THE POLITICS OF MESHA: SEGMENTED IDENTITIES AND STATE FORMATION IN IRON AGE MOAB

The Politics of Mesha: Segmented Identities and State Formation in Iron Age MoabAuthor(s): Bruce RoutledgeSource: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 43, No. 3 (2000), pp.221-256Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3632443 .

Accessed: 16/12/2013 10:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Economic andSocial History of the Orient.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:48:37 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3632443?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE POLITICS OF MESHA: SEGMENTED IDENTITIES AND

STATE FORMATION IN IRON AGE MOAB

BY

BRUCE ROUTLEDGE (University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

The Mesha Inscription (ca. 850 B.C.) is the longest and most informative document from Iron Age Jordan. A close reading of this text shows that it is thematically and syntactically structured in terms of a series of territorially-based social units related to one another in a segmentary manner. This segmentary structure highlights the state-forming strategies of political incorporation pursued by Mesha, the inscription's putative author. It also highlights the limits of the recent characterization of biblical Moab as "tribal," with its assumption that kinship, rather than territory, was the principle organizing metaphor of the state.

More than one hundred and thirty years after its discovery, the Mesha In-

scription (henceforth MI-see Fig. 1)') remains the longest and most informative Iron Age (1200-550 B.C.E.) document known from the southern Levant (Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories). For this reason, the inscription has a certain importance defined by the absence of rivals. On its own terms, however, it is also a text that rewards careful reading; one that provides a unique glimpse into political discourse at a key turning point in the historical development of

1) The MI became known to Euro-American scholars in 1868. when it was shown to F.A. Klein by members of the Bani Hamida tribe during a visit to the site of Dhiban in what is now central Jordan (see Fig. 2). For a detailed review of the subsequent 'battle' to acquire the stone between Prussian, French and British representatives see Graham (1989). This con- test ended with the destruction of the stone by the Bani Hamida and its reconstruction by Clermont-Ganneau (1875), using surviving fragments and an imperfect squeeze made from the complete inscription. The result is an incomplete inscription containing 34 lines, which range in preservation and readability from complete to little more than a single legible word. The text itself is written in a variant of the Phoenician alphabetic script (arguably to be termed Moabite) and is very close to Biblical Hebrew in its grammar, syntax and vocabu- lary. The events narrated in the MI should probably be dated between ca. 855-841 B.C.E. (Dearman 1989, p. 163). However, the actual inscription of the stele, and at least some of the events it relates, could date as much as several decades later, depending upon the length of Mesha's reign (see Lemaire 1991). Appendix I provides a translation of the MI, with limited commentary on key interpretive problems.

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2000 JESHO 43,3



222 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

53~~f styyffly y Yrr Lltyp~e ow~ycM 't!'~?r1?~r~ 1l pr flxtyf or y 4 4wr4/ a

o}/of r of-I-".

x *,I -Y, I -Y.0 Y.1 5- Ix* 4 Yif $r~..r ef r 4 *+.<4

9 40+5.5W?Lylyxyg * 4 47(w 1,471"y JjpX 3L

*Y~a 3 W) df .

Y 41Lf ly ,

" Z. X O~9171'$ i ~ 719-E L*.de <7y d 4y,

y; Y 07.1* x4 Y ff 4yj 7 ity12'yrb:w.=y i. $e-1

17)a~y~yur~wle ~ yxr f x w

*~-1w -

I. - W3 y /y

ry/d~w~~c~~) ,~?'~F~~(VS. ClOff ?.lp~

Y~UI~;l~po'C"~Seq W :L IY~i~L R, Igy l) tg 3~X O9" 3?19? ~ ~f~Z~~tl~ys~*pq#~"$~P-y -f ? )f.r.

j-r~~dcr~L~fur~ *S~rr ~S0 w Y. 1- /Y~/'~w~~wrly W4# A61gj~j q.~ ~I Pl~hsJqSV~yr Wqjr: /~fX4-)!r +I

#Ilk.~~~*Trl~~t~..~ AFrx')t3g;ffur"??~~?v . ~?rgt Yif~~fr~ " d YL4 FJJX"f1~

117-111. ?a TL,1?*

f?9?T9?)I99Yl~

Iwo? r~~xq~)~XYJSy~t j~gWS fr4f. ? f)Y?ua y~S~q W

Figure 1: Transcription of the Mesha Inscription after Lidzbarski (1902).



THE POLITICS OF MESHA 223

* Muhayat/ Nebo?

SM-Adhba Quraya/ Qjryaten?

* Ma'in/ Ba'al-Ma'on

'Atarus/ 'Atarot

DEAD SEA egh *Dhiban/ Dibon

4 ••

'Ara'ir/'Aro'er

eKarak

Hawronen?

N 0 kr 20

Figure 2: Map of Moab, with probable Iron Age site locations.



224 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

the Levant. It is this political discourse, and what it reveals about political iden-

tity and nascent state-formation, that I will address in this paper.

Previous Scholarship

Scholarly interest in the politics of the MI has been largely limited to the

strategic and historical issues of Mesha's military campaigns, particularly as

they relate to the biblical account of Mesha's 'revolt' in II Kings 3.2) In this literature, a number of interpretative dilemmas regarding the MI have been iso- lated but not resolved.3) In particular, the inclusive nature of Mesha's claims for the territorial extent of Moab and his kingly authority contrasts markedly with his need to campaign both north and south of Dibon in the course of his reign. Furthermore, parts of the MI seem to assume a simple military occupation by Israel of lands legitimately claimed by Mesha as king of Moab. However, these claims seem to be confounded by the segmented nature of northern Moab, and the overwhelming centrality of Dibon in Mesha's activities and identity. In addition, statements such as line 10, where the men of Gad are said to have lived in 'Ataroth since "of old," suggest that Mesha faced a complex ethno-political landscape. At the root of these tensions is a set of problematic assumptions regarding the relationship of political authority, territory, and national identity in the Iron Age states of the southern Levant. In particular, scholars have shown a tendency to work as if political authority, territory and nationhood were co- terminus and indivisible.

More recently, there has been a shift in scholarly emphasis. This shift is characterised on one hand by an increased interest in the rhetorical, literary and ide-

ological nature of the MI as a public text;4) and on the other hand by a new

emphasis on the fragile, emergent, or even non-existent nature of Moabite state- hood as witnessed in the MI.5) Indeed, in reaction to the interpretative dilemmas noted above, it has become common-place to point out the rather local

points of reference and sources of power expressed by Mesha, and the absence of unequivocal evidence in either the MI or the Hebrew Bible for a territorially integrated state of Moab before Mesha.6) Most concretely, it has been suggested

2) E.g. Liver 1967; Murphy 1953; Rensburg 1981; Van Zyl 1960. 3) See Dearman 1989. 4) E.g. Auffret 1980; Drinkard 1989; Irsliger 1993; Miller 1974; Miller 1994; Niccacci

1994; Smelik 1992. 5) Dearman 1992; Knauf 1992; LaBianca and Younker 1995; Miller 1992; Na'aman 1997;

Younker 1997. 6) Dearman 1992; Knauf 1992; Miller 1992; Routledge 1997; Younker 1997.




that Moab was a 'tribal' confederacy or 'tribal' state, dominated by relations of kinship and charisma rather than class or institutions.7)

These recent trends in scholarship have not always worked in concert. Our new understandings of Moabite social and political organisation have not always benefited from the close readings of the MI that typify literary studies, while literary approaches have yet to show themselves fully cognisant of recent discussions of politics and society in the MI. As I hope to demonstrate, a new reading of the text can provide significant evidence on issues of politics and social organisation, while a nuanced appreciation of politics and society suggests new ways of reading the MI.

Moab the 'Un-State'

Recent commentators have pointed to two aspects of the MI that serve as evidence for the dominance of a decentralised, 'tribal' form of social organisation in Moab at the time of Mesha. These are the prominence of Dibon in Mesha's activities and identity, and the segmented political landscape suggested by the recurrent phrase "land of [city name]" in the MI.8) While these points are well made, they do not exhaust the evidence for political structure in the MI. Further- more, the evocation of 'state'/'tribe' oppositions to explain this political structure introduces a combination of definitional vagueness and typological thinking that works against a theoretically informed appreciation of particular historical contexts.

In the Iron II period (1000-550 B.C.E.), across the Levant, a variety of small- scale polities (e.g. Israel, Aram-Damascus, Moab) emerge that slip between the interstices of traditional social evolutionary categories. At once integrative and decentralised, these polities are neither strictly kin-based, nor marked (especially in their early phases) by significant administrative specialisation or class stratification. Before fitting such polities within the confined parameters of particular ideal types (whether these be 'chiefdoms', 'states', 'secondary states' or 'peer- polities'), we must work to understand the locally relevant forms that political and social developments take within these polities.

In the case of the MI, we need to investigate the principles of politics and social organisation that run through the inscription and hence constrain the form taken by Mesha's aspirations, actions and rhetoric. By politics I am referring to the distribution, negotiation and exercise of power, understanding power to be the ability to act effectively in given contexts. Social organisation I understand as a field of discourse that serves to position individuals relative to other

7) Knauf 1992; LaBianca and Younker 1995; Younker 1997. 8) Dearman 1992, p. 75; Knauf 1992, pp. 49-50; Younker 1997, pp. 242-243.



226 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

individuals and collectivities in given contexts. Politics and social organisation are related in that both are concerned with collective action, and it can be argued that social organisation is the network across which power is distributed and hence the field on which politics are contested.

To consider the MI from this perspective, we must first address the nature of the inscription itself and its relevance as a window on political discourse in early Moab. We begin with the central fact that it is a royal inscription, belong- ing to a well-established genre of first millennium B.C.E. royal inscriptions from the Levant known as 'memorial inscriptions'.9) 'Memorial inscriptions' use the dedication of a structure or monument as the pretext for memorialising the major achievements of a king's reign. Consequently, the MI is bound up in the ideological project of legitimising and reproducing kingship in Moab. Yet, the MI cannot be reduced to mere stereotyped propaganda. Memorial inscriptions represent a culturally specific, rather than generalised, royal ideology-- something that becomes clear on comparison with other royal inscriptions from the ancient Near East. For instance, claims for world dominion and singular superiority are strikingly absent. Rather, Levantine rulers are surprisingly can- did about the existence of competitors of near equal (or even superior) rank and power against whom they struggle. This contrasts markedly with contemporary Neo-Assyrian inscriptions'0) as well as the internal/external "prestige and interest" dichotomy that Liverani") has noted for royal inscriptions and international correspondence during the Late Bronze Age.

