Mount Ebal in Biblical History and Literal Chronology

Mount Ebal rises above the region of ancient Shechem, facing Mount Gerizim with the city lying in the valley between. Scripture treats this location as a fixed and concrete place in Israel’s early history, not as a symbol or late theological invention. In Deuteronomy 27, Jehovah commanded that when Israel crossed the Jordan and entered Canaan, an altar of uncut stones was to be built on Mount Ebal, burnt offerings and peace offerings were to be presented, and the law was to be written on plastered stones. From this mountain, the curses of the covenant were to be proclaimed, while blessings were associated with nearby Mount Gerizim.

Joshua 8 records that Joshua obeyed this command precisely. After the defeat of Ai, Joshua constructed an altar on Mount Ebal using unhewn stones, offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, wrote a copy of the law on plastered stones, and led Israel in a covenant-renewal ceremony. Half the tribes stood in front of Mount Gerizim and half in front of Mount Ebal, and Joshua read “all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse” in the hearing of the entire nation. The narrative presents Mount Ebal as the formal stage where Israel publicly accepted the covenant terms under Jehovah’s authority.

Literal biblical chronology situates this event firmly in real time. Adam was expelled from Eden in 4026 B.C.E., Noah’s global Flood occurred in 2348 B.C.E., Abraham’s covenant was inaugurated in 2091 B.C.E., Jacob entered Egypt in 1876 B.C.E., the Exodus took place in 1446 B.C.E., and the conquest of Canaan began in 1406 B.C.E. The altar on Mount Ebal belongs to this conquest period. These dates do not rest on evolutionary or secular reconstructions of “stone ages,” but on the inspired chronological framework of Scripture. Within that framework, Mount Ebal stands at the threshold of Israel’s life in the land, the precise place where covenant obedience and covenant curses were publicly bound to the nation’s identity.

Because of this role, any archaeological evidence from Mount Ebal carries unusual weight. It bears directly on the historical reliability of Deuteronomy and Joshua, on early Israelite worship, and on the question of whether Israel entered the land as a literate, covenant-conscious people, exactly as the Bible describes.

From Zertal’s Excavation to the Mount Ebal Lead Tablet

The Stone Structure and Its Identification as Joshua’s Altar

In the 1980s, Israeli archaeologist Adam Zertal conducted a systematic excavation on the northern slope of Mount Ebal. He uncovered a large, carefully built stone installation surrounded by layers of fill and debris. Though Zertal was not committed to a conservative biblical chronology and worked within secular academic assumptions, the structure he uncovered matches the biblical description of an altar in striking detail.

The installation is built of unhewn stones, just as Deuteronomy 27 requires. The fill of the structure contained numerous animal bones, many of them from sacrificial species consistent with biblical sacrificial law. The architectural design, with its ramp and enclosure-like arrangement, reflects an early, monumental cultic structure rather than a domestic or mundane installation. Its placement on Mount Ebal corresponds to the location that Scripture explicitly identifies as the site of Joshua’s altar.

From a conservative, historical-grammatical perspective, the most straightforward interpretation is that this structure is Joshua’s altar. The design matches the commands in Deuteronomy; the location matches the narrative in Joshua; the bones match sacrificial activity; and the date fits the Late Bronze Age conquest period. The altar is not a literary metaphor. It is a real stone construction erected by a real covenant community obeying Jehovah’s instructions.

Wet-Sifting the Dump and Recovering the Folded Lead Object

Like most excavations of his time, Zertal’s team removed soil and debris from the structure and deposited it in dump piles outside the primary excavation area. The techniques available in his era were less sensitive to very small finds. Decades later, in December 2019, the Associates for Biblical Research, under the direction of Dr. Scott Stripling, carried out a wet-sifting operation on Zertal’s dump.

Wet-sifting is a careful procedure in which excavated soil is washed through fine screens, allowing archaeologists to retrieve tiny objects that traditional dry-sifting misses. This method does not move artifacts into new archaeological contexts; it merely recovers items that were already in the original locus but were previously overlooked. When Zertal’s team removed soil from the altar and its immediate surroundings, they transported that material directly to the dump. Wet-sifting that dump therefore recovers objects that belong to the same stratigraphic context as the altar itself.

