Nabonidus, as-Sila, and the Beginning

of the End of Edom

Bradley L. Crowell
Department of Philosophy and Religion
Drake University
Medbury Hall 202
Des Moines, IA 50311
[email protected]

The collapse of the Iron Age polity of Edom is often attributed to the western cam-
paign of the Babylonian king Nabonidus, who traveled through Edom en route to the
desert oasis of Tayma. The campaign is mentioned in several Babylonian texts, and his
entrance into Edom is typically dated to 553 b.c.e., based on several fragmentary lines
in the Nabonidus Chronicle. With the discovery and publication of a heavily eroded rock
relief of Nabonidus at as-Sila in the mountains of southern Jordan, it is conrmed that
Nabonidus campaigned through the region of Edom. This article argues that, based on
the few fragmentary lines of the accompanying inscription, the attack of Nabonidus on
Edom can be more precisely dated to his fth year, or 551 b.c.e.

introduction the biblical prophetic material. Several scholars have

suggested that some Edomite cities were destroyed
he decline and collapse of the small Iron or partially destroyed in the mid-to-late sixth century

T Age polity of Edom is obscured by a lack of

substantial historical sources.1 Apart from a
handful of seals and letters from Edom, scholars are
b.c.e., including Busayra, Tawilan, and Tall al-
Khalay. These destructions are discussed below, but
with the information currently available, both archae-
dependent upon the written records of Edoms neigh- ological and textual, it is impossible to prove these
bors. The vivid condemnations of Edom found in the correlations. With the discovery of a rock carved re-
Hebrew Bible are descriptions from Judah, Edoms lief at as-Sila in southern Jordan near the central
northwestern neighbor. Imperial records from As- Edomite fortied site of Busayra (biblical Bozrah),
syria mention a few kings of Edom and their tribute reevaluations of theories of the decline and fall of the
to the empire. Recently, interest in the rise of Edom Edomite polity can proceed on rmer ground.
has increased due to recent excavations, debates over
early Iron Age chronology related to Israel, and sev-
eral important surveys in the pivotal copper-mining history and society
district in the Wadi Arabah. Yet there is relatively in iron age edom
little interest in the decline of Edom. Most written
sources regarding Edoms demise are embedded Although Edom ourished in the eighth and sev-
within the intense anti-Edomite polemics found in enth centuries b.c.e. under Assyrian hegemony, re-
cent excavations in the Wadi Arabah have ignited a
new debate about Edom in the Early Iron Age.2 By
1
I thank Paul-Alain Beaulieu of Notre Dame University,
Hanspeter Schaudig of the University of Heidelberg, Brian B.
2
Schmidt of the University of Michigan, and the anonymous re- This debate is beyond the scope of this paper, but a brief sum-
viewers of BASOR for reading through previous versions of this mary is appropriate. Recently, Thomas Levy et al. (2003; 2004;
article and their many helpful suggestions. Any errors that remain 2005; Levy and Najjar 2006a; 2006b) published the preliminary
are my own responsibility. results of several excavations in the Wadi Arabah. According to

75
76 BRADLEY CROWELL BASOR 348

and symbolic similarities with Assyrian-style build-

ings, especially the Area A temple and the Area C
palace (see Bienkowski 2002: 47879 for compari-
sons), illustrate that the Busayra elite attempted to
make such links. Except for the settlement at Busayra,
the Edomite sites were primarily small agricultural
villages. Only 11 sites in Edom were between 1 and
2 ha in size, but these are substantially smaller than
the central, fortied village of Busayra.4 Only in
the copper-mining regions in the Wadi Arabah does
there appear to have been any substantial organiza-
tion. In fact, some scholars (cf. Knauf-Belleri 1995)
suggest that the numerous mountaintop settlements
in the Petra area were centers of resistance against
the Busayra elite, the Assyrians, or both. Through-
out their history, the Edomite leaders at Busayra were
dependent upon external forces to maintain their
fragile grasp on regional authority. Once the central
Fig. 1. Map of locations mentioned in the text.
settlement of Busayra was defeated, the weak cen-
tralizing forces in Edom would diminish and even-
tually collapse. The harsh terrain of Edom, the
the late eighth century b.c.e., the shadow of the As- relationship with the Assyrians maintained by regu-
syrians loomed on the horizon, and Edoms leaders, lar tribute, and the weak attempts to establish their
called kings by the Assyrians, began to pay tribute own defenses always protected those in power at
to maintain a benecent relationship with the empire. Busayra. What led to the collapse of this small, de-
It was during this period that the majority of Edomite centralized polity in the Edomite highlands? Archae-
sites were established in the mountainous region to ologists and biblical scholars have proposed two
the east of the Arabah.3 theories over the course of the 20th century.
The political organization in Iron Age Edom, cen-
tered at the largest (8.16 ha) walled settlement of theories on the
Busayra, never attained control of the entire region end of edom
of southern Transjordan (g. 1). There was only a
thin veneer of a state in Edom, maintained through Nelson Glueck was the most signicant gure in
kin relations and an ineffective attempt to project Transjordanian archaeology for the rst half of the
the authority of the ruling elite through its visible 20th century. While he excavated only one Iron Age
links to the Assyrians (cf. Knauf-Belleri 1995; Bien- site, Tall al-Khalay in 19381940, his surveys of
kowski 1995: 56, 6162; 2001a: 267). Architectural southern Jordan became the basis for his recon-
struction of Edomite history and society which has
inuenced a generation of biblical scholars and
Levy, nds at the Wadi Fidan 40 cemetery (Levy, Adams, and historians. He situated the beginning of Edomite
Shaq 1999) and Khirbat an-Nahas (Levy et al. 2004) suggest settlement in the 13th century b.c.e. This thriving,
that the beginning of social organization developed in the 11th
prosperous, civilized kingdom (Glueck 1947: 80)
and 10th centuries b.c.e. around the copper resources along the
Wadi Arabah. Until Levy publishes complete reports, with pot- survived until the eighth century b.c.e.. According
tery and stratigraphy, several other scenarios are possible, in- to Gluecks understanding of the biblical account
cluding Egyptian or Midianite occupations, or local attempts to of Davids defeat and occupation of Edom (2 Sam
exploit the resource. Needless to say, Levys interpretation has
been extensively criticized by Finkelstein (2005), Finkelstein
and Piasetzky (2006: 37980), and van der Steen and Bien- 4
In addition to Tawilan and Tall al-Khalay, discussed below,
kowski (2006). See Levy and Najjar 2006a; 2006b; and Levy, this short list includes Umm ar-Rih, al-Addanin, Hiblan Salim,
Higham, and Najjar 2006, for their most recent responses. Khirbat al-Burays, Khirbat Abu Banna, Khirbat al-Fatat, ad-Dayr,
3
For surveys of the archaeological and textual evidence on al-Mabra, and Khirbat at-Tuwaneh. None of these villages have
Edom in the Iron Age, see Bienkowski 1992; 1995; 2001b. been excavated or studied beyond surveys.
2007 BEGINNING OF THE END OF EDOM 77

