One of the most important of the finds here ob tained was a small clay tablet which is now in the Imperial Museum of Constantinople. The finding of this tablet established the fact which had long been suspected by scholars that the pre-Israelitish Canaan possessed their clay lihraries as did Baby lonia and Assyria. "In size and shape," says Pro fessor Sayce, "it resembles the tablets sent from the south of Canaan. The forms of the cunei form characters, moreover, which appear on it, are those which we now know to have been used in southern Canaan about 140o B. C. Lastly, the grammatical forms and formulm are identical with those employed by the scribes of Southern Ca naan when writing to the Egyptian kings. We find them in the tablets of Tell-Amarna as well as in the tablet of Lachish.
"The fact that the original was not accessible made the copying of the cuneiform text somewhat difficult. Indeed, it is sometimes impossible to tell from the impressions what exactly are the char acters at the edges of the tablet or where the surface of the tablet is worn. Hence the lacunm and indications of uncertainty which appear in my copy of the inscription. A translation of the text has been further rendered difficult by the exist ence in it of words which have not been met with before and which are, therefore, of doubtful meaning. Fortunately enough is clear to show us what the letter—for such it is—is about, and to what period it belongs.
"What makes this letter so particularly inter esting is that we already know something about Zimrida, who is twice mentioned in it. Zimrida, or Zimridi, as he is called, was governor of Lachish in the reign of Khu-n-Atcn, and a letter from the king of Jerusalem to the Egyptian Pha raoh informs us that he was murdered at Lachish by servants of the Egyptian king. One of the dis patches discovered at Tell-Amarna was sent by him to Egypt and runs thus : 'To the King, my Lord, my God, my Sun-god„the Sun-god who is from heaven, thus .(writes) Zimridi, the governor of the city of Lachish, thy servant, the dust of thy feet, at the feet of the King, my Lord, the Sun god from heaven, bows himself seven times seven.
I have very diligently listened to the words of the messenger of the King, my Lord has sent to me and now I have dispatched (a mission) according to his message.'" Thus the tablet found at Lachish may be part of a correspondence pertaining to similar subjects as that found at Tell-Amarna, or it may be a local letter sent from one Syrian city to another. The discovery of other portions of this Correspond ence, which we now have a right to expect, would be simply invaluable.
Below this level, in City II. Mr. Bliss made an other important discovery which he calls " a sam ple blast furnace." If his theories concerning it are correct it proves that during the period rang ing about 1400 B. C. the hot air blast was used instead of cold air. The hot air blast furnace
has been considered a modern improvement in iron manufactures which was due to Neilson and was patented in 1828.
The lowest city in the mound, and the one above it, contained only one class of pottery which Pro fessor Petrie calls "Amorite," and which is plainly disting-uishable from the well-known types of Phcenician pottery which begin to appear in City II and continue through both III and IV. "Amorite pottery" is a term which covers the strongly marked types of pre-Israelitish ware, the earliest use of which has not as yet been deter mined, but which went "out of fashion " as the prevailing type as early as the sixteenth century B. C., although specimens of it are found much later.
Although the remains of a great tower are found in the primitive city we have no direct his torical account of the fortification of Lachish un til it was done by Rehoboam, king of Judah, in whose list of "fenced cities" it occurs. (See REMOBOAM.) After the Rehoboam period, there was a thin wall built on the front edge of his fortification to heighten and strengthen it. Hence the older wall must by this time have been de cayed down to a height of only about six feet, and this fact suggests the passage of considerable thne. If the wall had been destroyed hy Shishak (2 Chron. xi:9; xii :2) in his subsequent invasion (see S1MSHAK) it would have been almost, if not quite, overthrown. This refortification may have been made under Jehoshaphat. who having subdued the Philistines and Arabians (2 Chron. xvii:t t, 12) needed a fortress here. And we read that he g-arrisoned "all the fenced cities" (ver. 2). Amaziah fled to Lachish about 8to B. C. and was killed there (t Kings xiv :19). When Uzziah attacked the Philistines (2 Chron. xxvi: it) lie doubtless needed a fort at Lachish and prob ably the fragment left inside the wall of Jehosha phat may have been his work, for it is said that he built much (ver. to) and that he raised many cattle in Shephelah ; therefore a safe watering place at Lachish would be invaluable.
After this the walls were razed probably by Rezin and Pekah when they beleaguered Jerusa lem about 735 B. C. (2 Kings xvi :5).
But another wall was evidently built upon the ruin of the other, and this may have been done by Ahaz, whose passion for building is recorded in Kings (2 Kings xvi:17). Behind the wall of Ahaz and on the north side of the town is the foundation of a thicker wall which had evidently been ruined soon after it was built. On the south side there is a long; fortification which is some thirty feet in breadth formed of blocks of stone bedded in the earth and faced with white plaster. These and other details correspond with what we might expect at the time of the siege by Sennacherib. (See LACHISH, SIEGE OF, also SEN NACHERIB.) chish, by W. M. Flinders Petrie. Also i6/ Mound of Many Citics, by F. J. Bliss, etc.)