This volume is devoted to the regions of Idumea and Edom and their inhabitants in the Persian period. As recent findings and research suggest, in the aftermath of the the elimination of Edom as a kingdom in the Neo-Babylonian period, Edomites continued to inhabit their traditional territory east of the Arabah Valley as well as the region west of the Arabah. The biblical texts contain memories informed by the Persian-period reality. The eighteen essays collected in this volume highlight new developments in the study of Edom by researchers from the disciplines of archaeology, Near Eastern studies, epigraphy, cultural history, and Hebrew Bible studies. Collectively, they draw a broad-stroke, complex image of historical Edom in the previously understudied Persian period.

The opening essay in this section is my own contribution, entitled “The Complexity of a Site: ‘Edom’ in the Persian Period from the Perspectives of Historical Research, Hebrew Bible Studies, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies.” It introduces the current state of research on Edom in the Persian period and outlines the open questions, desiderata, and issues for future research. The essay is meant to serve as an orientation into this complex and problematic situation, particularly the intersections of historical studies, archaeology, and cultural, religious, and literary histories. Consequently, it is imperative that perspectives from historical research, Hebrew Bible studies, and ancient Near Eastern studies are brought into dialogue with each other. Therefore, the essay concerns itself with the various (and partially divergent) results, inquiries, and sectors of future research from the different disciplines on the question of Persian-period Edom, and it seeks to bring these together so as to develop the larger historical, literary-historical, and religious-historical picture that the field desperately needs. At the same time, the essay serves to profile the task of the whole volume in fuller detail – the book strives to be an entry into the topic that is as comprehensive as possible, both in terms of topics and approaches.

Piotr Bienkowski contributed the next essays, entitled “Edom in the Persian Period, Relations with the Negev, and the Arabian Trade: The Archaeological Evidence.” As Bienkowski demonstrates, the Persian period in Edom is not clearly distinguishable from the Iron II period, from an archaeological perspective. Major Edomite sites – Busayra, Tall al-Khalayfi and Tawilan – continued to be occupied from the Iron II through the Persian period, while others were abandoned by the end of the sixth century BCE. The local pottery continued virtually unchanged. There was fourth-century BCE building activity in Petra, attributable to an early Nabataean occupation contemporary with continued occupation at some Edomite sites. A review of the evidence demonstrates that the presence of Edomite pottery at sites in the Negev in the late Iron Age can only be explained by Edomite tribes interacting with sites along the Arabian trade route through the Beersheba Valley. The evidence discounts an Edomite invasion or migration. The Arabian trade was disrupted in the early sixth century BCE, when all those Negev sites were destroyed or abandoned, but there is evidence that it had revived by the end of the sixth century BCE and continued to the end of the Persian period. It has been suggested previously that this trade was controlled by the Qedarites. Lack of evidence for their presence in Edom, together with continued Edomite occupation at Busayra and Khalayfi – the two key sites along the old Arabian trade route through Edom –and the presence there of Attic imports indicates instead that it was the Edomite tribes who were once again running the trade through Edom and probably the Beersheba Valley and the central Negev highlands.

Yigal Levin’s contribution “The Genesis of Idumea” is devoted to the intriguing question of the transition from the Iron Age II to the Persian period in Idumea: How and under which conditions did the province emerge, and what distinguishes it as “Idumean”? His essay examines the available data on the identity of these Idumeans using the extant written sources and archaeological data and traces the process by which Edomites living in what had been southern Judah – now under Qedarite-Arab control – preserved and adapted their identity, eventually becoming the dominant group in the area that became the Hellenistic-period “Province of Idumea.”

Ian Stern’s essay immediately continues this line of inquiry concerning Idumea and the Idumean province. Stern takes Maresha as an example in his overview, entitled “The Evolution of an Edomite/Idumean Identity: Hellenistic Maresha as a Case Study.” He discusses questions of identity in Idumea in its historical context from Iron Age Edom to the second half of the second century BCE and the conquest of Maresha by John Hyrcanus I. Excavations at Hellenistic Maresha have revealed an eclectic material culture which includes both generic Levantine characteristics such as pig avoidance, ossilegium, circumcision, and even certain aniconic tendencies, as well as features with a distinctly Judean affiliation: ritual bathing facilities and hundreds of punctured vessels that seem to suggest Judean purity laws. In stark contrast, there is an almost total disconnect between Maresha and Judah/Judea in the ceramic repertoire. Ceramic parallels are primarily from coastal Hellenistic-period pagan sites; Phoenician, Greek and Egyptian influences are prevalent as well. This suggests a lack of exchange or perhaps a deliberate policy of boundary-creation with Judah/Judea, or both. This hybridized material culture assemblage would appear to reflect a hybridized group identity – a Maresha/Idumean identity, but perhaps some boundary-making as well.

