This article was downloaded by: [134.117.10.200]On: 06 July 2014, At: 06:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of the OldTestament: An InternationalJournal of Nordic TheologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sold20

The Kingdom of Geshur in Historyand MemoryNadav Na'aman aa Department of Jewish History , Tel Aviv UniversityPublished online: 31 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Nadav Na'aman (2012) The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory,Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: An International Journal of Nordic Theology,26:1, 88-101, DOI: 10.1080/09018328.2012.704198

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

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

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

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

Vol. 26, No. 1, 88 101, 2012

© Taylor & Francis’ 2012 10.1080/09018328.2012.704198

The Kingdom of Geshur in History

and Memory

Nadav Na’aman Department of Jewish History, Tel Aviv University

Email: nnaaman@post.tau.ac.il

“Whoever declares others invalid … with his

own flaw he invalidates”

(Talmud Bavli, Qidushin, 70,1)

ABSTRACT: The article re-examines the biblical, extra-biblical and archaeo-

logical sources for the history of Geshur and the way it was memorialized in

biblical texts. It demonstrates that archaeological research is the key to estab-

lishing the location of the kingdom’s capital, its territory, population, econo-

my and commercial relations. The written sources complement and corrobo-

rate the archaeological data. Evidently―contrary to the conclusions reached

in a recently published article―we know quite a lot about this marginal

Aramean kingdom.

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

away from Jerusalem; and yet late Judahite scribes, who operated hundreds of

years after it disappeared from the political arena, still remembered that it was

a separate entity, on par with Maacah, and different from all other neighbour-

ing districts enumerated side by side with it. What was unclear to the scribes

is the geographical reality in the far north. Hence, their geographical depic-

tion of Geshur’s (and Maacah’s) location was inaccurate.

Key words: Geshur, Maacah, Israel,

In a recently published article, Juha Pakkala (2010) surveyed the written

sources that refer―or are assumed to refer―to the Aramean kingdom of

Geshur. He first discussed the biblical texts, then the extra-biblical sources,

and briefly surveyed the scholarly discussion of Geshur. His article aimed to

demonstrate how little we know of this kingdom, as is clearly expressed by

his conclusions (2010:172):

“We know basically nothing substantial about the area, the political unit, the

people or their culture. We do not even know whether there was a people who

called themselves Geshurites and, if so, whether they spoke a Semitic or some

other language …. We do not have more evidence about Geshur than that it

seems to be connected to an early monarchic period and to the approximate

–

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory 89

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

some point, but we do not know when and how, and we do not know what the

extent of this possible kingdom was.”1

Pakkala went so far as to compare the Geshurites to “groups of people,

like the Hivvites, Girgashites and Perizzites, whose identity and existence is

similarly debatable.” Significantly, the archaeological evidence is left out of

his discussion, probably because he assumed that it contributes little to our

understanding of the kingdom’s history.

In what follows, I will revisit the documentary sources―both biblical and

extra-biblical―and the archaeological evidence in an effort to show what we

really know about Geshur in the early First Millennium BCE. I will suggest

that Pakkala’s discussion of the sources is inadequate, his acquaintance with

the scientific literature is insufficient, and he neglected the most important

source available for the study of the Aramean kingdom.

Geshur in the Bible

Albright (1956: 12) suggested that Gether (LXX Γαθερ) listed in Gen 10,23

“reflects the original Aramaic pronunciation of the name that appears as

Gešūr in MT.” Other scholars supported the assumption that the two names

are variants of a single Old Aramaic place name (Lipiński 1993:202; 2000:

336; Halpern 1997:312 and n. 3; Hendel 2005:111). Lipiński (1993:202)

pointed out that the two toponyms were derived from the root *gṯr (“etre très

fort”), and hence the place name means “stronghold, fortress.” Hendel (2005:

111) concluded that “the etymology from *gṯr indicates that Gešūr represents

the orthography and phonology of the Old Aramaic period.” The analysis of

the name corroborates the commonly held opinion that Geshur was an early

first millennium Aramean kingdom (contra Pakkala 2010:156-159, 172-173).