Despite the culturally specific concepts of kingship contained in the MI, one might be reluctant to give weight to a single inscription, given the limited audience that was likely to have both the ability and opportunity to read its content. Here the problem of viewing royal inscriptions strictly as messages (propaganda) becomes clear. When viewed as a message, the importance and impact of an inscription is limited by its potential audience. However, when viewed as one of many intellectual products embedded in a larger system of signification, an inscription can be seen to both reflect, and in part reproduce, a given social order. Such intellectual products are a component of, what A. Gramsci has termed, hegemony.12) Hegemony can be defined as the network of values, emo- tions, associations and routines that provide the consensual basis for any given political order and system of authority. As a hegemonic product, the MI both reflects and shapes the common values that undergird social order in Moab.

9) See Miller 1974; Drinkard 1989. 10) Liverani 1979. 11) See Liverani 1990. 12) Gramsci 1971; Feima 1981, pp. 23-50.




More specifically, the MI draws from, and transforms, local cultural resources as the 'tools' and 'raw materials' of its narration. As such the MI is not about the narration or falsification of an event-based history, rather the MI is about history-making; bringing into being a certain understanding of the world by the context and manner in which it recounts events.

To put this more pragmatically, it has often been recognised'3) that the MI makes a case for the legitimacy of Mesha's rule over an enlarged geographic territory. In what follows, I will demonstrate that in.making this case, the MI both incorporates, and attempts to transform, a pre-existing model of political identity based on social segmentation and local affinity. Indeed, I argue that it is the embedding of Mesha's political program in this indigenous model that makes it effective. I also argue that this indigenous model, and Mesha's manip- ulation of it, can be illuminated by comparison with a number of other pre- industrial polities, often discussed under the rubric of 'the segmentary state.' The insights gained from these comparisons suggest a sophisticated and contextually sensitive political framework that could be extended beyond the MI to interpret archaeological and epigraphic evidence from Moab, and perhaps also from neighbouring Iron Age polities as well.

Syntax and Narration in the Mesha Inscription

Our starting point, from an analytical perspective, is the text of the MI itself. In analysing the MI, I follow those semiticists influenced by text-linguistics'4) in seeing a significant link between systematic variation in syntax (especially at the paragraph level) and the marking of topical units within a text. Therefore, I assume that both syntax and semantics should play a role in communicating conceptual structures and topical emphasis within the MI.

Recently A. Niccacci'5) has offered an extended analysis of the syntactical organisation of the MI. This study systematises and extends F. Andersen's observa- tion that there are two different types of paragraphs in the MI."6) Put simply, the main line of the story in the MI is initiated and continued in two different ways. One paragraph type is initiated by the verbal construction 'waw- x-qatal'7) and continued by the construction 'wayyiqtol', while the other is

13) Dearman 1989, pp. 209-210. 14) E.g. Bodine 1995. 15) Niccacci 1994. 16) Andersen 1966, pp. 115-116. 17) This includes both cases with SVO word order, and cases beginning with casus pen-

dens constructions.



228 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

initiated by the verbal construction 'x-qatal' and continued by the construction 'waw-x-qatal'. More specifically, Niccacci'8) proposes that the first paragraph type is introduced by waw plus a noun phrase, followed by a verb in the finite third person (termed 'noun phrase + finite verb'). Niccacci'9) proposes that the second paragraph type is introduced by the first person independent pronoun (normally) followed by a verb in first person singular perfect form (termed "andk + qatal'). In most cases the first paragraph type is continued by a wayyiqtol construction, while the second is continued by the verbal construction 'w'anak + qatal', or a subordinate ky clause.

The two verbal constructions noted by Niccacci structure the MI at two different levels. At the paragraph level these constructions mark new units each time they are used. At the text level, it is clear that the MI is organised in several large sections marked by shifts from the dominance of one verbal construction to the other.20) What is interesting from our perspective is that at both the paragraph and text level a consideration of semantics and topical focus supports the integrity of the units marked by these verbal constructions.

Beginning with the text level, 'noun phrase + finite verb' constructions are associated almost exclusively with the narration of military campaigns. "andk + qatal' constructions, on the other hand, are associated with biographical statements regarding Mesha and his performance of kingly acts, especially acts of construction and piety. While not without some uncertainties,21) alternation between these two paragraph types divide the MI into five main sections:

1) lines 1-4 (Biography 2) lines 5-21a (Narrative) 3) lines 21b-31a (Biography)

18) Niccacci 1994, p. 226. 19) Ibid. 20) Recognition of the 'macro-structuring' role of these two verbal constructions is not

unique to Niccacci. For example, Mtiller (1994, pp. 383-385) distinguishes between what he calls the "votiveinschriftlichen Teil" (marked by the use of the wayyiqtol) and the "bauin- schriftlichen Teil" (marked by the use of w'andk) of the MI. Similarly, Irsigler (1993, pp. 112-113) distinguishes between what he calls "besprechende Erzdihlung" (marked by the use of the wayyiqtol) and "erzdhlender Diskurs" (marked by 'andk + qatal in 1.m.s.).

21) The first section (lines 1-4) is characterized as biographical due to the dominance of 'andk and the use of w'andk + qatal to continue the narrative. However, the use of a wayyiqtol construction in line 3 is atypical. Section four, although fragmentary, is clearly of the narrative type (introduced, by a casus pendens construction). Section five, on the other hand, is more fragmentary and much less certain. Basically, it is the appearance of w'ancik in line 34 that suggests a shift to the biographical form, since 'andk is not used in the narrative sections of the MI.




4) lines 31b-34 (Narrative) 5) Lines 34-? broken (Biography?).22)

The regular shifting between paragraph types is a particularly striking feature of the text level structure of the MI, and suggests intentional variation. Consequently, these syntactical shifts should carry information of importance to the narrative. The content of these sections raises the possibility that the repeated syntactical shifts pivoted on a north/south division of Moab (marked by the Arnon/Wadi Mujib). Indeed our five major sections can be described as follows:

1) Introduction (Biography) 2) Campaigns north of Wadi Mujib (Narrative) 3) Kingly construction north of Wadi Mujib (Biography) 4) Campaigns south of Wadi Mujib-to Hawronen23) (Narrative) 5) Kingly construction (?) south of Wadi Mujib (Biography?).

In other words, the MI proceeds by detailing Mesha's military campaigns and then his building projects in the north of Moab, before repeating this pattern for his activities in the south.24) Of course, with the exception of the campaign

22) These divisions match those of Niccacci (1994), except for section four, which I begin at line 31b, rather than 30b. Niccacci reads 30b-31a as casus pendens + wavyiqtol because of the sentence divider after bt dbhltn in line 30a. However, as Andersen (1966: 86-87) notes, in lines 3 and 16 the "sentence dividers" clearly come in the middle of single sentences-so their use is a little ambiguous. For this reason I have chosen to see beth baCalma'on in 30b as continuing the list of sites at which Mesha built temples begun in line 29. A wide range of other schemes exist for identifying major units within the MI. DeMoor's (1988) 'tricolon' poetic rendering pays so little attention to syntax that it cannot be integrated with most other approaches. Auffret (1980) maintains very similar paragraph divisions to those used here, but proposes different section divisions (lines 1-10a; 10b-21a; 21b-31a) based on word repetition. The division of the first two sections seems unconvincing in light of the text-level syntax. Both K. Smelik (1992) and H. Irsigler (1993) offer divisions, the former based on content and the latter on syntax, that are similar to mine except for their partitioning off of lines 28- 31a. Finally, Parker (1997, pp. 44-58) offers a scheme for division based on content that is identical to mine, with the exception of the fifth section, which he does not recognize.

23) A location for Hawronen on the west side of the Karak Plateau seems well established (see Dearman 1990; Mittmann 1982; Na'aman 1994; Schottroff 1964; Worschech and Knauf 1986).

24) Several scholars (Parker 1997, p. 54; Smelik 1992, p. 72) have suggested that the clo- sure provided by 30-31a indicates that lines 31b-34 are a later addition to the MI. Instead, I would point to this as evidence that the north-south division of Moab was the principal one in the MI. Further evidence for the existence of a 'mental map' in the MI, predicated on a north-south division of Moab lies in word choice. In particular, the contrast between lines 14 and 32 is rather striking. Line 14 reads wy'mr.ly.kms.lk.'hz.'t.nbh. (and Kemosh said to me "Go, seize Nebo.. ."). Line 32 is very similar, reading [wy]'mr.ly.kms.rd.hlthym.bhrwrnn.



230 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

against Hawronen, the nature of Mesha's activities in southern Moab are lost in the damaged portions of the text and must remain conjectural.

If we look closely at the paragraphs within the narrative sections of the MI we see an interesting pattern that is directly relevant to interpreting the "land of

[city name]" phrases. New paragraphs are introduced with 'noun phrase + finite verb' constructions in lines 5 ('mry.mlk.ysr'l. wy'nw; "Omri, king of Israel, and he oppressed.. ."), 7b (wysr'l.'bd; "Now Israel perished. . ."), 10 (w's.gd.ysb; "Now the men of Gad dwelt..."), 19 (wmlk.ysr'l.bnh yhs; "Now the king of Israel built Yahaz.. ."), and 31b (whwrnn.ysb.bh; "Now Hawronen, he lived in it . .").

Line 5 introduces the overall theme of the narrative, namely that Omri had

oppressed Moab, but Kemosh, working through Mesha, reversed this situation.