8:1214; 1 Kgs 11:1516), the powerful United Mon- ing Babylonian king at that time, he was responsible
archy in Israel in the 10th century b.c.e. and the sub- for the destruction of Edom. Lindsay concluded
sequent Judaean kingdom often controlled Edoms that with the desire of Nabonidus to control Ara-
destiny. After centuries of periodic occupation and bian commerce, he attacked the Edomite centers
rebellion, Edom was weakened. According to Glueck, of Busayra and Tall al-Khalay (possibly biblical
Edom was rarely independent, but after the attack Ezion-geber) in the course of his campaign to Tayma.
by Amaziah of Judah on Sela (2 Kgs 14:7; 2 Chr Most scholars have followed this basic framework,
25:1114), Edom declined until the Babylonian king with appropriate qualiers, since the Babylonian text
Nebuchadnezzar II nally destroyed it.5 Lindsay invoked to suggest that Nabonidus was the
Nearly 30 years ago Lindsay (1976) and Bartlett culprit is heavily damaged (see Bienkowski 1995:
(1989: 14761; 1982; 1972) formulated the standard 60, 62; 2001a: 266; 2001b: 269; Knauf and Lenzen
current theory. On the basis of biblical prophetic 1987; Knauf-Belleri 1995: 11011, 114).
texts, scholars surmise that Edom participated in
the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 587/586 b.c.e.
(see Obadiah; Psalms 137; Ezekiel 3536; cf. 1 Esd biblical sources on the
4:45), although the level of involvement is debated. fate of edom
At the very least, Edom did not come to the aid of
Jerusalem at a time when the Judaean leaders ex- Even the biblical narratives do not present a coher-
pected its treaty partner to help defend against the ent picture of Edoms demise. Some scholars believe
Babylonian assault. As a result of Edoms involve- that Edom was complicit in several attacks on Jerusa-
ment, or lack of support for Jerusalem, the Edomites lem during the early Neo-Babylonian period (Lindsay
survived the attack of Nebuchadnezzar and even 1976; Bartlett 1989: 14955). Support for this theory,
expanded west of the Arabah into previously held developed in part to explain the intense anti-Edomite
Judaean territory (Bartlett 1999; Lindsay 1999).6 bias in the prophetic literature (e.g., Obadiah; Isaiah
The Edomite elite took advantage of the realignment 3435), is found in 2 Kgs 24:2, which states that
of power in the southern Levant to accelerate their Yahweh let loose against (Jehoiakim) the raiding
involvement in the trade routes that passed through bands of the Chaldeans, Edomites, Moabites, and
their territory into the northern Negev. The height- Ammonites. This verse is often emended from
ened economic prosperity lasted about 30 years for gdd ram to gdd dom with the Arabic and
Edom, until Nabonidus undertook his western cam- Peshitta versions (Bartlett 1989: 14849; 1982: 16;
paign and occupied Tayma in northern Arabia. 1999: 1023; Lindsay 1999: 5861). If the recon-
Only Lindsay (1976) has attempted to collect structed text is followed, Edom sent raiding parties
the Babylonian evidence related to this period in against Jerusalem in 599 or 598 b.c.e. while Je-
Edomite history. Lindsay surveyed the textual and hoiakim was king. Later in 594 b.c.e., Zedekiah, the
archaeological material relevant to the relations be- Babylonian appointee whose name was changed from
tween Babylon, under Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabo- Mattaniah, held a meeting in Jerusalem with the kings
nidus, and Edom. He concluded that Edom became of Edom, Ammon, and Moab, and with the rulers of
intimately involved in the Babylonian attack on Je- the two Phoenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, to discuss
rusalem in 587/586 b.c.e. in order to gain control a strategy of resistance against Nebuchadnezzar (Jere-
over some of Judahs territory in the south. Accord- miah 27). Edom and the other Transjordanian poli-
ing to Lindsay, Edom survived until the mid-sixth ties apparently did not participate in the seditious
century b.c.e., and since Nabonidus was the reign- acts against the Babylonian, but Zedekiahs activities
ultimately led to the destruction of Jerusalem.
5
Glueck commented on the history of Edom throughout his
Little is said in the biblical text of Edoms fate
writings, including his excavation and survey reports. See Glueck after Nebuchadnezzars attack on Jerusalem, but the
1936; 1940; 1946; 1947; 1970: 16167, for convenient summaries Edomites are blamed for taking advantage of the
of his ideas on the history of Edom. situation and expanding into Judaean cities west of
6
For information on the Edomite presence in southern Judah in the Arabah (see recently Bartlett 1999; Lindsay 1999).
the fth and fourth centuries b.c.e., derived largely from the Ara-
maic ostraca from Idumea, see Naveh 1973; 1979; 1981; Ephal and
Although Edom apparently sheltered Judaean refu-
Naveh 1996; Lemaire 1994; 1996; 1997; 2002; Aituv 1999; gees during this period (Jer 40:11; Bartlett 1982:
Aituv and Yardeni 2004; and Lozachmeur and Lemaire 1996. 18), later traditions condemned Edom for aiding the
78 BRADLEY CROWELL BASOR 348

