Commander of the Fortress?

039

One of the most enigmatic archaeological discoveries of the past century is a limestone seal excavated at Tel Arad by Yohanan Aharoni in 1967. It has never been fully published, which may be partially due to the difficulty of not knowing exactly what it represents! In his preliminary publication, Aharoni suggested that the seal might depict the blueprint, a sketch, of the fortress of Arad itself. And this is the explanation that visitors will find today when they visit the Israel Museum and read its label: “Seal, possibly bearing the plan of the fortress of Arad.”

I would suggest that recent archaeological discoveries and research offer new insights into the purpose of this enigmatic seal as well as its place in the development of early Judahite administrative bureaucracy.

The seal was found in a stratum at Tel Arad dated to the Iron IIB period (c. 840–700 B.C.E.)—although it is difficult to date the seal definitively because it may have been made and then used for several generations before it became part of the archaeological record. The seal has no close parallels in the Judahite corpus or in neighboring cultures. Notably, it is anepigraphic (it does not have any names, titles, or writing of any kind on it) and iconic (possessing only an image).

There are three types of ancient Israelite seals. The first type is completely anepigraphic and iconic, that is, with only images and no writing. The Arad040 seal falls into this category. A second type has both writing and images. The third type has only writing and no images.

The first type of seal is exclusive to the Iron IIA period (980–840 B.C.E.) and early Iron IIB period, that is, the tenth and ninth centuries B.C.E. For example, a large cache of more than 170 anepigraphic seals was excavated in the area of the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem.¹ These were dated to the ninth century B.C.E., that is, to the early Iron IIB period.

At some point in the eighth century, the Israelites began to make seals that incorporated writing, and, by the end of the eighth century B.C.E., all Judahite seals were epigraphic. The writing on seals typically consists of their owners’ personal names, but it could also include titles and sometimes even dates. Many seals still had images, but the increasing importance of writing is represented in the development of the seals.^a Thus, there is a typological development of ancient Judahite seals from anepigraphic to epigraphic.

Although the exact interpretation of the Arad “fortress” seal is still something of an enigma, the best guess continues to be that it represents a plan of the fortress itself. The fortress at Arad is famous for its temple, and the deep circular depression seems to represent the temple in the layout of the seal. Presumably, this would have been the seal of the commander of the fortress at Arad. In this respect, it should be seen as the forerunner for later seals.

The title “commander of (the) fortress” is first known from inscriptions at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. This site was a remote fortress on a trade route from Eilat to Gaza located in the barren wilderness of the central Sinai. This road connected the Red Sea’s Gulf of Aqaba with the Mediterranean coast long before the modern Suez Canal. The excavators of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud found several shallow wells nearby that would have provided a perennial water source suitable for the small fortress. Most notably, excavations at the site recovered a multitude of inscriptions on jars, stone, and plaster walls—including three storage jars with the inscription le-śar ‘ir, which must be translated “belonging to commander of fortress.”

The spelling of this title in Hebrew without the definite article—thus “commander of fortress” instead of “commander of the fortress”—reflects an early stage of the Hebrew language before the use of the definite article (“the”) had been standardized. Although this title is usually translated as “belonging to the governor of the city,” this translation does not at all fit at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, which was no city. In this instance, the title can refer only to the person in charge of a small fortress during its heyday around 800 B.C.E. The (mis)translation reflects the041 development of the Hebrew word ‘ir, which later came to mean “city.” However, these inscriptions prove that the original meaning of ‘ir could be applied to a much smaller walled settlement, like a small remote fortress.

Another inscription from the fortress at Arad also shows that ‘ir did not originally mean a “city” but rather a fortified enclosure. Arad Ostracon 24 requests that a small detachment of soldiers be sent to a remote military fort called Ramat Negeb, “lest something should happen to the fortress (‘ir)” (lines 13–17). This observation also can be applied to the (mis)translation of ‘ir-David as “City of David.” This is especially clear in the story of David’s conquest of the fortified Jebusite settlement: “David captured the stronghold of Zion—that is, the ‘ir-David” (2 Samuel 5:7, author’s translation). The Biblical author updates the description of the fortified enclosure that David captured, which was a stronghold or fortress known as Zion, and renames it after its conqueror.