The section opens with the essay “Edom in Judah: Identity and Social Entanglement in the Late Iron Age Negev” by Andrew J. Danielson. Danielson explores the Negev as a cultural “transition zone” already in the late Iron Age. Archaeological excavations of the northeastern Negev from the eighth to early sixth centuries BCE have revealed a significant amount of “Edomite” material culture within a region purportedly controlled by the kingdom of Judah. This material culture was previously interpreted as the result of an Edomite invasion in the early sixth century BCE; however, recent studies have begun to demonstrate both the longevity of Edomite material culture in the northeastern Negev and the degree to which its users were integrated into the social fabric of the region. Building on these observations, Danielson’s essay explores the nature of cross-cultural interaction between southern Transjordan and the northeastern Negev through contextual analyses of socially sensitive elements of the archaeological material culture record. Three case studies examine 1) culinary practices as identified through ceramic traditions, 2) religious practices, and 3) naming traditions and sociolinguistics as recognizable through the inscriptional record. Ultimately, these case studies examine the complexities of a sustained, multi-generational context of social entanglement between diverse communities in the northeastern Negev and demonstrate the inherent integration of Edom within the northeastern Negev region of southern Judah during the late Iron Age.

In the fourth and third centuries BCE, the province of Idumea included all the areas of the Beersheba-Arad Valley, the southern Shephelah and the southern Judean hill country; the majority population in the region was Idumean and Arab. The borders of Yehud had contracted and most of the Judahite population was concentrated around Jerusalem. Explanations for these historical, geopolitical, cultural, and demographic changes have been well-discussed by scholars. In “Dry Climate During the Early Persian Period and Its Impact on the Establishment of Idumea,” Daphna Langgut and Oded Lipschits provide a set of paleo-environmental data that sheds new light on this process. Palynological and sedimentological information show that during the late sixth through the mid-fifth centuries BCE (~ 520–450 BCE), dryer climate conditions were prevalent in the region. During the early Hellenistic period, wet climate conditions and intense olive horticulture characterized the region. Since in the steppe-marginal areas of the southern Levant even minor climatic variation can result in major environmental change, the main argument advanced by Langgut and Lipschits is that the dry conditions of the early Persian period caused a process of abandonment of most villages in the southern parts of the former kingdom of Judah, triggering nomadization by some elements of the local population and immigration to the core areas of the province of Yehud by others. After the destruction of the kingdom of Judah and the collapse of the southern settlement and military system, this process provoked a demographic vacuum in the southern lowlands (the Shephelah), the southern hill country and the Beersheba-Arad Valley that attracted the immigration of nomadic population. The gradual increase in moisture in the late-fifth and fourth centuries BCE probably reinforced a cultural progression by stabilizing the settlements that were highly dependent on water resources and local agriculture. The semi-nomadic elements could have easily settled in the area and quickly created the settlement alignment of the province of Idumea.

“A Tale of Two Provinces: Judah and Edom During the Persian Period” by Alexander Fantalkin and Oren Tal addresses the material evidence of the Persian-period provinces of Judah and Edom against the contemporary geopolitical conditions. Following the Egyptian rebellion of 404–400 BCE, southern Palestine underwent a major transformation as a result of becoming the southwestern frontier of the Persian Empire. Fantalkin and Tal offer a reconstruction of the political history and its social and economic manifestations that focuses on the inland regions of the inhabited land of Palestine. Sites, administrative centers, architectural remains, pottery, and epigraphic finds are used to reconstruct the period’s Zeitgeist.

Adi Erlich’s “Idumean in Light of the Votive Deposits of Terracotta Figurines” turns to this peculiar type of artifact from the Persian period. The region as whole is characterized by a number of types of terracotta figurines, which are all local variants and adaptations of Achaemenid, Phoenician, and Greek types, and among three clearly identifiable Idumean types. The types depict a horse rider, a woman with a child on her shoulder and a standing man, sometimes holding a bow and arrows. The figurines come from several votive deposits or favissae throughout the Shephelah, from Tel Miqne in the north to Tel Halif in the south. These deposits display mixed assemblages with different sources of influence, and all contain terracottas of Idumean types. This essay examines the similarities and differences between the assemblages, within the context of both the settlement hierarchy and formation of ethnic identity. The Idumean terracottas throw light on the Idumean society, values and daily life. The cult in Idumea is examined in light of the votive deposits, compared to Persian-period Phoenicia, and in regard to old traditions in the Shephelah.