Babylonians and even for burning the Jerusalem tem- defeated the city of Sintini, which remains unidenti-
ple to the ground (1 Esd 4:45). Edoms precise role ed (Zadok 1985: 294, 318). If this reconstruction of
in the downfall of Jerusalem is not as relevant here events is correct, Nabonidus entered Edom in late
as the point that it did survive the campaigns of Nebu- 553 or early 552 b.c.e.. The most relevant section for
chadnezzar in the southern Levant during the early his march through Edom is at the end of column 1
sixth century b.c.e. and remained in power while the (lines 1122).
Judaean elite was exiled to Babylon.
i.11 [mu-3-km . . . . . . i]tine kuram-ma-na-nu s-di-i
nabonidus and the 12. [. . . . . . . . . . . .] gis ip-pa-a-t gurun ma-la ba-
arabian campaign su-
13. [. . . . . . . . . . . .] ina lb-bi-si-na ana q-reb eki
The one unifying factor of contemporary scenar- 14. [. . . . . . lugal g]ig-ma tin-u ina itigan lugal rin-
ios proposed for the end of Edom is that it involved s
the western campaign of Nabonidus as he traveled 15. [id-ke-e-ma? . . .]-tim u ana dn dn-tat-tan-ses
to Tayma in northern Arabia (g. 1).7 Although four 16. [. . . . . . . . . . . .] x mu s kurmar.tu a-na
different Babylonian texts mention this event, none 17. [. . . . . . kur]-du-um-mu it-ta-du-
of them are without difculty. The Arabian sojourn 18. [. . . . . . . . . . . .]-ma rinmes ma-du-tu
is found in the Nabonidus Chronicle (BM 35382), 19. [. . . . . . . . . . . . k].gal urusin-ti-ni
the Royal Chronicle (BM 34896 + 34375 + 34995 + 20. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g]az-s
34167 + Sp0), the Verse Account of Nabonidus (BM 21. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] x qu
38299), and the Harran Stele (Nab H2). Unfortu- 22. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]rinmes
nately, the operations of Nabonidus between the time
that he and his troops left southern Syria and his ar- [The third year . . . . . . the mon]th of Abu, the land
rival in Tayma remain largely unknown due to the of Ammananu, the mountains [. . . . . . . . .] orchards,
limited historical sources. all of the fruit within them [. . . . . .] to Babylon.
The most important source for the route of Na- [. . . . . . the king became] ill, but he recovered. In
bonidus from Syria to Arabia is the Nabonidus the month of Kislimu, the king [summoned] the army
Chronicle (see Grayson 1975: 104, for publication [and . . . . . .] and to Nabu-tattannu-utsur [. . . . . .
information). The text begins with the march of Na- . . .] of the land of Amurru, to [. . . . . .] they set up
bonidus and his armies against rebellious forces in camps [against the land of E]dom. [. . . . . . . . . . . .]
Syria and then narrates his campaign south to Tayma. the large armies [. . . . . . . . . the g]ate of Sintini
While the text details some events in each year of [. . . . . . . . . . . . he ki]lled him [. . . . . . . . . . . .] x
his reign, the left edge of column 1 is destroyed, so [. . . . . . . . . . . .] the armies.
the rst extant year is the seventh in which Naboni-
dus was already in Tayma (ii.5). The previous years In 1968 W. G. Lambert published a fragmentary
are all reconstructed from other texts. According to text that he dubbed the Royal Chronicle of Nabo-
the typical reconstruction of the reign of Nabonidus, nidus (most recent edition is Schaudig 2001: 59095,
in his third year (553 b.c.e.) he campaigned west text P4).9 In addition to an account of the rebuilding
to put down a revolt.8 After defeating the rebel- of the temple in Sippar, this broken text narrates the
lious forces at Ammananu (the southern part of Ga- campaign of Nabonidus against Ammananu in Syria
bal Anariya; Zadok 1985: 22), he sent lucrative and his subsequent trip to Arabia. The Chronicle
local products back to Babylon. Apparently during adds some important information that was lacking in
the same year, Nabonidus became ill and quickly re- the Nabonidus Chroniclenamely, that the attack on
covered (i.14) before marching to Amurru (i.16). Ammananu took place in the third year of his reign,
Still in his third year, Nabonidus seiged Edom and or 553 b.c.e. (iv.26). This text is the basis for the
reconstruction of the third year in the Nabonidus
Chronicle (i.11). The relevant section of the Royal
7
For recent evidence from Tayma on the sojourn of Naboni-
dus there, see Gruntfest and Heltzer 2001; Muller and al-Said
2001; Hayajneh 2001; Lemaire 1995.
8 9
Nabonidus gathered his troops for the campaign in the month The hand copy of new fragment (Sp 0) that continues the end
of Kislimu or December of 553 b.c.e. of column 4 is published in Schaudig 2001: Abb. 60.
2007 BEGINNING OF THE END OF EDOM 79

Chronicle occurs at the end of column 4 and the 21. [. . . . . . . . . . . . m]es n-su-t in-n-riq
remaining section of column 5. 22. [. . . . . . . . . . . . ]-kap-pir-m[a]

iv.26 . . . ina itigu4 mu-3-km x [hi]s armies [. . . . . . . . . . . .] he carried the

27. [. . . . . . tin.]tirki pa-ni rinme-s i-ba-tu weapon to [. . . . . . . . . . . .] distant leagues, dif-
28. [. . . . . . i]d-ke-e-ma ina 13-ta u4-mu a-na cult routes [. . . . . . . . . . . .], terrain of hardship
29. [sa?-di?]-i ik-su-du s unmes a-si-bi uruam-ma-na- [where passage is preven]ted and no feet go [. . . . . .
nu . . . . . .] at the mention of his name [. . . . . .
30. [. . . . . . . . . -s]-nu sag.dumes-s-nu -bat-tq- . . . . . .] of the steppe [. . . . . . . . . . . .] the king of
ma Dadanu [. . . . . . . . . . . .] he ed10 to a distant
32. [lugal ina g]a-si-s i-lu-ul-ma place . . . he cleared away (the land) . . .
33. [. . . . . . . . .]-at kur-i [-za]-az uru
34. [. . . . . . . . .] s q-reb kurmes gurun giskiri6m[es Lindsay (1976: 34, 36) suggested that the begin-
du.a.bi] ning of column 5 described the campaign of Nabo-
35. [. . . . . . . . .] i-li-si-nu [it- . . . . . .] nidus through Edom. With the publication of the join
36. [. . . . . . . . .] [a]-na gi-mi-ri-s dbil.g[i] at the end of column 4 (Sp 0), this remains a possi-
37. [-saq-mi . . .]-[x]-t s m-la-s-nu ru--q[u] bility. Column 4, lines 2630 record the defeat of
38. [. . . . . . . . .] [a]-na u4-mu a-a-t -s-lik Ammananu, its king, the plundering of its resources,
39. [kar-mu-t . . .] x-s-a-s n-re-b-e-ti and the division of its land. Unfortunately, no place
40. [. . . . . . . . .] u4-mu i-zi-i[b] [rest of column is names or personal names survive in column 5 until
broken] the mention of the king of Dadanu. Yet some of the
words within this section describe a terrain that is
In the month of Ayyaru of the third year, [when] appropriate for the mountainous region of Edom,
he led his troops [from] Babylon, he summoned them including difcult routes (v 15), terrain of hard-
and in thirteen days they reached [the mountains]. ship (v 16), (places) where passage is prevented
They [. . .] of the people who lived in Ammananu. and no feet go (v 17).11 The next clearly identiable
[. . .], he cut off their heads, he hung [the king on a event is Naboniduss attack on the king of Dadanu in
s]take, [. . .] he divided up the land. The city of [. . .] north Arabia before he moved on to Tayma. It re-
which is in the midst of the lands, all of the fruit of mains a distinct possibility that a brief account of
the orchards. [. . .] their shade [. . .], he burned ev- the campaign through Edom was included at the end
erything with re, he made it into a ruin forever [. . .] of column 4 or the beginning of column 5.
their entrance [. . .] he allowed to remain [. . .]. The Harran Stele (Gadd 1958: 5665; Beaulieu
1989: inscription 13; Schaudig 2001: 48699, text
After defeating the men of Ammananu, Naboni- 3.1) mentions that after a rebellion in Babylon,
dus continued on his campaign to the south. After a Nabonidus ed to Tayma and other north Arabian
break at the end of column 4 and at least 12 fragmen- cities where he hid for 10 years (col. i. 2226). The
tary lines in column 5, the Royal Chronicle mentions stele was written after he had returned from his stay
the difcult terrain that Nabonidus encountered en in Arabia and rebuilt the temple of Sn in Harran,
route to Dadanu in Arabia. the Ehulhul, near the end of his reign. While this in-
scription gives no information on his route to Arabia
v. 13 [. . . . . . . . . . . .] x ses-su rin.hi.[a-s] or the obstacles that he faced on the journey, it is im-
14. [. . . . . . . . . . . .] x gistukul is-si-ma ana x portant for determining the chronology of his reign.
[. . . . . .] According to line 26, Nabonidus stayed in Arabia for
15. [. . . . . . . . . . . . da]nna qaq-aq-ri ur-hi pa-s- 10 years.
qu-t
16. [. . . . . . . . . . . . qaq-q]a-ri nam-ra-a 10 N stem verb from Aramaic rq to eesee Schaudig
17. [a-sar kib-su su-up-ru]-su-ma gr.min la i-ba-s- 2001: VII.2.5.a.
11
su-u Edom is a land of dramatic topographic contrasts, with
the highest mountain in the southern Levant (Jabal Mubarak at
18. [. . . . . . . . . . . .] a-na zi-kir su-mi-i-s 1727 m above sea level) being in close proximity to the lowest
19. [. . . . . . . . . . . .] x gi edin.na.a point in the region (the Southern Ghors at 396 m below sea level).
20. [. . . . . . . . . . . . m]es lugal s da-da-na For the topography of Edom, see Macumber 2001.
80 BRADLEY CROWELL BASOR 348