During this process, Stripling’s team recovered a small, square piece of folded lead measuring roughly two centimeters across. The piece was intentionally folded into a compact, tablet-like form rather than crumpled randomly. Because lead becomes brittle with age, any attempt to unfold it physically would destroy it. The only responsible way to examine its interior was through non-destructive imaging.

The artifact was documented carefully. Its connection to the Mount Ebal altar is not speculative. It was found in material removed from the altar’s fill and immediate vicinity. As a result, it belongs to the same Late Bronze Age assemblage that defines the context of Joshua’s altar.

Imaging the Tablet and Identifying a Proto-Alphabetic Inscription

Non-Destructive Scanning of the Folded Lead

Because the tablet could not be opened mechanically, Stripling’s team turned to advanced imaging. Using high-resolution X-ray scanning and computed tomography, specialists produced three-dimensional models of the lead sheet and its internal surfaces. Digital techniques allowed them to “unfold” the tablet virtually and view both sides of the inscribed interior without physically damaging the artifact.

These scans revealed repeated linear markings incised on the inner surfaces. The stroke patterns were not chaotic. They followed deliberate orientations and formed shapes characteristic of early alphabetic scripts. The impressions were clearer on the tablet’s interior, where the lead had been shielded from weathering and later abrasion, which confirms that the inscriptions belong to the time of the tablet’s original use.

Recognizing Proto-Alphabetic Script and the Divine Name

Epigraphers specializing in early Semitic writing examined the scanned images and identified multiple letters consistent with proto-alphabetic script. Proto-alphabetic writing represents the earliest phase of the alphabet used by Semitic speakers in the Late Bronze Age. It is the ancestor of later Phoenician and Paleo-Hebrew, and its signs are more pictographic and linear than those of the fully developed Iron Age scripts.

Within the tablet’s interior, repeated sequences of letters formed coherent words, not random clusters. Of particular importance was the repeated appearance of the consonants J-H-V, representing the shortened form of the divine name known from other early sources. This truncated form, JHV, corresponds to the full tetragrammaton JHVH, conventionally rendered as Jehovah. Abbreviated divine names were common across the ancient Near East and appear frequently in personal names and dedicatory inscriptions.

The epigraphers also identified words corresponding to “curse” in parallel patterns. The overall effect is a compact curse formula, invoking Jehovah by name and declaring “cursed” in a structured, poetic arrangement. The inscription is not an incoherent jumble. It is a carefully composed series of covenantal maledictions centered on the divine name.

The Text of the Curse and Its Covenant-Curse Form

The Repeated Language of “Curse”

Although scholarly discussions differ on the exact word-for-word translation of every sign, the broad structure of the text is clear. The inscription repeatedly affirms that the subject is “cursed,” using parallel lines that reflect familiar patterns of early Hebrew expression. Ancient Hebrew, especially in poetic and covenantal contexts, often uses repetition and parallelism to underscore a reality. The Mount Ebal tablet displays this very feature.

The content corresponds precisely with what Scripture records about the purpose of Mount Ebal. In Deuteronomy 27, the tribes on Mount Ebal proclaim curses on those who violate various commandments. In Joshua 8, Joshua reads all the words of the law, both blessing and curse, in the presence of the people. The tablet reflects this same covenantal environment. The curses are not vague or magical; they are judicial declarations tied to obedience and disobedience to Jehovah’s law.

The Abbreviated Divine Name JHV and the Use of Jehovah’s Name

The repeated appearance of JHV in the inscription is one of its most decisive features. It demonstrates that the Israelites at Mount Ebal invoked the personal name of Jehovah in covenantal contexts from their earliest days in the land. This refutes the higher-critical theory that the divine name and exclusive worship of Jehovah developed gradually from a polytheistic Canaanite background. The tablet shows that the covenant community crossing the Jordan already knew and used the name of Jehovah in a formal ritual setting.

Abbreviated forms of divine names were common in the Late Bronze Age. They appear in names, short inscriptions, and religious formulas. The use of JHV in this inscription fits that broader practice and, at the same time, corresponds perfectly to the full name Jehovah used throughout the inspired Old Testament. The Mount Ebal inscription therefore joins the biblical text in testifying that Israel’s earliest identity in the land centered on a covenant relationship with Jehovah, not with a nameless deity or a pantheon of gods.

