Standing stones are still a puzzle. They’re hard to understand. Standing stones have been found in the Near East from as early as 10,000 B.C.E.,a and they continue through the Biblical period. Massebah (plural masseboth) is the Hebrew word usually translated “standing stone(s).” Massebah and its variants appear 34 times in the Bible.b Sometimes the stones are mentioned in a positive light, as when Moses set up 12 masseboth at Mt. Sinai at the ratification of the covenant between God and Israel (Exodus 24:4) or when Joshua erected a “great stone” at Shechem (Joshua 24:26–27). Sometimes they are referred to in a neutral context, as when Jacob set up a massebah upon awakening from the dream in which he saw a ladder (or stairs) to heaven (Genesis 28:18). But most of the time the Bible violently condemns masseboth: “You shall not … erect a massebah, which the Lord your God detests” (Deuteronomy 16:22).
Masseboth have been found at numerous sites in Israel, such as Tel Dan,c Arad,1 Megiddo,2 Tel Kitan3 and others.
039
Now we have an unusual collection of masseboth from Hazor, the Canaanite city that, according to Joshua 11, the Israelites conquered and burned. But the masseboth we found here come from about half a millennium before the Canaanite city was destroyed.
What is perhaps most surprising is that there were so many of them, all found in strata that were part of a cultic complex from the Middle Bronze Age II (c. 1800–1550 B.C.E.).
The MBII city of Hazor in Upper Galilee included more than 225 acres, making it an enormous city for its time. (In the period just before Joshua, the Bible calls Hazor “the head of all those [Canaanite] kingdoms” [Joshua 11:10].) The MBII city is the earliest settlement excavated so far at the site. It was fortified with mighty ramparts with several imposing gates.
The city itself consisted of two distinct areas: (1) a rectangular lower city of about 200 acres and (2) the upper city on the adjacent tell that rises 130 feet above the lower city. Most of the people lived in the lower city. The upper tell was reserved for the palace of the king and important administrative buildings, as well as for the religious center of the city.
Hazor was extensively excavated by Israel’s most illustrious archaeologist, Yigael Yadin, in the 1950s. Excavations were renewed under the direction of Hebrew University professor Amnon Ben-Tor in 0401990.d In recent years we have uncovered the remains of a Middle Bronze Age II major sanctuary with standing stones on the tell that we are still trying to understand. This is the first public presentation of these finds. Perhaps BAR readers will have some suggestions for us.
This sanctuary includes several rooms and courtyards. Its earliest construction must have occurred not much later than the foundation of the Middle Bronze Age city. Little of this earliest sanctuary was preserved, but we did find three large, elongated stone slabs about 3 feet high, lying in a bed of pebbles on a plaster floor of the sanctuary and covered with ground soil. This suggests that the standing stones were already a part of the cultic complex in its earliest phase. This also suggests that the standing stones were intentionally sealed by the builders of the next sanctuary built on this spot, reflecting respect for the standing stones. Another find calls for interpretation: Thousands of bones—mainly small fragments—were found in association with the long stone slabs. Were these bones the remains of offerings? The remains of ritual meals?
Thousands of bones were also found in the succeeding phase, during which the sanctuary was much larger and included several rooms as well as a courtyard.
A pair of standing stones, one tall and one short, were found in the courtyard of this building leaning against a wall. The tall one, like the standing stones from the preceding sanctuary, was more than 3 feet high. The short one was half this height. On the floor between the two was a slab that served as an offering table.
Rounded installations, apparently cultic, were also found in the courtyard. These rounded, stone-walled installations have a flat stone at their base. There is no sign of burning on the installation stones, so the ritual, whatever it was, did not involve fire. What function did they serve? What did they signify? Similar installations have been found in sanctuaries as early as the fourth millennium B.C.E., where they are interpreted as ritual libation facilities.
In addition, at this time benches were built along some of the walls of the courtyard, as well as in the sanctuary rooms. Similar benches are frequently found in religious architecture of the ancient world. These benches were not for sitting, however. Instead, they served as a platform on which to place offerings.
Three female figurines were also found in this sanctuary—two are made of bronze and a third of silver. A rare discovery was the remainder of some textile around the neck of one of the figurines. It seems the figurines had been wrapped in some kind of woven cloth.
In the final (third) phase of the sanctuary, the floors were raised, with the effect that the benches 041were covered. For some reason, the builders saw no need for new benches to replace the ones in the earlier structure.
The major feature of this final sanctuary is that an open area on one side was dotted with literally dozens of standing stones.e Like the earlier standing stones, none of these was decorated or inscribed. Although some are unworked natural stones, others were crudely shaped—just enough to give them an elongated look—so they could be set vertically into the ground. Although not equal in shape or size, it is quite clear they were set in at least four parallel rows. Some of the masseboth were arranged in pairs, with each pair consisting of a tall and a small standing stone.