i 22 . . . u ana-ku ii. 1014). Beaulieu (1989: 15358) refers to three

23. ul-tu uru-ia tin.tirki -se-ri-qa-an-ni-ma archival texts in an attempt to limit the range of dates
24. -ru-uh uru te-ma-a uru da-da-<nu> uru pa-dak- that Nabonidus was in Arabia. GCCI 1: 294 records
ku a sale by a man who was sent to Tayma during the
25. uru hi-ib-ra-a uru i-di-hu u a-di uru i-at-ri-bu fth year of Nabonidus, although it is not certain that
26. 10 mu.an.names [at-tal-la-ku] q-reb-s-un a-na he was in residence there at that time. YOS 6: 134
27. uru-ia [tin.tirki la] e-ru-ub refers to the transport of the kings provisions to
Tayma in his 10th year, so Nabonidus was certainly
He (Sn) caused me to ee from my city Babylon, ruling from there by that time. The most signicant
and (I traveled) on the path (to) Tayma, Dadanu, text in this regard, however, is GCCI 1: 405. This
Padakku, Hibra, Yadihu, as far as Yatribu. For 10 tablet records the delivery of provisions to Naboni-
years I traveled back and forth between them, and I dus in Tayma during his fth year.12 So it is certain
did not enter my city Babylon. that at some time during the fth year of the reign of
Nabonidus, he took up residency in Tayma.
The Verse Account of Nabonidus (Schaudig 2001: With all of these data, Naboniduss absence from
56378; text P1) is an overtly propagandistic text Babylon can be limited to a period of 10 years be-
that describes the reign of Nabonidus negatively, tween the beginning of his campaign (year 3 or 553
while the actions of Cyrus, the Persian king who b.c.e.) and the middle of his 16th year (Beaulieu
defeated him, are positively presented (Lee 1994). 1989: 154; cf. Tadmor 1965; Lambert 1972). Beau-
Although the narrative mentions little about the lieu (1989: 15463) refers to several letters and
western campaign of Nabonidus, it does place his prosopographical evidence to suggest that Naboni-
departure from Babylon and the start of the co- dus was back in Babylon by the middle of his 13th
regency of his son at the beginning of his third year. year, thereby further limiting the stay of Nabonidus
in Tayma to between the years 553 and 543 b.c.e.
ii. 17b . . . s-lul-ti mu ina k[a]-s-d[u] These limited data are indirect and also inconclu-
18. ka-ra-s ip-ta-qid ana res-tu- bu-kur-s sivenone of the texts actually place Nabonidus in
19. lrin-ni ma-ti-tam -ta-r-ir ki-s Babylon in his 13th year. With the discovery and
20. ip-ta-a-ar sumin-su ip-ta-qid-su lugal-t publication of several lines from the as-Sila inscrip-
21. su- n-su-ti i-a-bat har-ra-n[u] tion in southern Jordan, it is necessary to reevaluate
22. e-mu-qu kururiki te-bu- it-ti-s[] both the year of Naboniduss campaign through
23. ana urute-ma-a q-reb a-mur-ri-i is-ta-kan igi- Edom and his residency in Tayma.
s[]
the as-sila
At the beginning of the third year, (Nabonidus) en- relief of nabonidus
trusted the military camp to his rstborn son. He
placed the army of all of the lands under his com- The signicant discovery of the as-Sila relief can
mand. He loosened his hands and entrusted kingship provide further clarity to the chronology of Naboni-
to him, and he took the path to far away places. The duss Arabian campaign and the decline of Edom.
forces of Akkad rose up with him, he set out towards The relief is located near the village of Sila approxi-
the city of Tayma, within Amurru. mately 10 km southwest of Taleh and 3 km north-
west of the Edomite settlement of Busayra (g. 1).
The available data from the Babylonian literary It was rst studied by F. Zayadine during a 1994
texts places the beginning of the campaign of Nabo- expedition (Zayadine 1999). Zayadine published his
nidus to Tayma in his third year, or 553 b.c.e. (Verse study of the historical context of the relief in 1999.
Account ii 17 23), when he fought against Ammananu However, he did not attempt any readings of the
(Royal Chronicle iv 26). On the basis of the Royal cuneiform inscription that accompanied the relief.
Chronicle, the year in the Nabonidus Chronicle for In 1996 the relief was studied again by Goguel,
his attack on Ammananu can be reconstructed. who subsequently published it with Assyriologist
None of the accounts state when Nabonidus arrived
in Tayma, although the Harran Stele does provide 12
I thank Paul-Alain Beaulieu for sending me his collation of
the length of his stay in Arabia as 10 years (i. 2226; this important text.
2007 BEGINNING OF THE END OF EDOM 81

divine symbols, the as-Sila gure faces only three.