Curses, Covenant, and Ritual at Mount Ebal

The entire setting of Deuteronomy 27 and Joshua 8 revolves around covenantal accountability. Jehovah did not bring Israel into Canaan as a loose tribal federation but as a nation bound to Him by a covenant that promised blessings for obedience and announced curses for rebellion. The ceremony on Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim dramatized this reality in geographic, visual, and auditory form.

On Mount Gerizim, blessings were proclaimed, affirming that obedience to Jehovah’s law brings life and prosperity. On Mount Ebal, curses were pronounced, affirming that disobedience brings judgment and ruin. The altar built on Mount Ebal, constructed of uncut stones as commanded, stood at the heart of this ceremony. Sacrifices were offered, the law was written, and the people pledged themselves under the covenant’s terms.

In the broader ancient Near Eastern world, written curses often accompanied legal and religious covenants. Texts inscribed on clay, stone, or metal invoked a deity to enforce an agreement and to punish those who violated it. These inscriptions were often folded or buried in sacred spaces as enduring witnesses. The Mount Ebal lead tablet fits this pattern, yet it is distinctively Israelite because it invokes Jehovah alone and reflects the moral language of biblical covenant curses rather than pagan magical formulas.

Lead was a natural choice for such a document. It is soft enough to receive fine incisions and durable enough to survive for millennia. Folding the tablet sealed the text within, symbolizing the fixed and binding nature of the curse. The tablet thus functioned both as a ritual act and as a legal witness. It declared that those who defied Jehovah’s covenant stood under His curse, and it preserved that declaration in tangible form at the very site where Scripture records a covenant-renewal ceremony.

Proto-Alphabetic Script and Early Israelite Literacy

One of the central attacks of higher criticism has been the claim that Israel lacked widespread literacy before the monarchy and that the Pentateuch was therefore a late literary creation. The Mount Ebal curse tablet exposes the weakness of this claim. The inscription uses proto-alphabetic script, the very form of writing that Semitic-speaking peoples employed in the Late Bronze Age. This script appears at several sites associated with Semitic workers and populations and stands at the headwaters of the later Hebrew script.

The presence of proto-alphabetic writing at Mount Ebal demonstrates that the covenant community entering Canaan possessed and used alphabetic literacy. This reality accords exactly with the biblical record. Moses wrote the law and commanded that it be read to the people. The Israelites were instructed to write Jehovah’s words on their doorposts and gates. Joshua wrote a copy of the law on plastered stones at Mount Ebal. These are not anachronistic notices imposed on a later illiterate age; they reflect the real capabilities of Israel in the Late Bronze Age.

Alphabetic script made reading and writing far more accessible than cumbersome syllabic or pictographic systems. A small set of consonantal signs could represent an entire language. It is entirely consistent that Jehovah would provide His written revelation to a people whose world already possessed the very tool required to record and transmit that revelation. From a conservative textual perspective, the Hebrew Old Testament as preserved in the critical text is 99.99 percent accurate to the original, and the Mount Ebal tablet shows that from the beginning the covenant community had the capacity to write and preserve the Word of God.

The curse tablet, then, is not merely a curiosity. It is direct archaeological confirmation that literacy and writing were present in Israel at exactly the time the Bible says they were. It supports Mosaic authorship, early covenantal documents, and the biblical emphasis on writing as a means of preserving Jehovah’s law.

Archaeological Context, Dating, and Lead Provenance

The dating of the Mount Ebal inscription does not rest on guesswork. It rests on context. The tablet was recovered from the dump of Zertal’s excavation, which contained the fill removed from the altar and its immediate surroundings. That fill formed a sealed Late Bronze Age context, defined by pottery, architecture, and the sacrificial remains associated with the structure. Objects in that fill, whether recovered in the original dig or through later wet-sifting, share that context.

Some critics attempt to use lead-provenance studies to argue for a later date. They point to isotopic signatures suggesting connections to lead sources in regions such as the Aegean and claim that such trade patterns fit better with later periods. This line of argument ignores the reality that long-distance trade in metals already existed well before the Iron Age. Lead traveled widely in the ancient world, and its geographic source does not determine the date of the artifact fashioned from it. The context of the find and the script on the tablet carry far more weight than the ultimate quarry from which the lead was mined.