Many of these masseboth have a flat stone at their base, suggesting an offering table. All of these offering tables are on the western sides of the masseboth. Does this have some significance, perhaps suggesting that the focal point of the sanctuary complex was located to the west of these standing stones? More about this later.
In the end, this sanctuary was not destroyed, but simply abandoned. Located on a prime piece of real estate in the city, it was replaced in the Late Bronze Age (1550–1150 B.C.E.) by a large mudbrick structure that served as part of the palace complex built in this period. Prior to the construction of the Late Bronze Age foundations, a massive amount of fill was used to level the entire area. The standing stones were completely covered. On top of the fill covering the standing stones, two rounded monolithic pillar bases, each weighing several tons, were placed right on top of the sealed masseboth. The bases and, presumably, the pillars they supported probably formed an impressive entrance to the Late Bronze Age palace complex.
A curious detail: Naturally, a firm foundation was needed for these pillars with massive bases. To provide an appropriate foundation, the Late Bronze Age builders dug rounded shafts in the floor and filled them with gravel brought from the nearby riverbed. When they reached the depth of the now-covered standing stones, however, they carefully laid a flat circular pebble foundation, on top of which the river gravel was placed. This plainly indicates that the Late Bronze Age builders proceeded cautiously in uncovering the masseboth below, trying their best not to damage the sacred stones placed there by their Canaanite ancestors.
The most pressing question, however, is what is the significance of the numerous standing stones in each of the levels of the Middle Bronze Age sanctuary. The short answer is that we don’t really know for sure. What follows is my interpretation in light of the overall characteristics just described.
Our standing stones differ from those found in Mesopotamia and Egypt, where most of them are well dressed and decorated with relief carvings and/or inscriptions. Standing stones found in Israel and the immediately surrounding area are almost always plain stones. This “plain stone tradition” has long been identified by scholars as connected with the Biblical prohibition against iconism (images) of any kind. The plain stones appear in Palestine, however, even before the emergence of Israel; it seems there was already a tradition of avoiding figures or even inscriptions.
The lack of inscriptions or even decoration on these stones is a major obstacle to interpretation. Four principal interpretations have been suggested:
1. As a memorial to someone who has died (perhaps marking the position of the grave).
2. As a witness to a treaty or to a vow.
3. To commemorate a special event.
042
4. As a somehow cultic object, representing either a deity or its essence.
Some masseboth may have fulfilled a combination of functions.4 In the end, I think that is the case here, as I shall try to demonstrate.
The standing stones at Hazor are found in a clear cultic context. Not only do they appear in all three of the Middle Bronze Age phases of the building, but they are found in association with thousands of bones, figurines, benches, offering slabs and a basin. The cautious manner with which they were treated by the later Bronze Age builders also suggests that these standing stones had a cultic function.
Did the ancient people of Hazor believe these stones contained and symbolized the gods’ spirits, thus treating them as a medium of the divine power? Did they believe the stone “enabled” or “effected” the god’s presence? Was the deity thus made immanent? Or were the standing stones also meant to memorialize specific individuals or couples? Did they point to another place in the sanctuary that was its focal point, perhaps housing a statue of the god or goddess or other emblem of the deity?
Sure answers as to their precise function and the ritual practice involved elude us.
Some aspects of the standing stones at Hazor are unique—most obviously their number. Some scholars have attempted to see a pattern in the numbers of stones clustered together: groups of two, five and seven. Parallels to the number of gods depicted in some Near Eastern mythologies have been suggested.f However, this does not seem to be the case with our masseboth from Hazor. More than 30 standing stones clustered together can hardly fit any of the artistic descriptions of gods in Near Eastern iconography. And there is no way to divide the Hazor standing stones into more manageable subgroups. Even as to the stones in pairs, the shorter ones were not always placed to the right side (through the viewer’s eye), which some scholars have used as an explanatory talisman. At Hazor, for example, two of the shorter stones within the same row were placed side by side.
Standing stones in multiple alignments are well known at ancient Near Eastern sites. They occur mostly in open-air shrines. Rows of these stones have been excavated in a number of Bronze Age sites both in Israel and Transjordan. Perhaps the most complete and striking example of these is the famous stone alignment found at Gezer. Arranged in a gentle arc, these huge, rude stones most probably served as legal markers rather than sacred masseboth of a “high place.” As such, they are interpreted by some scholars as being erected to mark a treaty among ten groups, the number originally represented in the Gezer alignment.
At these open-air sites, however, the standing stones are the sole finds in the immediately surrounding area (in addition to Gezer, see also Lejun, Ader and probably Iskander and Bab edh-Dhra’). We should not use these for purposes of comparison here because they seem to have served a different function.