Michal Haber, Oren Gutfeld, and Pablo Betzer’s “A Monumental Hellenistic-Period Ritual Compound in Upper Idumea: New Findings from Ḥorbat ʿAmuda,” provides the first preliminary results of a newly discovered site in Idumea that relates to an “Idumean Temple.” In 2017, the Beit Lehi Regional Project was inaugurated following nearly a decade of excavations at the Judean lowland site of Ḥorbat Beit Lehi (Loya). Within the framework of the project’s drone survey – encompassing a total study area of 36 sq km – the remains of a massive structure were detected at Ḥorbat ʿAmuda, lying approximately 4 km south of Maresha. Subsequent excavations at the site have revealed a unique edifice featuring fine ashlar and header-and-stretcher construction and extending over an area of at least 75 × 57 m, divided into different wings that have been assigned a ritual or ceremonial function. Unearthed in one chamber, adjacent to a stone-built podium, was a small votive assemblage comprising several ceramic unguentaria along with two limestone incense burners, the larger of which bears a carved image of a bull standing in the façade of a temple. The authors propose identifying the compound as an administrative and/or cultic center that served the hinterlands of Maresha, first established in the early third century BCE under Ptolemaic rule. Corresponding to the findings from Beit Lehi, located only 1 km to the south, the authors maintain that the site was destroyed over the course of the Hasmonean Revolt of 167–164 BCE and not, as had long been posited regarding other sites in the region – namely Maresha –by John Hyrcanus ca. 113/112 BCE.

This essay deals with the Arabian campaigns of the Late Babylonian king Nabonidus (r. 556–539 BCE) who had been residing at the North Arabian oasis of Taymāʾ from his third to thirteenth regnal year, i.e., from 553 to 543 BCE. Nabonidus embarked on the campaign to Arabia and the West early in his third year, in 553 BCE. Over the following decade, Nabonidus occupied the cities of Taymāʾ, Dadān, Fadak, Ḫaybar, Yadīʿ and Yaṯrib, controlling the caravan tracks of North Arabia. This essay addresses the motives of Nabonidus and the significance of the North Arabian cities he occupied, according to the available literary and epigraphic sources. As for Edom and its fate, fate of Edom, the term Edom (Udummu / *Udūm) rarely appear in the cuneiform record. In texts from the Late Babylonian period, it appears only once, in the Nabonidus Chronicle. A new reading of the line concerning Edom in the third regnal year of Nabonidus (553 BCE) in the Nabonidus Chronicle has important ramifications for the interpretation of the course of North Arabian annexation into the Late Babylonian empire. Schaudig proposes that Nabonidus appears to have come to Edom’s aid in his third year (553 BCE), defending it against raids by the Western Arameans and stabilizing it as a loyal vassal on whom he could rely in the hinterland when he set out to conquer North Arabia.

Bob Becking’s essay “Have There Been Prophets in Edom? An Ostracon from Ḥorvat ‘Uza Once More” re-examines and provides a new reading of an Edomite inscription from Ḥorvat ‘Uza. This inscription has usually been understood as a sapiential text. Becking argues that the inscription is full of prophetic elements. Either case, scribal culture in the Edom attested west of the Arabah was at an advanced level already by the end of the Iron Age. This essay contributes to the research of traces of prophecy that can be found in ancient Edom.

The Idumean administrative ostraca, bearing dates from 363–313 BCE, have been cited as evidence to support two conflicting understandings of the situation. 1.) The use of local rather than imperial Persian measures indicates that Makkedah was a town that housed a granary and a local market where farmers could sell their surplus on credit and buy what they needed in exchange. 2.) Makkedah housed an imperial regional storage facility to which local Idumeans paid taxes-in-kind, sometimes through authorized agents. Via a four-staged investigation, Diana V. Edelman demonstrates in her essay “Economic and Administrative Realia of Rural Idumea at the End of the Persian Period” that the latter point is more likely, due to: 1.) Persian policy on the use of imperial measures; 2.) Persian policy concerning land ownership, tenancy, and taxes; 3.) the activities and responsibilities of agents of fiefs or estate managers and of governmental administrators; and 4.) evidence of local markets or market towns.

The final essay in this section is authored by Esther Eshel, Michael Langlois and Mark Geller. They address “The Aramaic Divination Texts”. The southern foothills of Maresha have yielded more than 1,200 Semitic and (mainly) Greek inscriptions dating to the Hellenistic period. Among them, 360 are from subterranean complex 169. Most of these ostraca and inscriptions bear names or tags. However, a group of 134 Aramaic ostraca, paleographically dated to the third or second century BCE, stands out as a different literary genre, sharing a similar textual structure. Only a few of these ostraca are complete or almost complete, while most are fragmentary. In this essay, the authors suggest that these ostraca were divinatory in nature and were used to inquire about such issues as health, marriage, and property. This interpretation is reinforced by the presence of other archaeological finds that are cultic in nature and might be related to divination.