Critics also attempt to detach the tablet from Zertal’s altar by casting suspicion on the integrity of the dump. Yet wet-sifting simply retrieves what was originally present. If higher-critical scholars accept wet-sifting results when they seem to support their reconstructions, they cannot suddenly declare the method invalid when it yields a find that supports Scripture. The Mount Ebal lead tablet belongs to the Late Bronze Age context of Joshua’s altar and stands within the same cultural horizon as the other artifacts from the site.

Answering the Main Objections

“Random Scratches” and the Charge of Pareidolia

One objection insists that the markings inside the tablet are nothing but random scratches, and that epigraphers are allegedly “seeing” letters where none exist. This accusation collapses under serious examination. Random corrosion does not produce consistent, repeated shapes forming recognizable letters from a known script. It does not align strokes in parallel directions or cluster them in ordered sequences.

In the case of the Mount Ebal tablet, the shapes correspond to known proto-alphabetic forms. They appear in repeated patterns that form meaningful words, including the divine name and the word for “curse.” Several independent epigraphers with expertise in early Semitic scripts have identified these forms. To dismiss all such identifications as imaginative illusions ignores the discipline of epigraphy itself. The charge of pareidolia functions as a way to avoid the inscription’s implications rather than as a serious engagement with the data.

The Fishing-Weight Claim

Another objection proposes that the tablet is actually a fishing-net weight, and that any internal marks are incidental. This claim is deeply out of touch with both archaeology and common sense. Fishing weights are designed with practicality in mind. Their shapes are suited to tying or attaching to nets. They typically include holes or grooves and bear no resemblance to foldable, sealed tablets. The Mount Ebal artifact is a folded, square lead sheet with inscriptions on the interior, not an aerodynamic or perforated weight.

In addition, Mount Ebal is a highland site far from bodies of water suitable for large-scale fishing. The archaeological assemblage associated with the altar contains sacrificial remains and cultic architecture, not fishing equipment. To identify this folded, inscribed tablet as a fishing weight ignores both its form and its context. The suggestion functions as an ad hoc attempt to strip the artifact of its ritual significance because its covenantal content aligns so closely with Scripture.

The Question of the Dump’s Integrity

Some critics argue that because the tablet was found in a dump rather than in an undisturbed locus, its context is uncertain. This objection misunderstands how excavation dumps work. When an excavation removes soil from a clearly defined locus, that soil carries with it the artifacts from that locus. Depositing that soil in a dump does not mix it with material from unrelated periods. It simply relocates it. When that dump is later wet-sifted, the objects recovered still belong to the original stratigraphic context from which the soil was removed.

In the case of Mount Ebal, Zertal’s dumps came from the fill of the altar and its immediate surroundings. The pottery and objects found there consistently reflect a Late Bronze context. The lead tablet, recovered from this material, shares that context. Critics only raise the dump objection because the artifact supports the biblical record. They do not apply the same skepticism to wet-sifted finds that they use to build alternative reconstructions of history.

Higher-Critical Presuppositions Behind the Pushback

The intensity of the resistance to the Mount Ebal tablet arises from theological and philosophical presuppositions, not from data. Higher-critical scholarship assumes that Deuteronomy and Joshua are late compositions, that early Israel was largely illiterate, that monotheism developed gradually, and that the use of Jehovah’s name emerged late. A Late Bronze Age curse tablet from Mount Ebal invoking JHV and reflecting covenant curses confronts each of those assumptions.

Instead of reevaluating their presuppositions, critics attempt to discredit the artifact. They deny that the markings are letters, deny that the object is a tablet, deny that the dump has context, and deny that trade patterns permit an early date. The pattern mirrors many previous episodes in biblical archaeology where discoveries supportive of Scripture were resisted because they threatened the reigning academic paradigm. The Mount Ebal tablet exposes the weakness of that paradigm and underscores the reliability of the inspired text.

Covenant Theology, the Divine Name, and Early Israelite Identity

The Mount Ebal curse tablet does more than confirm a historical detail. It sheds light on the theological and covenantal self-understanding of early Israel. The repeated word “cursed” and the repeated use of the divine name reveal a community that understood itself in relation to Jehovah’s law and Jehovah’s covenant.

The curses in Deuteronomy are not arbitrary. They match specific violations: idolatry, injustice, sexual immorality, secret sins, and overt rebellion. They reflect the holiness of Jehovah and the seriousness of His moral standards. When Joshua renewed the covenant at Mount Ebal, he confronted Israel with the reality that a relationship with Jehovah required obedience. Blessings were not automatic, and disobedience would bring real consequences.