When examining the references to the land of Geshur in the

Deuteronomistic (Dtr) literature, two different viewpoints of its place vis à

vis the Israelite territory may be observed. According to one, Geshur was lo-

cated outside the inherited Israelite territory of Og, the king of Bashan (Deut

3,13-14; Josh 12,4-5), and according to the other it was included in Og’s

kingdom, and thus “the Geshurite and Maacahthite still live among Israel to

this day" (Jos,13,11-13). The latter viewpoint is similar to that of other

“'remaining” cities that were included within the boundaries of the Promised

Land but not conquered and thus “remained” within the inheritance of the

named tribes (Josh 15,63; 16,10; 17,11-13; Judg 1,21.27-35). The kingdom of

Og was located within the Israelite tribal territories, and the non-conquered

lands of the Geshurites and Maacahthites “remained” within its confines. Ac-

cording to the other viewpoint (Deut 3,13-14; Josh 12,4-5), Geshur and

1. Hafpórsson (2006:235-236) reached similar conclusions: “We cannot be

certain when Geshur existed, in what form, and what contacts it had with

Aram-Damascus. In the case of Israel, there seem to have been contacts in the

time of David, a time presented in the Bible so entwined with narratives of

literary character that it is difficult to separate history from legend.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

Nadav Na'aman09

Maacah were located outside the boundaries of the conquered territories and

their border adjoins the boundary of the tribal inheritances.

Wüst (1975:39-44) analyzed in detail the three Dtr texts delineating the

scope of Og’s kingdom in similar ways.2 The district of Mount Hermon is the

northernmost among the enumerated territories and encompassed the areas of

the Golan and the Upper Jordan Valley. Evidently, the scribes who composed

the descriptions had only a vague notion of the reality in the north and treated

the area between Mount Hermon and Bashan as an extension of the mount.

Moreover, in the account of Josh 13,11-13, the district of Mount Hermon and

the territories of Geshur and Maacah were included within the confines of

Og’s kingdom, whereas Josh 12,4-5 excluded Geshur and Maacah from the

kingdom’s territory (see above). The inconsistency indicates once again how

unclear the configuration of these remote northern regions was for the Dtr

scribes who lived in far-away Jerusalem.3 Surprisingly, Pakkala (2010:156-

159) kept repeating the term “the Golan tradition" for the assumed sources of

the Dtr scribes. It goes without saying that no “Golan tradition” was available

for the scribes. Rather, they held a stock of territorial designations and com-

bined them in different manners in the texts they produced. Among these des-

ignations of northern regions were Geshur and Maacah, which, according to

the Dtr scribes, were located outside the borders of the northern Gilead and

Bashan (Deut 3,13-14) and close to the district of Hermon (Josh 12,5; 13,11).

The land of Geshur probably appears once again in 2 Sam 2,9. According

to the massoretic text, five districts are listed in the territory over which

Ishbaal son of Saul reigned: Gilead, ’šwry, Jezreel, Ephraim and Benjamin.

The overall territory is defined as “Israel in its entirety.” The inclusion of

Gilead, Ephraim and Benjamin in the district list is self-evident, whereas the

appearance of the ’šwry and Jezreel evokes serious problems. Since I already

discussed the text in detail elsewhere (Na’aman 1990) I will analyze it here

only briefly.

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

Geshurite.” On the basis of several Dtr geographical lists (Deut 3,14; Josh

12,5; 12,5), I suggest rendering the text of 2 Sam 2,9 as follows: wymlkhw ‛l

hg1‛d <‛d gb>wl? hgšwry w’1 yzr‘ ’l w‛l ’prym w‛l bnymn w‛l yśr’l klh; “and

he made him king over Gilead <up to the boun>dary? of the Geshurite and

(the border of) Jezreel, and over Ephraim and over Benjamin, that is, over

Israel in its entirety.” The reconstruction, admittedly uncertain, indicates that

the land of Geshur bordered the district of northern Gilead, in accord with

Josh 13,11. The presentation of Geshur on the border of Ishbaal’s kingdom

fits nicely the kingdom’s place in the story of David’s rise to power. While

reigning in Hebron and fighting Ishbaal, David has married Maacah, daughter

2. Wüst’s detailed discussion of the sources' history of tradition is beyond the

scope of this article.

3. For a detailed discussion of the meagre acquaintance of the Jerusalemite

scribes with the reality of remote regions, see Lissovsky-Na’aman 2004:302-

316, 320-321.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory 91

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

northern front.

The district list of Ishbaal’s kingdom is no less Dtr than the three other

texts discussed above. The four texts illustrate the way that scribes operating

in the late seventh-fifth centuries grasped the pre-monarchic and early mo-

narchic reality in the far north and the way they integrated the northern dis-

tricts in the compositions they produced.

Very little can be said of the historicity of the story of Absalom in Geshur

(2 Sam 13,37-38; 14,23.32; 15,8). The historical evaluation depends on the

date we assign to the so-called “succession History” in which the story is in-

cluded and the overall estimate of its potential for historical research (for de-

tailed discussion, see Ma‛oz 1992:996; Hess 2004:56-58; Dietrich 2007:210,

224; Pakkala 2010:156-157). Since my discussion is not dependent on the

historical authenticity of the story, I will avoid analyzing its authenticity in

detail.4 However, the reference to a king of Geshur in the context of the Unit-

ed Monarchy, namely, the tenth century, is significant and will be evaluated

below.