Following this introduction, each of the new paragraphs introduced by a 'noun

phrase + finite verb' construction seems to contain information about Mesha's activities in the area of a particular geographic region. In particular, lines 7-8, 10, 19 and 31b each introduce narratives regarding the subjugation of distinct cities or regions by Mesha (lines 7-8 = 'rs.mhdb', "land of Madaba"; line 10 =

'rs.~trt, "land of 'Ataroth"; line 19 = yhs "Yahaz"; line 31b = hwrnn, "Hawro- nen"). Furthermore, Mesha's building activities at Ba'al Ma'on and Qiryaten in line 9-10 are syntactically subsumed in the paragraph dealing with "the land of Madaba" (Lines 7b-10a). Since both of these sites are to be located near to Madaba (see Fig. 2),"5) it suggests that the paragraph was structured to cover all of Mesha's actions within a distinct geographical territory.

The only problem site is that of Nebo. Syntactically the campaign against Nebo, narrated in lines 14-18, is not marked. It is introduced by a wayyiqtol construction, and hence would seem to continue the paragraph begun at line

10b. In terms of geography, Nebo is not likely to have been part of "the land of 'Ataroth", nor is this suggested by its prominence in the narration. However, Nebo and 'Ataroth are linked conceptually in the use of parallel phrasing to detail the process of capture, wholesale slaughter and removal of key ritual

objects. This parallel phrasing, and the clear ideological significance of the

(and Kemosh said to me "Go down, fight against Hawronen"). The choice of hlk ("to go") for the order to attack Nebo and yrd ("to go down, descend") for the order to attack Hawronen seems to be based on a spatial distinction in the location of the two sites. Certainly one would have to descend some 800 meters in crossing Wadi Mujib on the way from Dibon to Hawronen, but this fact is likely not inconsequential to the logic by which Moab was partitioned in the MI. Against giving too great a role to this north/south distinction is the absence of distinct names for each unit in the MI (though note the use of mifor as a designation for northern Moab in the Hebrew Bible).

25) Dearman 1989, pp. 175-177.




events it relates, sets the campaigns against 'Ataroth and Nebo apart from all of the others.26)

Interpretation

Returning to the questions of politics and social organisation, we now can see that the syntactical structure of the MI both compliments and expands on recent

suggestions regarding the significance of the phrase "land of [city name]." Over-

all, the MI seems to be syntactically organised around hierarchically linked geo- political units that follow the pattern shown in figure 3.

Section 1 (lines 1-4) presents Moab as the prime geo-political unit, based on Mesha's legitimacy and Kemosh's aid. The syntactical shift at line 31b seems to hinge on the north/south symmetry mentioned above, while the paragraphs within the narrative sections are built around major city regions which themselves incorporate lesser settlements. Here the phrase "land of [city name]" denotes a major territorial unit. Perhaps equivalent in meaning is the phrase "all Dibon" in line 28, indicating a territorial designation associated with the settlement of Dibon and conceptually equivalent to the units designated as "land of

[city name]."'7) As for individual settlements, we have already mentioned a lower organisa-

tional level incorporating individual 'daughter settlements', as in the case of Ba'al Ma'on and Qiryaten in the "land of Madaba". Similarly, it is interesting to note that the MI seems to distinguish in lines 10-13 between the "land of

'Ataroth" and the settlement itself, referred to as qr ("city"). Therefore, while all settlements within a "land of [city name]" region were not equal, they do seem to occupy the same taxonomic level with regards to the region as a whole

(i.e. a region is made up of a collection of settlements, including the dominant one after which the region is named).

If one takes qr in line 13b to be the referent of bh in w'sb.bh.'t.'s.srn.

w't.'(s).mhrt ("and I put in it men of Sharon and men of Maharoth"), then it would appear that these settlements themselves may have been segmented into social groups, defined perhaps by metaphors of blood-relatedness (i.e. ethnicity or kinship). This creates a fourth level of hierarchical distinction beneath that of Moab.

Running contrary to this neat pyramidal structure is the recurrent importance

26) It is significant that the wayyiqtol at the beginning of 14b that links the two campaigns is wy'mr.ly.kms "and Kemosh said."

27) Dearman 1997; Younker 1997; on "all GN" as both a national and territorial designation in the ancient Near East see Grosby 1997.



232 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

of the town (or region) of Dibon.28) References to Dibon appear in both narrative and biographical sections of the MI, always conveying important and surprising information that seems to call into question the hierarchical relationship of Dibon and Moab.

In line 1 Mesha identified himself as both "king of Moab" and "the Dibo- nite," suggesting that both were identities of some importance for the purposes of the MI. In line 21, the section narrating Mesha's campaigns in the north closes with the annexation of Yahaz to Dibon. This occurs despite the fact that Mesha's military force is said to be from Moab (line 20). This runs counter to the opposition of Moab:Israel::Mesha:King of Israel used up to that point; an opposition which implies that Moab, rather than Dibon, should be the entity to which territory taken from Israel is annexed. In line 28 Mesha explicitly points out that all of Dibon was subject to him29) in a manner that suggests this suzerainty is one of the bases of his power.

Qarh6 is clearly the focus of Mesha's building activities in the MI. This applies both to the conceptual significance of the bamah ("high place") in Qarh6 the dedication of which provides the raison d'etre for the MI in lines 3-4, and to the greater detail and attention given building activities in Qarh6 when compared to the other sites mentioned in lines 21b-30. The relationship of Dibon to Qarh6 in the MI remains problematic.30) As already noted, the phrase "all Dibon" in line 28 suggests an ethno-territorial designation, within which Qarh6 could be seen as a settlement. However, territorial designations in the MI are named after the principle settlement within that territory, and the Hebrew Bible knows Dibon only as a settlement. Therefore, it seems best to follow those who see Qarho as a designation for a citadel within Dibon.31) Hence Dibon, through Qarh6, is also central to Mesha's building program.

In summary, the MI incorporates two, seemingly competing representations of Moabite political society: 1) Moab as a hierarchically segmented system of territories ruled by Mesha, in which Dibon is one of several major subdivisions; and 2) Dibon as Mesha's expanding power-base, one that comes eventually to

28) See Miller 1992, Knauf 1992, Dearman 1992, LaBianca and Younker 1995, Younker 1997.

29) The noun mi'ma'at is used (from ?ema' = "hear"/"obey"). While this has the limited sense of a select group of attendants or a body-guard in 1 Samuel 22:14 and 2 Samuel 23:23, it is used to refer to the Ammonites as subjects of a restored Israel in Isaiah 11:4. Even if one prefers the translation "body guard", it is clear that the reference to "all of Dibon" makes its use metaphorical. Therefore, it is clearly a hierarchical relationship of subjugation or obedience that is of importance in the use of mi'ma'at in line 28.

30) See Dearman 1989, pp. 171-174. 31) See Ahlstr6m (1982, p. 16) for etymological evidence linking qrhh to Akkadian

kirhu = "acropolis" or "walled area".




incorporate all of Moab by conquest. Understanding the logic and relation of these two representations brings us back to recent characterisations of Moab as 'tribal', and requires some reflection on the principles of politics and social

organisation running through the MI.

Segmentation and Descent

The concept of 'tribe' and 'tribal' remain undefined,"2) or loosely defined33) in recent work on the MI. This is not surprising given the diverse meanings ascribed to these words34) and the tendency to use 'tribe' and 'tribal' as con- notational, rather than denotational, terms."3) When specified, two principles of

socio-political organisation are commonly held to characterise 'tribes,' namely segmentation and unilineal descent.36) Therefore, we will start from these principles in our evaluation of the 'tribal' character of Moab in the MI.

Segmentation refers to a conceptual hierarchy, whereby equivalent social units are opposed at one level of reckoning but subsumed or united in a larger social unit with its own set of oppositions. Unilineal descent is a principle of

political organisation in which loyalty is based on kinship distance as calculated

through a single, usually agnatic (by means of the male), line of descent. These two principles came together most forcefully in E.E. Evans-Pritchard's famous

study of the Nuer,n3) and became inextricably linked in the concept of a 'segmentary-lineage system.'

A segmentary-lineage system is one in which, at each level of reckoning social organisation, equivalent agnatic descent groups (e.g. lineages) are structured in competitive opposition while being joined through descent from a common ancestor at the next highest level of reckoning. The logic of this system portrays society as a pyramid of nested social groups, increasing in number at each successively lower level of organisation. Fundamentally such systems are said to be characterised by a process of 'fission and fusion,' whereby segments aggregate and disaggregate in accordance with the scale at which disputes occur and loyalties are mobilised. Furthermore, at least for functionalists, this system was seen as a framework for managing conflict in a society without institutionalised government.3")

32) Knauf 1992, Younker 1997. 33) LaBianca and Younker 1995. 34) Tapper 1990. 35) See Fried 1975. 36) E.g. LaBianca 1993, pp. 211-213. 37) Evans-Pritchard 1940. 38) Fortes and Evans-Pritchard 1940, p. 10.



234 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

In anthropology the segmentary-lineage system quickly came to be viewed as a 'social-type', capable of predicting the course of political events in particular contexts given the pre-existence of a defined set of social traits. Lineage theory in this form has largely fallen out of the mainstream of socio-cultural anthropology, due to its static nature, inability to account for empirical evidence and seeming denial of agency and social change.39)

More fruitful are those approaches that separate segmentation from descent0), viewing the former as an aspect of social and political identity, rather than a type of political society.41) Segmentation, in this sense, can be understood as a taxonomic categorising of social distance based on contrast ('us vs them') that involves: 1) logical principles of differentiation (such as foreignness, honour or nobility); 2) the cultural idioms in which this is expressed (such as descent or territory); and 3) the practices in which differentiation (or cohesion) is realised (oral history, blood feuds, legitimate marriage, political allegiance, etc.).42) This means that segmentation is not, in the first instance, about what corporate groups (tribes, lineages etc.) do, but rather about how identity (and hence expec- tations and actions) is formed in a given context. These segmentary identities are formed by creating equalities through distinction and hierarchies through incorporation.