So then, was ‘ir-David the whole city of Jerusalem, or did it refer only to the fortress captured by David? Perhaps both. The emphasis in 2 Samuel 5 is on the fortified nature of the Jebusite town that David captured.^b Later, as Jerusalem grew, the meaning of ‘ir also grew to encompass the whole “city.” Eventually, the word ‘ir would evolve to mean only “city” and no longer “fortress.”

The “commander of (the) fortress” title has also been reconstructed in an inscription on one of the fortress walls at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. The walls were treated with plaster and had a variety of inscriptions and drawings on them. Although most of the plaster has fallen off the walls, some partial inscriptions can be reconstructed, revealing mostly poetic texts that mention the deities Ba‘al, El, and Yahweh. In one fragmentary inscription, Biblical scholar Erhard Blum has reconstructed the expression na‘arê śar ‘ir, which seems to refer to “apprentices of the commander of (the) fortress.”²

Who were these apprentices? Kuntillet ‘Ajrud is a military fortress and a waystation in the desert, so it is possible that they were young soldiers. The term na‘ar occurs 244 times in the Hebrew Bible and is most frequently understood as an adolescent boy. But there are also examples where it means a servant or apprentice. One of the more prominent examples is the use of na‘ar for the young Samuel. After he was weaned, he became the na‘ar—“servant” or042 “apprentice”—to the priest Eli (see 1 Samuel 1:22–27).

The most important Biblical parallel occurs in Judges where Gideon captures a na‘ar after a military conflict and enlists him to write down the names of his foes: “When Gideon son of Joash returned from the battle by the ascent of Heres, he captured a na‘ar from the men of Succoth and questioned him; and he wrote down for him the officials and elders of Succoth, 77 people” (Judges 8:13–14, author’s translation). Some scholars use this example to argue for widespread literacy in early Israel, even among young boys. That is probably reading too much into this example. But it does offer evidence that he was a simple boy as we see later in the story: “But the na‘ar did not draw his sword, for he was afraid, because he was still a na‘ar” (8:20). In this context, na‘ar seems to be a young person in training with the military, but not a seasoned soldier. This would fit well with “apprentices of the commander of (the) fortress” at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud.

If we understand that na‘ar can be a young person receiving military training, then this would account for its relationship to the title “commander of (the) fortress.” Part of the responsibilities of the commander of the fortress may have been to pass along rudimentary military education to young soldiers under his command. It probably was unfortunate that they got assigned to a remote and inhospitable fortress like Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, but this is often the lot for apprentices!

Recently, excavations in the Temple Mount area of Jerusalem unearthed a new seal impression with the title le-śar ‘ir, spelled in exactly the same way as on the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud storage jar inscriptions. The seal has two figures who seem to be jointly holding a sun disk or perhaps a symbol of the moon. In neo-Assyrian iconography, such images are usually associated with the neo-Assyrian moon god, Sin. I prefer to see this circular image at the top as a sun disk, which was a well-known royal symbol in the late Judahite monarchy (e.g., on the royal LMLK seal impressions).

The Temple Mount seal impression made a big splash in the media as it was presented to the mayor of Jerusalem as bearing the title of one of his ancient predecessors, “the governor of the city.”³ Unfortunately, this was a mistranslation. The word śar is a loanword from Akkadian, and it refers to a military commander or an officer. We find the term in a number of Hebrew inscriptions, including Lachish043 Letter 3, line 14, which refers to “the commander of the army” (śar ha-ṣaba’). A complaint from an agricultural worker at the small fortress of Metzad Hashavyahu is also addressed to the śar. It seems likely, then, that the title in the seal impression from Jerusalem should be translated as “commander of (the) fortress.” Indeed, it makes little sense to think of it as a civilian title since the king also resided in Jerusalem. Rather, the parallels for this title indicate that this was the military commander in charge of the fortified town of Jerusalem—or perhaps, more narrowly, a fortress within Jerusalem.