The symbol closest to the king is a moon disk (Sn);
a winged sun disk (Samas) is in the center, and a
seven-pointed star (Istar) is farthest from the king
(Dalley and Goguel 1997:172; Schaudig 2001: 35
36). These three symbols are also paralleled on
the sculptured stelae mentioned above. Notably,
two of the three divine names are also extant in the
as-Sila inscription. Stephanie Dalley (Dalley and
Goguel 1997: 17275) studied the photos and draw-
ings of the relief. On the basis of the image of the
king, his accoutrements, and the three divine sym-
bols, she identied the gure as Nabonidus. She also
provided a brief overview of the historical context
and concluded that the relief was probably engraved
on the occasion of the subjugation of Edom en route
to Tayma.
Fig. 2. Drawing of the as-Sila relief, with inscribed areas
mentioned in the text. Adapted from Dalley and Goguel The rst publications of the as-Sila relief by Dal-
1997: fig. 8. ley and Goguel (1997) and Zayadine (1999) did not
attempt any readings of the accompanying inscrip-
tion. Dalley (Dalley and Goguel 1997: 173) did iden-
Stephanie Dalley, who studied the inscription and tify a few cuneiform signs in Neo-Babylonian script,
historical context (Dalley and Goguel 1997). The re- like KI and L or LUGAL. Schaudig was the rst
lief was later visited by Raz, Raz, and Uchitel (2001) to publish consecutive signs that could yield a read-
and Gentili and Saporetti (2001); both articles pub- ing. The reading was of one partial line that included
lished portions of the inscription. the name of the king, thus conrming that the relief
The relief was carved about midway up a 150-m- was inscribed during the reign of Nabonidus. The par-
high sandstone cliff in a shallow recess (1020 cm tial line, reconstructed by Schaudig (2001: 544, no.
deep) that measures 2.95 m wide and between 2.00 3.9), reads: I am Nabonidus, king of Babylon . . .
and 2.20 m high (g. 2). The most identiable char- ([ana?-ku?] Idmuati-[i] [lu]gal e[ki . . .]). Schaudig
acteristic of the relief is the standing gure of a further estimated that the entire inscription was ap-
king facing right toward three divine symbols. The proximately 35 lines long (Schaudig 2001: 544). Un-
royal gure holds a long staff in one hand with the til recently, only the 16 squeezes, partially published
other hand raised up toward the rst divine symbol. as photos in Dalley and Goguel (squeezes 916 =
Known royal images of Assyrian kings usually hold Dalley and Goguel 1997: gs. 911) were available
short maces, whereas most images of Nebuchadnez- for scholars to study the inscription.
zar II hold neither staff nor mace (Dalley and Goguel Those who studied the as-Sila inscription gener-
1997: 173). The as-Sila gure also wears a conical ally have followed the chronology of the reign of
crown, unlike the Assyrian at-topped crown. The Nabonidus known from the Nabonidus Chronicle,
closest comparisons to this gure include the top within which little concrete information is available
of two stelae from Harran (H2.A and H2.B; see between years 3 and 13 of his reign, and dated his
Gadd 1958: 3943, pls. 2a, 2b), the Tayma Stele from invasion of Edom to the beginning of this 10-year
the fth century b.c.e. (A.O. 1050; see Gadd 1958: period. Dalley (Dalley and Goguel 1997: 174) tenta-
pl. 3b), and a stele probably of Nabonidus found in tively suggested that Nabonidus defeated Edom in
Babylon (BM 90837; see Gadd 1958: pl. 3a).13 Also year 3 or 4 (553 or 552 b.c.e.) of his reign. Zayadine
unlike Assyrian royal images which face ve or more (1999: 90) placed his campaign in the year 552
b.c.e., or year 4 of his reign, and Schaudig (2001:
13
544, and cf. p. 48) leaves the date open to the period
A stele with similar iconography was discovered recently at
Tayma (TA 488). I thank Hanspeter Schaudig for sending me a
between years 3 and 13.
copy of the stele, which is now published. See Eichmann, Schau- Over two millennia of weathering have badly
dig, and Hausleiter 2006: 16974. eroded almost the entire inscription. Fortunately,
82 BRADLEY CROWELL BASOR 348

a. b.
Fig. 3. (a) Cuneiform inscription from lines 13. Adapted from Gentili and Saporetti 2001: fig. 3. (b) Cuneiform inscription
from lines 21u24u. Adapted from Gentili and Saporetti 2001: fig. 2.

Gentili and Saporetti (2001) published autograph Arabia. This section was published as a hand copy by
copies of the identiable signs and traces of the as- Gentili and Saporetti in their Area 4 (2001: g. 3)
Sila inscription based on an inspection of the relief and as squeeze 16 by Dalley and Goguel (1997: g.
in 2000 (g. 3). Although the length of the inscrip- 11). Raz, Raz, and Uchitel (2001: 35) also published
tion is uncertain, I will refer to approximate line a hand copy of just the rst line. Only the beginnings
numbers of the inscription and correlate them with of the rst three lines are extant in this area, with
the hand copies published in Gentili and Saporetti traces of at least three signs in another three lines.
(2001: gs. 2, 3) and, where available, the squeezes
published by Dalley and Goguel (1997: gs. 811). 1 ana-[ku] mdmuati-[i] lugal e[ki] x x x
The inscription begins at the right side of the star 2 [x x]dutu en [gal- x x
symbol, where approximately 10 lines are discern- 3 [x x] de[n.zu] x x x
ible, although only a few signs remain. The text then
continues beneath the three divine symbols to the 1 I am Nab-naid, king of Babylon
right of the gure of Nabonidus. The rst area 2 [. . .] Samas the [great] lord . . .
published by Gentili and Saporetti (Area 1; 2001: 3 [. . .] Sn [. . .]
g. 2) is from the beginnings of several lines of the
end of the inscription, approximately lines 17u26u While the spelling of the kings name (dmuati-i) is
(squeezes 14 in Dalley and Goguel 1997: g. 8). not the most common spelling within his inscrip-
The second and third areas together (Gentili and tions, it is attested in the two major Harran in-
Saporettis Areas 2 and 3; 2001: gs. 2, 3) cover the scriptions: the Adad-guppi Stele (Harran H 1 i 7;
entire height of the center of the inscription; Area 2 ii 7, 35, 45; ii 24u) and the Harran Inscription of
consists of signs from the lines in the lower portion Nabonidus (H 2 i 24u). The two gods mentioned in
of the column (approximately lines 21u26u), and this section are common in the texts from this pe-
Area 3 has traces of a few signs at the top of the cen- riod. Both Samas and Sn continued to be signi-
ter portion of lines 11u20u, directly beneath the star cant deities in Arabia well after the collapse of the
symbol. The beginnings of the rst seven lines of the Neo-Babylonian empire. Samas, symbolized in the
inscription are found in Area 4 (Gentili and Saporetti relief by the winged sun disk, was known as almu
2001: g. 3) to the right of the star symbol. Most of in northwest Arabia in later times (Dalley 1985;
the lines consist of only one or two extant signs that 1986). Sn, represented by the crescent moon sym-
in isolation yield no sensible readings. Yet there are bol, was the most important god for Nabonidus.
two important readings that add to our understanding Temples dedicated to him and inscriptions mention-
of this inscription. ing him have been found even in southern Arabia
The reading of the beginning of the inscription (Frantsouzoff 2001). In this inscription, Samas (dutu)
conrms Dalleys argument that the as-Sila relief is followed by en (belu). The most common appella-
was engraved during the campaign of Nabonidus to tive for Samas in the inscriptions of Nabonidus is
2007 BEGINNING OF THE END OF EDOM 83

