The high places (bamot) and the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: an archaeological investigation.

• Author: Fried, Lisbeth S.

THE BIBLICAL TEXT castigates the people of Israel and Judah repeatedly for going to bamot to sacrifice and burn incense rather than to the great temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 3:2, 3; 22:44; 2 Kings 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35). Hezekiah and Josiah receive praise, however, for removing them: "And [Hezekiab] did what was right in the eyes of YHWH in all that David his father did. He removed the bamot, he broke the massebot, and he cut down the [contains]aserot" (2 Kings 18:3,4). The bamot are described as a source of contention in pre-Exilic Judah. After the death of Hezekiah, Manasseh, his son, reportedly rebuilt them (2 Kings 2 1:3), and King Josiah, Manasseh's grandson, tore them down again (2 Kings 23:8). These notices suggest that a destruction, a rebuilding, and a second destruction of the bamot, should be visible in the archaeology of Judah during the eighth through seventh centuries B.C.E.--roughly Iron Age II. Josiah is also credited with removing the battey bamot ("the buildings of the bamot") in Samaria (2 Kings 23:19). A destruction of bamot (buildings ought then to be visible in archaeological strata from Samaria dating to the second half of the seventh century. (1)

THE TERM BAMAH ACCORDING TO ITS SEMITIC DERIVATION

To seek archaeological evidence for the destruction of bamot, it is necessary first to know what a bamah is and second where one might be found. Assurance is needed that its remains would leave a trace in the archaeological record. To begin with, the Hebrew word bamah has cognates in both Ugaritic and Akkadian. (2) The Ugaritic term bmt occurs only seven times. (3) Vaughan (citing Held) has shown that it refers to the side, flank, or rib cage of a person or animal. (4) It is the area to which a belt is fastened, and from which cuts of beef are taken. It is also the part of the animal that is ridden, i.e., the part of the body around which the legs of the rider hang. It is translated most conveniently into English by the term "back," but it should be thought of as the side or flank of an animal.

Akkadian knows two forms of the word: bamtu and bamatu. bantu B has the same meaning as in Ugaritic. (5) This can be seen most clearly by its designation in the Sumerian lexical lists. The Sumerian word UZU.TI.TI is defined by the Akkadian word bamtu, but also by selu, "rib, side (part of the human and animal body)." (6) In agreement with Vaughan, the word most likely means in Akkadian what it means in Ugaritic, and should be translated "flank."

According to the CAD, bamatu means "open country, plain," but occurs only in the plural. (7) Vaughan points out that it participates in a three-fold division of the land: city, arable field inside or outside the city, and bamatu, suggesting that the bamatu are the outskirts, the edge of habitable civilization, open country. (8) It appears as the location of battles, so it is likely a non-inhabited area. In agreement with Vaughan, it cannot mean "level ground, or plain," as suggested by the CAD, for in many cases the word is in opposition to "plain" (EDIN). (9) Further, the phrase bamate sa sadi, "the bamatu of the mountains," appears very often as the scene of pitched battles. Thus, it cannot mean "peaks of the mountains," as battles are not easily fought on mountain peaks. Since the term is contrasted with EDIN "level plain," it must mean the "slopes" or "sides" of the mountains, the foothills. If it refers to the open country on the slopes of the hills, it would fit all the topological occurrences. Further more, the idea of mountain slopes is most congruent with the idea of the slopes of an animal's flank.

The Akkadian expression, bamatu sa sadi has a corresponding expression in the Hebrew Bible, bamote [ares.sup.[contains]]. Like the Akkadian, this is always plural. There are many examples: "He causes him to ride upon the flanks of the earth (bamote [ares.sup.[contains]])" (Deut. 32:13); "Then you shall take your delight upon YHWH, and I will cause you to ride the flanks of the earth" (Isaiah 58:14); "[YHWH] who treads upon the flanks of the earth" (Amos 4:13; Micah 1:3; Job 9:8). The bamote [ares.sup.[contains]] are the "flanks," since the flank is that part of the body, according to Semitic thought, which is ridden. This secular use of the term is always introduced by the preposition [al.sup.[subset]], "on," which may be what gave rise to the Greek translation of bamot as to [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (the "high" or "lofty" place). (10)

None of the Ugaritic or Akkadian references occurs in a cultic context. If this is the Semitic derivation, how or why was the term transferred to the cultic sphere? The answer may be simple: the bamote [ares.sup.[contains]] are the places of the earth where YHWH treads. The bamah may be a place where YHWH can be found and where he may be worshipped. The term may say nothing about its structure or location. It may speak to its function only. The Semitic derivation of the word does not help to determine the type of cultic installation that Hezekiah and Josiah reportedly removed. (11)