The key to understanding the standing stones at Hazor is, I believe, in closer comparative material. Instead of free-standing outdoor sites like Gezer, we must look at sacred architectural remains accompanied by rows of masseboth. Unfortunately, the comparative material is scant, but it is enough to give us a likely explanation of the standing stones at Hazor.
At two other Middle Bronze Age sites, both in the Jordan Valley, we find groups of standing 043stones—at Tel el-Hayyat and at Tel Kitan. Both are instructive with respect to the puzzle of the standing stones at Hazor.
At Tel el-Hayyat, four Middle Bronze Age temples were superimposed on one another. Standing stones were incorporated in the three earliest phases of the temple. In the latest, the standing stones were arranged in a shallow arch. The important point, however, is that they were situated outside the temple and faced the temple entrance. The comparative material from Tel el-Hayyat suggests the existence of a temple at Hazor, with the group of standing stones outside the entrance.
This is confirmed by several factors. At the base of each of the standing stones from Tel el-Hayyat is a flat stone that served as an offering table. The offering table of each standing stone was on the western side, facing the temple (with its entrance on the east). This is precisely the situation at Hazor: The offering table at the base of each standing stone is also on the west. The temple is probably in the unexcavated area west of the standing stones.
At Tel el-Hayyat it is obvious that the focal point of the standing stones is the temple on the west; more specifically, the deity, or the representation of its spirit, must have resided in the temple. The standing stones were meant to face the temple with its entrance on the east, oriented to the rising sun. The temple served as the focus of worship, not the standing stones outside!
This is the same configuration we find at the Middle Bronze Age temple at Tel Kitan. The standing stones were apparently part of some religious ceremony, but they were not the primary focus of the sacred area.
045
At Tel Kitan, another factor suggests a parallel. There the temple had two phases. The builders of the later phase took special care not to damage the row of standing stones erected by their ancestors just outside the earlier temple. This same phenomenon was clearly also the case at Hazor, as I noted earlier, thus confirming the sacred character of the standing stones.
Although the situation is not quite as clear, at Megiddo, too, a small cultic chamber from the Middle Bronze Age was partly uncovered. It is encircled by many upright standing stones, some of them still in situ. The cultic chamber probably housed the emblem of the deity with the standing stones encircling it.5
The standing stones on the Middle Bronze Age acropolis at Hazor were probably designed to commemorate some high-ranking individuals who were part of the government bureaucracy. These rows of masseboth must have been set up in the courtyard of a cultic building whose complete plan has yet to be uncovered. The masseboth were not meant for the eyes of the worshipers, but only for those of the deity, and they served here as a constant reminder in front of the latter. These standing stones were not all necessarily erected at the same time. The officials memorialized may have been deceased, or perhaps these standing stones were set up inter vivos, as Eugene Stockton has suggested about other such stones,6 as surrogates for individuals who wished to be represented continually before the deity in the sanctuary.
This is as far as we have been able to go in plumbing the mysteries of the standing stones at Hazor. Perhaps the coming excavation season will shed more light on this mystery. Let us hope so.
038 Standing stones are still a puzzle. They’re hard to understand. Standing stones have been found in the Near East from as early as 10,000 B.C.E.,a and they continue through the Biblical period. Massebah (plural masseboth) is the Hebrew word usually translated “standing stone(s).” Massebah and its variants appear 34 times in the Bible.b Sometimes the stones are mentioned in a positive light, as when Moses set up 12 masseboth at Mt. Sinai at the ratification of the covenant between God and Israel (Exodus 24:4) or when Joshua erected a “great stone” at Shechem (Joshua 24:26–27). Sometimes they […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
Yohanan Aharoni, “The Israelite Sanctuary at Arad,” in David N. Freedman and J.C. Greenfield, eds., New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 28–44.
2.
Gordon Loud, Megiddo II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948).
3.
E. Eisenberg, “The Temples at Tel Kitan,” Biblical Archaeologist, 40, pp. 77–81.
4.
For a thorough discussion on these interpretations see the much-quoted article by Carl F. Graesser, “Standing Stones in Ancient Palestine,” Biblical Archaeologist, 35 (1972).
5.
At Byblos in Lebanon, more than 40 standing stones were set up around a small, raised, round, early-second-millennium B.C.E. chamber/cella that the excavators suggest housed the emblem of some deity (M. Dunand, Byblos II [1950], p. 644). This, too, suggests that the cella (and more specifically the deity housed within it), and not the standing stones surrounding it (no matter how nicely these were shaped), served as the focal point of this sacred area that the latter meant to face and lends support to my interpretation of the standing stones at Hazor.
