronage. It is suggested that he first 
attracted notice in connexion with the 
work of the restoration of the Temple 
under Joash (2 Kings xii. 4-16). 

(4) That Shebaniah son of Ezrah was a 
person of considerable importance in the 
days of Uzziah, and was steward of the 



royal estates at Carmel mentioned in 
2 Chronicles xxvi. 10. 

(5) That under the righteous kings, 
Amaziah, Jotham, and Uzziah, the hea¬ 
thenish symbol used as a coat of arms by 
the family was suppressed in public 
documents. And that in the name Abd- 
Hadad we can trace the influence of 
Ahaz, who was introducing the worship 
of Hadad and the other gods of Syria 
just about the time when this person 
was bom, according to the chronological 
scheme deduced from the pedigree (2 
Chron. xxviii. 23). 

(6) That in the days of Hezekiah a 
raid of the wild, semi-barbarous tribe of 
Simeon took place on the territory of this 
family (1 Chron. iv. 39), and that they 
were compelled to seek another home. 
That they chose the south of Moab or 



the north of Edom, and, driving out in 
their turn the worn-out remnant of the 
Amalekites, they settled there, and lived in 
a sort of semi-independence (ib. iv. 22). 

(7) That after the return from the 
captivity they were established in Beth- 
Lehem, and under the name of Pahath- 
Moab (i.e. “ the governor of Moab”) 
assumed a position of considerable im¬ 
portance under Ezra and Nehemiah 
(Ezraii. 6, viii. 4,x. 30; Neh.iii. 11,vii. 11, 
x. 14). 

Here then are seven statements all 
recorded in, or legitimately to be deduced 
from, the Biblical history; but they were 
isolated, and no one without a clue would 
have thought of connecting them. This 
clue was missing. A small basket-full of 
jar-handles, with their potters’ names 
stamped upon them, was unearthed by 


excavation and collected together. The 
stamp of a potter may be interesting as 
an archaeological curiosity; it may de¬ 
light a philologist or a palaeographer by 
displaying a peculiar name or a peculiarly 
shaped letter, but it can hardly be ex¬ 
pected to teach us much of historical 
value. Yet how precious seems the 
historical message of these humble jar- 
handles ! We gather from them that the 
genealogies in the Book of Chronicles are 
just what they pretend to be—a record 
of the lives and relationships of human 
beings—and do not call for explanation 
by means of the ingenuity that has 
been expended upon them. They have 
taught us that one of the most difficult 
and obscure passages in the whole Bible 
is not, after all, seriously corrupt—such 
errors as it contains being no more than 




what we might expect from a document 
founded, in the first instance, on “ ancient 
records ” which were probably tom and 
partly illegible, and transmitted to us by 
a long chain of copyists; and they have 
enabled us to correct these errors. They 
have given us the links whereby we can 
connect a number of scattered Biblical 
passages, seemingly independent of one 
another; and have brought into historical 
view men, in their own day of importance 
and influence, whose very names later 
generations had forgotten. 





In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho : 
he laid the foundation thereof with the loss of Abiram 
his firstborn, and set up the gate thereof with the 
loss of his youngest son Segub (1 Kings xvi. 34). 

'T'HE above is the rendering of the 
A Revised Version of this passage. 
The Authorized Version, which reads 
“ in Abiram ” and “ in Segub,” if not so 
definitely intelligible in English, is closer 
to the language of both the Hebrew and 
the old Greek version. 

The expression is ambiguous—perhaps 
purposely so—but it is open to the inter¬ 
pretation that these sons were offered by 
Hiel as a sacrifice, to avert any ill-luck 


there might be lingering about the accursed 
site, and to secure good fortune for the 
inhabitants of the new city. Indeed, it is 
just possible that the meaning of the 
Hebrew particle, translated “ in ” by 
King James’ translators, and “in the 
“loss of” by the revisers, here means 
“on,” “upon,” and that the statement 
is more definite than appears at first 

Upon Abiram his firstborn he founded it, 
and upon Segub his youngest he set up 
its gates. 

With this interpretation we have, as 
has often been suggested, an instance of the 
wide-spread custom of offering victims, 
human or animal, at the foundation of a 
building. The custom was observed by 
the Aztecs of Mexico; it is still found 
among various tribes in Africa, Borneo, 


Oceania, and India; even in Christian 
countries of Europe it is not unknown, as 
witness the legends of the infant walled 
up in Liebenstein Castle, and the church 
on Iona, built over the living body of 
Columba’s companion, Oran. In coun¬ 
tries where the advance of civilization has 
made human sacrifice impossible, animal 
sacrifice even yet takes its place, and 
examples of dogs having been buried 
under church walls are not unknown, 
just as in Muslim countries the sacrifice 
of a sheep accompanies the commence¬ 
ment of any important building. 

The reason underlying the superstition 
no doubt is either the propitiation of 
earth-spirits, or the hope that the spirit 
of the victim will itself become a guardian 
of the spot. But as just hinted there 
may have been a special reason in the case 


of Jericho. A tradition must have been 
preserved that when Israel entered the 
promised land Joshua had solemnly cursed 
the site of this, the first city captured by 
him; had set it apart as a place to be 
unoccupied and utterly devoted; and 
had indicated the sacrifice offered by 
Hiel as the penalty which infraction of 
the tabu would involve (Josh. vi. 26). 

If it can be shown that foundation 
sacrifices were offered in Palestine as 
well as in the other countries above men¬ 
tioned, it may be regarded as confirmatory 
of this interpretation of Joshua’s prophecy 
and Hiel’s fulfilment of it. And the 
necessary evidence is now forthcoming 
from Gezer, with a remarkable confirma¬ 
tion from the German excavations at 

In a very ancient house at Gezer, built 


into a space left vacant at the corner, was 
found the skeleton of an aged woman, 
having two food vessels deposited with her- 
(fig. 42). The position of the skeleton relative 
to the walls left no doubt that they were 
placed there at the same time, and that 
the woman was buried under the house in 
order to bring luck to its dwellers. The 
bones showed that the whole of the victim’s 
right side had been crippled and distorted 
by some rheumatic affection : it appears 
as though she had been selected for im¬ 
molation because she was a useless mem¬ 
ber of the community. 

In another house, belonging to a rather 
later date, was found outstretched in the 
middle of a chamber the skeleton of a 
man. Here again bones and walls evi¬ 
dently belonged to the same period. Here 
again a useless member of the community 


seems to have been sacrificed, for the 
man had lost his left hand. 

In the German excavations of Megiddo 
there was found under a tower the skele¬ 
ton of a young girl, perhaps some fifteen 
years of age, deposited in such a way as 
to leave no doubt that it was essentially 
connected with the foundation of the 

That these cases are not very common 
seems to show that the human victim 
was not offered, in Palestine, on every 
occasion, but only under exceptional cir¬ 
cumstances such as those of Jericho. We 
cannot find a trace of the practice else¬ 
where in the Bible. 