The Amarna Letters

In an article published in 1961, Benjamin Mazar discussed the scope of the

land of Gari mentioned in an Amarna letter and the identification of its vil-

lages (EA 256,22-28). After a detailed analysis of the location of the listed

toponyms, he concluded that “the land of Garu … was a large tract of territo-

ry in the Golan … stretching southward as far as the Yarmuk and identical

with the biblical Geshur” (Mazar 1961:18-21). This is the basis for his sug-

gested rendering of the land’s name Ga-ri as Ga-<šu>-ri, “Geshur.”

Mazar did not present evidence for his claim of an overlap in territory be-

tween Gari and Geshur. I already analyzed the biblical references of Geshur

and demonstrated that its place might generally be determined, but its territo-

rial scope cannot be established on the basis of the biblical data. Hence, the

territories of the lands of Gari and Geshur should be studied separately.

Unfortunately, Mazar’s hasty conclusion was uncritically accepted by

some scholars, who on the basis of the reconstructed territory of the land of

Gari established the borders of biblical Geshur (Ma‛oz 1992: 996; Epstein

1993: 83-90; Arav 2004: 3-5). Pakkala (2010: 167) was aware that “the iden-

tification of Garu and Geshur is largely based on the hypothetical and disput-

ed assumption that the author accidentally omitted one syllable", and yet ded-

icated almost half of his paper to an investigation of the location of the land

of Gari’s villages (pp. 159-167). Not only did he not advance the research

beyond what was already suggested by other scholars, but he ignored the

works of Edel (1966:13, 90-91), Weippert (1971, 12 n. 28), Galil (1998: 375-

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

4. It seems odd that Absalom’s mother, who was a Geshurite princess, is

called by the name of Maacah, Geshur’s northern neighbouring kingdom.

Thus, the authenticity of the princess' name might well be questioned.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

Nadav Na'aman09

256:28 and his suggestion to identify it with biblical Jabesh-gilead (Tell el-

Maqlūb) is notable.

In sum, the territory of the fourteenth century BCE land of Gari should be

sought in the area between the cities of Ashtaroth and Pihilu. Its extent, how-

ever, is irrelevant for the study of the Aramean Kingdom of Geshur in the

early first millennium BCE.

Shalmeneser III’s Campaign in 838 BCE

An inscribed fragmented royal statue of Shalmaneser III’s was unearthed at

Calah and published in part by Laessoe (1959). It includes the most detailed

account known so far of the king’s campaign in his 21st year of reign (838

BCE). The statue fragments remained in Iraq, and an unpublished copy was

prepared by Peter Hulin. Grayson consulted Hulin’s copy while preparing his

edition of Shalmaneser’s inscriptions (1996:72-84), and his edition formed

the basis for Yamada’s discussion of the campaign (2000:27, 205-209, 285-

286). Later, Yamada (2000b) published and discussed Hulin’s copy, leading

to what is today considered the edition priceps of the text.5

What path did Shalmaneser III take en route to arrival in his 21st year at

the Phoenician Coast? After he crossed the Euphrates, Shalmaneser advanced

southwards along Mount Lebanon and crossed Mt. Anti-Lebanon eastwards,

apparently along the route of Baalbek-Zabedani-Damascus (Yamada 2000a:

207). In his 841 BCE campaign, after besieging Damascus for a short time

Shalmaneser advanced southward along the eastern side of Mt. Anti-

Lebanon, arrived at Mount Hauran, probably proceeded along the Darb el-

Ḥawarneh road (Oded 1971:193; Lissovsky-Na’aman 2004:306-307)6 and

reached Mount Carmel (Ba’li-rāsi), on the border between Israel and Tyre. In

838, he again proceeded southward along the east route of Mt. Anti-Lebanon

and conquered four of Hazael’s fortified cities, the names of two of them

(Danabi and Malaḫa) and the initial syllable of a third (Ia[…]) survived in the

fragmented text.

Where should we search for the four cities? Pakkala presented a catalogue

of suggested identifications (168-169 notes 69-70; also Hafpórsson 2006:

132-135), aimed at demonstrating that the location cannot be established.

However, the “catalogue approach,” which mixed together all site identifica-

tions suggested so far, cannot help solve the problem. Rather, we should look

for a solution that combines the mentioned cities with the possible route of

the Assyrian campaign. Indeed, Lemaire (1991: 100-101) has pointed out that

Danabi and Malaḫa are mentioned in an Egyptian topographical list of cities

located in the area of Bashan (Malaḫa = m-ri-ḥw; Danabi = tw-n-bw) (see

5. Surprisingly, Pakkala did not consult Yamada's new edition (2000b), and

his analysis rests only on Grayson's (1996) and Yamada's (2000a) works.

