Mount Ebal Structure (el-Burnat) and the Folded Lead Object

Overview

Adam Zertal of the University of Haifa found a stone installation on the second step of Mount Ebal in 1980 during his Manasseh Hill Country Survey and excavated it from 1982 to 1989. His preliminary report appeared in Tel Aviv 13-14 (1986-87), with a separate faunal report by L. K. Horwitz and a glyptic report by B. Brandl in the same issue. Zertal identified the large rectangular structure, with a ramp on its west side, as an altar, and the smaller round structure under its centre as an earlier altar; he connected the site with the altar Joshua built on Mount Ebal (Josh 8:30-35).

The bone assemblage, as summarised by Stripling et al. (2023), is 65% caprine, 21% bovine, 10% fallow deer and 4% other (snake, tortoise, etc.); they describe 96% as kosher. Ralph K. Hawkins's 2007 Andrews University dissertation (book 2012) tested Zertal's interpretation against domestic, military and cultic parallels and concluded the site 'appears to fit the criteria for a cultic site.'

In December 2019 Stripling's team wet-sifted about 30% of Zertal's discarded spoil. From the east dump, which held altar-area (Area A) material, Frankie Snyder recovered a folded lead object about 2 x 2 cm. It was announced at a press event in March 2022 and published in Heritage Science on 12 May 2023 by Stripling, Galil and a Czech X-ray tomography team, who read 48 proto-alphabetic letters inside it as a curse naming 'yhw'. Published responses from late 2023 and 2024 (Mazar; Maeir and Rollston; Yahalom-Mack; Haughwout) argue that the letters are not present and that the object may be a net sinker or other lead item.

What the text says (summary)

Cursed you [are] by the god YHW, cursed. / You will die, cursed; cursed, die, [you will] d[ie]. / [C]ursed you [are] by YHW, [c]ursed.Literal translation (this encyclopedia) of the transliteration published by Stripling et al., Heritage Science 11 (2023) 105, p. 7 ('th 'rwr l'l yhw 'rwr / tmt 'rwr 'rwr mt t[mt] / ['] rwr 'th lyhw [']rwr). Whether these letters exist at all is disputed (see questions).

What the evidence shows

• Rectangular Stratum I structure 8.75-9.00 x 7.00 m with a ramp on the west side, over a 2 m round Stratum II structure at its centre (Stripling et al. 2023 p. 3, summarising Zertal).
• Structures sit inside a 3.8-dunam foot-shaped enclosure (110 m long, c. 35 m wide) within a larger 14-dunam enclosure (same source).
• Pottery: 97% Iron IA, 3% Late Bronze IIB (Zertal, per Stripling et al.); the 2019 sifting gave 268 diagnostic sherds: 95% Iron I, 4.75% Late Bronze, 0.25% Early Roman.
• Bones: 65% caprine, 21% bovine, 10% fallow deer, 4% other including snake and tortoise (Stripling et al. 2023, citing the faunal study).
• No radiocarbon dates: Zertal's organic samples are reported lost (Stripling et al. 2023 p. 3).
• Two scarabs and a seal; Brandl (1986) assigned Scarab 1 to Ramesses II, Ben-Tor and van der Veen to Thutmose III or soon after.
• Lead object found in December 2019 in a spoil heap, not in a stratified layer; 0.25% of the sifted sherds were Early Roman, so the dump held some post-Iron Age material.
• Lead isotope analysis by N. Yahalom-Mack points to Lavrion (Greece) ore (Stripling et al. 2023 p. 3).
• The object has not been unfolded; every claimed letter comes from X-ray tomography reconstructions made at the Czech Academy of Sciences, Telc.

Open questions

• Altar or not? Zertal (Tel Aviv 1986-87; BAR 11/1, 1985) read the rectangular structure with its ramp, the bone assemblage and the enclosure as a cultic altar. Hawkins (dissertation 2007; book 2012) compared it with Iron I domestic and military buildings and religious structures and concluded it fits a cultic site better.
• Are there letters inside the lead object? Stripling, Galil et al. (Heritage Science 2023) read 48 letters in three formulaic lines from the tomography slices, with the divine name YHW twice and 'rwr ('cursed') six times. Maeir and Rollston (IEJ 73/2, 2023, per Windle's summary) state that 'the putative 48 letters are simply not present' and that the images show striations, scratches, pitting and indentations in soft lead. Haughwout (Heritage Science 12:70, 2024) reached the same conclusion: there is 'insufficient epigraphic evidence to conclude that writing exists' on the object.
• What is the object? A. Mazar (IEJ 73/2, 2023, per Windle; also cited by Haughwout as forthcoming in IEJ) identifies it as a Type L2.3b fishing-net sinker of an Aegean type. Windle (ABR/Bible Archaeology Report, Dec 2023) answers that the Ebal piece is cruder, thicker and heavier than such sinkers and has no rope grooves. Haughwout also lists a clasp on a string (Cargill, Barnea) or a Roman lead tag as possibilities.
• Date of the object: Stripling et al. assign it to the Stratum II round altar because the east dump held only Area A material. Haughwout (2024) replies that a spoil heap cannot date an object, since topsoil and later material were also removed; the 0.25% Early Roman pottery in the sifted spoil shows later material was present. Yahalom-Mack's Lavrion lead isotopes fit several periods of mining and so do not decide the date either.
• The excavators' replies. Stripling and van der Veen (response to Haughwout, 2 March 2024): 'We never stated ... that the lead source proved the date'; van der Veen confines the secure reading to 'El', 'yhw' and 'curse' and rejects Galil's fuller 48-letter text. Stripling (7 June 2024): 'on the outside of the tablet there are clearly carved oxheads' (the letter aleph); the object is folded flat and lacks the rope groove present on the 333 known fishing weights from Israel's coast (Windle adds that only 2 of the 333 are of Mazar's type L2.3b); Mount Ebal is about 30 km from any navigable water; Hittite inscribed lead strips of the 14th-13th centuries show lead carried writing early. The critics' case rests on the scans and the object type; the excavators' case rests on the exterior marks and the object's shape and findspot. Neither side has published a second tomography study.