Infant victims were also offered—more 
often indeed than older children or adults. 
Numerous cases were found of infants, 
buried in jars, underneath or in the corners 


of the houses. With some a symbol of the 
sacrifice is deposited—a bowl which 
probably contained blood or grape juice, 
typical of blood; and a lamp, typical of 
fire. This is interesting, for in later 
epochs, when human sacrifice had fallen 
into disfavour, the human victim was 
omitted altogether, and the lamps and 
bowls alone took its place, as a symbolic 
reminiscence of the more savage rite (fig. 

The Vikings of the North Sea used 
to sprinkle their galleys with human 
blood ; and, in unconscious remembrance 
of the custom, we still break a bottle of 
wine over a ship at her christening. The 
ancient Semites believed that human 
blood must wet the foundations of a house 
to give it stability and prosperity; and, in 
unconscious remembrance of the belief, 


the modern peasant of Egypt buries the 
bodies of children who have not survived 
their birth inside the walls of his house. 
The discoveries at Gezer and Megiddo link 
these modern customs with the curse that 
Joshua pronounced and Hiel incurred. 





In those days he encamped against Gazara, and 
compassed it round about with armies: and he 
made an engine of siege, and brought it up to the 
city, and smote a tower and took it. And they 
that were in the engine leaped forth into the city ; 
and there was a great uproar in the city; and 
they of the city rent their clothes, and went up 
on the walls with their wives and children, and 
cried with a loud voice, making request to Simon 
to give them his right hand. And they said. Deal 
not with us according to our wickednesses, but accord¬ 
ing to thy mercy. And Simon was reconciled unto 
them and did not fight against them: and he put 
them out of the city, and cleansed the houses wherein 
the idols were, and so entered into it with singing 
and giving praise. And he put all uncleanness 
out of it, and placed in it such men as would keep 
the law, and made it stronger than it was before, 
and built therein a dwelling-place for himself 
(1 Macc. xiii. 43-48). 

'T'HOUGH not within the compass of 
the Old Testament canon, and 


therefore rather outside the limits set in 
this book, the discoveries bearing upon 
the incident graphically described in the 
above extract have been so remarkable 
that they cannot well be passed over in 

The events which led up to this capture 
of Gezer (Gazara is its Greek form) may 
be briefly summarized. Antiochus IV 
began his reign over Syria in 175 b.c. 
Greek influences in custom and religion 
had been insidiously affecting the upper 
classes in Palestine, despite the opposition 
of the Puritan party. A remarkable 
votive altar, found at Gezer, bearing on 
one side a dedication to Heracles, and on 
the other side the name Jehovah in its 
Greek form, is a tangible witness to this 
fact (fig. 45). Antiochus endeavoured to 
foster these foreign tendencies through the 



instrumentality of Joshua (or Jason, as 
he called himself), the renegade brother 
of the High Priest, who through Anti- 
ochus’ influence himself obtained that 
office. In b.c. 171 he was supplanted by 
another paganising Jew, Menelaus; his 
endeavour to reinstate himself was 
treated by Antiochus as a revolt, and 
was followed by the spoliation of Jerusa¬ 
lem, the profanation of the Temple, and 
the active persecution of all who endeav¬ 
oured to maintain the ancient Jewish 
rites and worship. An order was issued 
that in every village a heathen altar was 
to be set up. This order was resisted 
at the village of Modin, not far from 
Gezer, by Mattathias, an aged member 
of the priestly family. He slew both the 
royal commissioner and the first Jew who 
endeavoured to worship at the altar 




which was erected. Immediately, under 
the leadership of Mattathias, a revolt 
broke out through the country. On the 
death of Mattathias, in b.c. 166, the leader¬ 
ship passed to his son Judas, surnamed 
Maccabaeus (a word of uncertain meaning), 
who headed the Jews for the five follow¬ 
ing years in their resistance to the pagan 
tyrant. We cannot follow at length his 
fortunes in the struggle, nor those of 
his brother Jonathan who succeeded him 
after his death at Elasa in b.c. 161; but 
it is in point for our present purpose to 
notice that at the beginning of the latter’s 
leadership the city of Gezer, together with 
sundry other strongholds, was occupied 
and fortified by Bacchides, the general of 
the Syrian army. Soon after, the first 
war came to an end, and for four years 
there was peace, during which, how- 


ever, the heathen retained hold of 

In b.c. 153 war was renewed, the imme¬ 
diate cause being Jonathan’s partisanship 
in a dispute for the now vacant Syrian 
throne. It would lead us too far from our 
subject to retell the story of the compli¬ 
cated military and diplomatic events of 
the next ten years; let it suffice to say 
that at the end of this period Jonathan 
found himself a prisoner in the hands of 
Tryphon, an officer of Alexander Balas, 
whose claims to the throne of Syria 
Jonathan had originally espoused. 

Simon, Jonathan’s last surviving bro¬ 
ther, took his place as leader of the Jews. 
He had already distinguished himself 
by the capture of Joppa and Beth-zur; 
now he had only to meet and repulse 
Tryphon, in the first year of his leadership, 


to end the war. That done, he set him¬ 
self to strengthen the country and to 
expel any foreign influences that might 
weaken it, strategically or morally. With 
this in view, he first paid attention to the 
heathen garrison still in Gezer, and the 
passage at the head of this chapter is the 
story of its capitulation. His son John 
he left as governor of the city ; he himself 
went to Jerusalem to take office as High 
Priest. In 135 he, with two of his sons, 
was murdered by his own son-in-law, who 
aimed at supremacy; but the messengers 
sent to Gezer to add John to the victims 
were themselves slain, and John suc¬ 
ceeded to the High Priesthood. 

A passing reference in a letter written 
by the Roman Senate to John, preserved 
by Josephus, 1 is the only literary indica- 
1 Antiquities of the Jews XIII. ix. 2. 



tion we have of the restoration of Gezer 
to the Syrian power, a fact illustrated, 
however, by the excavations, to which 
it is now time to turn. 

As a specimen of the process of excava¬ 
tion, and of the “ trial and error ” methods 
that, in interpreting results, have to be 
followed, I shall cast the account of the 
discoveries bearing on these historical 
events into a narrative, rather than into 
a descriptive, form, such as has hitherto 
been adopted in this book. 

In the summer of 1904 the work was 
concentrated on the ancient cemeteries 
round the hill. These, of course, produced 
the richest “ plunder,” and in consequence 
the bakhshish account was high. But the 
Syrian peasant is never satisfied. One or 
two of them hit on the scheme of hold¬ 
ing back from a handful of beads or 


similar objects a few specimens, to pro¬ 
duce whenever a day should come on 
which luck did not favour them, thereby 
ensuring that their wages would receive 
a regular increment every day. 