Two additional unprovenanced seal impressions imprinted by the same seal are also on display in the Israel Museum.⁴ The two separate impressions allow us to make a good composite drawing of the original seal, which featured two figures. The larger figure on the left is the king, standing on a platform and holding military symbols of power that include a composite bow and three arrows. The figure on the right reaches out to receive the military symbols of authority; he stands above the title “commander of the fortress.” The artwork itself is a mixture of Assyrian and Egyptian styles.⁵ The most obvious Egyptianizing element is placing the title of the figure within a cartouche.

On the basis of its iconography and paleography, we would date this seal to the late seventh century B.C.E. So it is the chronologically latest example of a seal with the title “commander of the fortress,” and it is significant for several reasons. First, the seal’s impressions indicate that it was a much more refined, carved seal than the earlier Temple Mount seal. Second, the bow and arrows give the seal a clear military import. This is not simply a civilian governor, but rather a military commander. The pose of the “commander of the fortress,” who stands above his title and receives the bow and arrows from the royal figure, suggests that the seal was given to this figure by the king—perhaps when he was appointed to his position.

This latest seal also reflects an important typological development in the Hebrew language. Namely, the definite article appears for the first time in the formal title, śar ha‘ir “commander of the fortress.” All the earlier uses of this title, beginning with the storage jars at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, omit the definite article.

In its earliest phase, the Hebrew language did not have a definite article, but rather used case endings. At some point in the early history of Hebrew, case endings disappeared, and the use of a definite article began to develop. The early use of the title, “commander of fortress,” reflects an early stage when044 Hebrew did not regularly use definite articles. Over time, the use of the definite article would become more common and grammatically standardized. By the time we come to the late Judahite monarchy, the inscriber of the last seal thought the definite article was needed. In this respect, we can date the various inscriptions and seals by the omission or inclusion of the definite article.

In these seals, the title is more important than a personal name. The seal impressions from Jerusalem mention no names, only the title, and the storage jars at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud are also for an unnamed commander. In some unprovenanced seals, we do have names with the title “commander of the fortress.” However, these may be forgeries. Actually, the inclusion of the personal names on these unprovenanced seals make them suspect. In this respect, they are strikingly different from the examples excavated from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Jerusalem. The lack of the personal name actually makes a seal more utilitarian; it belongs to the position rather than to a singular person. In this respect, it was transferable, giving it a longer lifespan.

Almost all other seal impressions in ancient Israel mention their owner—with the exception of the royal LMLK seal inscriptions, meaning “(belonging) to the king.” These, too, are unnamed and therefore transferable. In this respect, the “commander of (the) fortress” title holds an exceptional place in the bureaucracy of ancient Judah.

The typological development of seals for commanders of fortresses in ancient Judah is informed by a complex interaction of iconography, paleography, and even grammar. Whereas the earliest seal for the “commander of fortress” at Tel Arad had only the image of the fortress over which he presided, the seal from Jerusalem’s Temple Mount illustrates the increasing importance of writing for the bureaucracy of the Judahite monarchy in the eighth century, which led to the incorporation of names and titles on seals and sealings. As the use of writing spread and developed in the late Judahite monarchy, there were developments in spelling and standardization of grammar—developments that are perhaps unsurprising to those who work within ever-burgeoning government bureaucracies. It is said life imitates art; perhaps the same can be said about grammar and bureaucracy as well.

From Tel Arad to Kuntillet ‘Ajrud to Jerusalem, Biblical scholar William M. Schniedewind guides BAR readers on a survey of ancient Israelite seals and inscriptions with an enigmatic title that has been variously translated “Governor of the City” and “Commander of the Fortress.” Who was this figure? Discover his importance and place in ancient Israelite and Judahite society.