Since 2024

• 2024-02Haughwout's refutation published in Heritage Science 12:70. It finds no demonstrable writing and says a spoil-heap object cannot be dated by association. [5]
• 2024-03Shiff (J. Field Archaeology 49/3) treats the Tel Burnat backdirt case as a study in archaeological procedure. [8]
• 2024-06Rouse (JBL 143/2) argues on textual grounds that the MT placement of the Ebal altar episode (Josh 8:30-35) is the earliest. [9]
• 2024-2026No new excavation season, no promised second article on the object's 'exterior writing' (announced in Stripling et al. 2023 p. 3), and no museum registration were found in Crossref/OpenAlex searches through Sept 2026. Absence of evidence only; web search budget was exhausted, so press coverage may be missed.
• 2024-03Stripling and van der Veen post a reply to Haughwout: the lead source was never offered as proof of date; the secure reading is limited to 'El', 'yhw', 'curse'. [12]
• 2024-06Stripling's public response (Part 1): oxheads visible on the exterior; no fishing-weight groove; site far from water. [11]

Sources

1. A. Zertal, 'An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mount Ebal: Excavation Seasons 1982-1987. Preliminary Report,' Tel Aviv 13-14 (1986-87) 105-165, DOI 10.1179/tav.1986.1986.2.105 link excavation report
2. L. K. Horwitz, 'Faunal Remains from the Early Iron Age Site on Mount Ebal,' Tel Aviv 13-14 (1986-87) 173-189, DOI 10.1179/tav.1986.1986.2.173 link excavation report
3. R. K. Hawkins, The Iron Age I Structure on Mount Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2007); published as The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns / Penn State UP, 2012), DOI 10.1515/9781575066745 link study
4. S. Stripling, G. Galil, I. Kumpova, J. Valach, P. G. van der Veen, D. Vavrik, '"You are Cursed by the God YHW:" an early Hebrew inscription from Mt. Ebal,' Heritage Science 11 (2023) 105, DOI 10.1186/s40494-023-00920-9 link editio princeps
5. M. S. Haughwout, 'Mt. Ebal curse tablet? A refutation of the claims regarding the so called Mt. Ebal curse tablet,' Heritage Science 12 (2024) 70, DOI 10.1186/s40494-023-01130-z link study
6. A. Mazar, 'The Lead Object from Mount Ebal as a Fishing-Net Sinker'; A. M. Maeir and C. Rollston, 'The So-Called Mount Ebal Curse Tablet: A Critical Response'; N. Yahalom-Mack, 'The Source of the Lead of the Mount Ebal "Tablet",' all Israel Exploration Journal 73/2 (2023) link study
7. Associates for Biblical Research, 'The Mount Ebal Curse Tablet - Press Release' (12 May 2023) link study
8. C. Shiff, 'Backdirt as a Means of Deconstruction of Archaeological Procedure: The Case Study of Tel Burnat,' Journal of Field Archaeology 49/3 (2024) 164-175, DOI 10.1080/00934690.2024.2318536 link study
9. K. A. Rouse, 'Conquests Need Monuments and Monuments Need Inscriptions: The Textual Location of the Mount Ebal Altar Episode in Joshua,' JBL 143/2 (2024) 229-244, DOI 10.15699/jbl.1432.2024.3 link study
10. A. Zertal, 'Has Joshua's Altar Been Found on Mt. Ebal?' Biblical Archaeology Review 11/1 (Jan/Feb 1985) link study
11. Patterns of Evidence, 7 June 2024, 'Scott Stripling Responds to Curse Tablet Criticism' (Part 1) link response (excavator)
12. Armstrong Institute, 'Latest Round in Mount Ebal Saga: Curse Tablet Hit by One-Two-Three Punch' (early 2024) link summary of IEJ 73/2 and the replies

Checked against new publications through 2026-09.