This, of course, was utterly destructive 
of any scientific record of the contents of 
the tombs. It is, however, difficult to 
train new and untried workmen, and a 
labourer that knows his business properly 
is not to be lightly dismissed. I therefore 
established a “ penal settlement ” for the 
culprits; that is to say, I set them to 
trace the fine of the city wall, a task 
which would give me the information I 
required, and which there was every 
reason to suppose they would find com¬ 
paratively profitless. Part of this work 
was done by means of trenches and part 
by tunnels. 



One day the wall, which was being 
traced along the south side of the mound, 
from east to west, and which had been 
followed for nearly six hundred feet, 
came to a sudden stop. The gap might 
have been at a gateway, or else a ruined 
section; I was not perfectly satisfied 
with either explanation, and in any case 
it raised a question to be investigated. 

The men were therefore transferred to 
the west end of the wall, which had 
already been found in one or two places, 
and instructed to follow it eastward. 
Once more they came to a stop. There 
was thus a space in the middle of the 
south side, about three hundred feet in 
length, in which not a trace of the wall 
could be found. Trenches were cut at 
right angles across the line of the wall 
at various points in this gap, to search 


for stones or foundations; but in every 
case they gave no result. 

At the eastern termination of this gap 
the end of the wall butted against 
the end of a building, of which two or 
three courses only were exposed in the 
tunnel. At the foot of this building 
there seemed to be a causeway of stones. 
The masonry was much better than any¬ 
thing else on the mound, and on that 
account my first idea was that it could 
not be of the same date as the rude walls 
of which, at all periods, the ancient city 
was built. It appeared to be a castellated 
structure, with projecting towers; and I 
felt inclined to identify it with the Crusa¬ 
ders’ castle of Mont Gisart, which was 
erected on this hill, but of which no re¬ 
mains have yet been found. 

As soon as the work on the tombs was 


finished, it became an obvious duty to 
follow the clue thus offered: to expose 
this building, whatever it might be, com¬ 
pletely ; and at the same time to try and 
find what had become of the city wall. 
An area was therefore marked out in the 
usual way, including the gap in the wall 
and the castellated structure, and the 
digging commenced. 

A very short time was enough to dispose 
finally of the Crusader castle theory : the 
associated antiquities could not possibly 
have been used by mediaeval European 
knights. After a little further work it 
was found that south of and facing 
it were the foundations of a precisely 
similar, but much more ruinous, castellated 
wall, and that between these ran a pave¬ 
ment of cobble-stones, mounting up to 
the city. It now became clear that this 



carefully built structure was a large gate, 
spanning a road leading into the town, 
which road passed over the line of the 
city wall; but still there was no trace of 
the wall itself. 

At the same time a fresh puzzle pre¬ 
sented itself. Some ten feet north of the 
line where the wall should have been, was 
a second wall, parallel with it. This I sup¬ 
posed at first to be the inner, older city 
rampart, which is found everywhere in the 
mound inside the outer wall; but I was 
not satisfied with this theory. The wall 
was thinner than usual; the foundations 
did not go down deep enough; and 
it was difficult to explain the com¬ 
plete destruction at this point of the 
later outer wall, and the comparatively 
uninjured condition of the much more 
ancient inner. And when a totally un- 


expected gate made its appearance, in 
the inner wall, elaborately built of well 
squared stones, with an independent cause¬ 
way of its own leading out of the city, 
and associated with late pottery, the 
problem became even more exacting. 

It was about a month after the excava¬ 
tion at this spot began that the solution 
of these problems presented itself to me. 
The practice of publishing a periodical 
account of the excavations has been 
deprecated by some writers, apparently 
on the ground of the incompleteness and 
want of finality which must necessarily 
characterize each individual report. But 
this trifling demerit does not outweigh 
the advantages of the practice. Not 
only is it the obvious duty of the Society 
to keep the subscribers informed of the 
progress of the works to which they 


contribute, but the excavator himself 
receives a most valuable mental stimulus 
from the mere process of putting a con¬ 
nected account of his discoveries on 
paper. In the case of the perplexing 
discoveries just mentioned, their true 
meaning was revealed to me when, on a 
quiet November evening in the camp, I 
was drawing a plan of them for the follow¬ 
ing number of the Quarterly Statement. 
The following train of argument pre¬ 
sented itself to my mind:— 

(1) Here are two gates, side by side, 
each leading in and out of the city: 
query, what is their mutual connexion ? 

(2) They are obviously contemporary, 
for both are associated with Maccabean 
pottery, and are on the same archaeological 

(3) Therefore, as both are of Maccabean 



date, the wall in which is the second gate 
cannot be the ancient inner city wall, for 
that was covered up and forgotten long 
before the Maecabean period. 

(4) Therefore the wall in which this 
gate is found, though on the line of the 
inner city wall, is independent of it—a 
fact also indicated by its narrower pro¬ 
portions. As it is obviously north of the 
line of the outer wall, it is independent of 
that also. Therefore it cannot be a city 
wall at all. This conclusion is also in¬ 
dicated by the intrinsic improbability of 
two contemporary city gates being so 
close together. 

(5) If this wall be not a city wall, it 
must belong to some important building, 
such as a castle; and that castle must 
have been under the control of some 
person who had the right of passing 



through it into and out of the city at 
any time. Such a person can only have 
been the military governor of the city. 

(6) Here then we are led to a gover¬ 
nor’s castle of the time of the Maccabees. 
This irresistibly recalls the “ house ” built 
by Simon after his capture of the city. 
Is it not likely that Simon would have 
adapted this castle, rather than build 
another, had it been already in existence 
when he took the city ? and that a 
governor later than Simon would have 
adapted Simon’s own building ? It is 
most improbable that two governors’ 
castles belonging to the same period 
should exist in the one city. 

Thus I was led to the conclusion, quite 
unexpected when I began, that I had 
actually before me the dwelling-place 
of Simon Maccabaeus. Viewing the wall 


in this new light, one difficulty was 
solved at once—it was clear what had 
become of the 300 feet of the outer city 
rampart. Simon’s siege-engine had begun 
the damage—and it was a striking fact 
that, just where the wall was ruined, a 
natural terrace in the hill-side made this 
the most suitable place round the whole 
hill for manipulating a battering ram— 
and the breach had been completed in 
the course of building the castle. Evi¬ 
dently it was resolved to fill the breach, 
not with a length of blank wall, but with 
a citadel; and the stones were removed 
from the length of superseded wall to 
supply materials for the new structure. 