While such segmented identities are familiar to each of us in one way or another (as we are all members of multiple social categories), much literature generated by, and about, the modern nation-state would suggest that such divisions are politically trivial in state-level societies (at least in comparison with 'large-scale' identities like citizenship, ethnicity and nationality). However, as Hertzfeld notes:

The question is not whether a given society is segmentary or not. All societies must be segmentary inasmuch as they recognise more than one level of social differentiation. It would be more useful to inquire instead whether the prevailing ideology makes the presence of segmentary relations explicit or attempts to suppress it.")

39) Holy 1979; Kuper 1982; Peters 1967; cf. Kraus 1998. 40) Dresch 1986; 1988; Hertzfeld 1987; Karp and Maynard 1983; Maynard 1988. 41) Hertzfeld 1987, p. 158. 42) See Dresch 1986; Karp and Maynard 1983, p. 484; Maynard 1988. Maynard, for

example, has shown that the Protestants he studied in Portillo, Ecuador classified themselves in segmentary terms. The principle of differentiation being doctrine, the cultural idiom of expression being denominations and the practices where these differences were realized (or sometimes ignored) being everything from joint worship services to acceptable marriage part- ners to the businesses one frequented.

43) Hertzfeld 1987, p. 159.




Separating the segmentation of political identities from their manifestation in

any particular social form (i.e. segmentary lineages) frees us from the limita- tions that ideal types (e.g. 'tribes,' 'chiefdoms,' 'states') impose on our under-

standing of real world contexts. In particular, with regards to the MI, we can now ask how complex polities might be organised on principles other than kin-

ship, but in terms other than those of the unitary nation-state.")

Moabite Segmentation

Using the issues discussed thus far, we can now return to the problem of

political discourse in the MI in an empirically and theoretically more sophisticated manner. If we look at our schematisation of Moabite political society as

presented in the MI (Fig. 3) we see a taxonomy of political units that is the logical outcome of a process of segmentation. As noted above this taxonomy can be characterised by the principles, cultural idioms and practices through which

segmentation is realised. Neither the principle nor the practices of segmentation in the MI are particularly clear. However, if we consider line 28, where mis'ma'at (one made subject) is offered as the state of being that caused the battle readiness of the Dibonites, we might argue that mi'ma'at refers to a principle of loyalty or obedience against which contrasts in political identity were drawn. From this, warfare emerges as the practice in which this identity was realised in the MI. Indeed, the MI as a whole supports the importance of warfare as the means by which contrasting political identities take material form.

Unquestionably the cultural idiom through which the experience of being mis'ma'at is expressed in this system is that of territorial affiliation rather than descent. Most telling in this regard is the fact that cities, such as the one in the Land of 'Ataroth (lines 10-14), incorporated peoples with different ethnic/kin designations (Men of Gad, Men of Sharon, Men of Maharath) rather than being co- terminus with, or defined by, such identities. This indicates that the territorial divisions cannot be treated as descent groups by another name45). Also interesting

44) Cf. McIntosh 1999. 45) This is an important distinction vis-i-vis the characterization of Moab as 'tribal' (esp.

LaBianca and Younker 1995; Younker 1997). Kuper (1982) has traced the long history of conceptual tension between territory and descent as principles of socio-political organization, and especially the tendency to associate the former with state societies and the latter with non-state (i.e. 'tribal') societies. As Kuper points out, such a position ignores the important role of cognatic (through father or mother) kin-ties, and locality based factions in the political organization of small-scale societies. Certainly, there is a good deal of evidence that descent groups (at least in terms of ruling classes) were politically important in many of the states neighboring Moab; hence the 'twelve-tribe' system of Israel and Judah, the biblical and



MOAB

NORTH SOUTH

ALL DIBON LAND OF 'ATAROTH LAND OF MADABA HAWRONEN

QIR BA'AL-MA'ON QIRYATEN

MEN OF GAD MEN OF MAHAROTH MEN OF SHARON

Figure 3: The hierarchy of political units in ninth century B.C.E. Moab as implied in the Mesha Inscription.

IN) t-) O

0

C: p




in this regard is the fact that the anger of Kemosh in line 5 is specifically directed against "his land" rather than "his people."

In summary, the state of being misma'at with regards to specific territorial units (and leaders) was the means by which people were mobilised to take part in particular conflicts. At the same time, the successful mobilisation of people for warfare helped substantiate, and hence reproduce, this same segmented hierarchy of political identity based on territorial location.

In this hierarchy of contrasting territorial units, Moab takes on particular significance in its position at the pinnacle. It is notable that Moab and Mesha are constantly opposed to Israel, and the King of Israel (or Omri), while Kemosh is the principal catalyst for the events that unfold. Given the tension between the role of Moab and Dibon that we have already noted, one might ask why the explicit opposition of Israel and Moab (rather than Dibon or some

explicitly recognised coalition) is so central to the narrative? The necessity of Moab in the MI lies, I believe, in the logic of segmentation.

The creation of equivalency through differentiation is, as we noted, one way in which segmented political identities can be defined. Identities distinguished in this way are significant because they cannot incorporate one another, as is the case for those that are related hierarchically (e.g. the "land of Madaba" and "Moab"). From this perspective the events narrated in lines 10b-18a, where Mesha invokes herem (explicitly against Nebo, perhaps implicitly against cAtaroth) in killing the inhabitants of the two cities he captures, take on a new

significance. Without developing the argument fully here, it is helpful to remem- ber certain features of herem ("the Ban" in King James English) as it is used in the Hebrew Bible. On one hand, herem serves to make something irre- deemable (or inalienable) through its dedication as the property of Yahweh (Lev. 27:26-29). On the other hand, it is something to be invoked against non- Israelites living in the territory Yahweh 'gives' to Israel, ostensibly to avoid religious exchange between Israelites and non-Israelites (Deut. 20:16-18). As has been clear at least since Mauss,46) exchange is the basis for a good deal of human sociability between those who are not close-kin. I would argue that conceptually, the key to invoking herem is the prevention of exchange through the

epigraphic references to the state of Ammon as "bani-ammon" ("the sons of Ammon"), and the use of "bit--PN" ("House of PN") to designate certain Levantine polities in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions. Yet one cannot ignore the peripheral importance of such groups in the MI. Indeed, the situation in the MI is strikingly different from that described by Evans-Pritchard (1940: 205) for the Nuer, where he insists that descent was the idiom through which territorial politics was expressed, hence the use of fictive kinship and the tendency to represent marriage relations as blood relations when politically expedient.

46) Mauss 1990 [org.1950].



238 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

insertion of the deity, who holds booty and captives as inalienable (non- exchangeable) possessions. In preventing exchange, one prevents the formation of a mutually recognised relationship. That conquest, booty and its implications of resultant tributary relations were viewed as a form of sociable exchange47) is made clear in 1 Kings 20, which recounts the inversion of tributary relations between Ahab of Israel and Ben-Hadad of Aram-Damascus. Interestingly, the unnamed prophet in this passage condemns Ahab for entering into tributary relations with Bar-Hadad rather than invoking herem against Aram-Damascus.

In the case of the MI, the invocation of herem, emphasises the oppositional (and hence equivalent) nature of Moab and Israel, by denying the possibility of either incorporating sub-units associated with Israel (e.g. Men of Gad) into Moab,48) or of mutual recognition via exchange (as in the case of tributary relations). Hence, it is in opposition to Israel that Moab emerges as a workable, and independent, national identity. The dynamic element in the MI may be the underly- ing risk that Moab would not prove a meaningful rallying point, and instead denote "... a level where, as it were, no one lives."49) For this reason, Kemosh as a national deity of Moab, whose will is realised through the actions of Mesha, plays a vital legitimising role in the argument put forward by the MI.

At the same time, Mesha did not invent "the land of Moab" as a convenient vehicle for his rise to power. We know that as a geographic designation, if nothing else, the term dates back at least to the reign of Ramses 11.50) Fur- thermore, Mesha claims that his father ruled Moab before him and the MI treats Kemosh as the god of Moab. Therefore, it seems safe to assume that "the land of Moab" was well-established as a collective identity available to inhabitants of Moab during the ninth century. However, being Moabite in this sense was likely only one of many intersecting identities that could have been claimed by inhabitants of the land of Moab in the ninth century. Therefore, the novelty of the MI lies in Mesha's apparently successful mobilisation of this identity as the organising principle for a territorial polity. Certainly the events of the MI suggest that the nature, extent and basis of his father's authority was much more limited than Mesha's.

47) See Parry 1986 and Weiner 1992 for critiques of the long tradition of reading Mauss strictly in terms of a 'social calculus' of reciprocity. Asymmetrical exchange (e.g. tribute) is not reciprocal, but it structures a relationship none-the-less-note that the events of 1 Kings 20 are precipitated by Ben-Hadad's impolite methods in extracting tribute from his client Ahab.

48) This assumes the traditional, and I think more parsimonious, position of associating Gad with Israel, against Knauf (1988, p. 162, n. 689) and Na'aman (1997, p. 87) who see the men of Gad as Moabites. Cf. Rainey 1998, pp. 244-246.

49) Dresch 1986, p. 12. 50) Darnell and Jasnow 1993.




What I am suggesting is that the MI presents a novel view of the land of Moab as a politically unified territory. Evidence for this novelty lies in the conflicting roles of Moab and Dibon noted above. Certainly, recalling the words of Hertzfeld, in the MI social divisions below that of the state are suppressed only weakly. More specifically, according to the MI, social segmentation and political organisation in Moab were conjoined in a structurally significant manner. Unfortunately, as we have no other sources of evidence from Moab com- parable to the MI, we cannot say with certainty that these political structures are more than the echo of the MI's literary structure. However, when viewed comparatively, we see that the picture of Moab presented in the MI shares many significant structural features with certain other small-scale polities that seem to defy traditional definitions of 'the State'.