THE TERM BAMAH ACCORDING TO THE SEPTUAGINT

Although the LXX sometimes simply transliterates the term as [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] or [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] it most often uses the phrase [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (the high or lofty place) to express the Hebrew word. Occasionally, however, the LXX uses the Greek word [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] which indicates a raised platform or pedestal. Used in Homer to indicate a platform for chariots, it came to refer to the pedestal or base for the statue of the god, and then to a raised place for sacrifice, an altar. (12) In the LXX, [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is sometimes used to translate mizbeah, "altar," so that the same word renders both bamah and mizbeah.

Present understanding reflects this Septuagintal usage. A bamah has been viewed on the one hand as a natural high place or peak, [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], and on the other as a constructed platform for an altar, or the altar itself, [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. (13)

Wellhausen applies the term bamot to the isolated altars built by Saul and the Patriarchs, even though the term is never used of these altars in the text. (14) Haran defines bamah as an open-air altar or platform, although he recognizes other open-air altars that he does not call bamot. (15) Vaughan similarly defines bamah as "a constructed stone platform used for cultic rites." (16) This is also the view of Wright. (17) All these writers classify the bamah with Wellhausen and the LXX as an open-air altar out in the countryside on a mountain peak. Is this view correct? Is the LXX's understanding the same as that of the biblical writers?

THE BAMAH ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL CORPUS

The term bamah/bamot appears in a cultic context 97 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is evident from these passages that bamot are not naturally occurring sites, but man-made. They are "built" (cf. 1 Kings 11:7; 14:23; 2 Kings 17:9; 21:3; 23:13; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; 2 Chron. 33:3, 19) and they are "made" (2 Kings 23:15, 19; Ezek. 16:6; 2 Chron. 21:11; 28:25). They can be "torn down" (2 Kings 23:8, 15; 2 Chron. 31:1), "burned" (2 Kings 23:15), and "removed" (1 Kings 15:14; 22:44; 2 Kings 12:4; 14:4, etc.) (18) Moreover, they have buildings associated with them, for there are several references to battey habbamot (1 Kings 12:31; 13:32; 2 Kings 17:29, 32; 2 Kings 23:19). (19) One goes into them to worship, e.g., "there was a sacrifice for the people in the bamah" (1 Sam. 9:12). (20)

1 Samuel 9 provides the only description of a bamah in the Biblical text. According to this description, a bamah includes a liskah which, at least at the time of Ezekiel, indicated rooms inside a roofed temple building. At this time, these rooms served as places where priests' vestments were kept, and where priests would eat the sacrificial offering (Ezek. 42:13). This is the image in 1 Samuel 9 as well. Here too the liskah is used as the room in which to eat the sacrifice. Since it is big enough to seat the thirty invited guests (1 Sam. 9:22), the liskah must be a hall in a public building. The bamah in the area of Zuph was not an isolated open-air platform, [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] or [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. It was a sanctuary complex containing a public building with a large hall and a sacrificial altar. Indeed, the Greek translator was constrained to simply transliterate the term as [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], since no Greek word would apply. (21)

If one were to search the archaeology of Israel for these public building complexes, where should one look? Rather than being out in the country on isolated mountain peaks, or "high places," as suggested by the Septuagint's [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], the terms bamot and battey bamot are associated with cities. 1 Kings 13:32 speaks of "all the battey bamot ('bamot buildings') which are in the cities of Samaria." 2 Kings 17:9 states that "they built bamot for themselves in all their cities." 2 Kings 17:29 (cf. 2 Kings 23:19) states that "every nation which had been brought up to Samaria built the battey bamot ('buildings of their bamot') each in their cities where they lived." This is not only in Samaria. 2 Kings 23:5 mentions "the bamot in the cities of Judab." The Chronicler also assumes that the bamot were associated with cities, for he states "in each and every city of Judah they made bamot" (2 Chron. 28:25). In addition to these general statements, the text mentions several specific bamot. Th e great bamah where Solomon worshipped was associated with the town of Gibeon (1 Kings 3:5; 2 Chron. 1:3).

The bamah created by Jeroboam at Bethel was associated with the city (1 Kings 12:29). The Bible does refer to isolated open-air altars out in the countryside, but these are riot called bamot. When the Biblical text speaks of either bumot or batte...