This conclusion was, of course, as yet 
only a probable working hypothesis, 
which, like the Crusader castle idea, 
might with further research have to be 


abandoned. The first thing to do, evi¬ 
dently, was to look for the inner city wall, 
in order to demonstrate its existence 
apart from the wall that had now become 
so interesting. This was done: a deep 
trench was dug, and the ruins of the 
inner wall were found far below and 
quite distinct from the wall in question. 
Then it remained to clear out the castle, 
chamber by chamber, in order to see 
whether evidence of the theory were 
forthcoming. The result was at first 
disappointing. It soon became clear that 
the castle had been looted thoroughly 
before it was ruined and covered over, 
and it seemed as though it were going 
to remain obstinately silent about its 
former occupier. 

But once more the unexpected hap¬ 
pened. The evidence was found, not by 


the careful workmen in the chambers, but 
by one of the basket-girls, whose quick 
eye fell upon some marks on a fragment 
of stone lying on a little heap beside the 
outer wall. She brought it to me, and 
I saw that it was a Greek inscription, 
rudely scratched in an almost illegible 
cursive hand. Several hours of patient 
study were required before the writing 
could be deciphered. 

But the labour was well repaid. This 
little block of limestone, a fragment of a 
larger building stone, with its rough 
scribble upon it, proved of thrilling 
interest. It called up the picture of 
Simon, with his victorious Jewish follow¬ 
ing, marching against the city and besieg¬ 
ing it; of the panic-stricken Syrians— 
isolated now, after the repulse of Tryphon 
—crowding on the wall, cringing for 





their lives to the great High Priest. The 
strokes of the battering ram once more 
rang on the walls, the tower fell, and the 
men in Simon’s siege-engine leaped into 
the city. The zealous leader proceeded 
not to sack, but to purify the city. 
Heathen families were turned out of their 
houses, that household gods might be 
sought for and destroyed; idols were 
overturned, and the city subjected to 
a general purging. The pagan Syrians 
were dispossessed, and their places taken 
by those “ who would keep the law.” 

Of course the Syrians did not take 
this spoliation tamely; yet feeling them¬ 
selves too weak and unsupported, they 
feared to resist the conqueror. But one of 
them, Pampras by name, did more than 
harbour resentful feelings. He endeav¬ 
oured to wreak his revenge on Simon in 



secret by the methods of magic. Just as 
witches in old time—and even to-day in 
remote regions—revenge themselves on 
enemies by maltreating an image of them, 
in the expectation that the injury will be 
transferred to the living person, so Pam- 
pras thought he would blast Simon by 
arranging that a curse against him should 
be built into the very walls of his house. 
He managed to get access to one of the 
building stones, scratched his imprecation, 
and departed satisfied (fig. 44). The stone 
was duly built into the wall, and it was 
this stone that I held in my hand. The 
inscription ran:— 

(Says) Pampras : may fire pursue Simon’s palace ! 

Here we have the first contemporary 
reference to any of the Maccabees, and 
the missing proof that the building was 



actually the castle that Simon built and 
John his son inhabited (fig. 46). 

When the Syrians recaptured Gezer, 
they probably razed the fortress of their 
arch-enemy. Certainly it was found 
plundered and ruined to the foundations. 
Over part of it was found built a very 
remarkable bath system, consisting of 
seven chambers containing basins, a fur¬ 
nace for heating water, and also rooms 
set apart for plunge and even douche 
baths. The floors were all paved with 
cement, and a drain was provided for 
carrying the waste water away (fig. 47). 

This later Syrian occupation, however, 
did not last long. By the time of Christ, 
about a hundred years later, the site of 
the ancient city of Gezer was finally 
ruined and deserted. 



K. 4 

. m 




Kgl s » 

Bv . 



T N the very last week of the excavation, 
when the permit was on the point of 
expiry, a few graves of a very remarkable 
cemetery were discovered. The stature 
of the bodies in the tombs was unusual 
for Palestine, where men of great height 
are exceptional: in one case the stature 
would have been anywhere remarkable. 
We seemed almost on the point of coming 
into contact with the Philistine giants 
whom David’s men slew at Gezer. 1 But 
the Government permit expired, and we 
were regretfully compelled to leave this 
suggestive field of work unexamined. 

1 1 Chron. xx. 4. 


Palestine exploration is as yet in 
its infancy. The labours of Robinson, 
Tobler, Wilson, Conder, Clermont-Gan- 
neau, Schumacher—to name but a few— 
have given us a topographical foundation 
on which to work; but we are only 
beginning to learn what surprises await 
us under the surface. It is true that till 
now there has been but one “ Moabite 
Stone ” ; but assuredly there are others 
awaiting the spade of the excavator. 

In one sense, however, it is to be 
feared that the end of Palestine Explora¬ 
tion is in sight. Those great foes to 
science, the wealthy collector and the 
curio-hunting tourist, after doing irrepar¬ 
able injury to Egypt by raising a brood 
of unscrupulous dealers and marauding 
natives, have in recent years turned their 
attention to Palestine, and already the 


damage done to ancient tombs and other 
remains in the country is incalculable. 

Every day pages are being torn from 
the book of history which is written in the 
ancient remains of the country—pages 
whose contents we shall never know, and 
which so long as the world lasts will never 
be replaced. The work of exploration 
and recording must be done now. Even 
while the reader peruses these words, 
some ignorant native may be breaking 
into a tomb, in search of saleable gold and 
glass, and so disfiguring an inscription 
that would settle some vexed Biblical 
problem. Wanting this inscription the 
problem may remain unsolved to the end 
of time. 

As soon as a new permit can be obtained 
from the Imperial Ottoman Government, 
it is hoped that the work of excavation 



in Palestine will be resumed. Surely the 
Palestine Exploration Fund should not 
plead in vain for support in aid of its 
efforts to preserve some record of these 
precious, fast-perishing relics—relics of a 
past that appeals to all who value the 
Bible as a volume of literature, as the 
record of a history, or as the Word of 





1865. On 22 June, 1865, a public 
meeting was held in Willis’s Rooms, 
London, under the presidency of the 
Archbishop of York, at which it was re¬ 
solved to constitute a Society to be called 
“ The Palestine Exploration Fund ” for 
the scientific investigation of the Holy 
Land. The chairman, in his opening 
address, indicated that there were three 
guiding principles which were essential 
to the success of the project. These 

(1) That the work undertaken must be con¬ 
ducted on strictly scientific principles; 



(2) That the Society should as a body abstain 

from controversy; 

(3) That the Society was not to be a specifically 

religious Society. 

In other words, that every possible 
precaution should be taken to ensure the 
accuracy of the recorded observations in 
every department of the Society’s work; 
that the Society as a body should take 
no responsibility for the deductions and 
arguments of individual contributors; and 
that it should take no part in religious 
controversies. These principles have been 
carefully observed by the Fund in all its 

The leading spirit in the foundation 
of the new Society was Mr (afterwards 
Sir George) Grove, the versatile and in¬ 
defatigable contributor to Smith’s Bible 



Dictionary , and editor of the great Diction¬ 
ary of Music and Musicians. 