6. The Darb el-Ḥawarneh road passed from the Hauran/Bashan to the Jordan

valley, crossed the river south of the Sea of Galilee, continued along Naḥal

Jabneel (Wādi Fejjas) to Mount Tabor, passed along the foot of the Hills of

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory 93

Edel and Görg 2005:51-52, 66). In light of his observation, we may suggest

that up to the area of the Hauran/Bashan, the marching line of the 841 and

838 campaigns was roughly identical (Dion 1997:198-199). Establishing the

exact location of the cities is of secondary importance for reconstructing the

route of Shalmaneser’s campaign toward the Phoenician Coast.

Following the conquest of the four cities, Shalmaneser related that Ba’il of

[KU]R Z/G[i-x-(x)-r]a-a-a submitted to him and paid the tribute. He then

placed his royal statue in the temple of Laruba (or Lašubba), Ba’il’s fortified

city, and received the tribute of the men of Tyre, Sidon and Byblos (Grayson

1996, 79 lines 159b-162a; Yamada 2000a:206-209; 2000b:80). As such,

Ba’il’s kingdom must be sought between the area of Bashan and the Phoeni-

cian Coast.

The stronghold of LaRUba is mentioned nowhere else. Yamada (2000a:

207, 209, 285) suggested transcribing the LA-sign as MA and rendering the

city’s name as Ma-ru-ba, which he identified with the Sidonian city of Ma-

a’-ru-ub-bu (Ma’rubbu). However, the “improved” rendering of the sign is

arbitrary and Ma’rubbu belonged to Sidon, which is certainly not Ba’il’s

kingdom (see Bagg 2007: 171). Moreover, the kingdoms and cities of the

Phoenician Coast are well known from ancient Near Eastern texts, and nei-

ther the kingdom of Z/G[i-x-(x)-r]a nor the city of LaRUba was ever men-

tioned. This may indicate that the toponyms should be sought outside the

Phoenician Coast.

How should we read the name of the fragmented land in line 160? In light

of Hulin’s copy, Grayson’s rendering of the broken name as Tyre is definite-

ly incorrect (Yamada 2000b: 80). Lipiński (1999: 242b) suggested restoring

it Ṣí-mir-r]a-a-a (Ṣimirra). However, Ṣimirra always appears as a city and

not as a land, and its name is consistently written with the ṢI-sign, never with

the ZI-sign (Bagg 2007: 231-232; also Marín 2001: 251-252). With all due

caution, I suggested restoring the land’s name G[i-šu-(ú)-r]a-a-a, Geshur

(Na’aman 2002: 205-207). As we shall see, Geshur’s capital is identified at

et-Tell, northeast of the Sea of Galilee. In this light, I suggest that at a certain

point southeast of the Sea of Galilee, the Assyrian campaign of 838 BCE de-

viated from the Darb el-Ḥawarneh road and proceeded northward along the

shore of the lake, and near the city of Hazor or Dan crossed westward and

reached the Phoenician Coast.7

7. After he received the tribute of Tyre, Sidon and Byblos, Shalmaneser III

proceeded to KUR Muṣurūna. I suggested that this land/mountain should be

identified with the ridge of Nahr el-Kalb, where a relief of a royal image was

discovered – possibly representing Shalmaneser III (Na’aman 2002:207). The

references to the gods Athar of Muṣurūna and Dagan of Muṣurūna (Bagg

2007: 180) may refer to deities represented on the reliefs curved at Nahr el-

Kalb by ancient Near Eastern kings. Furthermore, the small ninth century

kingdom of Muṣur/Meṣri, which is mentioned beside Byblos in the monolith

from Kurkh and beside Tyre and Sidon in the Calah throne base of

Shalmaneser III, also occupied the territory between the borders of Byblos

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

Nadav Na'aman09

It goes without saying that the suggested restoration of Geshur’s name is

uncertain. Provided that it is acceptable, it indicates that as late as year 838,

Geshur was still an independent kingdom and was annexed to the Kingdom

of Aram Damascus at a later time, as explained below.

The Archaeological Evidence

A large mound of about eight hectares was discovered northeast of the Sea of

Galilee. Its Arabic name is et-Tell, and it was identified with the Second

Temple village of Beitsaida. The site is located two and a half kilometers off

the lake and rises 25-30 meters above its surroundings. It is divided into a

higher mound in the north and a lower mound in the south. To date, only the

former was excavated.

