Contents and Introduction as PDF

Es gibt nicht allzu viele Ausgrabungen im Bereich des eisenzeitlichen Moab. Daher sind die Grabungen von Udo Worschech in Bālūʽ in den Jahren 1986–2005, obwohl sie relativ klein angelegt waren und nie über einen großen Mitarbeiterstab verfügten, ein wichtiger Meilenstein für die Geschichte dieses Nachbarvolkes von Israel. Es ist sehr erfreulich, dass er seine Untersuchungen noch zusammenfassend publizieren konnte.

Angesichts der kleinen Areale kann man keine hohen Erwartungen an die Funde stellen, die hier gemacht wurden. Vieles ist Haushaltskeramik, aber auch schöne Basaltschalen, Spinnwirtel und anderes aus dem Alltag der Menschen der damaligen Zeit finden sich. Und doch gibt es einige bemerkenswerte Highlights. Eine bronzene Schlange, eine leider stark beschädigte Göttin, ein Räuchergefäß, mehrere Tonfigurinen von Menschen und Tieren, ein Ohr einer Kultmaske, ein Amulett in der Form eines Horus-Auges und aufrecht stehende Steine (Masseben) sowie ein Altar in einem kleinen Gebäude gehören in den Bereich des privaten und öffentlichen Kults. Daneben gibt es Pfeil- und Speerspitzen, Messer, Spinnwirtel, Webgewichte, Gewandnadeln, Handwerksgeräte, Schmuck (darunter ein goldener Ohrring), eine bronzene Fibel und Keramik, wie sie typisch für die antike Kultur der Eisenzeit sind. Ein Siegelabdruck zeigt einen Löwen, der einen Menschen angreift, sowie eine Kartusche mit dem Namen mn-k3-r‘.

Absolute Highlights sind aber die beiden Inschriften, die das geringe Corpus moabitischer Inschriften erheblich erweitern. Ein basaltener Mörser oder Türsockel hat vier Schriftzeichen. War schon dieser von seiner Funktion her bemerkenswerte Stein eine kleine Sensation, so kann dies erst recht von einem weiteren Fund gelten: Auf einem konischen Basaltstein sind umlaufend 29 Buchstaben eingeritzt. Die Lesung legt es nahe, dass dieser Stein als Reibestein für einen Vorsteher eines Clans diente. Die beiden Inschriften sind zwar viel kürzer als die Mescha-Stele, gehören aber zu den längsten Steininschriften, die wir bislang aus der südlichen Levante kennen. Vor allem die zweite Inschrift wird sicherlich noch einige Diskussionen bezüglich der Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsstruktur in Moab nach sich ziehen.

Dieser Band ist somit eine wichtige Bereicherung unseres Wissens über das antike Moab.

Wolfgang Zwickel

Prof. em. für Altes Testament und Biblische Archäologie an der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

This monograph represents a final report on the results of Worschech’s excavations conducted at El-Balu’ from 1986 until 2005.

In his discussion of the important archaeological discoveries sparking interest in the Kerak plateau (pp. 12-14), Worschech presents a very fruitful study of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries travelers and explorers' reports.

On pages 15-18 of the monograph, a detailed description of the main visible installations at Balu’ is presented in detail and supported with line drawings top plans. These constructions are the tower, a complex possibly dated to the Mamluk period, palace, and temple, a street or a roadway, and the eastern fortification of the E IIA-B city.

The tower is dated back to the Iron Age but was reconstructed by the Nabataeans and a part of it was added during the Mamluk period. Although the author did not present dating evidence to prove this date, he presents a detailed description of the interior and exterior parts of the building. No study of the Mamluk period building complex is offered by the author.

The major architectural complex visible at Balu’ is the Iron age so-called “palace/temple building which was fully described by the author. In fact, the excavator identified this building as a place/temple construction based on its size, measuring 25 x 30 m large, walls up to 6 m high and a large court at the eastern side of the installation. In addition, the documented street by the excavator ranges from 2 to 3 m wide and 120 m in length. It may be assumed that since the street is not excavated, it became very hard for him to assign it to any historic period (p. 16).

The Balu’ fortifications consisted of a strong wall (casemate construction) running in a semicircular direction from north towards the south with a staircase and a gate. To argue, the author did not offer any dating evidence in his discussion for dating fortification system to the Iron Age IIA though he presents a very useful description of it though he cited that the excavated pottery sherds in 1986 indicated the Iron II B/C period (900-587 BC).

Udo Worschech presents on pages 19-50 the results of the excavations in Area A, which is located at the western side of the large building of the “palace” at “Balu’”. It contains fully described information studying the uncovered architectural remains, working spaces, ovens, grinding and grounding stones, and other small objects. The author declares that “all objects and artifacts are important, but not necessarily as spectacular as the female figurine” (p. 31). The human figurines are described in detail by the author of this monograph (pp. 31-36), and he argues that the female figurines may belong to the type of “Ashera” ones, which might indicate the fertility.

