Moab Comes to Life, P. M. Michèle Daviau and Paul-Eugène Dion, BAR 28:01, Jan-Feb 2002.

We unexpectedly found a Moabite temple, the first of its kind ever discovered, during an excavation in 1999.

The Moabites, a people living east of the Dead Sea, were neighbors of the ancient Israelites. Ruth is the most touching Moabite figure known to us from the Bible. She stood by her widowed Judahite mother-in-law, Naomi- “Anywhere you go, I will go … your people will be my people, and your God, my God” (Ruth 1-16).

Although King David counted Ruth among his ancestors, most readers of the Bible are likely to have a rather negative view of the Moabites. The Bible often depicts them in very negative terms. Their god Kemosh is “filth” (shiqqutz) (1 Kings 11-7; 2 Kings 23-13).1 They owe their name to the incestuous offspring of Lot (Abraham’s nephew) and his elder daughter (Genesis 19-36–37). Lot’s two daughters, thinking they were the only people left on earth after the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah, each plied their father with wine and seduced him. The sons born to these two unions were named Moab and Ben-ammi (the eponymous ancestor of the Ammonites; Genesis 19-37).
According to the Bible, Eglon, an early Moabite king who encroached on Israelite territory, was so disgustingly fat that the dagger of the Israelite judge Ehud sank, handle and all, into his belly (Judges 3-21–22).

Mesha, a later Moabite king, offered his firstborn son as an ‘olah, a burnt sacrifice, on the rampart of his stronghold in order to save his people when they were besieged by an Israelite army.
It comes as no surprise then that the Apocalypse of Isaiah pictures the Moabites at the end of days in a manure pit, gasping for breath under YHWH’s trampling feet (Isaiah 25-10–11).

Apart from these characterizations, one painstakingly combs the Hebrew Bible to find a few hints about the Moabites’ occupations. We only learn that the Moabites of Sibma (near Heshbon2) maintained excellent vineyards and enjoyed the wine that they produced (Isaiah 16-8–10; Jeremiah 48-32–33),3 and that Mesha was a sheep-breeder (noqed4) on a grand scale. According to 2 Kings 3-4, he paid Israel a tribute of 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams.5 Mesha was from Dibon, precisely in the region where the sons of Gad (an early Israelite tribe) built their sheep pens (Numbers 32-34–36).

The Bible also tells us that Israelite and Moabite men and women intermarried. King Solomon himself had a Moabite wife (1 Kings 11-1).

Fortunately there are other texts besides the Bible that can shed further light on the Moabites. The Moabites burst upon the archaeological scene with the 1868 discovery of the Mesha Stele (or Moabite Stone).6 An Anglican missionary named F. A. Klein was traveling in Transjordan, where he heard of an inscribed stone lying in the ruins at Dhiban (Biblical Dibon). What he saw there was a black basalt stone, more than 3 feet tall, that was inscribed on one side. Although Klein could not read the 34-line inscription, he realized that the text was valuable. When he announced the discovery to the Prussian consul in Jerusalem, it was agreed that Klein should purchase the stone.

Soon, however, both the French and British mounted campaigns to acquire it. Finally, Turkish authorities in Palestine decided to take the stone by force. Because the Bedouin of Dhiban hated the Turkish administration, they set a fire under the stone and poured cold water on it, breaking it into fragments. Fortunately, the French consul in Jerusalem, Charles Clermont-Ganneau, had previously sent a local Arab to make a squeeze, an impression formed by pressing wet paper into the characters of an inscription. After he had set the wet paper on the stone, a quarrel broke out and he had to flee for his life. But, before doing so, he ripped off the paper, which tore into several pieces. Despite the poor condition of the squeeze, it remains the best evidence of the complete text of the stone. The French purchased the larger fragments of the stone, and the British acquired several smaller ones. The English, in an act of unusual generosity in a time of great competition for antiquities, presented their fragments to the French, who reconstructed the stone and put it on display in the Louvre, where it may be seen to this day.a

The inscription on the Mesha stele describes a conquest by Omri (c. 883–872 B.C.E.), king of Israel, during the reign of Mesha’s father. Omri had conquered certain areas of northern Moab in the region around Madaba. Mesha (c. 853–830 B.C.E.) revolted against the king of Israel and regained control of this area. It included a patchwork of “Lands”—for example, the “Land of Madaba” and the “Land of Atarot” where the “Men of Gad” lived. These lands, located east of the northern end of the Dead Sea, opposite Jericho, had been basically autonomous before the Israelite conquest.