The site was fortified by a heavy wall of between six and eight meters

width, with four chambered gate on its southeastern side. Impressive archi-

tecture was unearthed within the walls, including a large palace, a cult place

and a storehouse (Arav 1995; 1999a; 2004; 2008:1612b-1615a; 2009;

Arav―Bernett 2000). The most remarkable find discovered in the site is a

basalt stele with a curved representation of the Moon God (Bernett―Keel

1998). This was found near the gate and has close parallels to steles discov-

ered in other Aramean centres. Other small finds are four short alphabetical

inscriptions, a clay bulla, figurines and clay vessels.

The monumental buildings uncovered at et-Tell were attributed to Strata

VI-V, the latter stratum being destroyed by Tiglath-pileser III in 733-732

BCE. Radiometric dates measured on grain from a granary under the Stratum

V gate and hence attributed to Stratum VI were dated to the tenth century

BCE (1000-930 results in 68%) (Boaretto et al. 2005:49; Sharon et al. 2007:

7, 34, 44). These dates corroborate Arav’s suggestion that Stratum VI was

founded in approximately the mid-tenth century BCE. Unfortunately, very

few floors with complete vessels have been unearthed at the site, whereas

only broken sherds have been found on the floors of all the other buildings.

The date of construction of the city wall and the main structures (gate, palace

and cult place) remains uncertain.8

The Iron II eight hectare, massively fortified mound of et-Tell is by far the

largest and strongest site in the east of the Jordan Valley area between the

Jarmuk River in the south and Tel Dan in the north. Similar large and forti-

fied sites are known only from the territory of the Kingdom of Israel west of

the Jordan, from north Transjordan and from the Bashan. No wonder that the

site’s excavators identified it as the capital of the Kingdom of Geshur, and

and Sidon (Na’aman 2002: 207; for Muṣur/Meṣri see Bagg 2007: 305-307).

The small kingdom of Samsimurūna, bordering on the north with the king-

dom of Byblos, probably inherited Muṣur's territory in the late eighth-seventh

century BCE (Na’aman 1995:108-109).

8. For architectural synchronisms between et-Tell and North Israelite sites,

see Finkelstein 2000:125; 2011:237-238.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory 95

their suggestion was accepted by other scholars (Ma‛oz 1992:996; Na’aman

2002:205-207; Hess 2004:49-59; Finkelstein and Silberman 2006:110).

Before proceeding to analyze the site and its environment, I shall examine

in brief the site of Abel-Beth-Maacah, the capital of the Kingdom of Beth

Maacah (see 2 Sam 10,6) mentioned side by side with Geshur in Dtr texts

(Deut 3,14; Josh 12,5; 13,11.13).

The city of Abel is commonly identified at Tell Abil al-Qamḥ, a large

mound located about seven kilometers northwest of Tel Dan.9 The 14 hectare

site lies on a high plateau overlooking the northern Huleh Valley near the

Bareight River (Naḥal ‛Ayoun), a tributary of the Jordan River (Dever 1986).

Eran Arie’s recently published analysis of the pottery and history of Tel

Dan (2008) provides the key for clarifying the history of the Kingdom of

Beth Maacah. In light of the archaeological material published so far from

the Tel Dan excavations, he demonstrated that the site was poorly settled in

the early Iron IIa (mid-10th

-mid 9th centuries BCE, according to the “modified

conventional chronology”) and was rebuilt by Hazael, King of Aram, after he

conquered the area. Hazael erected his stele at Tel Dan in order to commemo-

rate his victories and inaugurate the centre he built in the place (Arie 2008:

34-36).10

According to his analysis (Arie 2008:34-38), it was Hazael who

conquered and annexed the two Aramean neighbouring kingdoms of Geshur

and Beth Maacah. In his words: “Hazael may have constructed Dan as a new

centre for the former area of the southern Aramaean kingdoms of Geshur and

Maacah, which he united and annexed to his new kingdom of Aram Damas-

cus.”

In light of this study, the coupling of the kingdoms of Geshur and (Beth)

Maacah in biblical historiography becomes clear. Tell Abil al-Qamḥ and et-

Tell are the most prominent Iron IIa mounds located in the ninth century

BCE east of the Kingdom of Israel’s border. The strength and prosperity of

the latter was demonstrated by the site’s excavations, whereas the state of

affairs in the former site cannot be established. The two sites were the seats

of local Aramean dynasties that ruled their respective kingdoms and were

conquered and annexed by Hazael in the third quarter of the ninth century.

The memory of the two westernmost Aramean kingdoms situated along the

eastern border of the Kingdom of Israel was memorized for a long time.

When the history of Israel was composed in writing, the two former Aramean

9. Contrary to the commonly held opinion, Lipiński (2006: 256-265) identi-

fied ancient Laish/Dan at Abil al-Qamú and Abel-Beth-Maacah at Tell el-

Qāḍi (Tel Dan).