To sum up, the discussion of the uncovered objects at Balu’ is very fruitful and useful for researchers. Parallel objects could also be found at Iron Age sites in Ammon, such as at Jawa near Amman and Tell Damiya in the Jordan Valley.

The discussion of the Iron II b/c pottery assemblage excavated at Balu’ is informative, though the line drawings are not up-to-scale. The identified forms of the pottery vessels belong to shallow and deep bowls, cooking pots, craters, jars, jugs and juglets, lamps, and the shape of the base of a vessel (p. 44). However, the illustrated carinated deep bowl (left in the lowest row) looks-like Edomite rather than Moabite.

Archaeological inspections at the Balu’ were also conducted in Area B, located in the eastern side of the site, especially at a rectangular open space measuring 80 m by 80 m north-south and 100 m by 100 m east-west. A few wall lines were found in this area after digging several soundings located at the east side of the enclosing wall and near the gate leading to the inner side of the city. Unfortunately, excavated objects is a conical-shaped basalt bowl bearing a four Moabite letters “TMLK” inscription inscribed around the rim. A scientific study of this inscription is presented on pages 54-55.

The results of the Area D excavation operations are offered on pages 56-88. This area is located at the courtyard-type house above the wadi el-Bālū’ and the casemate with the temenos. A building complex dating to the Iron IIb/c measures 20 m x 26 m was uncovered during the 1986 and 1987 seasons of excavations at Balu’. Inside the rooms of this construction tabun/tannour, a storage pit and a lime-plastered floor were unearthed. The author offered a very detailed discussion of the buildings supporting his argument with either photos or line drawing top plans (pp. 58-66).

In addition, the excavated pottery sherds assemblage in Area C, which consists of several utensil forms (shallow and deep bowls, cooking pots, craters, jars, jugs and juglets, lamps) is dated to the Iron Age IIb/c (pp. 67). Unfortunately, the pottery pot drawings are not up to scale. One of the archaeological masterpieces found in Area C is a clay bulla uncovered in Room 2 (pp. 72). Moreover, a Middle Bronze Age II/III (ca. 1800-1550 BC) burial missing the skull of the buried person was excavated (pp. 73).

It has been argued by the excavator of Area C that the use of the domestic house uncovered in Area C seems to have served as a complex with various functions (pp. 88).

Area D is located at alongside the west casemate wall over a length of 50 m to the west (pp. 89-117). Seven rooms separated by transverse walls at different distances and are divided into different-sized units were registered. Sherds belonging to storage jars were encountered in rooms 2-4, while rooms 5-7 did not produce any pottery sherd. Several kinds and types of archaeological objects, such as metal spear heads, flint tools, a scaraboidal seal impression on a jar handle, 3 collared rim jars possible of Iron Age I tradition (pp. 99), a cast of a knife, various utensils and animal figurines were unearthed inside those rooms. A special study of the uncovered collared rim jar is offered on pages 99-100. Another remarkable discovery is two standing stones visible near and outside the western wall of Room 1, which were clearly not erected accidentally (pp. 102). Several types of archaeological materials, such as incense burner, a possible cult vessel, a ceramic ear, and animal figurines, especially horses and Iron IIb/c pottery pots were found (pp. 108-114).

As a matter of fact, we agree and welcome the author’s conclusion that says “in summary, I would like to express my conviction that room 1 in the casemate wall, which was already referred to as “temenos” during the excavations, is in fact a probably open Moabite sanctuary from Iron Age II” (p. 115).

The area located to the northwest of Qasr el Balu’ is called E and was chosen at that spot because a long wall was visible there. The excavation in this area yielded archaeological material dated to the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age period. There was only a beaten earth dirt floor mixed with huwwar that was put directly over the bedrock, and the excavated pottery found over and below the floor is dated to the Iron IIb period (pp. 118). Several archaeological materials, such as a channel of water, storage pits, basins, grinding stones, and Early Bronze Age I, Late Bronze Age/Iron I pottery vessels were exposed in Area E. In addition, a Late Bronze Age pilgrim flask was encountered inside a cave in Area “E” (pp. 130, fig. E-18).

Area G consists of a complex of walls in the southern part of Qasr el Balu’, consisting of a complex house installation arranged around a large depression on one side and outside the city wall. One of the main reasons behind excavating this area was the discovery of an inscription with Moabite script on a basalt pestle.

Conclusion:

The importance of the site Balu’ is reflected in its Iron II b/c architectural remains, especially the discovery of the temenos in the casemate wall, the inscribed material, and the uncovering of the Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age pottery pots. In addition, it seems that there was organized oversight of vital water resources in el-Bālū’ during the Iron Age. Moreover, the list of bibliography included in the text is up to date.

Based on the above-mentioned facts, I recommend highly reading this monograph.

Zeidan Kafafi

Professor em. of Archaeology, Yarmouk University

Amman, July 7, 2025