The central part of Moab, which was not conquered by Omri, lies east of the Dead Sea and north of the Wadi Hasa, known in the Bible as the River Zered. In neither Biblical texts nor texts from Egypt and Assyria are the borders of Moab clearly identified. For example, the Wadi Mujib (Jordan’s Grand Canyon), the Biblical Arnon, which cuts through central Moab and runs into the Dead Sea, was at one time considered to be Moab’s northern border (Deuteronomy 2-9, 18) even though Dibon, Moab’s capital city, lies north of the Arnon!

Each area or land in northern Moab had its own more or less distinctive dialect of Hebrew, as we see when we compare the differing Hebrew dialects of the Moabite Stone and the inscription on the altar from Khirbat al-Mudayna (which we discuss below). Another example of the linguistic diversity in ancient Transjordan is the unusual Aramaic of the Deir Alla plaster inscription from the Jordan Valley.b

Despite the overall dominance of the god Kemosh and related divine personalities like Ashtar-Kemosh (mentioned in the Mesha Stele, line 17), the Moabite Lands were somewhat fragmented in their religious allegiance as well. YHWH, the Israelite God, was worshiped at Nebo (Mesha Stele, line 18), as was Kemosh at Dibon. DWD or DWDH (“beloved,” a title of YHWH) had a kind of altar at Atarot (Mesha Stele, line 12). It is evident from the Mesha Stele that these various deities, and other ones that we know from seals and proper names, each had holy places of their own. However, no Moabite temple has ever been recovered by archaeology—until now, that is, with our discovery of the ruins of a well-furnished sanctuary at a site called Khirbat al-Mudayna.

Our contribution to a better understanding of the Moabites comes from excavating five seasons (1996–1999, 2001) at this site. One of us (Daviau) first saw Khirbat al-Mudayna, whose ancient name remains unknown, with Professor Robert Boling of McCormick Theological Seminary and his wife Jean, three days before their tragic death in 1994 in an automobile accident. On that day in December, we looked down on the site from the heights of the north bank of the Wadi ath-Thamad. Khirbat al-Mudayna lies on the south bank of the riverbed, surrounded by the lush green fields of central Jordan, and is one of six sites in Jordan with the same name. Although it was known to 19th century travelers and to Nelson Glueck,c Khirbat al-Mudayna had never been excavated.

The site consists of a walled settlement that is oval-shaped and measures about 460 feet by 260 feet. The fortification wall surrounding the town is a casemate wall (two parallel walls with cross walls forming rooms) similar to Israelite casemate walls of the eighth to seventh centuries B.C.E. The fortification system is 16 feet thick and can be traced at ground level around the crest and upper slope of the mound. A trench down the south face of the mound revealed a crushed plaster glacis (slope) that connected the outer wall at the top with a dry moat, cut into the bedrock, at the bottom.

The north end of the tell rises 100 feet above the surrounding fields and looks down on the wadi. On this promontory, the people of Khirbat al-Mudayna built their city gate. In style, it matches the six-chambered gates at Megiddo, Hazor, Lachish and Gezer in ancient Israel. Due to the narrow shape of the natural hill, the gate is somewhat smaller than its Israelite models, but consists of the same features—a central road that passes between two units, each containing three rooms on a side. The gate’s total length is approximately 50 feet and its width is 49 feet, making it almost a square. The north end of each unit includes a bastion more than 11 feet thick that protected the outer rooms and was connected to the casemate wall. To the north of the eastern bastion, there are the remains of a small tower, 13 feet square, that probably guarded the approach road that winds around the tell. A bench runs along the north face of the tower and a niche, perpendicular to the bench, supports two standing stones. These stones are aniconic (without inscription or decoration), similar to one from Bethsaida.d

We completely excavated all the rooms in the gate, and revealed its construction details. The walls separating one room from another are 6.5 feet high and more than 5 feet thick, and are set on bedrock. Crevices in the bedrock were filled with cobbles and packed soil to provide firm support. The street between the chambers on either side is partially built on bedrock. At the northern and southern ends of this street, L-shaped raised stone thresholds blocked wheeled vehicles—only pedestrians could enter the town. A pair of wooden doors stood open at the north entrance during the day. We found two stones embedded in the surface of the street, one on each side, which served as doorstops for the double doors. Each stone has a central hole that held a wooden post. The doors opened inward, away from the lip of the threshold; a wooden post would have been inserted into the holes of the blocking stones to hold the doors open. These doors to the city burned in the final conflagration that destroyed the gate. Fragments of wood, however, were recovered from the street, providing evidence of the doors’ existence.