10. Line 2 of Hazael’s stele may be restored as follows (Biran and Naveh

1995: 12-15; Lemaire 1998:3-4; Na’aman 2000: 96): “[…] my father went up

[against him when] he was fighting at Ab[el?] ([bh]tlḥmh b’b[l]).” The text

possibly refers to an attack of Hazael’s father on the king of Israel when the

latter besieged Abel. Provided that the restoration (admittedly uncertain) is

correct, it indicates that until this date, Abel-Beth-Maacah was an independ-

ent city.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

Nadav Na'aman09

kingdoms were integrated into the description as separate, non-conquered

entities, located near the border of the Israelite tribal inheritances.

Establishing the location of Geshur’s capital at et-Tell enables us to posit

general outlines for its territory, population, economy and commerce. Geshur

was a city-state whose territory spread along the Sea of Galilee up to the

Jarmuk River in the south and up to an unknown location south of Tel Dan in

the north. Its territory included a narrow strip of plain on its western side and

vast highland areas, including the Golan plateau on its east. Tel Dover (Kh

ad-Duweir), located southeast of the Sea of Galilee near the Jarmuk River,

where an Iron I-IIa small settlement was unearthed, might have marked the

southern border of the kingdom (Wolff 1998:775a; Rapuano 2001:19*-20*).

The surveys conducted in the Golan Heights (see Epstein―Gutman 1972)

show that, side by side with et-Tell, there were only a few other settlements

in Geshur’s territory―among them Tel ‛En Gev (Mazar et al. 1964; Kochavi

1996:192-193; Kochavi and Tsukimoto 2008; Hasegawa 2010:97-101) and

Tel Soreg (Kochavi 1989:6-9; 1996:188-189). Geshur’s economy was mainly

based on a combination of agriculture, pasture and fishing. Two east-west

routes passed near the kingdom’s borders, Darb el-Ḥawarneh in the south and

the road leading to the Acco plain in the north. Commerce must have played

an important role in the economy of the kingdom. Internal and external trans-

portation was carried out by land and sea.11

What was the name of the city located at et-Tell? To answer this question,

we must first clearly distinguish between Aramean kingdoms that are called

by the name of a real or legendary ancestor (e.g., Beth Rehob, Beth Maacah,

Bīt Agusi, Bīt Adini, Bīt Gabbari) and kingdoms called by other names.

Aram Damascus and Aram Zobah are called by the names of their respective

capitals, Damascus and êubat/êubiti (Na’aman 1999; Fales 2002; Bagg 2007:

233-234). In this light, I suggest that Geshur was the name of the city located

at et-Tell and that given the city’s prominence, the kingdom was called by its

name.12

The derivation of the kingdom’s name from the root *gṯr (“to be

strong”) and its meaning “stronghold, fortress” fits nicely the exceptional

strength of the city walls (between six and eight meters width). LaRUba,

Ba’il’s stronghold, was possibly the ancient name of Kh. el-‛Ashiq/Tel ‛En

Gev, the fortified settlement located about 13 kilometers south of et-Tell

(Na’aman 2002:206).

11. An illuminating example of et-Tell’s commerce is the name zkryw written

on a jar handle discovered in the excavations (see Hess 2004:55). According

to Arav (1999b:88), the stamp is identical to an eighth century stamp on a jar

discovered at Tel Dan (Biran 1994:255). Petrographic analysis may demon-

strate whether the jar was made and stamped in one of these cities, or rather

was made in a third place and exported to both of them.

12. Contrary to the commonly held opinion, Lipiński (2006:238-243, 252-

253) suggested that Leshem was the ancient name of et-Tell (Behsaida) and

that Geshur and Maacah were interchanging names of the kingdom located

east of the Sea of Galilee.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory 97

Conclusions

The article demonstrates that―in marked contrast to the conclusions of

Pakkala―we do in fact know quite a lot about the Aramean Kingdom of

Geshur. The main source for this analysis is the archaeological excavations

and surveys conducted in the Golan Heights and the coastal strip of land east

of the Lake of Galilee. Pakkala ignored this source, apparently because he

adheres to the obsolete idea that history is what can be learned from the writ-

ten sources alone. In reality, archaeological research is the key for establish-

ing the location of the kingdom’s capital, its territory, population, economy

and commercial relations. The written sources complement and corroborate

the archaeological data.

The Kingdom of Geshur was probably established in about the mid-tenth

century BCE and existed through the third quarter of the ninth century, when

it was annexed by Hazael, king of Aram. It was a city-state of the kind

known from Late Bronze Age documents. The small entity was ruled by a

king who lived in his capital city, Geshur, where all civil and sacred institu-

tions were concentrated (as indicated by the excavations). The territory under

his domain included a few villages and hamlets, as well as agricultural and

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

tion.

