Archeological References

• Fig. 2.1 Early Bronze I Sites
  Fig. 2.1
  
  Map of sites mentioned in this chapter
  
  Greenberg (2019)
  from Greenberg (2019)
• Fig. 3.1 Early Bronze II and III Sites
  Fig. 3.1
  
  Map of sites mentioned in this chapter
  
  Greenberg (2019)
  from Greenberg (2019)
• Fig. 4.1 Intermediate Bronze Sites
  Fig. 4.1
  
  Map of sites mentioned in this chapter
  
  Greenberg (2019)
  from Greenberg (2019)
• Fig. 5.2 Middle Bronze Sites
  Fig. 5.2
  
  Map of sites mentioned in this chapter
  
  Greenberg (2019)
  from Greenberg (2019)
• Fig. 6.1 Late Bronze Sites
  Fig. 6.1
  
  Map of sites mentioned in this chapter
  
  Greenberg (2019)
  from Greenberg (2019)

• Fig. 2.1 Early Bronze I Sites
  Fig. 2.1
  
  Map of sites mentioned in this chapter
  
  Greenberg (2019)
  from Greenberg (2019)
• Fig. 3.1 Early Bronze II and III Sites
  Fig. 3.1
  
  Map of sites mentioned in this chapter
  
  Greenberg (2019)
  from Greenberg (2019)
• Fig. 4.1 Intermediate Bronze Sites
  Fig. 4.1
  
  Map of sites mentioned in this chapter
  
  Greenberg (2019)
  from Greenberg (2019)
• Fig. 5.2 Middle Bronze Sites
  Fig. 5.2
  
  Map of sites mentioned in this chapter
  
  Greenberg (2019)
  from Greenberg (2019)
• Fig. 6.1 Late Bronze Sites
  Fig. 6.1
  
  Map of sites mentioned in this chapter
  
  Greenberg (2019)
  from Greenberg (2019)

• from Hassul et al. (2024:2-5)

The practice of stamping storage jars with royal seals as part of a taxation administrative system was widespread in Judah between the 8th and the 2nd centuries BCE (Lipschits, 2021). During the manufacturing of large oval four‐handled storage jars, some specific jars were pre-labeled by stamping an impression onto the wet clay just before firing. These stamped jars were used for delivering goods, such as wine or oil as tax. Over time, due to political and economic changes, the seal impression systems evolved; some systems went out of use and other systems replaced them. As a result, the different families of seals, each distinguished by a unique symbolic motif, formed a continuous typological framework that can be linked to an absolute historical chronology.

The Judahite stamped jar system has been thoroughly studied (Bocher & Lipschits, 2013; Koch & Lip schits, 2013; Lipschits, 2021; Lipschits & Vanderhooft, 2011, 2014; Lipschits et al., 2010; Ornan & Lip schits, 2020; Vanderhooft & Lipschits, 2007) and was recently summarized by Lipschits (2021), who provided a comprehensive classification of the seals according to their iconographic motifs and time of use. Figure 1 displays the seven main impression categories discussed in this study and their age spans. Each impression category has a series of variants, hereafter referred to as “types,” and even “sub-types.” Archaeologically, it is difficult to distinguish between the time of use of the various types within a specific impression category. Hence, we group the archaeomagnetic samples according to type and assign them similar age spans in an effort to investigate possible temporal relationships. The collection we use was excavated from several sites, mostly from Ramat Rahel and Tel Azekah, but also from Socoh and several excavations in Jerusalem (Figure 2, Table S1). Only the type is used as a consideration for arranging samples into groups, while the location in which the jar was found is a parameter that is not taken into account when defining groups. Our work continues the study of Ben-Yosef et al. (2017), who carried out an archaeointensity analysis of stamped jars and reported data from 27 samples: 23 of which belong to the main impression categories shown in Figure 1,three of which are private stamps that are not shown in the figure and one is an incision impression (concentric circle). These data are included in our revised analysis as detailed below.

The lmlk impression system was the first to be used. It consists of three main components: the Hebrew word lmlk, meaning “(belonging) to the king” in the upper part of the stamp impression, a royal emblem in the center, and a name of a place in the lower part. The combinations of two different royal emblems, four names of places and several patterns for the positioning of the letters around the symbol define nineteen different seal types. The lmlk impression system is divided into two categories: lmlk early and lmlk late. The former was in use before the destruction of Judah by Sennacherib in 701 BCE, and the latter was in use under the first era of the Assyrian administration in the 7th century BCE. The three “lmlk late” types studied here- MIIb, ZIIb and XII (Figure S1 in Supporting Information S1) are dated to 701–630 BCE, following the maximum age range of the lmlk im pressions suggested by Ben-Yosef et al. (2017).

The Rosette impressions are small and rounded and bear a single rosette motif with no inscription. The stamp types differ in the number and shape of the petals, the existence or non-existence of a frame, and an inner core. The Rosette stamp impressions went out of use during the final destruction of Judah by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.The date of their introduction is less clear, so we set the earliest possible date to 660 BCE, following Vaknin et al. (2020).

The Lion impressions are small and mostly rounded in shape. They include the image of a lion depicted in profile in various positions, with no inscription. Six types are studied here: lion type 3,4,5,6,7, and 8 (Figure S2 in Supporting Information S1). The Lion impression system was in use under Babylonian rule, that is, after the 586 BCEdestruction of Judah. When the Persians took over Judah in ca. 539 BCE, this system was gradually replaced by the yhwd stamp impression system. Thus, the use of Lion impressions is estimated between 586 BCE and ca. 520 BCE.

The yhwd impressions represent a transition from the use of symbols to script only. This complex system consists of 17 types with more than 50 variations. It was used for about 400 years from the late 6th century BCE until the second half of the 2nd century BCE. The yhwd impressions are chronologically divided into three categories: early, middle, and late (Figure S3 in Supporting Information S1) on the basis of the following criteria: their paleographic properties, a linguistic study of the transition from Aramaic to the Hebrew language, comparison of the impressions with the yhwd coins minted in the same periods of time, and on the basis of the historical context of the development of Judah under the rule of the Persian, Ptolemaic and the Seleucid empires (Lipschits & Vanderhooft, 2011).

The yrslm impressions represent a new era with the reappearance of iconographic elements alongside writing. The impressions include a pentagram with a script in ancient Hebrew reading yrslm (“Jerusalem”) between its vertices. Here, we focus on five types: a, b, c, d, and f (Figure S4 in Supporting Information S1), where we unite type c and type d into a single type labeled c/d because of the difficulty in distinguishing between them. The yrslm impression is associated with the weakening of the imperial hold on the region, the Maccabean revolt (ca. 167 160 BCE), and regaining full independence under Simon Maccabaeus (142 BCE). Therefore, we estimate the age span of yrslm impressions to ca. 200–140 BCE (Bocher & Lipschits, 2013)

Hassul, E., et al. (2024). "Geomagnetic Field Intensity During the First Millennium BCE From Royal Judean Storage Jars: Constraining the Duration of the Levantine Iron Age Anomaly." Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 25(5): e2023GC011263. - open access

• from wikipedia

• from wikipedia