Segmentary States

The image of Moab portrayed in the MI is multi-centric in that it recognises political identities below that of the state and seems to incorporate them into, rather than replace them with, the concept of Moab. In this way, Moab in the MI differs from the classic model of the nation-state as a unified entity; pos- sessing a monopoly on coercive force and a centralised, institutionalised and internally specialised administrative body. The very uncertainty of Moab's efficacy as a mobilising metaphor, and the need to explicitly recognise lower- order territorial units, emphasises the importance, relative independence and conceptual equivalency of these units. At the same time, we have also seen that the MI is very much a 'statist' text in that it argues strongly for the validity and legitimacy of the centralising triad of Moab, Kemosh and Mesha.

Of relevance to the question of Moabite political formations are those societies often discussed under the category of 'the segmentary state.' The term 'segmentary state' was coined by A. Southall") to describe political organisation amongst the Alur of Uganda and the Congo. Here clan leadership was to some extent superseded by the wide-distribution of members of two dominant 'chiefly' clans who ruled 'commoner' clans locally, while, for the most part, continuing to recognise the authority of the dominant lineage leader in their own clan. The metaphor for this form of domination is the sending out of the king's sons to make their name, often at the request of the 'commoner' communities themselves (Southall 1956: 181-188). The dominant lineage leaders, or 'kings', were distinguished by the formation of specialised entourages around their residences

51) Southall 1956.



240 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

that took the form of embryonic administrative staffs (Southall 1956: 77-78, 237). However, the political powers of 'kings' were basically replicated on a smaller, more local scale, by lesser chiefs. Similarly, while 'kings' received tribute and recognition of ritual authority from the lesser chiefs, their effective political power declined with the distance from their own immediate territorial domain. Hence the Alur combined local rule on principles other than kinship, with a decentralised, but pyramidal, administrative structure.

From his observations on the Alur, Southall went on to generalise six structural features of 'segmentary states':52) 1) Territorial sovereignty is recognised but limited, ranging from absolute authority at the political centre to simple ritual hegemony at the far periphery; 2) Centralised government exists, but occurs in conjunction with numerous peripheral administrative units over which it exer- cises limited control; 3) Specialised administrative staff exists at the centre, but its duties are repeated on a reduced scale in all of the peripheral administrative units; 4) A monopoly on force is claimed for the centre, but peripheral units retain the right to limited, but legitimate, uses of force; 5) Peripheral administrative units can be characterised as being pyramidally organised in relation to the central authority; 6) The more peripheral an administrative unit, the more likely it is to switch allegiances from one central authority to another.

Divergent Definitions

Since Southall's initial publication, his model of the segmentary state has been applied, by archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians, to a variety of polities that vary greatly in scale and social organisation. Furthermore, several related political models developed for southeast Asia; namely S.J. Tambiah's "Galatic Polity",53) and C. Geertz's "Theatre-State",54) have been categorised by a number of scholars as varieties of the segmentary state model.55) This wide- spread application has led to a number of significant modifications of Southall's original formulation, such that one can distinguish several competing versions of the segmentary state model.

Southall56) himself has simplified and reformulated his definition of a segmentary state to be one in which ritual suzerainty and political power do not coincide,

52) Ibid, pp. 248-249. 53) Tambiah 1976; 1985. 54) Geertz 1980. 55) E.g. Southall 1988; Heitzman 1991. 56) Southall 1988, 1991, 1999.




with the former extending more widely than the latter.57) Under this definition the 'segmentary state' is simply an intermediate point on the trajectory from kin-based communities to unitary states, with structural differences between segmentary states being credited to differences in the mode of production under which each operates.

As certain scholars have noted58) Southall's combination of mode of production categories (assuming their classical Marxist definition) with the 'segmentary state' conflates what should be competing paradigms. At the same time, his focus on ritual suzerainty that outstrips the reach of political power would seem to accord well both with Tambiah's59) emphasis on the ritualised centre of Medieval and early Modern Thai kingdoms (his "Galactic Polities") and with Geertz's emphasis on ritual performance in the political life of 19th century Bali (his "Theatre State"). Hence Southall's reformulation (minus its mode of production terminology) has generalised the segmentary state model in a manner that facilitates cross-cultural comparison. However, in considering the Southeast Asian examples, one might wonder if an exclusive focus on ritual suzerainty is not excluding other issues of importance for comparison. For example, politics in both the Balinesian and Thai kingdoms are predicated on patron-client relations that are replicated between superiors and subordinates at each level of status or power distinction. In the case of Bali these relations are organised in terms of noble clans, whose status is determined by both their genealogical distance from the ruling clan and their ability to engage in status enhancing activities. These clans both give-up resources and loyalties to their patrons and demand the same from their lower level clients. Hence the structural features of Southall's original formulation would seem to be worth exploring in addition to the question of ritual suzerainty.

Somewhat closer to Southall's original formulation of the segmentary state model are those scholars who have applied it to the study of the Classic,60) and Post-Classic Maya.61) Here work has tended to focus on the incorporation of segmentary lineages into the political structure as the operational definition of the 'segmentary state.' In particular, it is contended that because administrative functions pass through corporate descent groups the pyramidal structure of the kinship system is replicated in the state administrative structure. The question that arises both in general, and for the MI in particular, is whether a

57) Cf. Netting 1972. 58) Kulke 1995, pp. 30-31; Stein 1991, pp. 227-228. 59) Tambiah 1976, 1985: 252-286. 60) McAnany 1995, pp. 146-148; Fox and Cook 1996. 61) Fox 1987; Fox and Cook 1996.



242 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

'segmentary state' can exist in the absence of agnatic descent groups organised in terms of complementary opposition.62)

Other Mayanists63) have defined 'segmentary states' by the absence of

'organic solidarity' rather than the presence of descent groups, witnessed in particular by the importance of personal ties to leaders and the relative lack of political and economic integration on a regional scale. G. Stein64) has applied a similar definition to a strictly archaeological study of third millennium B.C.E. settlement patterns and economic organisation in the vicinity of Tell Leilan, Syria. Stein contends that, due to their limited ability to extract surplus from hinter- land areas, segmentary states do not engender significant economic specialisation or hierarchical integration on a regional scale. Much as with Southall's later emphasis on ritual suzerainity, the looser definition with which both Houston and G. Stein work places the 'segmentary state' in a larger category (or perhaps continuum) of models that describe decentralised states (e.g. 'feudal,' 'patrimonial,' 'galactic,') without regard for the distinct structural features each entails. Yet, these structural features are arguably the most important part of the

'segmentary state' model, as it is the linking of social segmentation to political organisation that sets this model apart. Without structural segmentation, the term 'segmentary state' seems to lose all meaning, incorporating polities that differ widely in scale, stratification and internal organisation (cf. Chase and Chase 1996: 803-805).

The historian B. Stein65) has developed the 'segmentary state' model in a somewhat different manner in his studies of the medieval south-Indian Chola

kingdom.66) The Chola kingdom was characterised by a core area (Cholanadu) over which the king held direct power, and at least five other equivalent man-

dalam, which recognised the king's authority but where his power declined with distance from the core area. Each mandalam was constituted by territorial units

(nadu) ruled by a 'chieftain' and each nadu was constituted by several corporate villages (nattar) each controlled by assemblies of dominant cultivating groups.67) As a whole, the Chola kingdom was held together by the king's military prowess, personal alliances and ritual legitimacy, the latter being marked by the

building and patronising of regional temples (Stein 1980: 321-342; Heitzman 1991). Stein emphasises the formal structure of segmentation (pyramidal ordering of

62) Cf. Demarest 1996, p. 822. 63) E.g. Houston 1993, pp. 142-148. 64) Stein 1994. 65) Stein 1980; 1991; 1992. 66) For critiques and developments of Stein's work, see Kulke 1995. 67) Stein 1980, pp. 282-287.




semi-autonomous units that replicate higher-order powers at a reduced scale), preferring the 'geometry' of Southall's original formulation over his subsequent exclusive emphasis on ritual suzerainty.68) For Stein ritual and political author-

ity are conjoined in traditional Indian politics with leaders at all levels of society partaking of these dual sources of power. Therefore, hierarchy is marked by the scale, rather than nature, of authority.

Stein is also careful to stress that 'segmentary states' are based on some form of social segmentation. However,

The particular sort of segmentation... is not important, but the segmentation must be related to formal political processes.. . and there must be an ideological interface between dominant forms of segmentation and formal political processes and institutions.69)

In other words, social segmentation is not to be limited to descent groups. In the case of the Chola kingdom, social segmentation was territorial and vested in the corporate nature of local villages, where membership guaranteed certain

rights to the means of production (esp. land). For Stein even class could be (and in the case of eighteenth century India was) segmented along territorial lines.70) Under conditions of pre-modern technology in transportation and communica- tion, the local scene was where class interests were realised (in terms of land- tenure, exchange or taxation).71) Therefore, the segmentation of localities, in certain cases, served local elite interests, as these were opposed to, rather than in solidarity with, the interests of equivalent elites in neighbouring localities.

In its most abstract form, B. Stein's formulation of the 'segmentary state' model has much to offer us in our consideration of the MI. On one hand Stein retains the structural specificity of Southall's original formulation, by insisting on the linking of social segmentation with political processes. This serves to

distinguish the 'segmentary state' model from other model's of decentralised polities (e.g. Weber's "Patrimonial State"), and emphasises the pyramidal structure we have already noted for the MI. On the other hand, Stein does not insist that this social segmentation must take the form of particular kinds of corporate groups (e.g. segmentary lineages). Stein's application of the 'segmentary state' model to the Chola kingdom has been criticised as static and exoticising.72) However, Stein's is not the only possible application, especially if social segmentation is understood as a general feature of identity formation rather than a feature of

68) Stein 1991, pp. 233-234. Here Stein addresses the criticisms of Dirks (1987: 403-404) by distancing himself from Southall on the issue of ritual suzerainity.

69) Ibid, p. 233. 70) Stein 1992. 71) See Stein 1992, pp. 145-150. 72) Dirks 1987: 403-404; Kulke 1995.



244 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

particular types of societies. Hence, a segmentary state is one which incorporates, rather than represses, the local identities that it encompasses; with the conflicts and partial transformations this entails marking the 'unitary'/ 'segmentary' distinction as a dynamic historical process, rather than a dichotomy.