1865-6. No time was lost in sending 
out an exploring expedition, which left 
for Palestine in the end of the year of the 
Society’s foundation. The leader was 
Captain (afterwards Sir Charles) Wilson, 
whose recent death all interested in the 
purposes of the Palestine Exploration 
Fund must deplore. Captain Wilson had 
already (1864) distinguished himself in 
Palestinian research by his detailed study 
of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and 
by his great survey map of Jerusalem, 
prepared at the time when the Baroness 
Burdett-Coutts had proposed a scheme 
for bringing water to the Holy City. In 
this first expedition of the Society a 
considerable amount of preliminary work 
was done: including the preparation of 



the first authoritative sections of the 
surface of the country; a reconnaissance 
of its central region; the investigation of 
the synagogues at Tell Hum (Capernaum) 
and other places in Galilee; the settlement 
of some geographical questions previously 
unsolved or disputed; the measurement 
and delineation of a large number of 
churches, castles, mosques, etc.; and cer¬ 
tain excavations at Damascus, Shechem, 
and Jerusalem. 

1867. In the following year it was 
resolved, as the centre of interest in 
Palestine is, naturally, Jerusalem, to de¬ 
spatch a party to determine all that could 
be discovered touching the vexed ques¬ 
tions of Jerusalem topography. This 
expedition was under the direction of 
Lieutenant (now Sir Charles) Warren. 
It occupied three years, from 1867 to 


1870. If Warren’s expedition did not 
accomplish all that was expected of it— 
for the controversies which it was hoped 
once for all to settle are still acute—it 
nevertheless revolutionized most of the 
theories that till then were held respect¬ 
ing the ancient topography of the city. 
Warren’s work formed the foundation on 
which all who devote themselves to the 
inexhaustible subject of Jerusalem must 
base their own investigations. 

During these years was found the 
Moabite Stone, one of the greatest arch¬ 
aeological discoveries ever made in any 
country; the stone tablet from Herod’s 
temple, with a Greek inscription warning 
Gentiles against entering the sacred en¬ 
closure, was also discovered. 

1870-1. These years were distinguished 
by the adventurous journey made across 


the Desert of the Exodus by two dis¬ 
tinguished Arabic scholars, Professor Pal¬ 
mer, afterwards murdered in the Sinaitic 
Peninsula, and Mr Tyrwhitt Drake, who 
died in 1874 at the early age of twenty- 
eight from the malaria of the Jericho 
valley, where he was at the time engaged 
in the service of the Society. In this 
journey, which the travellers accomplished 
alone and disguised as natives, a con¬ 
siderable number of the stations referred 
to in the history of the wanderings of 
the Israelites were located, and other 
important discoveries and observations 
were made. 

A word must here be given to the 
labours of M. Clermont- Ganneau, now 
Professor of the Institut de France, who 
at that time was in Jerusalem in the 
French Diplomatic Service, and who did 



much valuable work on behalf of the 
Palestine Exploration Fund in the early 
seventies. The results of this work have 
been collected by the Society into two 
handsome volumes, so that it is un¬ 
necessary to allude to them here at length ; 
we must not, however, omit to notice his 
identification of the site of Gezer, with 
the recent excavation of which the present 
book is more directly concerned. 

1872-80. In 1872 the magnum opus , 
to which all the preceding work was to a 
certain extent preliminary, was seriously 
begun. This was a detailed ordnance 
map of the whole country. It occupied 
the full attention of the Fund for many 
years. The survey party was first com¬ 
manded by Captain Stewart and Mr 
Tyrwhitt Drake; but the former was 
invalided almost at the beginning, and 




the latter died, as already mentioned, 
in 1874. Their places were taken by 
Colonel’Conder, whose name is a household 
word among all interested in Biblical 
researches; and Lieutenant Kitchener, now 
Lord Kitchener of Khartoum. The work 
was temporarily interrupted by a murder¬ 
ous attack made on the party by the 
natives of Safed in June, 1875; but it 
was shortly afterwards resumed, and the 
map was completed in 1880, eight years 
after its commencement. In the following 
years seven large quarto volumes were 
published, containing all the archaeo¬ 
logical, zoological, and other observations 
made during the survey. We cannot here 
pause to analyse or describe the scope of 
the work; it will be sufficient to quote 
the words of Sir Walter Besant, the 
late secretary of the Fund: “ Nothing 



“ has ever been done for the illustration 
“ and right understanding of the his- 
“ torical portions of the Old and New 
“Testaments, since the translation into 
“ the vulgar tongue, which may be com- 
“ pared with this great work.” 

1881 . In 1881 the companion survey 
of Eastern Palestine was commenced by 
Colonel Conder. The political conditions, 
however, were at the time unfavourable 
to such work in that region, and it was 
soon found necessary to abandon the 
undertaking, the results of which, so far 
as they had gone, were published in 1883. 
Some important identifications, including 
that of Kadesh, were made during the 
few weeks in which Colonel Conder was 
allowed to work in the country east of 

1883 - 4 . Though, as is perhaps natural, 



topography and archaeology have been 
the principal fields in which the Society 
has worked, it has never been forgetful 
that there are other equally important 
fields which come within its scope. One 
of these branches of investigation is the 
geology of the country, and with this in 
view a party, under the leadership of 
Professor Hull, was sent out in 1883. 
The complex geology of the district be¬ 
tween the Dead Sea and the Gulf of 
Akabah was for the first time system¬ 
atically worked out by this expedition. 

1885 - 90 . For the five years from 
1885 to 1890 the Society continued to 
publish in the Quarterly Statement regular 
reports and investigations, contributed 
by residents in Palestine and others, 
though no formal expedition was under¬ 
taken. Among the contributors may be 



mentioned Dr Schumacher, well known 
for his detailed surveys of different dis¬ 
tricts in Palestine ; Canon Tristram, the 
late eminent naturalist; Dr Merrill, United 
States Consul at Jerusalem, and leader 
of an American survey expedition, which 
independently did good work east of the 
Jordan; and Dr Conrad Schick, who 
for over fifty years resided in Jerusalem, 
and made a close study of all its many 

Among the discoveries of these years 
may be mentioned that of a reservoir, by 
many identified with the Pool of Beth- 
esda, and the famous “ Alexander ” sar¬ 
cophagus at Sidon. 