Immediately south of where the doors would have opened is a bench that runs along each side of the central street. Alongside the eastern bench and extending the full length of the street is a stone-lined drain that carried water from the courtyard at the inner end of the gate to the entrance. At this point, the drain runs under the threshold stones.

A fourth wall closed off each gate chamber from the central road. Only a narrow doorway led from each chamber into the street. The fourth wall appears to be missing from one room, but we found grim evidence that one had once stood there- The fire that destroyed the town was so intense that the stones of this wall burned into a mound of lime that now marks the place where it had stood. In the room on the opposite side of the central road, there are the remains of a plaited floor mat that had actually fitted like a wall-to-wall carpet.

Three large limestone basins, each fallen into a gate room from an upper story, provide evidence of industrial activity in the gate area. One basin was associated with a group of unfired clay loom weights, while another was inscribed with graffiti depicting looms, a donkey and a palm tree. These finds suggest that cloth was manufactured in the upper story rooms of the gate. A second building where textiles may have been manufactured was discovered in 2001, south of the gate. The central space in this building is divided into three parallel rooms by two rows of stone pillars. Between the pillars are low cobblestone walls that support limestone basins. We found a total of nine basins, a handful of loom weights, an ivory spindle and a weaving tool made of bone. We do not yet know whether this industrial building was destroyed at the same time as the gate; we will continue to excavate it this summer.

Collapsed roof beams from the rooms in the gate provide evidence of how it was constructed, as well as of the serious fire that brought it to an end as a defensive feature. A large amount of wood and charred ceiling beams that can be used for carbon 14 dating were recovered in the collapse of the upper story. We also found dozens of iron arrowheads, five bronze arrowheads (Scythian, trilobate style weapons), a single bronze armor scale and 35 small stones that may have been used as sling stones. The enemy who destroyed Khirbat al-Mudayna remains a mystery, but the weapons and the pottery recovered from the gate rooms suggest a date toward the end of the seventh century B.C.E.

The most outstanding discovery at Khirbat al-Mudayna occurred in 1999. A small temple was uncovered in the area south of the east end of the gate. This is the first Moabite temple uncovered in Jordan. Two steps lead down into the main temple room, which is divided in two parts by two square pillars that held up the ceiling; a bench was located between these two pillars. Other benches lined the main walls of the temple—a common feature of religious architecture in the ancient world, from Greece to Mesopotamia.

The finds from this building remove all doubt that it was a temple. The focal point in the main room is a large, highly polished stone slab, set into the floor, perpendicular to the south wall. Three limestone altars, two of which were painted, were found broken on top of this slab. One of the altars can be identified as a libation altar. It stands about 2.5 feet high (not including its base, which was badly shattered). The altar’s shaft is almost square, 12 inches on a side. A molding runs vertically along each corner of the shaft, creating a sunken, central panel on each of the four sides. The upper third of the altar constitutes the offering table. Looking at the table from the side, we can see that the rim curves down slightly between the corners. This is a new style of altar and differs from altars found elsewhere that have horns on each corner. On the side of the offering table, pale red horizontal lines frame a row of triangles, painted alternately red and black. Other painted symbols are located near the lower section of the rim and on the vertical molding.

The upper surface of this altar is surrounded by a 2-inch-wide rim or border. Half of the upper surface is flat, but the other half consists of two separate features. On one side is a depression or sump, 4 inches deep and 4 inches in diameter. The area adjacent is pitted and slopes gently to a hole that pierces the rim of the sump on the diagonal, so that liquid would drain into the depression. It is these features that identify this altar as a libation altar.

The second altar, also with a square shaft, is smaller than the libation altar. Unfortunately, it was badly damaged when the temple collapsed. Nevertheless, the offering table still has soot on its upper surface, evidence that burned offerings were placed on it.