belu rab (either as en ra-bu- or en gal-), the The events of the fth year of the reign of Nabo-
great lord, and that is the probable reconstruction nidus are virtually unknown. By the end of his fth
in the as-Sila relief, although no traces of the sign year, Nabonidus was residing in Tayma, yet with the
following en remain. publication of this line by Gentili and Saporetti it
The second important reading on the as-Sila re- now appears that Nabonidus was still in the midst of
lief is at the beginning of several lines farther down his campaign to Arabia during at least the rst part
the inscription, approximately lines 21u24u. This sec- of his fth year. The reconstruction of rin (ummanu,
tion, as fragmentary as it is, has implications for the troops) is a strong possibility for the beginning of
chronology of the fall of Edom and the western cam- line 22u. The plural determinative hi.a is clear in
paign of Nabonidus. It is published as a hand copy by the autograph copy, and within military contexts in
Gentili and Saporetti (Area 4; 2001: g. 2). Unfortu- the epigraphic material from the reign of Nabonidus,
nately, the squeezes of this section were never pub- this is one of the most common terms pluralized with
lished, but it covers the area of Dalley and Goguels hi.a. Unfortunately, the center portion of the inscrip-
squeezes 14 (see 1997: g. 8). After approximately tion is badly eroded, and only a few signs remain.
four lines with partially preserved signs, a year of the For example, in Gentili and Saporettis Area 2 (2001:
reign of the king is given. The following section of g. 2), approximately line 21u, traces of a LUGAL
the inscription yields individual signs that suggest are still visible.
the language of a military campaign.
possible archaeological
21u mu.5.k[m . . .] correlates of the
22u rin?]hi.a [. . .] campaign of nabonidus
23u . . .] k.gal [. . .]
During the Iron Age, most Edomite sites were
24u . . .] l.mes [. . .]
small, unfortied agricultural villages that were aban-
doned when the Edomite polity began to decline in
21u Year 5 [. . .
the mid-sixth century b.c.e. As discussed above,
22u the troop]s [. . .
Nabonidus has long been considered the culprit of
23u . . .] the gate of [. . .
instigating Edoms decline. A number of scholars
24u . . .] the men [. . .
have also noted that destruction levels at Busayra,
Tawilan, and Tall al-Khalay occurred in the middle
The beginning of the year-date in line 21u is clear, of the sixth century b.c.e., although occupation at
although that is all that remains of this line. Gentili these sites continued into the Persian period (Zaya-
and Saporetti (2001: 42) read the third sign in line dine 1999: 8889; Dalley and Goguel 1997: 175;
21u as LUGAL. However, MU followed by a year Bartlett 1989: 15859). Yet these scholars also point
number is never followed by LUGAL in Assyrian or out that direct, clear links between the campaign of
Babylonian inscriptions; it is typically followed by Nabonidus through Edom and these destructions
KM. Since only the beginning of the sign is extant are lacking. While the complete as-Sila inscription
on their rendition of the inscription and those traces could have narrated his campaign through Edom,
are similar to the KM sign, it is preferable to read historical details connecting Nabonidus with an attack
the very common formula of mu.5.km in this line. on any Edomite city do not exist. Furthermore, the
Likewise, it is important to note that without the destructions at Busayra, Tawilan, and Tall al-Khalay
end of the line, or the context, it is possible that the could have been the result of unintentional res, local
year is not referring to the attack on Edom but to uprisings, or a number of other explanations.
some other event that occurred prior to that part of Bienkowski (2002: 47778) makes a strong argu-
the campaign. The fth year of Nabonidus (or 551 ment that, of the three sites that some connect with
b.c.e.), however, can now be seen as a terminus a Nabonidus, Busayra was attacked during this cam-
quo for the attack on Edom. This dating of the attack paign. Busayra was the largest Edomite village (at
on Edom remains only probable, since the fragmen- around 8.16 ha), and it was the only fortied site, sit-
tary nature of the inscription does not allow us to uated on a spur surrounded by deep ravines on three
determine any details about what happened in the sides. Busayra was established in the late eighth cen-
fth year. tury b.c.e. and ourished throughout the seventh and
84 BRADLEY CROWELL BASOR 348

rst half of the sixth centuries b.c.e. (Bienkowskis son to link Nabonidus with the end of the site. While
Integrated Stage 2; 2002: 47577). During this Nabonidus could have been responsible for the de-
period, two large public buildings were constructed: struction of the temple and palace at Busayra, it is
a temple in Area A and a palace in Area C. The de- unlikely that he was ever involved in Tawilan or Tall
structions at the end of Stage 2, in the mid-sixth al-Khalay.
century b.c.e., were in the courtyard and cella of the
Area A temple and in the reception room and bath- a possible reconstruction
room of the Area C palace (Bienkowski 2002: 475; of the end of edom
2001c: 2025). Both of the buildings were subse-
quently rebuilt and used into the Persian period. The Nabonidus traveled south on the Kings Highway
village wall and domestic areas were not destroyed at from the region of Syria during his third (553 b.c.e.)
this time; instead the attackers focused on the two and fourth (552 b.c.e.) years. In his fth year (551
buildings that were symbolically important for the b.c.e.), he and his troops reached the mountainous
ruling Edomite elite (Bienkowski 2001c; 2002: 478). terrain of Edom. This was the polity that controlled
Farther to the south, in the Petra region of south- the southernmost section of the trade routes from
ern Jordan, the 2.45-ha unfortied agricultural village south Arabia, which bisected in its territory north to
of Tawilan was also partially destroyed around this the other Transjordanian polities and Syria and west
time, although it is less certain that Nabonidus was to the Negev and the Mediterranean Sea. For Nabo-
responsible. There is evidence of destructions and nidus to control the lucrative trade routes coming out
re in the three excavated areas, but it is not clear if of southern Arabia, it was necessary for him to sub-
they were contemporaneous destructions or even if jugate Edom and either establish his own proxy ruler
they were deliberate (Bennett and Bienkowski 1995: there or force the Edomite elite to support his poli-
105). The site was eventually abandoned, although cies. He attacked the central village of Busayra and
a cuneiform tablet was found in the ll. The tablet destroyed its only two public buildingsthe temple
was written in Harran during the rst year of King and the small palace. Perhaps the Edomite rulers
Darius, probably Darius II, around 423 b.c.e. (Dal- and their kin ed to the mountaintop settlement of
ley 1995: 67). While Busayra and Tawilan were as-Sila where Nabonidus and his troops pursued
partially destroyed or abandoned in the middle of them.14 After they submitted or were defeated, Na-
the sixth century b.c.e., limited occupation of these bonidus had the as-Sila relief engraved to commem-
sites, and Tall al Khalay, continued in the Persian orate his victory and reinforce his position of power
period (Bienkowski 2001a; Knauf 1990: 205). to the local population. He continued southeast to
The southernmost site occasionally associated Dadanu and then on to Tayma where he began to
with Nabonidus is Tall al-Khalay. Tall al-Khalay, rule in this fth year (551 b.c.e.). Having lost their
a .48-ha fortied site about 100 m north of the Gulf primary means of prot, some of the remaining
of Aqaba, was rst excavated by Nelson Glueck Edomite elite went to the west, to the cities of the
(1938a; 1938b; 1939; 1940; 1970: 1067). Analysis Negev, where they could continue to gain from the
of this site is difcult, and Gluecks conclusions trade routes, a process underway even during the sev-
and stratigraphy have been reevaluated by Pratico enth and early sixth centuries b.c.e. (Bartlett 1999).
(1985; 1993). Recently, Naaman (2001) has sug- Some of the elite may have remained and continued
gested that Tall al-Khalay was not ever an Edomite to exercise some level of control under submission
site, but that it was an Assyrian emporium founded to Nabonidus. The many small villages and agricul-
in the late eighth century b.c.e. According to Pra- tural sites in Edom that were constructed during the
ticos conclusion (1993), the site was constructed
and in use between the eighth and early sixth cen-
turies b.c.e. There were rebuilds and expansions of 14 Glueck (1935: 100, 113) initially visited the site during his

the site, but destruction levels have not been clearly surveys of the region. Numerous archaeologists have visited and
identied. Some occupation of Tall al-Khalay cer- excavated portions of the site (see MacDonald et al. 2004: 276 for
tainly continued into the fth and possibly fourth literature). The site receives considerable attention in secondary
literature because many associate it with biblical Sela/Joktheel
century b.c.e., as both pottery and ostraca indicate. where Amaziah defeated and killed 10,000 Edomites (2 Chr
Regardless of the lack of a clear destruction level in 25:1112; 2 Kgs 14:7). For this identication, see Lemaire 2003;
the mid-sixth century b.c.e., there would be no rea- Hart 1986.
2007 BEGINNING OF THE END OF EDOM 85