The way Geshur (and Maacah as well) was memorialized in biblical histo-

riography and how it was integrated into the early history of Israel is an ex-

emplary case of the ways late Judahite scribes have memorialized the ancient

reality hundreds of years after it disappeared from the political arena. Geshur

was located on the northern border of the Kingdom of Israel, far away from

Jerusalem, and yet the late scribes still remembered that it was a separate en-

tity, on par with Maacah, and hence differed from other neighbouring dis-

tricts enumerated side by side with it. A Judahite scribe integrated Geshur

into the history of David―a description that might have had a germ of au-

thentic historical memory, although there is no way to verify it. What was

unclear to the Jerusalemite scribes is the geographical reality in the far north.

Hence, they integrated Geshur (and Maacah) in an inaccurate geographical

manner.

Pakkala (2010: 173) concluded his article by emphasizing that many his-

torical works deal inadequately with the biblical texts. His article on Geshur

is a case in point.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

Nadav Na'aman09

Bibliography

Albright, William Foxwell. 1956. The Biblical Tribe of Massa’ and Some Con-

geners. In R. Ciasca (ed.), Studi Orientalistici in Onore di Giorgio Levi Della

Vida (Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto per l’Oriente 52; Rome: Istituto per l'Oriente),

pp. 1-14.

Arav, Rami. 1995. Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1987-1993. In R.

Arav―R.A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the Northern Shore of the Sea of

Galilee, vol 1 (Kirksville: Truman State University Press), pp. 3-63.

Arav, Rami. 1999a. Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1994-1996. In

R. Arav―R.A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the Northern Shore of the Sea of Galilee, vol 2 (Kirksville: Truman State University Press), pp. 3-113.

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

Arav, Rami. 2004. Towards a comprehensive History of Geshur. In R.

Arav―R.A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the Northern Shore of the Sea of

Galilee, vol 3 (Kirksville: Truman State University Press), pp. 1-48.

Arav, Rami. 2008. “Bethsaida (et-Tell).” In E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclope-

dia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 5 (Jerusalem: Israel

Exploration Society and Carta), pp. 1611-1616.

Arav, Rami. 2009. Final Report on Area A, Stratum V: The City Gate. In R.

Arav―R.A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the Northern Shore of the Sea of Galilee, vol 4 (Kirksville: Truman State University Press), pp. 1-122.

Arav, Rami―Bernett, Monika. 2000. The bīt ḫilāni at Bethsaida: Its Place in

Aramaean/Neo-Hittite and Israelite Palace Architecture in Iron Age II. IEJ 50,

pp. 47-81.

Arie, Eran. 2008. Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeologi-

cal and Historical Implications. Tel Aviv 35, pp. 6-64.

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

Teil I: Die Levante (Repertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 7/1;

Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B Nr. 7/7/1; Wiesba-

den: Ludwig Reichert).

Belmonte Marín, Juan Antonio. 2001. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Texte aus Syrien im 2. Jt. V. Chr. (Repertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes

12/2; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B Nr. 7/12/2;

Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert).

Bernett, Monika―Keel, Othmar. 1998. Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor. Die

Stele von Betsaida (et-Tell) (OBO 161; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag―Göttingen:

Vandenhoek & Ruprecht).

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

Biran, Avrahan―Naveh, Joseph. 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Frag-

ment. IEJ 45, pp. 1-18.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory 99

Boaretto, Elizabetta―Jull, A.J. Timothy―Gilboa, Ayelet―Sharon, Ilan. 2005.

Dating the Iron Age I/II Transition in Israel: First Intercomparison Results. Radi-

ocarbon 47, pp. 39-55.

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

Israel.” In L.T. Geraty―L.G. Herr (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies Presented to Siegfried H. Horn (Berrien Springs: Andrew University

Press), pp. 207-222

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

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

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

(BBB 25; Bonn: P. Hanstein).

Edel, Elmar―Görg, Manfred. 2005. Die Ortsnamenlisten im nördlichen

Säulenhof des Totentempels Amenophis' III. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).

Epstein, Claire. 1993. The Cities of the Land of Garu-Geshur Mentioned in EA

256 Reconsidered. In M. Heltzer―A Segal―D, Kaufman (eds.), Studies in Ar-

chaeology and History of Ancient Israel in Honour of Moshe Dothan (Haifa:

Haifa University Press), pp. 83-90 (Hebrew).

Epstein, Claire―Gutman, Shmaryahu. 1972. The Golan. In M. Kochavi (ed.),

Judaea, Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967-1968 (Jerusalem:

Archaeological Survey of Israel), pp. 243-295 (Hebrew).

Fales, Frederick, M. 2002. Central Syria in the Letters to Sargon II. In U. Hüb-

ner―E.A. Knauf (eds.), Kein Land für sich allein. Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65.