To follow Stein is not to say that the issues emphasised by other scholars are not important, especially when viewed as by-products, rather than determinants, of segmentary state organisation. Indeed, evidence for both ritual suzerainty and a reliance on 'mechanical' solidarity can be found in the MI and should be con- sidered closely. While there is no evidence to confirm key features like the replication of authority and the downward dispersal of power in ninth century Moab, the anomalous position of Dibon vis-a-vis Moab can be seen in a new light after the above discussion of segmentary states. Dibon is clearly the centre of Mesha's power, and its strongest point of concentration. Here Mesha's rule is 'natural' in the sense of being rooted in indigenous systems of loyalty (".... all Dibon were subjects"). This contrasts markedly with the situation both north and south of Dibon, which must be reclaimed or conquered.

Beyond the limits of Dibon, Mesha must appeal to criteria other than those entailed in the term mis'macat in order to legitimise his power and authority. While military success is clearly important here, martial prowess is closely in- tertwined with claims for divine and ritual authority. As a result, Kemosh plays a vital role each time territory is (re)claimed by Mesha. Kemosh returns the land of Madaba to Moab (line 8-9), he receives selected booty from the capture of the land of 'Ataroth (line 12-13), he orders the capture of Nebo (line 14) and Hawronen (line 32), and he drives the king of Israel from Yahaz.73) Mesha's ritual authority is further enhanced by his building activities. Most importantly he builds the high place at Qarh6, where the MI itself is apparently set up (line 3). Beyond this, if one accepts interpreting the "bet" ("house") component of the place names in line 30 as referring to a temple,74) then we see Mesha also (re)building regional temples throughout northern Moab. Such a practice is, as we have seen, quite common amongst the rulers of 'segmentary states' where ritual authority provides an alternate path for political power.

Beyond the Mesha Inscription

In invoking the 'segmentary state' my goal has not been to slot Moab into a particular social typology. Rather, this comparative perspective brings to the fore a cluster of interrelated issues (political structure, ritual authority, identity

73) See Na'aman 1997, pp. 85-87. 74) See Ahlstr6m 1982, pp. 15; Miller 1974, p. 14.




formation) in a manner useful for understanding political identities in the MI. The utility of this concept for studying Moab outside of the MI, through archae-

ological remains and other inscriptions, is an open question worthy of future

investigation. Elsewhere 175) have argued that Iron Age I settlement patterns (low-density dispersal of nucleated villages) in southern Moab are in line with what we might expect for a segmented political landscape, especially when

compared with the multi-tiered settlement system of the late Iron Age. Unfortunately, the archaeological record of south-central Jordan is too poorly known for us to

go much beyond these impressionistic assessments at the present time. Somewhat more revealing is the light our discussion throws on well-known

problems in the interpretation Moabite historical geography. For example, the

ambiguous affiliation of the city of Heshbon in the Hebrew Bible vis-a-vis Ammon and Moab76) becomes expected, rather than surprising, due to its location on the periphery of the core areas of each polity. Furthermore, the role of Kir-Haraseth as a second, southern, capital for Mesha becomes at least possible, given the north-south conceptual split documented in the MI. Of course, this solves none of the problems regarding the textual history of the 'united'

campaign against Moab in II Kings 3,77) or the traditional identification of Kir- Haraseth with modern al-Karak.78) However, if one allows the traditional identification, then the discovery at al-Karak of, what seems best explained as, the fragment of a second Mesha Inscription79) becomes understandable in terms of the dual structure of Moab suggested in the MI. In other words, Mesha sym- bolically conjoined the northern and southern sides of the Wadi Mujib into his

kingdom of Moab by establishing cult-centres complete with memorial inscriptions at the principal settlement on each side (Dibon and Kir-Harasethl al-Karak).80)

On a broader scale, the segmentary nature of ninth century B.C.E. Moab, as

suggested by my analysis of the MI, compares well with recent characterisations of a number of other contemporary states from the ancient Near East. For

example, in his analysis of the annals of the Neo-Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (covering military campaigns between 883-866 B.C.E.) M. Liverani has used the annals' classifications of settlements and rulers to reconstruct the political structure of the small polities surrounding Assyria in the early ninth century

75) Routledge 1997. 76) See Hiibner 1988. 77) See Bartlett 1983. 78) Jones 1991. 79) Freedman 1964; Swiggers 1982; cf. Reed and Winnett 1963. 80) Na'aman 1994 makes a similar argument regarding the significance of the al-Karak

inscription fragment, but identifies al-Karak with Hawronen.



246 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

B.C.E.81) Between those Liverani characterises as 'unitary states' and 'chiefdoms' lie several interesting intermediary polities, such as Dagara and Ammali, in the western foothills of the Zagros Mountains, and Laqu in the Middle Euphrates valley. In a manner reminiscent of the 'land of [city name]' formula in the MI, these polities are characterised by cities with dependent settlements that are subordinated to, but not subsumed by, a principal settlement and its ruler. While filtered through Assyrian eyes, and lacking in detail on forms of self-identification, the political structures of these polities, as abstracted by Liverani, suggest an important role for social segmentation, much as in the MI.

Geographically closer to Moab, I. Finkelstein has recently presented a rather bold new synthesis of early political developments in the biblical states of Israel and Judah.82) Most of the critical attention has been given to Finkelstein's chronological revisions (down-dating many contexts from the 10th to the 9th centuries B.C.E.). However, Finkelstein's contention that the archaeological remains of 10th century B.C.E. Palestine suggest a politically and territorially limited 'early state', rather than the 'United Monarchy' of Israel as described in the Hebrew Bible, is not necessarily undermined by the traditional chronology. For example, the 'citadel phenomena' of 6-chambered gates (with or without Megiddo), casemate walls, ashlar masonary, 'palaces', and proto-aeolic capitals has been used to argue for 'Solomonic' constructions at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer.83) However, these sites are notable not for their evidence for the existence of specialised administrative functionaries, but rather for their simple replication of ideologically charged architectural patterns. Indeed, this replication of architectural forms is very close to what one finds in the Middle Bronze II-III period in urban centres that are usually interpreted as competing 'city-states.' Further- more, as Finkelstein notes,84) this contrasts markedly with the ostraca, inscribed weights, and seal impressions that give evidence for specialised administrative practices in both Israel and Judah beginning in the eighth century B.C.E. Therefore, the replication of significant forms of public architecture in 10th century B.C.E. Palestine is suggestive of the replication and downward dispersal of power that characterises segmentary states as discussed above. I would suggest that if one is to imagine a Solomon, he should be seen as incorporating, rather than appointing, the leadership of Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor.

81) Liverani 1992, pp. 103-110, 125-130. 82) Finkelstein 1999. 83) E.g. Dever 1997. 84) Finkelstein 1999, pp. 40-42.




Conclusion

The MI is a text in which the logic of local segmentary identities is expro- priated and expanded to present the politically unification of Moab as an idea with both moral force and cultural resonance. In this study, I have attempted to document this strategy and point out its political implications. In particular, I have argued at length that early Moab in the MI is marked by its incorporation, rather than its repression, of local identities below that of 'the state.' As such, Moab in the MI can be productively studied under the rubric of the 'segmentary state.' Overall, the issues of identity, ritual and the dispersal of power associated with the 'segmentary state' resonate more closely with the Levantine states of the early Iron Age, then do the issues of hierarchy, bureaucracy, and

integration that characterise discussions of the 'nation state.' How we explore these issues, and particularly how we define archaeological evidence that will

prove relevant to such discussions is the difficult next step. Perhaps when this step is taken we will be able to talk not only about Mesha and his politics, but also about all those other inhabitants of Moab who ascribed to, resisted, or ignored the MI's vision of a Moabite state.

Appendix: Translation of the Mesha Inscription.

1. I am Me-'a' son of Kemoi[yat] king of Moab the Dibonite/ 2. My father ruled over Moab thirty years and I ruled 3. after my father/And I made this "high place" for Kemog in Qarh6/a "high [place" 4. of sal]85)vation, because he saved me from all the kings86) and because he caused

me to prevail over all my enemies/ Now Omr[i] 5. King of Israel oppressed Moab many days, for Kemog was angry with his land/ 6. And his son succeeded him and he also said "Behold I will oppress Moab"/ In my

days he said th[is]87) 7. but I prevailed over him and over his house/ Now Israel perished, perished forever,

but Omri took possession of the land"88

85) bm[t.y]S'. Lipiiski (1971, pp. 327-328) reconstructs bn[th.n]' in this lacuna, meaning "As a victor I built it."

86) Reading mlkn for 9lkn. This reading may not require an emmendation of the text, since the small size and slight angle of the initial I (see Dussaud 1912) means that it could in fact be the head of a m, with an obscured tail.

87) Lipifiski (1971, p. 329) suggests reading k[mI] at the end of line 6, but there does not appear to be sufficient room for two letters.

88) This rather awkward translation follows Nicciacci (1994, p. 236) in reading the lines 7b and 7c-8a as co-ordinate clauses, rather than seeing 7b as dependent on line 7a. To its credit, this solution allows for a consistent use of the "noun phrase + finite verb" construction to initiate paragraphs, hence introducing the events connected with "the land of Madaba" (line 8-10a) in a manner that is syntactically equivalent to the paragraphs concerned with the



248 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

8. of Madaba/And he dwelt in it in his days and half of the days of his son, forty years, but

9. Kemo? returned it in my days/and I built Ba'al-Ma'on and I made in it a reservoir and I built

10. Qiryatin/ Now the men of Gad (had) dwelt in the land of 'Atarot from of old and the King of Israel built for (them)89)

11. 'Atarot/ And I fought against the city and I took it/ and I killed all the people. 12. The city was") for Kemog and for Moab/And I brought back from there the 'ryl of

its dwd9l) and I 13. hauled it before Kemog in Qiryat/ and I caused men of Saron and men of Maharoth

to dwell in it/ 14. and Kemog said to me "Go. Take Nebo from Israel."/ And I 15. went in the night and I fought against it from the break of the morning until noon/

And I 16. took it and I killed all: seven thousand male citizens and foreign men/female citi-

zens, foreign 17. women and female slaves/ For Agtar Kemog I made it an inalienable possession (through

destruction)/ And I took from there the vessels 18. of Yahweh and I hauled them before Kemog/Now the King of Israel had built 19. Yahas and he dwelt in it while fighting against me/But Kemog drove him out from

before me and 20. I took from Moab two hundred men, its entire unit92)/And I took it up against Yahas

and I captured it

other cities. Furthermore, this solution takes account of the sentence divider that separates 7b from 6b/7a, but not from 7c/8a. However, as noted above (n. 20) the role of sentence dividers is ambiguous at several points in the MI, and is not therefore compelling as evidence. Irsigler (1993, pp. 114-115) recognizes the syntactic divide at line 7b, but suggests that this is simply a case where contextually defined meaning takes precedence over syntactical patterns.