1890-92. Hitherto the work of the 
Palestine Exploration Fund had mainly 
consisted of surface observations, accom¬ 
panied here and there by comparatively 



insignificant excavations. 1 The year 1890 
marks an era in the history of its work. 
In this year for the first time it obtained 
an Imperial firman for excavating one 
of the four or five hundred tells , or 
mounds of rubbish, in which the cities of 
the Israelites and of the other ancient 
races of Palestine lie concealed. The 
selection fell on Tell el-Hesy, the Biblical 
Lachish ; and the director chosen was Dr 
Flinders Petrie, the eminent excavator of 
Egypt. Dr Petrie held the firman for a 
few weeks only, during which time he 
determined the main details of the strati¬ 
fication of the mound, and laid down the 
principles on which objects found in 
Palestinian mounds may be dated. He 
was succeeded in the work by Dr Fred- 

1 Excepting, of course, Warren’s work at Jeru¬ 



erick Bliss, who till 1901 was the repre¬ 
sentative of the Society. 

The excavation of the site of Lachish 
first revealed what a wealth of material was 
awaiting the spade of the digger in the 
mounds of Palestine. Beside the un¬ 
earthing of many individual objects of 
interest—chief among which was the 
famous cuneiform tablet, the first to be 
found in Palestinian soil—the main lines 
were determined on which the investiga¬ 
tion of an ancient Palestinian city must be 
carried out. 

1894-97. After the completion of 
the work at Lachish the Society again 
turned its attention to Jerusalem, and 
Dr Bliss, with the assistance of Mr Archi¬ 
bald Dickie as architect and draughtsman, 
worked there for three years. The work 
was not so richly supported as Warren’s 



work had been, in the early years of 
enthusiasm; but still a large amount of 
systematic research was carried on, and 
many important discoveries were made, 
chief among which was the course of 
Nehemiah’s wall, and the church built by 
the Empress Eudocia over the Pool of 

1898 - 1900 . In 1898 Dr Bliss, assisted 
by the present writer (who succeeded 
Mr Dickie as architect), commenced an 
important series of excavations in the 
Hill Country of Judaea. Four mounds 
were partially excavated, including the 
probable sites of Azekah, Gath, and 
Mareshah (the city of the prophet Micah). 
An immense amount of material was 
unearthed; among the most important 
was the first Canaanite High Place ever 
found, and an inscription of Arsinoe. 



1902 - 5 . In 1901 Dr Bliss resigned 
his connexion with the Fund. In 1902, 
after the completion of the memoir on the 
previous season’s excavation, the examina¬ 
tion of Gezer, identified some thirty years 
before by M. Clermont-Ganneau, was 
commenced under the author’s direction. 
It is unnecessary here to describe this 
work, as some of its principal results are 
detailed in the preceding pages. 

During this period of activity, the work 
of the Society had continued to profit 
by the labours of investigators other than 
its official representatives. The Quarterly 
Statement of these years contains a most 
valuable series of papers and descriptions 
of new discoveries. We may mention, as 
a small selection from this mass of mate¬ 
rial, the brilliant articles on archaeological 
subjects by M. Clermont - Ganneau ; Dr 


Masterman’s researches and observations 
on the level of the Dead Sea ; Mr Balden- 
sperger’s accounts of the daily life of the 
modern inhabitants ; Mr Hanauer’s col¬ 
lections of folklore ; the late Dr Glaisher’s 
papers on meteorology; the description 
of the wonderful painted tombs at Beit 
Jibrin, found by Drs Thiersch and 
Peters; and Miss Gladys Dickson’s re¬ 
markable discovery of the tomb of Nicanor 
of Alexandria, an eminent benefactor to 
Herod’s temple. 

In an appendix to this book will be 
found a classified list of all the publications 
issued directly by the Palestine Explora¬ 
tion Fund, or under its auspices ; so that 
the reader who may wish to learn further 
details concerning the results of any of 
the researches that have been briefly 
summarized in this chapter will know 


where to find the information he is 
seeking. In the present work we have 
confined ourselves to one task only—the 
recent exploration of Gezer—and have 
considered it entirely from the point of 
view of the Bible reader. Even from this 
standpoint much that might be said 
has, from considerations of space, been 
omitted. For the present we have passed 
over in silence all the lessons the mound 
has to teach regarding the general history 
of civilization, art and religion. 

A S a pendant to the foregoing brief account 
of the activities of the Palestine Ex¬ 
ploration Fund, we subjoin a classified and 
priced catalogue of the works that have been pub¬ 
lished directly by itself or under its auspices, in 
which the results of the researches of its officers, 


supporters and contributors, are set forth in 

I. History of the Society and Record 
of its Work and Progress. 

The Quarterly Statement. Issued 
quarterly to subscribers from 
April, 1869. (2s. 6d. each part). 

Index to the Quarterly Statement, 1869- 
92. (2s.). 

Besant, Sir Walter, Thirty Years' 
Work. (3s. 6d.). 

Our Work in Palestine. (Out of 

The City and the Land ; Seven Lec¬ 
tures on the Work of the 
P.E.F. (3s. 6d.). 

Harper, The Bible and Modern Dis¬ 
coveries. (7s. 6d.). 

II. Wilson’s Expedition. 

Published in letters issued to sub¬ 
scribers. (Out of print). 

III. Warren’s Expedition to Jerusalem. 

Warren, Underground Jerusalem. (Out 
of print). 

- The Recovery of Jerusalem. (Out 

. of print). 

Jerusalem volume in the Survey Me¬ 
moirs. (Out of print). 



IV. Palmer and Drake’s Exploration. 

See The Quarterly Statement for 1872. 

Palmer, Desert of the Exodus. 

V. Ganneau’s Researches. 

Clermont-Ganneau, Archaeological 
Researches in Palestine. (2 vols. 
£5 5s.). 

VI. The Survey of Western Palestine. 

Map of Western Palestine, 1 inch to 
the mile. (26 sheets and port¬ 
folio, £3 3s.; single sheets, 2s.). 

For smaller Maps founded on the 
Survey see the official list issued 
by the Society. 

Relief Map, § inch to the mile. 
(£13 13s.). 

Smaller Relief Map, 6| miles to the 
inch. (£6 6s.). 

Memoirs of the Survey of Western 
Palestine. (3 vols. 4to. Out of 

Name Lists in Memoirs of the Survey 
of Western Palestine. (1 vol. 4to. 

Out of print). 

Special Papers in Memoirs of the Sur¬ 
vey of Western Palestine. (1 vol. 
4to. (Out of print). 



Jerusalem in Memoirs of the Survey of 
Western Palestine. (1 vol. 4to. 
Out of print). 

Tristram, Flora and Fauna of Pales¬ 
tine. (£3 3s.). 

Conder, Tent Work in Palestine. (6s.). 

Armstrong, Names and Places in 
the Old and New Testaments, and 
their Modern Identification. (6s.). 

VII. The Survey of Eastern Palestine. 

Conder, The Survey of Eastern Pales¬ 
tine. (£3 3s.). 

- Heth and Moab. (6s.). 