Ehud Ben Zvi opens the section with “Edom as a Complex Site of Memory among the Literati of Late Persian/Early Hellenistic Judah: Some Observations.” Here, Ben Zvi focuses on Edom’s role(s) within the world of memory of the Jerusalem-centred literati of the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods. Although it is to be expected that some memories held by these literati about foreign ethnies, polities, leaders, etc. evoked favourable images about them, while others, even within the same remembering community, conjured unfavourable characterizations of the same referent, Ben Zvi points to two remarkable aspects in this memory construction of Edom: First, in some of the texts that they read and reread, Edom was singled out for both YHWH’s and Israel’s enmity in ways that go beyond those of other political entities or ethnic groups in the surrounding area, such as Moab, Ammon, Tyre, Sidon, Qedar, and even, most strikingly, beyond those for some historically imperial powers such as Assyria or Babylonia. Second, in some other texts, Edom is characterized as the “other” not only not negatively, but in a relatively positive, and at times unexpectedly positive, manner. Ben Zvi explores the matter of Edom as a site of memory with somewhat peculiar features within the memoryscape of the literati of the late Persian period.

The essay “Think Positive! How the Positive Portrayal of Edom in Late Biblical Texts Leads to New Perspectives on Understanding the Literary-History of Genesis, Deuteronomy, and Chronicles” is my own contribution. Here, I investigate the positive perception of Edom in the Persian period (including redactional layers and traditions from the exilic period). The classical stance in the field, and still prevalent today, holds that the relations between Israel/Judah and Edom as reflected in the late prophetic corpus are the dominant late-biblical traditions that leave no space for a positive (or even ambivalent) portrayal of Edom in this period. However, I demonstrate that certain redactional layers within particular traditions in the Pentateuch (especially the Abraham narrative, the Jacob Cycle, P and Deuteronomy), as well as the reimagination of biblical history provided by Chronicles, exhibit a positive perception of Edom. I argue that this memory of Edom is informed by a contemporary perception of Idumea and the multiethnic and cross-cultural society in this region (cf. Ben Zvi’s analysis). Identifying the historical background(s) of these observations includes investigations of the region of Idumea and considerations on Yahwistic activity in the region.

Stephen Germany, in his essay “The ‘Edom Texts’ in Samuel–Kings in Inner- and Extrabiblical Perspective,” investigates the observation that references to Edom and the Edomites in the books of Samuel and Kings, though relatively limited in number, present a variety of interpretive problems. In addition to complex textual issues, recent archaeological research in southern Jordan and the Negev has reopened the question of whether the references to Edom in Samuel–Kings may reflect historical realities from the early first millennium BCE. Nevertheless, both earlier and more recent attempts to interpret the “Edom texts” in Samuel–Kings in light of the extrabiblical evidence do not sufficiently take into account their literary function and intertextual relationships. His essay therefore begins by considering the literary development of the “Edom texts” in their own right before attempting to situate their composition within a particular historical context. Through such an approach, the essay argues that while a handful of the “Edom texts” in Samuel–Kings could preserve memories of historical realities from the eighth or seventh centuries BCE, the majority of these texts stem from the postmonarchic period.

Are memories concerning Edom, Esau, and Seir in the prophetic texts invented or claimed, and do they better reflect a “culture of resentment” or a “proximate other? This is the question Diana V. Edelman puts into the focus of her essay “Late Historical Edom and Reading Edom, Seir, and Esau in the Prophetic Literature through Persian Lenses: Preliminary Observations.” After reviewing the late-monarchic southern trade routes and supply systems, the essay investigates what would have replaced them in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods. It then moves to a reconsideration of the prophetic texts against this new background, exploring the possible development of Edom in Judean social memory in the prophetic corpus.

Ehud Ben Zvi concludes this section and the whole volume with his “The Contribution of Chronicles to the Memory Argument about Edom as Reflected in the Core Repertoire of the Yehudite Literati of the Late Persian/Early Hellenistic Period.” The essay explores the contribution that reading Chronicles made to the memory argument about the memory of the Edom of old that existed among the literati of the late Persian/early Hellenistic period. It shows that reading Chronicles supported some positions, undermined others, but most importantly, shaped its own unique contributions to the existing memory argument, and by doing so, further explored matters directly associated with their own understanding of themselves and of some of their core concepts.