The tablet fits this framework exactly. It encapsulates the curse motif in a short, written form, invoking Jehovah by name as the One who enforces the covenant. It stands as a covenant witness, declaring that those who violate Jehovah’s law stand under His curse. In this sense, the tablet has a judicial function. It is not a magical object; it is a legal testimony.

The repeated divine name also functions as a powerful identity marker. The people associated with this tablet were not nameless worshipers of a vague deity. They were worshipers of Jehovah, the God who had revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had brought Israel out of Egypt, and who now brought them into the promised land. Their identity was exclusive, covenantal, and rooted in divine revelation, not in syncretism or mythological evolution.

Mount Ebal, Early Israel in Canaan, and the Pattern of Archaeological Corroboration

The Mount Ebal curse tablet does not stand in isolation. It fits within a broader pattern of archaeological data that aligns with the biblical picture of early Israel in Canaan. Across the central hill country, Late Bronze and early Iron Age sites display settlement patterns consistent with the arrival of a new population. These settlers favored highland locations, practiced mixed agriculture and pastoralism, and avoided the elaborate pagan cultic installations typical of Canaanite city-states.

Instead of grand temples to a pantheon of gods, these communities used simpler cultic structures consistent with altars and enclosures described in Scripture. Zertal’s altar on Mount Ebal is the most monumental example of this pattern, standing precisely where the Bible says Joshua built an altar. The sacrificial bones, the uncut stones, and the absence of pagan iconography align with Israel’s distinctive worship of Jehovah.

Within this cultural horizon, the presence of a written curse invoking JHV on lead from the altar’s debris is entirely coherent. It reinforces the conclusion that Israel entered the land as a people bound by covenant, guided by written revelation, and distinct in worship. The tablet is a physical link between the inspired narratives of Deuteronomy and Joshua and the material remains in the land.

When this artifact is viewed alongside other discoveries that mention Israel in early extra-biblical sources, that expose cities destroyed in patterns matching the conquest, and that reveal consistent settlement changes in the hill country, a unified picture emerges. Archaeology, when interpreted without higher-critical bias, consistently corroborates the biblical record of Israel’s origin, covenant, and worship.

The Enduring Importance of the Mount Ebal Curse Tablet for Biblical Archaeology

The Mount Ebal curse tablet stands at the intersection of text, ritual, and material culture. The inspired biblical text describes a covenant ceremony on Mount Ebal involving an altar of uncut stones, sacrifices, the writing of the law, and the proclamation of blessings and curses. The ritual remains on the mountain reveal an altar that matches this description in location, design, and function. The material artifact—the folded lead tablet—provides an inscribed, proto-alphabetic curse text invoking Jehovah and echoing the covenant-curses of Deuteronomy and Joshua.

This convergence confirms, rather than corrects, the biblical account. It demonstrates that early Israelite worship was already literate, monotheistic, and covenantal at the time of the conquest. It shows that Israel used the divine name Jehovah in formal ritual, that the people understood themselves as bound under blessings and curses, and that writing served as a key means of preserving and expressing covenant obligations.

The tablet also exposes the fragility of higher-critical reconstructions that deny Mosaic authorship, late-date the Pentateuch, and portray early Israel as an illiterate tribal coalition gradually inventing its theology. A small, folded lead artifact, recovered from the debris of Joshua’s altar, withstands the pressure of such theories. Its script, its content, its context, and its theology all align with the biblical record, not with the speculative models that seek to undermine it.

Above all, the Mount Ebal curse tablet reminds readers that archaeology is not the authority over Scripture. Jehovah’s Word is self-authenticating, inspired, inerrant, and infallible. The Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament critical texts preserve that Word with extraordinary accuracy. Archaeological discoveries such as the Mount Ebal tablet do not establish the truth of Scripture; they illustrate and illuminate it. When the spade turns in the soil of the ancient world under a methodology that respects the historical-grammatical meaning of Scripture, the results consistently confirm what Jehovah has already spoken.

The folded lead tablet from Mount Ebal, with its proto-alphabetic inscription of covenant curses invoking Jehovah, stands as a remarkable testimony to that reality. It bears witness to the real altar Joshua built, to the real covenant ceremony that took place, to the real divine name that Israel invoked, and to the real reliability of the biblical record that preserves these events for the holy ones today.