VIII. The Geological Survey. 

Hart, Fauna and Flora of Sinai. 
(£2 2s.). 

Hull, The Geology of Palestine. (£1 Is.). 

- Mount Seir. (Out of print). 

IX. The Tell-el-Hesy Excavation. 

Petrie, Lachish. (Out of print). 

Bliss, A Mound of many Cities. (6s.). 

X. Dr Bliss’ Excavations at Jerusalem 

and in Judaea. 

Bliss and Dickie, Excavations at Jeru¬ 
salem. (12s. 6d.). 

Bliss and Macalister, Excavations in 
Palestine. (£2 10s.). 



XI. Dr Schumacher’s Surveys. 

Schumacher, Across the Jordan. (Out 
of print). 

- The Jaulan (6s.). 

- Abila, Pella, and Northern Ajlun. 


XII. Miscellaneous Works on Palestinian 
History and Antiquities. 

Conder, The Tell A mama Tablets. 

- Syrian Stone Lore. (6s.). 

Warren, The Ancient Cubit. (5s. 6d.). 

Conder, Judas Maccabaeus. (4s. 6d.). 

Besant and Palmer. The City of 
Herod and Saladin. (7s. 6d.). 

Conder, The Latin Kingdom of Jeru¬ 
salem, 1099-1291 a.d. (7s. 6d.). 

Beha ed-Din, The Life of Saladin. (9s.). 

The Library of the Palestine Pilgrims’ 
Text Society. (13 vols. £10 10s.). 

Le Strange, Palestine under the Mos¬ 
lems. (16s.). 

Thiersch and Peters, Painted Tombs 
at Marissa. (£2 2s.). 

The Office and Museum of the Palestine 
Exploration Fund are at 38, Conduit Street, 
London, W. 



Ablution, Ceremonial, 66 
Abd-Khiba, 29 
Accumulation of Debris, 
10 , 11 

Achan, 49, 121 
Ahaz, 75, 111, 159 
Alkios, 23 

Altar, 55 ; at Taanach, 55 ; 

Votive, from Gezer, 176 
Altar-hearths, 61 
Amaziah, 159 
Amulets, 104 
Anointing of stones, 72 
Antiochus IV, 176 
Arabs, 27, 37 
Asherah, 64 

Assyrian Occupation of 
Gezer, 35 

Astrate, Worship of, 77 ; 

two-homed, 77 
Azekah, 216 

Bacchides, 36, 144, 178; 

bastion of, 144 
Baths, Syrian, 196 
Besant, Sir Walter, 210 
Beth-El, 113 

Bethlehem, 160 
Bithiah, daughter of 
Pharaoh, 156 
Bliss, Dr. Frederick, 215 
Boundary Inscriptions of 
Gezer, 23 

Brazen Serpent, 76 
Bread, 102 

Calf, Golden, 109-117 ; 
Origin of Worship, 112 ; 
Shrines of, erected by 
Jeroboam, 113 
Camel Food, 93 
Canaanites, 27 ; Condition 
of society among, 11 
Capture of Gezer by 
Thothmes III, 28; by 
Solomon’s father-in-law, 
32, 144; by Simon 

Maccabaeus, 180; by 
the Syrians, 181, 196 
Cave-dwellers, 25, 41-50 ; 
their physical characters, 
43; their habitations, 
43 ; furniture, 44 ; pot¬ 
tery, 45 ; flint knives, 

225 15 



45 ; religion, 46 ; sacri¬ 
fices, 47 ; disposal of the 
dead, 48 

Children, sacrifice of, 73, 

Cisterns, 84 

Clermont-Ganneau, Prof. 

Charles, 18,19,21, 22, 208 
Conception of Deity among 
the Israelites, 114 
Conder, Col., 210 
Contract tablets from 
Gezer, 33 

Contrasts between Euro¬ 
pean and Palestinian 
Cities, 15 ; between 

ancient and modern 
Palestine, 86, 97 
Copyists, Errors of, 151; 
materials for their cor¬ 
rection, 152 
Corn-grinders, 102 
Cow-figures from Gezer, 

Cremation, 48 
Crusaders, 37, 184 

Dan, 113 
David, 31 

Destruction of Antiquities 
in Palestine, 198 
Dowry of Wives, 34 
Drake, Mr. Tyrwhitt, 208, 

Eastern Palestine, survey 
of, 211 

Egypt, influence of, 27; 
the bull divinity of, not 
identical with the golden 
calf, 116 

En-Dor, witch of, 69 
Ephraimites, 31 
Evil Eye, 104 
Excavation, methods of, 
8, 181 ; of Megiddo, 168, 
170; of Taanaeh (see 
Taanach); of Lachish, 
214 ; at Jerusalem, 206, 
215; in Judaea, 216; of 
Gezer, 217 

First-born, devotion of, 74 
Foundation sacrifices, 166; 
in Palestine, 168 

Gath, excavation of, 216 
Genealogies in 1 Chron., 

Geological Survey work in 
Palestine, 212 
Gezer, position of, 7 ; cap- 
tines of (see Capture) ; 
High Place at, 54 ; ex¬ 
cavation of, 217 
Golden Calf (see Calf) 
Granaries, 93 
Grove (see Asherah) 

Grove, Sir George, 204 



Herod’s temple, inscrip¬ 
tion of, 207 
Hezekiah, 159 
Hiel, 165 

High Place, at Gezer, 54 ; 
sacred cave in, 67 ; wor¬ 
ship in, described by- 
Isaiah, 71 

Holy Sepulchre, Church 
of, 58, 69 

Horites, 41-50; con¬ 
trasted with Rephaim, 

Household gods, 13, 98, 

Houses, Palestinian, 95 
Hurwasi, 34 

Hushai, his advice to 
Absalom, 61 

Identification of site of 
Gezer, 18, 209 
Implements, bronze, 103 
Isaac, sacrifice of, 62, 74 
Israelites, 27 ; their con¬ 
ception of Deity, 114 

Jachin and Boaz, 64 
Jacob, 63, 72 
Jarhandles, inscriptions 
on, 162-5, 160 
Jericho, 165 
Jeroboam, 112 
Jerusalem, excavations at 
(see Excavations) 

Joash, 158 
Joshua, 24, 30 
Josiah, 75 
Jotham, 169 

Judaism, Pagan influences 
upon, 176 

Judasa, excavations in 
(see Excavations) 

Karnak, inscription at, 28 
Kissing of stones and 
images, 58 
Kitchener, Lord, 210 

Laban, 84, 94, 98, 104 
Laehish, 30 (see also 

Laver, 66 

Maccabees, Revolt of, 177 
(see also Simon Mac- 

Magic, sympathetic, 195 
Manasseh, 36, 75 
Mareshah, excavation of, 

Meat, preparation of, 101 
Megiddo (see Excavation) 
Memshath, 158 
Meren-Ptah, state of, 30 
Mesha, King of Moab, 60, 

Methods of excavation 
(see Excavation) 



Moabite stone, 60, 207 Pillars, 57 ; meaning of 
Molech, 75 63; erection of, for¬ 

bidden, 64 

Nethaniah, 35 Position of Gezer, 7 

Numbers, Sacred, 63 Pottery, 100 

Presents given to Rebekah, 

Objection to work of 
Palestine Exploration 
Fund answered, 1 Querns, 103 

Oracles, 68, 69 

Ornaments, 104 Raid of Simeonites, 159 

Ovens, baking, 102 Rebekah, 83-106 

Refuse of sacrifices, re- 
Pahath-Moab, 160 eeptacle for, 71 

Palace of Simon Macca- Rephaim, 43 
baeus, 36, 181 Romans, 37 

Palestine Exploration 
Fund, objection to work Sacred numbers, 63 
of, answered, 1 ; museum Sacrifice among cave- 
of, 123 ; Quarterly State- dwellers, 47 ; of swine, 

merit, 2, 152, 155, 188 ; 48 ; of Isaac, 62, 74 ; of 

history of, 203-219; children (see Children); 

foundation of, 203 ; con- refuse of, 71; foundation, 

stitution of, 203 ; pub- 166 ; human, symbolie- 

lications of, 219-223 ; ally represented, 171 

office of, 223 Samson, 127-138 

Palmer, Professor, 208 Saul, 49, 69 
Pampras, imprecation of. Sawing asunder, 76 
194 Seals, 104 

Petrie, Professor Flinders, Seir, 41 

67, 214 Semitic immigrants, 27 

Philistines, 31, 128; Sepulchre (see Holy 

triumph song of, 128 ; Sepulchre) 
temple of, its structure, Serpent, brazen, 76 
129 ; tombs of, 197 Shebaniah, 158 



Simeonites, raid of, 159 

Simon Maccabaeus, 33, 36, 
179 (see also Capture, 

Smith, Professor G. A., 
53, 77, 116 

Solomon, 32, 111, 143 

Stewart, Captain, 209 

Stones, standing (see 

Superstitions, 104,105,195 

Survey of Western Pales¬ 
tine, 209; of Eastern 
Palestine, 211 ; Geolog¬ 
ical, 212 

Swine, sacrifice of, 48 

Symbolical representation 
of human sacrifices, 171 

Syrians, capture of Gezer 
by (see Capture) 

Taanach, ruin of a house 
at, 13, 105 ; altar found 
at, 55 

Tablets, contract, from 
Ge^er, .33 

Tell el-Amama letters, 11, 
28, 60 

Tell el-Hesy (see Lachish) 

Tell el-Jezar, 19, 24 (see 
also Gezer) 

Thothmes III, 25, 28 
Tombs, Philistine, 197 
Tongue of gold, 122 
Towers, 143 

Trophy, pillar stone set up 
as, 60 
Troughs, 91 

Uzziah, 159 

Walls, city, 141-145 
Warren, General Sir 
Charles, 206 

Water, methods of draw¬ 
ing and carrying, 88 
Wedge of gold, 122 
Wells, 85 

Western Palestine, survey 
of, 209 

Wilson, General Sir 
Charles, 205 
Witch of En-Dor, 69 
Women, separation of, 97 
Writing, 33, 101 

Yapakhi, King of Gezer, 29 



Gen. xiv. 6 



. 41 

Lev. xi. 7 . 

. 48 

xv. 16 

. 53 

xviii. 21 . 

. 75 

xxii. 1 

. 74 

xx. 2 

. 75 

2 . 

. 62 

Deut. i. 28 . 

. 141 

xxiv. 16 j 


ii. 12 . . 

41, 43 

24 . 


22 . . 

. 41 

28 . 


xvi. 22 . 

. 64 

47 . 



xxviii. 54, 66 

. 104 

57 . 


Joshua vi. 26 . 

. 168 

xxviii. 18 


vii. 21. 

. 121 



25. . 

. 49 

xxix. 3 . 


x. 33 . . 

. 31 

xxx. 14 . 


xvi. 3 . . 

. 31 

xxxi. 15 . 


10. . 

. 31 

19 . 


xxi. 21. 

. 31 

xxxv. 4 . 


Judges i. 29 

. 31 



v. 19 . . 

. 13 

xxxvi. 20 


vi. 25, 28 . 

- 65 

Exod. xiii. 13 . 


xvi. 24 

. 128 

xx. 18, 19 


26 . 

. 129 

24 . 


29 . 

. 137 

xxiii. 24 



. 127 

xxiv. 14 


1 Sam. vii. 3, 4 

. 77 

xxix. 12 


xxviii. 7-25 

. 69 

xxx. 18-21 


xxxi. 12 . 

. 49 

xxxii. 4 


2 Sam. xvii. 13, 14 

. 62 




1 Kings vi. 16 . 69 

vii. 2 . . . 137 

21 . . 64 

ix. 16 . 32, 143 

xi. 33 . . 77 

xii. 25-33 . 113 

xiii. 1 . . 115 

xvi. 34 . . 165 

xix. 18 . . 59 

xxii. 22 . .70 

2 Kings iii. 27 . 74 

xii. 4-16 . . 158 

xvi. 3 . 75 

xvii. 10 . .65 

24 . . 110 

xviii. 4 . . 76 

xxi. 6 . 75 

xxiii. 10 . .75 

1 Chron. ii. 52, 54 .158 

iv. 14-23 . 149, 

152, 158, 160 
39 . . 159 

xi. 18 . . 47 

xiv. 16 . .32 

xx. 3 . . 76 

4 . 31, 197 

2 Chron. xxvi. 10 . 


. 159 

xxviii. 23 

. 159 

mcnriii. 11 

. 36 

Ezra ii. 6 . 

. 160 

viii. 4 

. 160 

x. 30 . . . 

. 160 

Neh. iii. 11 . . 

. 160 

vii. 11 

. 160 

x. 14 . 

. 160 

Isa. viii. 19 

. 70 

lvii. 5 . 

. 71 

lxv. 4 . 

. 48 

lxvi. 3 

. 48 

Jer. vii. 18 

. 48 

xliv. 17 

. 48 

Hosea iii. 4 

. 64 

x. 1-6 . 

. 115 

xiii. 2 . 

. 115 

Amos vi. 10 

. 49 

Micah vi. 7 

. 75 

1 Mac. ix. 52 . 

. 144 

xiii. 43—48 

. 175 

Matt. v. 14 . ■ 

. 11 

Heb. ix. 10 . . 

. 67 

xi. 37 . . 

. 76 

lutisr Tattntr The Sthuood Printing Worts Froml and London