The third and most elaborate of the altars found in the temple is completely different in shape. It is tall (more than 3 feet) and has a conical base. It was cut from a single piece of limestone and has a cup-shaped depression at the top. At two places on the cylindrical shaft are rings of stone-carved hanging petals, which were originally painted alternately red and black. On the front were black and red triangles. Below the triangles a curving black line, ending in two prongs, looks like a serpent. The bowl-like depression at the top is stained with soot. Although found in three pieces, this altar is complete.

On the back side of the altar, the facets of the vertical shaft are decorated with a palm tree and an inscription in a Moabite-related script and dialect. The words run perpendicular to the rim of the altar. The altar was probably lying on its side when the stone carver cut the inscription. The text is a label informing us that this is “the incense altar that Elishama made for YSP, the daughter of ’WT.”7

The finds from the temple also include clay oil lamps, broken female figurines and jewelry, mostly beads. The small number of finds suggest that everything that could be carried was removed from the temple when the town was attacked, sometime in the seventh to sixth century B.C.E. Outside in the courtyard were more than 4,000 animal bones and two dozen ceramic figurines of animals. The bones show cut marks suggesting that the animals had been slaughtered; they may have been used either as offerings in the temple or as part of a religious meal.

No doubt this temple served the people who lived at Khirbat al-Mudayna. It is especially significant, because very few Iron Age temples have been found inside ancient towns. One is the temple to Yahweh at Arad;e it too was located within the site. These sites are invaluable because they illustrate the religious traditions of the ancient people who lived there, in contrast to shrines with standing stones located outside a town. These stood either in front of the gate, where visitors to the town could make offerings according to their own traditions (as at Tel Dan and Bethsaida),f or at wayside shrines (as at ‘En Hatzeva and at Horvat Qitmitg). At ‘En Hatzeva, the excavators found a pit filled with cultic vessels and ceramic statues located outside the settlement, and thus the relationship between the inhabitants of the site and the cultic objects can only be inferred. So too, at Qitmit- We know little of the people who made use of this wayside shrine, which sits in an isolated site with no town in the neighborhood.

As it happens, we too have discovered a wayside shrine. As part of our ongoing regional survey, we are exploring the wadi system for 6 miles in every direction, finding and recording the features at many new sites. This survey has located ancient towns, watchtowers, cemeteries (ancient and modern), reservoirs, caves and cisterns, and concentrations of pottery and flint tools dating to the Neolithic period (8300–4500 B.C.E.). The terrain in the drainage basin of the Wadi ath-Thamad is very rugged; no wonder earlier investigators seldom traveled through this area. Even though we only visited sites that were close to modern roads during our first season (1996), we located a small site on an isolated hill where we found a complete female figurine and fragments of two anthropomorphic vessels. We named this site Wadi ath-Thamad No. 13, or WT #13 for short. Obviously, we had to return to this site in subsequent seasons.

A rectangular perimeter wall encloses WT #13, and in some places stone benches line the wall. This shrine site has unfortunately been looted and badly disturbed in modern times, leaving only a small area of undisturbed cobblestones and hard-packed soil that appear to be in situ. However, under the cobblestones we found several broken figurines, a model throne/chair and sherds, possibly from ceramic statues. Sifting of the loose soil piled up by the looters produced many small finds, including jewelry (mostly carnelian and shell beads), a scarab, sea shells, fossils, fragments of coral, two faience amulets (one of the god Horus as a child and one of Ptah as a child), miniature ceramic vessels, limestone bowls, three limestone figurines and thousands of sherds, primarily from cooking pots, jars and jugs. The small ceramic female figurines each hold a disc flat against their chest, or hold a drum in their hands, perpendicular to the body. A second group of objects consists of large clay statues; one of these has a lamp on its head. Other artifacts characteristic of cultic activities are a two-story model shrine with windows and perforated ceramic cups with tripod feet.

More excavation at the shrine site is planned for future seasons. However, we already know that our finds have their closest affinities with the supposedly Edomite finds from Horvat Qitmit and ‘En Hatzeva. At the same time, the faience amulet of Horus as a child, together with the hairstyle of two of the figurines, suggest a strong Egyptian or Phoenician influence, which is surprising in this location at this time. Was this shrine site used by travelers who each came with their own religious traditions and left offerings at the shrine? Or are we looking at a site that represents the traditions of the “Men of Gad” who lived in the Madaba area? Or is it a hybrid site, reflecting both Moabite and foreign practices? And how did this site relate to nearby settlements like Khirbat al-Mudayna, which seems to have such a different assemblage of religious artifacts?