1. CT SCAN IMAGES (INNER SURFACE) – LEFT & RIGHT(These are grayscale volumetric slices of the inside surface of the folded lead tablet.) Overall Surface Features Both inner-surface CT images show: A highly irregular, cratered texture Many small pits of various sizes Soft undulating ridges A mix of shallow depressions and slightly raised lines No straight edges or tool impressions visible No large continuous carved grooves The edges show compression consistent with folding LEFT CT IMAGE – Detailed Observations Surface looks uneven and wavy with natural distortions. Approximately 6–8 deeper pits are visible near the center. A vertical-ish ridge in the center-left is slightly darker, suggesting either: a fold stress line or a naturally compressed ridge No shapes appear straight, angular, or geometric. No repeated pattern of matching angles. The darkest depressions are round, not linear. RIGHT CT IMAGE – Detailed Observations Very similar overall texture to the left image, but slightly clearer. Slight vertical creasing visible near the top. A loose cluster of pits near the upper-middle region, irregular in shape. No obvious crosses, lines, or intentional strokes. Some pits appear elongated, but remain irregular rather than geometric. Lower edge shows distortions likely from folding pressure. Conclusion of PURELY VISUAL CT-SCAN DESCRIPTION What’s visible: Organic-looking pits No straight-line features No consistent “alphabet-like” geometry Rough, noisy surface Nothing in these two CT images visually presents the clear, hard-edged shapes seen in Galil’s drawn “Inner B.” 2. GALIL’S INTERPRETIVE DRAWINGS – “INNER A” AND “INNER B” INNER A (Blank Outline) This is simply: A clean outline of the tablet’s inner surface No marks, shapes, or characters drawn inside The bottom edge shows contour wiggles similar to the CT scan edges INNER B (Proposed Letters) This drawing includes: Dozens of sharply defined shapes Angular letters with: straight lines symmetrical forms sharp corners tridents branch-like forms diamonds Y-shaped forms snake-like zigzags circles with stems cross-like shapes inverted V-shapes These shapes are very black, bold, and crisp Many shapes repeat in consistent proportions The layout is clustered densely in the center Visual Comparison With CT Images IMPORTANT: This is visual comparison, not epigraphy. The drawn shapes: Are far sharper than anything seen in the CT images Include straight lines absent in the CT scans Include repeatable geometries not visible in the scans Display a density of markings not present in the CT images Show stylized, intentional forms unlike the noisy, natural pits Objective Observation There is no 1-to-1 direct visual correspondence between the CT surface shapes and the heavy, crisp “letters” in INNER B. Whether these drawn shapes represent actual inscription or interpretive overlay is not something I can judge — but visually, the CT does not clearly show these shapes. 3. OUTER SURFACES – “OUTER B” & “OUTER A” These are photographs of the tablet’s outer sides, not the interior. General Characteristics Muddy, brownish metal surface Weathered appearance Numerous shallow depressions and rough areas Irregular corrosion pitting No sharp geometric shapes No straight lines No discernible repeating patterns Texture resembles: erosion corrosion bubbles possible collapsing metal layers OUTER B – Specific Observations Surface is uneven Several pits of varying size, mostly round Very little contrast No geometric order to the marks Some vertical-ish shallow depressions, but not straight or parallel Lower area shows metal fatigue and tears OUTER A – Specific Observations Slightly clearer lighting than Outer B A cluster of depressions in upper-middle A few elongated marks that could be: corrosion streaks natural thinning of metal No symmetry No angles No straight lines No trident shapes No signs of chiseling or scribing These surfaces look purely corroded, without any visible intentional inscription. SYNTHESIS OF VISUAL ANALYSIS What appears visually present across all images: Highly irregular surface textures Natural dents, pits, and undulations No crisp linear marks No repeated geometric patterns No clearly intentional shapes visible in the raw images What appears in the interpretive drawing: Dozens of clear, sharp, intentional geometric shapes Straight lines Symmetry Bold, stylized figures Many repeated forms Visual Relationship The interpretive drawn shapes do not directly correspond—visually—to the noisy, irregular surface features shown in the CT scans or photographs. This is not a judgment on which interpretation is correct. This is strictly visual pattern comparison.

You May Also Enjoy

King Sennacherib’s Prism — c. 701 B.C.E.

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS