Robert Deutsch has been kind enough to inform me that he is about to publish a bulla on which there is a sealing with a design and an alphabetic inscription LMLK GT (of/to the king of Gath)!
This bulla will be published in his forthcoming volume: R. Deutsch, 2010. Biblical Period Hebrew Seals, Bullae and Handles. The Josef Chaim Kaufman Collection (Second Vol.). Tel Aviv. no. 516.
Robert has been kind enough to provide a picture and drawing of the bulla.
If this bulla is authentic, it is of interest, since it would be one of the few bulla/seals which have a combination of LMLK with another toponym besides the well known MMST, HBRN, ZYF, SWKH of the Iron IIB Judahite kingdom. In addition, if it is authentic, and derives from Gath (Tell es-Safi?) then it is the first clear inscription deriving from Gath mentioning a king of Gath during the Iron Age.
The problem is – it is from a collection. So, we do not know where it is from, whether it is from an actual site, and whether, it is even a modern fabrication!
In addition, the motifs on the bulla seem to be very much like the 8th/7th cent. motifs known from other Palestinian glyptic of the Iron II. If Gath is destroyed in the late 9th cent. BCE by the Arameans and subsquently abandoned for a few decades, only to be taken over and settled by the Judahite kingdom in the late 8th cent. BCE, I don’t see how there could be a king of Gath at that time.
But on the other hand – who knows! And personally, I would be very happy to find a cache of such bullae in our excavations! But, as I wrote to someone the other day – I’d prefer a monumental royal inscription – whether by Hazael, one of the Gittite kings, or anyone else…
Aren
Well, even if it is authentic, let’s remember that LMLK HBRN does not the “of the king of Hebron” but rather refers to something in/from Hebron that “belongs” to the king (i.e. to the royal administration). So would LMLK GT. A seal belonging to an actual king of Gath would have his name on it.
Besides, WAS there a king of Gath in the (post-Hazael) 8th century. Wasn’t Gath eventually taken over by Judah?
So… strange.
Yigal,
By “of” I meant belonging to, although one does have to take into account the less likely possibility (if just to mention at least) that it means “to the king”.
Aren
Would that be Deuteronomy of Gath?
Helena,
I’m not sure I understand your question.
Aren
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. As I suggested in my 2004 book, I prefer to read the LMLK seals as literal words rather than toponymns (e.g., “Alliance of the King”) for a slew of reasons discussed therein. I remain open to all interpretations.
Were I to apply the same interpretation to this bulla, it would read, “Winepress of the King”.
However, in this case, I prefer a minor variation of Yigal’s suggestion, “[From the town of] Gath to the King [of Judah]“.
Here’s a link to some other LMLK bulla, where “LMLK” ususally appears at the bottom of the seal.
George,
Even if this did mean “winepress of the king” (which I tend not to accept – since I believe that the 4 common names are toponyms), the fact that this is the only one of this kind makes it hard to accept that there is a type of official Judahite stamp associated with a royal winepress/olive press that is only recorded in this example (that is, if this is not a modern fabrication…).
Aren
Pingback: LMLK Gath Bulla? « Biblical Paths
Has it been submitted for petrographic analysis? This might allow us to know if the ancient (or modern) makers of the bulla used clay from Tell es-Safi.
Yitzhak,
Hi! The bullae is from a private collection to which I have no access, so I can’t conduct petrography. As is, I have barely the funds to cover the excavation expenses – I’m not going to study something whose original is unclear. Also, petrography may not answer if it is ancient or modern. One can create nowadays a very similar ceramic matrix – that will be similar to those used in the past. Perhaps, if it is baked, Thermoluminescence might be able to differentiate between modern and ancient.
Aren
Aren,
Indeed, petrographic (or more precisely: optical mineralogy or OM) examinations by their own cannot examine authenticity. On the other hand, after detailed examination of almost 300 provenanced Judahite bullae from recorded excavations (most of which from Jerusalem) by OM and other scientific methods, we can easily show that Judahite scribes were producing their bullae according to some very strict epistemological rules, dictating a very consistent technology. These rules were completely misunderstood by scholars who discussed in the past the issue of bullae production, be it Avigad, Deutsch, or Brandl. For example, the scribes were very consistent in selecting their clay type for making the bullae, a fact that led (together with five other faults of this kind) to the exposure of the two bullae of “Berachyahu son of Neriyahu the scribe” as modern forgeries (an article about them and their funny faults is underway). On the other hand, the same criteria can help us now in proving that at least some of the bullae of “Hezkiyahu Akhaz King of Judah” are in complete agreement with this stiff standard technology of the Judahite scribes, hence they can be taken as being authentic. Yet the sad part in your reply is the approach, which some of our colleagues have led archaeologists to take, that a scientific study of archaeomaterials should be financed by the archaeologist concerned. In fact, archaeological scientists should initialize their own researches and raise their own budgets, and not act as service givers to others. Having that said, I think that the bulla in question should be examined. It is too important to be ignored.
Yuval,
Good points – thanks!
Aren
Dear Drs. Maeir and Goren, Hi!!! Thermoluminescence is the only clear scientific method to use on burnt bullae to determine their authenticity. So, Dr. Maeir is correct. It is nice to see that Dr. Goren continues to state that he has authenticated bullae belonging to King Hezekiah which were purchased on the Israel antiquities market. Thus, confirming the authenticity of some of the bullae published by Dr. Robert Deutsch in his “Lasting Impressions” article in Biblical Archaeology Review. I am also very happy that he thinks that this bulla should be checked out. I too think that it and all of the thousand plus bullae published by Dr. Deutsch should be examined as well. What really makes no sense in Dr. Goren’s analysis of the clay of the bulla of Berekhyahu son of Neriyahu the scribe is the initial cost of this bulla number 9 which is found in the book- Hebrew Bullae From The Time Of Jeremiah by Dr. Nahman Avigad. The price of this bulla on the antiquities market in 1975 when they began to appear would have been less than ten dollars. So Dr. Goren would have the public believe that some antiquities dealer used microscopic engraving techniques and stamped bullae number 199 of King Hezekiah so poorly that Professor Avigad put it towards the end of his book and restored the NYHU letters that were remaining to Adoniyahu. Yet these antiquities dealers decided to make a microscopic seal of Berekhyahu the scribe and stamp it crystal clear. It just makes no financial sense whatsoever. If these dealers were really in it for the money, the bullae would have been made and sold with this in mind. Instead they were sold to Mr. Yoav Sasson and Dr. Reuben Hecht very cheaply, because no one back in 1975 had the experience of knowing how valuable and important these bullae were/are. Today bullae like these are still for sale on the Israel Antiquities market. If you type in bullae on the search line on eBay today, six apparently ancient and authentic bullae/bullae fragments come up for sale at a site that is licensed by the Israel Antiquities Authority. I believe that five of these bullae are for sale for about $160( one bulla fragment has the letters MSLM or Meshullam) and one apparently three lined bullae fragment is for sale for about $230. Just think what these bullae sold for in 1975, when they were mainly considered just little pieces of interesting clay. With Much Gratitude and Admiration, Michael
Pingback: Another mention of Gath – this time from the Persian period? « The Tell es-Safi/Gath Excavations Official (and Unofficial) Weblog
Pingback: Another bulla mentioning Gath? « The Tell es-Safi/Gath Excavations Official (and Unofficial) Weblog
Hello all. Allow me to explain why I think a “king of Gath” in the Iron II-B is not necessarily improbable.
In my model of the 8th century BCE history of Gath, I propose that early in that century the abandoned ruins of Iron IIA Philistine Gath were struck by the earthquake mentioned in Amos 1, causing the decaying remnants of the ghost town to be even further destroyed.
Thereafter, sometime in the early-mid-8th, Judah takes control of Gath during the reign of Uzziah, as suggested in the biblical note that Uzziah broke down the wall of Gath. I suggest that this act was not so much a conquest of Gath (which was abandoned0 as much as it was a razing of the damaged city wall of Gath — perhaps a city wall that had been in use (with repairs) since MBII. After razing the decayed remains of that wall down to its foundation, Uzziah initiated a Judahite settlement at Gath (this would coincide with what I call Stratum F-8 in Area F at Tell es-Safi) – a phase of Gath’s history that we now feel comfortable refering to as “Judean Gath.”
Here is where things get interesting: It appears that Judean Gath very probably fell back into Philistine control for a period of time during the reign of King Ahaz, in the second half of the 8th BCE. The Bible mentions the Philistine successes in the Shfelah against Ahaz. If the Philistines regained control of Gath, it probably resulted in the Judeans living there becoming subject to Philistine governancel, which may have lasted about a decade or a little longer — Okay, here it comes — IT MAY BE HERE THAT ONE COULD PROPOSE A “KING OF GATH” IN AN IRON II-B SETTING AT TELL ES-SAFI.
During the reign of Judah’s subsequent king, Hezekiah, Judah was able to regain control of Gath. Just when this happened is unclear — perhaps it was around 715 BCE, just prior to the 712 BCE action of Sargon II against Gath (which I believe ended the Stratum F-8 phase at Safi), or perhaps Hezekiah only gained control of Gath after Sargon’s deportation of the F-8 town. In any event, the second phase of Judean Gath, known in Area F as Stratum F-7, thrived for a short time (perhaps only a decade, or even less) at the very end of the 8th BCE. We believe Stratum F-7 Judeah Gath was destroyed by Sennacherib’s action against Judah in 701 BCE.
Here’s where it gets interesting again — in the so-called Letter to Asshur God, Sennacherib claims that a Philistine royal city (which we suppose to be Gath) had been usurped by Hezekiah. If this is the correct reading of that inscription, then it appears that the Assyrians regarded Gath as the site of a Philistine “royal” in the period directly preceding Hezekiah’s establishment of Stratum F-7. THIS, TOO, WOULD LEND CREDENCE TO THE IDEA OF A SHORT-LIVED “KING OF GATH” IN THE IRON II-B CONTEXT.
So, having already formulated this model some time ago, it is with great interest that I see Aren has posted this bulla (NOTE: NOT A JUDEAN LMLK JAR HANDLE!) which mentions a “king of Gath” and which appears to be an Iron II-B product. Time will tell if the bulla is authentic, and if it is indeed to be connected to the Iron II-B settlements at Tell es-Safi. But I do not think it impossible to speak of a short-lived “king of Gath” during the 8th BCE, perhaps sometime between 730 and 715 BCE.
With royal greetings,
Achish Melek Gat
Very interesting, Achish Melek Gat! Only minor problem I see is that there are numerous other LMLK bullae similar to this one. Could there also have been Philistine (or Judean) kings in Altolad, Arab, Lachish, Maon, Nezib, Qeilah?
Jeff (aka AMG),
Very interesting observations. Now let’s see if this is true with finds Area F!!!
Aren
George,
Not being near as familiar with LMLK bullae as you, do any of the LMLK bullae from those towns feature a town name in addition to the LMLK inscription?
And Aren,
Of course we will do our best to comply! :)
AMG
AMG, yes, in every instance! Doesn’t mean they’re related to this “GT” specimen though, especially with this large icon. It will be interesting to see if Robert Deutsch offers any details when comparing this one to the others when his book is published. Surely the JCK collection will contain other LMLK bullae with other place-names.
Pingback: Theological History » ANE News – 06.25.10
Pingback: Will bulla | Janineandperry