The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem.

• Author: Fried, Lisbeth S.
• Position: Book review

The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem. By ODED LIPSCHITS. Winona Lake, Indiana: EISENBRAUNS, 2005. Pp. xiv + 474, maps. $47.50.

The goal of this impressive dissertation is to understand the history of the Babylonian period in Judah. Toward that end it discusses all material relevant to the history of Judah from the fall of Assyria and the rise of Babylon (ca. 616 B.C.E.) until the time of the return of the Babylonian exiles in 538. By "all," I mean "all"--Akkadian and Babylonian documents, seals and seal impressions, pottery forms, and, of course, the archaeological and biblical data. This approach should be the standard for historical research in general, but it sets a high bar, demanding knowledge and control of so many aspects of so many fields.

Lipschits' primary conclusion is that although Jerusalem had been destroyed and its elite deported, most of its population was able to escape to the area of Benjamin which, because it had not resisted Babylonian rule, had not been destroyed. Even after the assassination of Gedatiah, settlement in the areas of Benjamin and the Judean highlands north of Beth-Zur continued unaffected as a Babylonian province. Population decreased only with the advent of the returnees and the revival of Jerusalem in the Persian period (p. 196). Lipschits' book is thus a strong argument against the so-called "myth of the empty land."

Lipschits' conclusions are based primarily on the pottery assigned to the sixth century, even though he admits (p. 196) that there is no clear-cut definition of it. This makes it difficult to distinguish sixth-century pottery from that of the Iron Age and Persian periods. In lieu of identifying sixth-century pottery, therefore, Lipschits infers its existence from the continuity in pottery forms across the Iron II (e.g., Stratum II at Lachish) and fifth-century Persian (e.g., Stratum I at Lachish) periods. Lipschits assumes that this continuity implies uninterrupted occupation across the intervening years. I don't understand this reasoning. Lipschits points, for example (p. 198), to the similar shapes of large "thick ring-rimmed" bowls across Stratum III, Stratum II, and Stratum I at Lachish. How would this continuity in pottery forms demonstrate continuous occupation at the site, when we know for certain that the population of Lachish III was forcibly removed?

Lipschits defends his thesis of continuity in pottery assemblages and therefore in continuity of population from Iron Age to Persian by...