Assyrian period were gradually abandoned after the b.c.e. was possible for the campaign of Nabonidus
thin-veneer of the state had been removed. through Edom. This attack can now be relatively se-
curely dated to 551 b.c.e., the fth year of Naboni-
conclusion dus. Nabonidus is most likely responsible for the
partial destruction of the Area A temple and Area C
Those who attempt to study the history of Edom palace at Busayra. He then continued on his cam-
are faced with sets of data that rarely allow for pre- paign to Dadanu in northwest Arabia and nally to
cise dating. Bartletts (1972: 37) admission that (w)e Tayma where he ruled for the next 10 years. Although
cannot pretend that we are well informed about the it is still unclear what happened in Edom in the years
decline of the Edomite kingdom still holds true. immediately following the campaign of Nabonidus,
Until the discovery of the as-Sila relief and the pub- this attack was the beginning of the end for the Iron
lication of the few remaining signs from its inscrip- Age polity in Edom.
tion, a range of dates between 553 and about 550

references

Aituv, S. Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your Brother:

1999 An Edomite Ostracon. Pp. 3337 in Michael: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition, ed.
Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies D. V. Edelman. Archaeology and Biblical
in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer, eds. Y. Studies 3. Atlanta: Scholars.
Avishur and R. Deutsch. Tel Aviv: Archaeolog- 2001a The Iron Age and Persian Periods in Jordan.
ical Center. Studies in the History and Archaeology of
Aituv, S., and Yardeni, A. Jordan 7: 26574.
2004 Seventeen Aramaic Texts on Ostraca from 2001b Iron Age Settlement in Edom: A Revised
Idumea: The Late Persian to the Early Hellenis- Framework. Pp. 25769 in The World of the
tic Periods. MAARAV 11: 723. Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archae-
Bartlett, J. R. ology in Honour of Paul-Eugne Dion, eds.
1972 The Rise and Fall of the Kingdom of Edom. P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M. Weigl.
Palestine Exploration Quarterly 104: 2637. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
1982 Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 b.c. Pal- Supplement Series 325. Shefeld: Shefeld
estine Exploration Quarterly 114: 1324. Academic.
1989 Edom and the Edomites. Journal for the Study 2001c New Evidence on Edom in the Neo-Babylonian
of the Old Testament Supplement Series 77. and Persian Periods. Pp. 198213 in The Land
Shefeld: JSOT. That I Will Show You: Essays on the History
1999 Edom and the Idumaeans. Palestine Explora- and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in
tion Quarterly 131: 10214. Honour of J. Maxwell Miller, eds. J. A. Dear-
Bennett, C.-M., and Bienkowski, P. man and M. P. Graham. Journal for the Study of
1995 Excavations at Tawilan in Southern Jordan. the Old Testament Supplement Series 343.
British Academy Monographs in Archaeology Shefeld: Shefeld Academic.
8. Oxford: Oxford University. 2002 Busayra Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett
Beaulieu, P.-A. 19711980. British Academy Monographs in
1989 The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556 Archaeology 13. Oxford: Oxford University.
539 b.c. Yale Near Eastern Researches 10. New Dalley, S.
Haven: Yale University. 1985 Stelae from Teima and the God lm (almu).
Bienkowski, P. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Stud-
1992 The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern ies 15: 2733.
Jordan: A Framework. Pp. 112 in Early Edom 1986 The God almu and the Winged Disc. Iraq 48:
and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in 85101.
Southern Jordan, ed. P. Bienkowski. Shef- 1995 The Cuneiform Tablet. Pp. 6768 in Excava-
eld Archaeological Monographs 7. Shefeld: tions at Tawilan in Southern Jordan, by C.-M.
Collis. Bennett and P. Bienkowski. British Academy
1995 The Edomites: The Archaeological Evidence Monographs in Archaeology 8. Oxford: Oxford
from Transjordan. Pp. 4192 in You Shall Not University.
86 BRADLEY CROWELL BASOR 348

Dalley, S., and Goguel, A. 1970 The Other Side of the Jordan. Cambridge, MA:
1997 The Sela Sculpture: A Neo-Babylonian Rock American Schools of Oriental Research.
Relief in Southern Jordan. Annual of the De- Grayson, A. K.
partment of Antiquities of Jordan 41: 16976. 1975 Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locust
Eichmann, R.; Schaudig, H.; and Hausleiter, A. Valley, NY: Augustin.
2006 Archaeology and Epigraphy at Tayma (Saudi Gruntfest, Y., and Heltzer, M.
Arabia). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 2001 Nabonid, King of Babylon (556539 b.c.e.) in
17: 16376. Arabia in Light of New Evidence. Biblische
Ephal, I., and Naveh, J. Notizen 110: 2530.
1996 Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century b.c. Hart, S.
from Idumaea. Jerusalem: Magnes. 1986 Sela: The Rock of Edom? Palestine Explora-
Finkelstein, I. tion Quarterly 118: 9195.
2005 Khirbet en-Nahas, Edom and Biblical History. Hayajneh, H.
Tel Aviv 32: 11925. 2001 First Evidence of Nabonidus in the Ancient
Finkelstein, I., and Piasetzky, E. North Arabian Inscriptions from the Region of
2006 14C and the Iron Age Chronology Debate: Tayma. Proceedings of the Seminar for Ara-
Rehov, Khirbet en-Nahas, Dan, and Megiddo. bian Studies 31: 8195.
Radiocarbon 48: 37386. Knauf, E. A.
Frantsouzoff, S. A. 1990 The Persian Administration in Arabia. Trans-
2001 Epigraphic Evidence for the Cult of the God Sin euphratne 2: 20117.
at Raybun and Shabwa. Proceedings of the Knauf, E. A., and Lenzen., C. J.
Seminar for Arabian Studies 31: 5967. 1987 Edomite Copper Industry. Studies in the His-
Gadd, C. J. tory and Archaeology of Jordan 3: 8388.
1958 The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus. Anato- Knauf-Belleri, E. A.
lian Studies 8: 3592. 1995 Edom: The Social and Economic History. Pp.
GCCI 1 = Dougherty, R. P. 93117 in You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for
1923 Archives from Erech, Time of Nebuchadrezzar He Is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History
and Nabonidus. Goucher College Cuneiform and Tradition, ed. D. V. Edelman. Archaeology
Inscriptions 1. New Haven: Yale University. and Biblical Studies 3. Atlanta: Scholars.
Gentili, P., and Saporetti, C. Lambert, W. G.
2001 Nabonedo a Sela. Geo-Archeologia 2001/1: 1968 A New Source for the Reign of Nabonidus.
3958. Archiv fr Orientforschung 22: 18.
Glueck, N. 1972 Nabonidus in Arabia. Pp. 5364 in Proceedings
1935 Explorations in Eastern Palestine, II. Annual of the Fifth Seminar for Arabian Studies: Held
of the American Schools of Oriental Research at the Oriental Institute, Oxford, 22nd and 23rd
15. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental September, 1971. London: Seminar for Arabian
Research. Studies.
1936 The Boundaries of Edom. Hebrew Union Col- Lee, T. G.
lege Annual 11: 14157. 1994 Propaganda and the Verse Account of Naboni-
1938a The First Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ez- dus Reign. Bulletin of the Canadian Society
ion-Geber). Bulletin of the American Schools of for Mesopotamian Studies 28: 3136.
Oriental Research 71: 317. Lemaire, A.
1938b The Topography and History of Ezion-Geber 1994 Les transformations politiques et culturelles
and Elath. Bulletin of the American Schools of de la Transjordanie au VIe sicle av. J.-C. Trans-
Oriental Research 72: 213. euphratne 8: 927.
1939 The Second Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ez- 1995 Les inscriptions aramennes anciennes de
ion-Geber: Elath). Bulletin of the American Teima sur les Pistes de Teima. Pp. 5972 in
Schools of Oriental Research 75: 822. Prsence arabe dans le Croissant fertile avant
1940 The Third Season of Excavation at Tell el- lHgire, ed. H. Lozachmeur. Paris: ditions
Kheleifeh. Bulletin of the American Schools of Recherche sur les civilisations.
Oriental Research 79: 218. 1996 Nouvelles inscriptions aramennes d Idume
1946 Transjordan. Biblical Archaeologist 9: 4561. au Muse d Isral. Supplment Transeu-
1947 The Civilization of the Edomites. Biblical Ar- phratne 3. Paris: Gabalda.
chaeologist 10: 7784. 1997 Ddom lIdume et Rome. Pp. 81103 in
Des Sumriens aux Romains dOrient: La percep-
2007 BEGINNING OF THE END OF EDOM 87

