Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 47:188 (Oct 1890)
Article: Not Lachish, But Gath
Author: J. A. Paine

BSac 47:187 (Oct 1890) p. 682

Not Lachish, But Gath

Professor J. A. Paine

In the year 1838 Dr. Edward Robinson sought out ‘Umm Lâqis, not in the expectation of finding there the site of ancient Lachish, as he explains, but rather in order to satisfy himself more certainly of the fallacy of any supposed resemblance in the two names, adding: —

“These remains are certainly not those of an ancient fortified city, which could for a time at least brave the assaults of an Assyrian army. Nor indeed does either the name or the position of this spot correspond to those of Lachish; although the varying form of the name might be allowed to pass, did other circumstances combine to identify the position.”

From ‘Umm Lâqis he turned aside to visit the neighboring Tell el-Hesy, which he found to be “a truncated cone with a fine plain on the top, somewhat resembling the Frank Mountain, though by no means so high.” He was strongly impressed with the remarkable appearance of this isolated tell, and he confessed a finer position for a fortress or fortified city could hardly be imagined; and, still, he wisely refrained from either considering it, or declaring it, to be the place of Lachish.

In the year 1863 M. Victor Guérin halted in his journey an instant at Tell el-Hesy. He describes it as follows: —

“This hill is very steep on its eastern side. In that direction it commands, from an elevation of about fifty metres, and almost vertically, the Wâdî el-Hesy, which winds round it alike on the north and the northwest. At the point where it offers most easy access, one may observe the foundations of a wall of enclosure, almost entirely demolished. Besides these, some traces of ancient constructions reveal themselves, but not very distinctly, upon the summit at several spots. At the base of the tell these vestiges are more numerous within the space which separates it, on the northwest, from the Wâdî.”

And yet, notwithstanding all these relics of antique building and habitation, M. Guerin preferred ‘Umm Lâqis for the site of Lachish.

In 1875 Major C. R. Conder, having explored both ‘Umm Lâqis and Tell el-Hesy, took the opposite view. In regard to the former, he says: —

“The place was, I may boldly say, never the site of an ancient city, consisting only of a few traces of ruins, two masonry cisterns, and a small low mound.”

BSac 47:187 (Oct 1890) p. 683

Concerning the latter, he says: —

“The great mound of Tell el-Hesy (‘hillock of the water-pit’) is a conspicuous and important site, supplied well with water, and giving its name to a great valley. The name el-Hesy may, I wo...