The Element שלם in Hebrew Personal Names in the Land of Israel during the Iron Age ii Period
In this study, I investigated all personal names with the element שלם in the Land of Israel during the Iron Age II period. I collected the names from archaeological and biblical sources, analyzed and compared their distribution according to geography, chronology, and political affiliation. The results show that while שלם is a popular element in Judah from the eighth to the early sixth centuries, it is absent from Israel. The element שלם in unvocalized names from archaeological sources is interpreted mostly as ‘replacement, substitute’ (for the deceased child). However, the popularity of the element שלם solely in Judah may indicate that שלם was used more often than we assume as a divine name referring to YHWH, as do all other Judean popular names. In addition, the comparison between the names from archaeological and biblical sources may be interpreted to indicate that the Bible reflects Judean and not Israelite onomastic traditions.
Royal Judahite Jar Handles: Reconsidering the Chronology of the lmlk Stamp Impressions
Abstract The paper proposes a new chronology for the lmlk and the the so-called 'private' Judahite stamp impressions. It suggests that the lmlk stamp impression system was introduced in the final quarter of the 8th century BCE when Judah became an Assyrian vassal kingdom, and that it should be interpreted in light of the new economic and administrative policies that became operative in Judah during this period. The paper maintains that the lmlk system persisted and developed after Sennacherib's 701 BCE campaign, reusing old jars from sites not destroyed in the onslaught and also producing new jars with new types of stamp impressions. The paper further suggests that the jars with the so-called private stamp impressions were limited in number and restricted in distribution (primarily to the Shephelah of Judah), and were manufactured for only a short time (from 704–701 BCE) as part of Judah's preparations against the impending Assyrian campaign.
The Human Rights Act and Parliamentary Democracy
The Human Rights Act 1998 is the culmination of an aggressive campaign for the incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights, a campaign in which the judges joined forces with other political activists. Variously described as 'brilliant';' 'a masterly exposition of the parliamentary draftsman's art';2 and even 'a thing of intellectual beauty',3 the Act has also been greeted as an 'ingenious compromise' between the 'maximalists' and 'minimalists', the former supporting a judicial power to invalidate legislation, as is the case in Canada.4 But although it is purported to reconcile in 'subtle' form the protection of human rights with the sovereignty of Parliament (a claim even more credible after an important but unsung Commons amendment), the Act also represents an unprecedented transfer of political power from the executive and legislature to the judiciary, and a fundamental re-structuring of our 'political constitution'.s As such it is unquestionably the most significant formal redistribution of political power in this country since 1911,6 and perhaps since 1688 when the Bill of Rights proclaimed loudly that proceedings in Parliament ought not to be questioned or impeached in any court or any other place. In the words of Baroness Williams of Crosby, we have crossed our 'constitutional Rubicon',7 at least to the extent that the courts may now declare a statute incompatible with Convention rights. The enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 was marked by an unusually high quality of debate, particularly in the House of Lords, with powerful performances by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The performance of the latter on one occasion was too much for Lord Campbell of Alloway, unaccustomed it seems to cerebral rather than ceremonial contributions in their Lordships' House. Lord Campbell was heard to protest (in a manner dubbed 'offensive' by Lord Ackner)8 about 'these escoteric lectures on law at this time of night', having 'never heard anything like this after dinner' in the 18 years he had been in the Lords.9 He had better get used to it: the law and the lawyers are about to dominate all the debates, at all times of the day and night, before and after every meal time. Indeed in the Second Reading Debate on this Bill in the House of Lords 'full of