Certainly, the culture represented at Khirbat al-Mudayna can be called Moabite in a broad sense, although both the script and the dialect represented on the conical altar are somewhat different from the language and script of the Mesha Inscription. This tells us that there is greater local variety than we had imagined prior to our excavation. Yet the pottery at the site resembles that at the Moabite site of Dibon, suggesting a common potting tradition, if not a common culture in all other respects.

So who were the people who lived at Khirbat al-Mudayna, and what was their relationship to the city of Dibon and the king of Moab? Clearly, they were not Israelites- Their town was heavily defended against enemies attacking from the north and west (Israel), even though they shared with Israel certain architectural traditions, such as the six-chambered gate. Although the Mesha Stele mentions the fortification of towns along Moab’s northern border following the war with Israel, the construction of the gate at Khirbat al-Mudayna seems to date to the period after the death of Mesha (Carbon 14 analysis yields a date of 810–790 B.C.E.).

Like all archaeologists, we have ended up with even more questions than we started out with. But there is little doubt that we have opened up a new chapter in the history of Moab and Moabite culture.

Funding from Wilfrid Laurier University was in the form of a Short-Term Research Grant, and a Research Equipment Grant. Additional support came from the Centre for Research Development of the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, from Austin Presbyterian Seminary, as well as from individual participants and generous gifts from P.-E. Dion and R. Levesque.

a. See Sigfried Horn, ‘Why the Moabite Stone Was Blown to Pieces,’ BAR 22-03.

b. See André Lemaire, “Fragments from the Book of Balaam Found at Deir Alla- Text Foretells Cosmic Disaster,” BAR 11-05.

c. See Floyd S. Fierman, “Rabbi Nelson Glueck- An Archaeologist’s Secret Life in the Service of the OSS,” BAR 12-05.

d. Rami Arav, Richard A. Freund and John F. Shroder, Jr., “Bethsaida Rediscovered,” BAR 26-01.

e. See Ze’ev Herzog, Miriam Aharoni and Anson F. Rainey, “Arad—An Ancient Israelite Fortress with a Temple to Yahweh,” BAR 13-02.

f. See Avraham Biran, “Sacred Spaces- Of Standing Stones, High Places and Cult Objects at Tel Dan,” BAR 21-05; reprinted as Chapter Seven in Celebrating Avraham (Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992), p. 92.

g. For ‘En Hatzeva, see Rudolf Cohen and Yigal Yisrael, “Smashing the Idols- Piecing Together an Edomite Shrine in Judah,” BAR 22-04. For Horvat Qitmit, see Itzhaq Beit-Arieh, “New Light on the Edomites,’ BAR 14-02.

1. There is actually little doubt that Kemosh was the chief god of the Moabites; he is the prime mover behind all the main accomplishments of which King Mesha boasted in his famous inscription, the “Moabite Stone.” For a convenient edition and commentaries, see A. Dearman, ed., Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2; Atlanta- Scholars Press, 1989); his name also appears, as the divine element, in the names of many ancient Moabites. See N. Avigad and B. Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem, 1997), p. 508.

2. Jerome, commentary on Isaiah 16-8.

3. The inhabitants of the Madaba plains cultivated superb vineyards long after the disappearance of Moab. The vine is central in the iconography of the numerous mosaics from Byzantine times, published in M. Piccirillo, The Mosaics of Jordan (Amman- American Center of Oriental Research, 1993).

4. On this term see M. Coogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (Anchor Bible 11; New York- Doubleday, 1988), p. 43.

5. On Moab’s tribute of lambs, see also Isaiah 16-1. In modern times, the 19th-century traveler Henry Baker Tristram left eyewitness comments that lend some plausibility to those figures (The Land of Moab. Travels and Discoveries on the East Side of the Dead Sea and the Jordan [London- John Murray, 2nd ed. 1874], pp. 223–24).

6. See M. P. Graham, “The Discovery and Reconstruction of the Mesha Inscription,” pp. 41–92 in A. Dearman, ed., Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2; Atlanta- Scholars Press, 1989).

7. P.-E. Dion and P.M.M. Daviau, “An Inscribed Incense Altar of Iron Age II at Hòirbet el-Mudeµyine (Jordan),” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 116 (2000), pp. 1–13.