89) This translation follows the syntactical reading recently suggested by Rainey (1998). 90) Ready hyt rather than ryt with Lemaire (1987, pp. 206-207). 91) Beeston (1985, pp. 144-145); Lipifiski (1971, pp. 332-334); Na'aman (1997, pp. 83-

84); and Rainey (1998, pp. 246-251) all provide extended reviews and bibliography regarding the main proposals for translating these words. All such proposals remain speculative. What does seem certain is that the 'ryl dwdh of line 12 is in parallelism with the '[..]ly yhwh of line 17. However, the use of two different verbs and the use of a plural noun in line 17 shows that the lines are not identical. This is important since Lemaire (1987, p. 209) cites Lidzbarski's (1902, p. 7) reading of the lower part of a vertical stroke in the lacuna at the end of line 17 to justify reconstructing '[ry]ly. However, since it seems necessary to reconstruct an object marker here (Na'aman 1997, n. 20; cf. Cooke 1903, p. 12), there is insufficient room for two additional letters. As a result, the traditional reconstruction [k]ly.yhwh "the vessels of Yahweh" is still to be preferred. On analogy with line 17, the 'ryl of its dwd should be some sort of cultic object, favoring the translation "the altar-hearth of its beloved (i.e. city-god)" (Segert 1961, p. 240) or "the lion-statue of its beloved (i.e. city- god)" (Gibson 1971, p. 80).

92) From r's ("head"-"... all of its best" (Niccacci 1994, p. 230). Less likely is a plural




21. to annex it to Dibon/ I myself built Qarh6, the wall of the wood lot (park land) and the wall

22. of the acropolis/and I myself built its gates and I myself built its towers/ and I 23. myself built the palace and I myself made the retaining walls of the reservoir for

the spring93) inside 24. the city/And there were no cisterns inside the city at Qarh6 and I said to all the

people "Make for your- 25. selves each (one) a cistern in his house/And I myself dug the ditches for Qarh6 with

prisoners 26. of Israel/I myself built 'Aro'er and I myself made the highway through the Arnon [/] 27. I myself built Bet Bamot for it was destroyed/ I myself built Bezer, for [it was]

ruins[/] 28. [And] the men of Dibon were in battle-array94) for all of Dibon were subjects/And

I ruled 29. [over the] hundreds in the cities that I annexed to the land/And I myself built 30. [.....Mad]aba and the temple of Diblaten/ and the temple of Ba'al-Ma'on. And I

took up there [...] 31. [...] sheep of the land/ Now Hawronen, the House of [Da]vid95) dwelt in it [...] 32. [...] Kemog said to me "Go down. Fight against Hawronen/ And I went down and

[. . .]

form "... all of its chiefs/leaders" (e.g. Cross and Freedman 1952, p. 41) as this noun is ref- erenced with a 3rd masc. singular pronominal suffix in the subsequent verb.

93) The reading [Im']yn "for the spring" fits the lacuna and the context (Cross and Freedman 1952, p. 41). Note, however that Lemaire (1994a, p. 35) reads Imyn in his cor- rection of Lidzbarski's facsimile of the MI, and translates it as "water." Unfortunately, Lemaire does not comment on this reading.

94) Line 28 is a syntactical crux in the MI. Smelik (1992, p.71) and Lipifiski (1971, p. 339) both note that the traditional reconstruction [b]'s' near the beginning of 28 implies that this clause is dependant on 'nk.bnty of 27b, despite the fact that a nominal ky clause comes in between them. Furthermore, Andersen (1966, p.85) notes that a "sentence divider" should probably be restored just before the word in -question, since this occurs after all ky clauses in the MI. Hence the traditional reconstruction rests on a kind of poetic parallelism not found elsewhere in the text. As a result, Lipifski (1971, p. 339), followed by Smelik (1992, p. 71) proposed reading [w's. At the same time, 27b begins as "'andk + qatal", while 28b continues the very strong paragraph structure of this section with 'w'andk + qatal.' There- fore, while the arguments of Lipifiski and Smelik make sense, it is difficult to see 28a as any- thing but a minor break in the larger paragraph sequence. Oddly enough, Lemaire (1987, p. 209) supports Clermont-Ganneau's (1875, p. 172) original reading of [b]'? on the basis of a direct examination of the stele, but then translates the line as [w]? in a later publication (Lemaire 1994a, p. 33). Whichever reconstruction is preferred, and despite the problems involved, it seems best to see syntactical continuity from line 21b through line 31a.

95) Following the proposed reading of Lemaire (1994a; 1994b). Within the MI one might expect the construction bjt-X to be either a toponym or "the temple of X." However, the use of "Israel" for the northern kingdom, but "House of David" for Judah in the Tel Dan inscription (Biran and Naveh 1995) provides a good parallel for this reading.



250 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

33. [...] Kemo- [retur]ned it in my days. And I brought up from there ten96) [...] 34 [...] [.. .S]T.SDQ97)/ And I [...]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahlstr6m, G. 1982 Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine (Leiden: E.J.

Brill).

Andersen, F. 1966 "Moabite Syntax." Orientalia 35:81-120.

Auffret, P. 1980 "Essai sur la structure litteraire de la stble de Mesha." Ugarit-Forschungen 12:

109-124.

Bartlett, J. 1983 "The 'United' Campaign Against Moab in 2 Kings 3:4-27." In J. Sawyer and

D. Clines, eds., Midian, Moab and Edom: The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia (Sheffield: JSOT Press), pp. 135-146.

Beeston, A. 1985 "Mesha and Ataroth." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 2:143-148.

Biran, A.; and J. Naveh 1995 "The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment." Israel Exploration Journal 45:

1-18.

Bodine, W. (ed.) 1995 Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press).

Claremont-Ganneau, Ch. 1875 "La stale de Mesha." Revue critique 11:166-174.

Cooke, G. 1903 A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford: Claredon Press).

Cross, F.; and D. Freedman 1952 Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (New Haven:

American Oriental Society).

96) This translation follows Lemaire's (1987, p. 210) suggested reading of the end of line 33 as wl[t]y.mSm.'s'[r ...]. The stroke visible in Dussaud's (1912) photograph at the end of the lacuna in question could belong to either a yod or a he (contra Na'aman 1997, n. 13). No matter which of the current readings one prefers, 33b remains syntactically problematic, as one would expect it to begin with a wayyiqtol or a 'noun phrase + finite verb' construction.

97) The apparent dalet visible in Dussaud's (1912) photograph could in fact be the head of a bet or rel. This would allow reading ?bq (cf. Aramaic Ibq = "to forsake, abandon"); or sgrq (cf. Hebrew sagrq = "a choice vine" e.g. Isaiah 5:2).




Darnell, J.; and R. Jasnow 1993 "On the Moabite Inscriptions of Ramses II at Luxor Temple." Journal of Near

Eastern Studies 52:263-274. Dearman, A.

1989 "Historical Reconstruction and the Mesha' Inscription." In A. Dearman, ed., Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (Atlanta: Scholars Press), pp. 155-210.

1990 "The Moabite Sites of Horonaim and Luhith." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 122:41-46.

1992 "Settlement Patterns and the Beginning of the Iron Age in Moab." In P. Bien- kowski, ed., Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan (Sheffield: J.R. Collis), pp. 65-75.

1997 "Roads and Settlements in Moab." Biblical Archaeologist 60:205-213.

Demarest, A. 1996 "Closing Comment." Current Anthropology 37:821-824.

Dever, W. 1996 Archaeology and the "Age of Solomon": A Case Study in Archaeology and

Historiography. In L. Handy, ed., The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (Leiden: Brill), pp. 217-255.

Dirks, N. 1987 The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom (Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press).

Dresch, P. 1986 "The Significance of the Course Events Take in Segmentary Systems." Amer-

ican Ethnologist 13:309-324. 1988 "Segmentation: Its Roots in Arabia and its Flowering Elsewhere." Cultural

Anthropology 31:50-67.

Drinkard, J. 1989 "The Literary Genre of the Mesha' Inscription." In A. Dearman, ed., Studies in

the Mesha Inscription and Moah (Atlanta: Scholars Press), pp. 131-154.

Dussaud, R. 1912 Les Monuments palestiniens et judaiques (musde du Louvre) (Paris: E. Leroux).

Evans-Pritchard, E. 1940 The Nuer (Oxford: Claredon Press).

Femia, J. 1981 Gramsci's Political Thought (Oxford: Claredon Press).

Finkelstein, I. 1999 "State Formation in Israel and Judah: A Contrast in Context, A Contrast in

Trajectory." Near Eastern Archaeology (formerly Biblical Archaeologist) 62(1): 35-52.

Freedman, D. 1964 "A Second Mesha Inscription." BASOR 175:50-51.

Fried, M. 1975 The Notion of Tribe (Menlo Park: Cummings).

Fortes, M.; and E. Evans-Pritchard 1940 "Introduction." In M. Fortes and E. Evans-Pritchard, eds., African Political

Systems (London: Oxford University Press), pp. 1-23.



252 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

Fox, J. 1987 Maya Postclassic State Formation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Fox, J.; and G. Cook 1996 "Constructing Maya Communities." Current Anthropology 37:811-821, 824-830.

Geertz, C. 1980 Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali (Princeton: Princeton

University Press).