tion gographique du Monde, ed. A. Srandour. Lozachmeur, H., and Lemaire, A.

Antiquits smitiques 2. Paris: Maisonneuve. 1996 Nouveaux ostraca aramens dIdume (Collec-
2002 Nouvelles inscriptions aramennes d Idume: tion Sh. Moussaeff ). Semitica 46: 12342.
Collections Moussaeff, Jeselsohn, Welch et MacDonald, B.; Herr, L G.; Neeley, M. P.; Gagos, T;
divers. Supplment Transeuphratne 9. Paris: Moumani, K.; and Rockman, M.
Gabalda. 2004 The Tala-Busayra Archaeological Survey
2003 Nabonidus in Arabia and Judah in the Neo- 19992001, West-Central Jordan. American
Babylonian Period. Pp. 28598 in Judah and Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological
the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, eds. Reports 9. Boston: American Schools of Orien-
O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, tal Research.
IN: Eisenbrauns. Macumber, P. G.
Levy, T. E.; Adams, R. B.; Anderson, J. D.; Najjar, M.; 2001 Evolving Landscape and Environment in Jor-
Smith, N.; Arbel, Y.; Soderbaum, L.; and dan. Pp. 130 in The Archaeology of Jordan,
Muniz, A. eds. B. MacDonald, R. Adams, and P. Bien-
2003 An Iron Age Landscape in the Edomite Low- kowski. Levantine Archaeology 1. Shefeld:
lands: Archaeological Surveys along the Wadi Shefeld Academic.
al-Ghuwayb and Wadi al-Jariya, Jabal amrat Mller, W. W., and al-Said, S. F.
Fidan, Jordan, 2002. Annual of the Department 2001 Der babylonische Knig Nabonid in taymani-
of Antiquities of Jordan 47: 24777. schen Inschriften. Biblische Notizen 107/108:
Levy, T. E.; Adams, R. B.; Najjar, M.; Hauptmann, A.; 10919.
Anderson, J. D.; Brandl, B.; Robinson, M. A.; Naaman, N.
and Higham, T. 2001 An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Rael? Tel
2004 Reassessing the Chronology of Biblical Edom: Aviv 28: 26080.
New Excavations and 14C Dates from Khirbat Naveh, J.
en-Nahas (Jordan). Antiquity 78: 86579. 1973 The Aramaic Ostraca. Pp. 7982 in Beer-Sheba
Levy, T. E.; Adams, R. B.; and Shaq, R. I: Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba, 19691971
1999 The Jabal Hamrat Fidan Project: Excavations at Seasons, ed. Y. Aharoni. Tel Aviv: Institute of
the Wadi Fidan 40 Cemetery, Jordan (1997). Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Levant 31: 293308. 1979 The Aramaic Ostraca from Tel Beer-Sheba
Levy, T. E.; Higham, T.; and Najjar, M. (Seasons 19711976). Tel Aviv 6: 18298.
2006 Response to van der Steen and Bienkowski. An- 1981 The Aramaic Ostraca from Tel Arad. Pp. 153
tiquity 80/307. http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/ 74 in Arad Inscriptions, by Y. Aharoni. Jerusa-
levy/index.html. lem: Israel Exploration Society.
Levy, T. E., and Najjar, M. Pratico, G. D.
2006a Edom and Copper: The Emergence of Ancient 1985 Nelson Gluecks 19381940 Excavations at
Israels Rival. Biblical Archaeology Review 32/ Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal. Bulletin of
4: 2435, 70. the American Schools of Oriental Research
2006b Some Thoughts on Khirbet en-Naas, Edom, 259: 132.
Biblical History and AnthropologyA Re- 1993 The Pottery. Pp. 3550 in Nelson Gluecks
sponse to Israel Finkelstein. Tel Aviv 33: 317. 19381940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh:
Levy, T. E.; Najjar, M.; van der Plicht, J.; Smith, N.; A Reappraisal, ed. G. D. Pratico. American
Bruins, H. J.; and Higham, T. Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological
2005 Lowland Edom and the High and Low Chronol- Reports 3. Atlanta: Scholars.
ogies: Edomite State Formation, the Bible and Raz, E.; Raz, T.; and Uchitel, A.
Recent Archaeological Research in Southern 2001 SelaThe Rock of Edom. Cathedra 101: 19
Jordan. Pp. 12963 in The Bible and Radiocar- 38 (Hebrew), 205 (English summary).
bon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, eds. Schaudig, H.
T. E. Levy and T. Higham. London: Equinox. 2001 Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und
Lindsay, J. Kyros des Groen samt den in ihrem Umfeld
1976 The Babylonian Kings and Edom, 605550 b.c. entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgabe und
Palestine Exploration Quarterly 108: 2339. Grammatik. Alter Orient und Altes Testament
1999 Edomite Westward Expansion: The Biblical 256. Mnster: Ugarit.
Evidence. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 36: Tadmor, H.
4889. 1965 The Inscriptions of Nabunaid: Historical Ar-
rangement. Pp. 35163 in Studies in Honor of
88 BRADLEY CROWELL BASOR 348

Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birth- Zadok, R.

day, April 21, 1965, eds. Hans G. Gterbock 1985 Geographical Names According to New- and
and T. Jacobsen. Assyriological Studies 16. Late-Babylonian Texts. Rpertoire Gogra-
Chicago: University of Chicago. phique des Textes Cuniformes 8. Wiesbaden:
van der Steen, E., and Bienkowski, P. Reichert.
2006 Radiocarbon Dates from Khirbat en-Nahas: Zayadine, F.
A Methodological Critique. Antiquity 80/307. 1999 Le relief no-babylonien Sela prs de Taleh:
http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/levy/index.html. Interprtation historique. Syria 76: 8390.
YOS 6 = Dougherty, R. P.
1920 Records from Erech, Time of Nabonidus (555
538 b.c.). Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian
Texts 6. New Haven: Yale University.