Geburtstag (OBO 186; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag―Göttingen: Vandenhoek &

Ruprecht), pp. 134-152.

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

Finkelstein, Israel. 2011. Stages in the Territorial Expansion of the Northern

Kingdom. VT 61, pp. 227-242.

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

Free Press).

Galil, Gershon. 1998. Ashtaroth in the Amarna Period. Israel Oriental Studies

17, pp. 373-385.

Grayson, A. Kirk. 1996. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II

(858-745 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Period, vol. 3;

Toronto: University of Toronto Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

Nadav Na'aman099

Halpern, Baruch. 1997. Text and Artifact: Two Monologues?. In N.A. Silberman

and D. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpret-

ing the Present (JSOTS 237; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), pp. 311-341.

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

(Ph.D. Thesis; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University).

Hendel, Ronald. 2005. Remembering Abraham. Culture, Memory, and History in

the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: University Press).

Hess, Richard. 2004. “Geshurite" Onomastica of the Bronze and Iron Ages. In R.

Arav―R.A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the Northern Shore of the Sea of

Galilee, vol. 3 (Kirksville: Truman State University Press), pp. 49-62.

Kochavi, Moshe. 1989. The Land of Geshur Project. Regional Archaeology of

the Southern Golan (1987-1988 Seasons). IEJ 39, pp. 1-17.

Kochavi, Moshe. 1996. The Land of Geshur: History of a Region in the Biblical

Period. Eretz Israel 25, pp. 184-201 (Hebrew).

Kochavi, Moshe―Tsukimoto, Akio. 2008. ‛En Gev. In E. Stern (ed.), The New

Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 5 (Jerusalem:

Israel Exploration Society and Carta), pp. 1724-1726.

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

147-157.

Lemaire, André. 1991. Hazaël de Damas, roi d’Aram. In D. Charpin―F. Joannès

(eds.), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Études sur la civilisation Mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civi-

lisations), pp. 91-108.

Lemaire, André. 1998. The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography.

JSOT 81, pp. 3-14.

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

6, pp. 193-215.

Lipiński, Eduard. 1999. Ba’il. In K. Radner (ed.), The Prosopography of the

Neo-Assyrian Empire, vol. 1 Part II: B-G (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus

Project), p. 242b

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

Lipiński, Eduard. 2006. On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age. Historical and

Topographical Researches (OLA 153; Leuven: Peeters).

Lissovsky, Nurit―Na’aman, Nadav. 2004. A New Outlook at the Boundary Sys-

tem of the Twelve Tribes. UF 35, pp. 291-332.

Liverani, Mario. 1998. Le lettere di el-Amarna, vol. I-II ( Testi del Vicino

Oriente antico; Brescia: Paideia Editrice).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4

The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory 101

Ma‛oz, Uri Zvi. 1992. Geshur. In: Freedman, D.N. ed. The Anchor Bible Dic-

tionary, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday), p. 996.

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

Mazar, Benjamin―Biran, Avraham―Dothan, Moshe―Dunayevsky, Immanuel.

1964. ‛En Gev―Excavations in 1961. IEJ 14, pp. 1-49.

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

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

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

Na’aman, Nadav. 1999. Lebo-Hamath, êūbat-Hamath and the Northern Bounda-

ry of the Land of Canaan. UF 31, pp. 417-441.

Na’aman, Nadav. 2000. Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan.

IEJ 50, pp. 92-104.

Na’aman, Nadav. 2002. In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s

Wars with Israel’s Neighbours. IEJ 52, pp. 200-224.

Oded, Bustenay. 1971. Darb el-Hawarneh―an Ancient Route. Eretz Israel 10,

pp. 191-197 (Hebrew).

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

Sharon, Ilan―Gilboa, Ayelet―Jull, A.J. Timothy―Boaretto, Elizabetta. 2007.

Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting a

Low Chronology. Radiocarbon 49/1, pp. 1-46.

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

Weippert, Manfred. 1971. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine

(Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 21; London: SCM Press).

Wolff, Samuel R. 1998. Archaeology in Israel. AJA 102, pp. 757-807.

Wüst, Manfred. 1975. Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten

des Alten Testament. I. Ostjordanland (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des

Vorderen Orients. Reihe B [Geisteswissenschaften] Nr.9; Wiesbaden: Ludwig

Reichert).

Yamada, Shigeo. 2000a. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical

Study of Shalmaneser III (859-824 BC) Relating to His Campaigns to the West

(Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, vol. 3; Leiden: Leiden).

Yamada, Shigeo. 2000b. Peter Hulin’s Hand Copies of Shalmaneser III’s Inscrip-

tions. Iraq 62, pp. 65-87.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

134.

117.

10.2

00]

at 0

6:42

06

July

201

4