Gibson, J. 1971 Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptians 1: Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions (Oxford:

Clarendon).

Graham, P. 1989 "The Discovery and Reconstruction of the Mesha' Inscription." In A. Dearman,

ed., Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (Atlanta: Scholars Press), pp. 41-92.

Gramsci, A. 1971 Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Q. Hoare, G. Smith (trans.) (New York:

International).

Grosby, S. 1997 "Borders, Territory and Nationality in the Ancient Near East and Armenia." Journal

of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 40:1-29.

Heitzman, J. 1991 "Ritual Polity and Economy: The Transactional Network of an Imperial Temple

in Medieval South India." Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 34:23-54.

Hertzfeld, M. 1987 Anthropology Through the Looking-Glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins

of Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Holy, L. (ed.) 1979 Segmentary Lineage Systems Reconsidered. Queen's University Papers in Social

Anthropology 4 (Belfast: Queen's University Press).

Houston, S. 1993 Hieroglyphs and History at Dos Pilas: Dynastic Politics of the Classic Maya

(Austin: University of Texas Press).

Hiibner, U. 1988 "Die ersten Moabitischen ostraka." Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina Vereins.

104:68-73.

Irsigler, H. 1993 "Grolsatzformen in Althebraischen und die syntaktische Struktur der Inschrift

des Konigs Mescha von Moab." In H. Irsigler, ed., Text und Syntax (St. Ottilien), pp. 81-121.

Jones, B. 1991 "In Search of Kir Hareseth: A Case Study in Site Identification." Journal of the

Society for the Study of the Old Testament 52:3-24.

Karp, I.; and K. Maynard 1983 "Reading The Nuer." Current Anthropology 2:481-503.




Knauf, E.A. 1988 Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschicte Paldstinas und Nordarabiens am Ende

des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). 1992 "The Cultural Impact of Secondary State Formation: The Cases of the Edom-

ites and the Moabites." In P. Bienkowski, ed., Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan (Sheffield: J.R. Collis), pp. 47-54.

Kraus, W. 1998 "Contestable Identitites: Tribal Structures in the Moroccan High Atlas."

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 4:1-22.

Kulke, H. 1995 "Introduction: The Study of the State in Pre-modern India." In idem., ed., The

State in India: 1000-1700 (Oxford: Delhi), pp. 1-47.

Kuper, A. 1982 "Lineage Theory: A Critical Retrospect." Annual Review of Anthropology

11:71-95.

LaBianca, 0. 1993 "The Fluidity of Tribal Peoples in Central Transjordan: Four Millennia of

Sedentarization and Nomadization on the Madaba Plains." In H. Palva and K. Vikor, eds., The Middle East--Unity and Diversity: Papers from the Second Nordic Conference on Middle East Studies. Nordic Proceedings in Asian Studies 5. (Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies), pp. 206-215.

LaBianca, 0.; and R.Younker 1995 "The Kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and Edom: The Archaeology of Society in

Late Bronze/Iron Age Transjordan (ca. 1400-500 B.C.E.)." In T. Levy, ed., The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land (London: Leicester University Press), pp. 399-415.

Lemaire, A. 1987 "Notes d'6pigraphie nord-ouest s6mitique." Syria 64:205-216. 1991 La stale de Mesha et I'histoire d'Isradl. In D. Garrone and F. Israel, eds.,

Storia e tradizioni di Israele (Brescia: Paideia), pp. 143-169. 1994a "House of David Restored in Moabite Inscription." Biblical Archaeology

Review 20(3): 31-37. 1994b "La dynastie davidique (BYT DWD) dans deux inscriptions ouest-s6mitiques

du IXe S. AV. J.-C." Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 11:17-19.

Lidzbarski, M. 1902 "Eine Nachpriifung der Mesainschrift," in Ephemeris fiir Semitische Epigra-

phik I (Giessen), pp. 1-10.

Lipiriski, E. 1973 "Etymological and Exegetical Notes on the Mesha' Inscription." Orientalia

40:325-340.

Liver, J. 1967 "The Wars of Mesha, King of Moab." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 99:14-31.

Liverani, M. 1979 "The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire." In M. Larsen, ed., Power and Pro-

paganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Mesopotamia 7 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag), pp. 297-317.



254 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

1980 Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600-1100 B.C. History of the Ancient Near East Studies I (Padua: Sargon).

1992 Studies on the Annals of Ashurnasirpal II. 2: Topographical Analysis Quaderni di Geografica Storica 4 (Rome: Universith di Roma "La Sapienza").

Mauss, M. 1990 The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Trans.

W. Halls [Fr. org. 1950] (New York: Norton).

Maynard, K. 1988 "On Protestants and Pastoralists: The Segmentary Nature of Socio-Cultural

Organisation." Man (N.S.): 101-117.

McAnany, P. 1995 Living with the Ancestors.: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society

(Austin: University of Texas Press).

McIntosh, S. 1999 "Pathways to Complexity: An African Perspective." In S. McIntosh, ed., Beyond

Chiefdoms: Pathways to Complexity in Africa (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press), pp. 1-30.

Miller, J.M. 1974 "The Moabite Stone as a Memorial Stele." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 106:

9-18. 1992 "Early Monarchy in Moab?" In P. Bienkowski, ed., Early Edom and Moab: The

Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan (Sheffield: J.R. Collis), pp. 77-91.

Mittmann, S. 1982 "The Ascent of Luhith." In Studies in the Histoty and Archaeology of Jordan I

(Amman: Dept. of Antiquities), pp. 175-180.

Moor, J. de. 1988 "Narrative Poetry in Canaan." Ugarit Forschungen 20:149-171.

MUller, H-P. 1994 "K6nig MeSa' von Moab und der Gott der Geschichte." Ugarit Forschungen 26:

373-395.

Murphy, R. 1953 "Israel and Moab in the Ninth Century B.C." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15:

409-417.

Na'aman, N. 1994 "The Campaign of Mesha against Horonaim." Biblische Notizen 73:27-30. 1997 "King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy." Israel Exploration

Journal 47:83-92.

Netting, R. 1972 "Sacred Power and Centralization." In B. Spooner, ed., Population Growth;

Anthropological Implications (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press), pp. 219-244.

Niccacci, A. 1994 "The Stele of Mesha and the Bible: Verbal System and Narrativity." Orientalia

63:226-248.

Parker, S. 1997 Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in




Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press).

Parry, J. 1986 "The Gift, The Indian Gift and the 'Indian Gift.'" Man (N.S.) 21:453-473.

Peters, E. 1967 "Some Structural Aspects of the Feud Among the Camel-herding Bedouin of

Cyrenaica." Africa 37:261-282.

Rainey, A. 1998 "Syntax, Hermeneutics and History." Israel Exploration Journal 48:239-251.

Reed, W; and F. Winnett 1963 "A Fragment of an Early Moabite Inscription from Kerak." BASOR 172:1-9.

Rendsburg, G. 1981 "A Reconstruction of Moabite-Israelite History." Journal of the Ancient Near

East Society 13:67-73.

Routledge, B. 1997 "Learning to Love the King: Urbanism and the State in Iron Age Moab." In

W. Aufrecht, N. Mirau and S. Gauley, eds., Aspects of Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), pp. 130-144.

Schottroff, W. 1966 "Horonaim, Nimrim, Luhith, und der Westrand des 'Landes Ataroth'." Zeit-

schrift des Deutschen Paldistina Vereins 82:163-208.

Segert, S. 1961 "Die Sprache der Moabitischen K6nigsinschrift." Archiv Orientdlni 29:197-267.

Smelik, K. 1992 "King Mesha's Inscription." In idem, ed., Converting the Past: Studies in

Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography (Leiden: E.J. Brill), pp. 59-92.

Southall, A. 1956 Alur Society (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons). 1988 "The Segmentary State in Africa and Asia." Comparative Studies in Society and

History 30:52-82. 1991 "The Segmentary State: From the Imaginary to the Material Means of Produc-

tion." In H. Claessen and P. van de Velde, eds., Early State Economics (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 75-96).

1999 "The Segmentary State and the Ritual Phase in Political Economy." In S. McIntosh, ed., Beyond Chiefdoms: Pathways to Complexity in Africa (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 31-38.

Stein, B. 1980 Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India (Delhi: Oxford). 1991 "The Segmentary State: Interim Reflections." In J. Pouchepadass and H. Stern,

eds., De la Royaute a l'Etat dans le Monde Indien. Collection Purusartha 13 (Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Science Sociales), pp. 217-238.

1992 "Segmentation of Class." In H. De Soto, ed., Culture and Contradiction: Dialectics of Wealth, Power and Symbol (San Francisco: Edwin Mellen Texts), pp. 141-155.

Stein, G. 1994 "Segmentary States and Organisational Variation in Early Complex Societies: A



256 BRUCE ROUTLEDGE

Rural Perspective." In G. Schwartz and S. Falconer, eds., Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies (Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press), pp. 10-18.

Swiggers, P. 1982 "The Moabite Inscription of el-Kerak." Annali Instituto Orientale di Napoli 42:

521-525.

Tambiah, S. 1976 World Conqueror and World Renouncer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 1985 Culture, Thought, and Social Action (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University

Press).

Tapper, R. 1990 "Anthropologists, Historians, and Tribespeople on Tribe and State Formation in

the Middle East." In P. Khoury and J. Kostiner, eds., Tribes and State Forma- tion in the Middle East (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 48-73.

Weiner, A. 1992 Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-while-Giving (Berkeley:

University of California Press).

Worschech, U.; and E. Knauf 1986 "Dimon und Horonaim." Biblische Notizen 31:70-95.

Younker, R. 1997 "Moabite Social Structure." Biblical Archaeologist 60:237-248.

Zyl, A. van. 1960 The Moabites (Leiden: E.J. Brill).



THE POLITICS OF MESHA: SEGMENTED IDENTITIES AND STATE FORMATION IN IRON AGE MOAB

Documents

Transcript of THE POLITICS OF MESHA: SEGMENTED IDENTITIES AND STATE FORMATION IN IRON AGE MOAB