(Arabia Petraea, i. 269) gives an illustration of a portion of the northern slope of Gebel el Maslubiyeh showing eight trilithons arranged in two rough lines (3 and 5) following the slope of the hill; another such line he depicts on the southern slope of the Wadi el 'Afrit.

A not infrequent feature of the East Palestinian dolmens is that they have a floor-stone covering the ground between the uprights; and in these floor-stones,1 not less than on the coveringstones,2 cup-marks have been observed. It is also reported that cup-marks, which are anything but a regular feature of the covering-stones, have been found in some cases not on the upper but on the under side. A further point with regard to the covering-slabs is that they do not always present a flat surface; at times, owing to the uneven size of the supporting stones, they are far from horizontal, and have a marked, in some cases a very pronounced tilt 3; in other cases the upper surface of the covering-stone is not flat; Merrill (p. 324) reports of one at 'Ain Dakkar that the covering-stone was a cone-shaped block.4

5

The modern Bedawin have different theories with regard to these stone structures; they are Munahir, watch-towers, or Beit el Ghûl, Ghuls' houses or graves, more than one group, including that at 'Ain Dakkar, going by the name of Qubur Bene Israil, graves of the children of Israel.

The theories of modern scholars have also been various: Merrill (p. 439) seems inclined to suspect them of being Roman sentry-posts! But for the most part theorists have considered two competing theories: (1) that the dolmens are altars, (2) that they are graves or sepulchral ornaments.

The first of these theories seems to be at least insufficient; i. e. it does not offer a reasonable explanation of all or even most of the dolmens. For (1) the existence within the limited area of 800 acres or so of hundreds, in one case of a thousand, altars is extremely improbable, except only we intend by altars, places for the reception of offerings to the dead; (2) the

1 Heth and Moab, 258.

2 Also on other blocks: Vincent, 417 n. I.

See fig. 2, PEF Annual 1.

See Heth and Moab 325.

4

Cp. p. 111 below.

obvious chamber-character of whole groups of dolmens indicates that in these at least the covering-stones are primarily roofs, not tables or altar-tops; (3) the tilt of the coveringstones in many instances, and the uneven upper surface in other cases, equally indicates that the primary function is to roof, not to secure a surface for slaughter, burning, or presentation of offerings.

The altar-theory of dolmens can at most be partial; and this in two forms; though many and even the great majority of dolmens cannot have been constructed for the purpose of serving as altars, it is conceivable either (1) that some were so constructed, or (2) that some acquired a secondary function as altars.

If all, and not merely most, dolmens were enclosed and, wholly or partly, roofed chambers, there would seem to be no room left for a theory of dolmens having had as their primary function to serve as altars. But the trilithon which occurs particularly in Moab does not suggest chamber structure, and is only to be explained as such if good ground be shown for assuming that all dolmens served the same purpose, and that the more elaborate chamber dolmen developed from the trilithon for the more effective discharge of the original purpose. The shape of the trilithon suggests an altar or table,1 though not unambiguously, for taking the mere superficial suggestion of shape it might suggest the arch.

If, then, we isolate, with Conder, the Moabite or in particular the trilithon dolmen, how far can objections to the altar theory in this limited form be pressed? There remains the objection arising from the large numbers within a restricted area. Moab does not indeed contain the largest dolmen-fields, but two groups of about 150 have already been referred to. The shape and tilt 3 of some of the covering-stones also remains as an objection. On the question of numbers, Conder (Heth and Moab, 234) is merely able to point to the fact that Balaam is said to have sacrificed at seven altars at three different sites, and to allege

See picture of Heshbon dolmen, Heth and Moab, 190.

without, not to say against, evidence that 'New altars were built apparently whenever an important sacrifice was to be offered, and sacred centres would thus in time become crowded with such structures "like heaps in the furrows of the field ", suggesting that these last words were used by Hosea with dolmens in his mind's eye.

Of positive evidence apart from the ambiguous evidence of shape that might suggest that the dolmen of the trilithon shape was used, if not constructed, as an altar, by far the most important and interesting is the modern custom of the Beloha Arabs. The Arab', Conder reports of them, 'surrounds the grave of a man of noted sanctity with a circle of stones, and places on one side (almost invariably on the west) a little dolmen about three feet high, consisting of two stones supporting a third laid flat on the top. Whenever he visits the spot he kisses this stone and invokes the dead man's aid, placing his forehead on the altar, and then depositing a gift-a stick, a bullet, a copper coin, a berry, a piece of blue pottery, or some other material of his visit. He faces east as he does so, and mutters a prayer' (Heth and Moab, 327 f.).1

On this there are two points to be observed: (1) ancient dolmens are in some cases surrounded by a stone fence, but do not form an adjunct to any such enclosure which might be regarded as tomb or temple; (2) the modern trilithon altar is a receptacle for offerings to the dead-as Conder himself puts it elsewhere.

Into other theories of dolmens it is unnecessary to enter here, and impossible adequately to discuss them, for this would involve an examination of evidence of similar stone monuments in other countries as well. This only need be said: The sepulchral character of many dolmens-alike in Palestine and elsewhereis now generally accepted, and there is perhaps an interesting tendency to regard this as sufficient explanation of all. And we may say of the Palestinian dolmens that whereas many are, or

1 Cp. Musil, p. 268, whose language, however, leaves it very obscure what exactly is the proceeding (Vorgang) of the modern Bedawin at the graves of their ancestors, and cp. Vincent, 416, Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion To-day, 268 'plays the role of a threshold': cp. p. 270 on Sheikh Muflet with pictures on p. 271.

all perhaps may be sepulchral, many are not, and possibly none are primarily altars. At the same time many of these dolmens present features, especially cup-marks, which suggest that offerings were made on or within dolmens. The significance of these for the evolution of the Hebrew altar may be left to the next lecture.

stones.

VIII

THE ALTAR: EARLIER HISTORY

THE earliest law of the altar (Ex. 2024-26) contemplates a more or less permanent structure of soil (TM), or of rude, unworked The altar is to be made, wherever Yahweh manifests his presence; but once made it is to be maintained and repeatedly used afterwards: for where Yahweh has once manifested his presence, there will he make a practice of doing so in the future and when he appears, there he wills to receive the offerings made to him.

struc

This permanency of the altar may well have been the intention in all periods of its history; but certain narratives of the O.T. suggest that not in all cases was the altar ture; and it is probable that constructed altars were preceded by altars obtained by the simple selection of existing natural rock surfaces; though it is possible enough that the unconstructed altar-in part owing to the force of the principle of permanency-continued in use after the custom of constructing altars of earth or stone had arisen.

There are thus narratives, in the O.T. in particular, which appear to refer to such unconstructed rock or stone altars, though in none of them is the term 'altar' unambiguously applied to the rock surface or stone; on the other hand, two of them close with a record that an altar was first constructed on or in lieu of the previously used rock surface or stone; the third either does implicitly term the rock surface an altar, or implies that an altar, distinct from the rock surface, stood on or near it. The narratives in question are those of Gideon (Jud. 6), Manoah (Jud. 13), and Saul (1 Sam. 14). The first two of these refer to fixed rock surfaces, the third to a single movable large stone. In the third the slaughter of the animal seems to be an essential sacrificial act, and the stone is, though not so termed, in the most literal sense of the Hebrew term, a place of slaughter

an

N