The lmlk and ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions from Tel Beth-Shemesh: An Added Dimension to the Late 8th and Early 7th Century BCE History of the Site

Abstract

A large number of lmlk (57) and ‘private’ (18) Judahite stamp impressions have been unearthed at Tel Beth-Shemesh. All but one are of the early types dated to the late 8th century BCE. The site has not yielded any lmlk stamp impressions of the late types dated to the early 7th century BCE, concentric-circle incision types from the middle of the 7th century or rosette stamp impressions from the late 7th and early 6th century BCE. This information helps in the reconstruction of the history of this significant lowland center during the period of ‘Pax-Assyriaca’ in the southern Levant.

Keywords:

• Beth-Shemesh
• lmlk stamp impressions
• Pax-Assyriaca

Notes

1 Four stamp impressions from Duncan Mackenzie’s excavation and an additional 35 stamp impressions from the Haverford excavations.

2 According to this summary, 31 stamp impressions are of the four winged scarab (66%), 16 are of the winged sun-disk (34%), and 10 are with uncertain emblem. In total, 31 stamp impressions include the toponym Hebron, three include the name Ziph, six present the name mmšt, one cites the name Socoh and 16 are uncertain.

3 To the publication of the lmlk stamp impressions from Beth-Shemesh Vaughn added an addendum on the lmlk stamp impressions debate (2016: 498–501; published later as an article – Vaughn 2018), in which he suggested that “a handful of isolated jars remained in use into the 7th century, but the manufacture of jars ceased shortly after Sennacherib’s campaign in 701 BCE” (ibid.: 351). Vaughn erroneously argued that the new chronological scheme for the lmlk jars, as suggested by Lipschits, Sergi and Koch (2010), is based on the items uncovered at Ramat Raḥel; also, he does not deal with the careful study of the distribution of the lmlk stamped handles according to the detailed typology set out by Lemaire (1981). Note that a recent paleomagnetic study also indicates that the jars stamped with lmlk impressions had a long history, including the slow development of the different early types, with continuous development after 701 BCE (Ben-Yosef et al. 2017). Furthermore, Vaughn limits his research and critique to the lmlk types and the ‘private’ stamp impressions, disregarding other types of Judahite stamp impressions dated from the 7th to the 2nd centuries BCE (see in detail in Lipschits 2018).

4 As far as I could glean from the photos and drawings (Vaughn 2016: 483, 485, 487, 489–490), Vaughn’s identification of the types of the stamp impressions is correct.

5 The relation between Locus 252 and Loci 247 and 268 is not clear. Locus 252 is located below Locus 247, once the remains of red bricks (described as part of the destruction of the ‘Scoop’ stratum) disappeared. It seems as though the same situation occurs in Locus 268, which was also described as an occupation layer located below the same ‘Scoop’ stratum, but was assigned to Level 3.