Francesca Stavrakopoulou, «Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship», Vol. 87 (2006) 1-21
The Garden of Uzza (2 Kgs 21,18.26) is commonly regarded as a pleasure garden
in or near Jerusalem which came to be used as a royal burial ground once the tombs
in the City of David had become full. However, in this article it is argued that the
religious and cultic significance of royal garden burials has been widely
overlooked. In drawing upon comparative evidence from the ancient Near East, it
is proposed that mortuary gardens played an ideological role within perceptions of
Judahite kingship. Biblical texts such as Isa 65,3-4; 66,17 and perhaps 1,29-30 refer
not to goddess worship, but to practices and sacred sites devoted to the royal dead.
Exploring the Garden of Uzza:
Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship
In an article published in a recent volume of this journal, Nadav
Na’aman argues that the burial place of the kings of Judah was
relocated in the eighth century BCE from the Jerusalem palace to an
alternative site, the Garden of Uzza (1). His argument is founded upon
a change in the formulaic burial notices given for the kings of Judah in
the books of Kings. As is well known, almost every Judahite monarch
up to and including Ahaz is said to have been buried “with his
ancestors in the City of David†(2), whilst the burial notices for Ahaz’s
successors are either inconsistent or non-existent: Manasseh is buried
“in the garden of his house in the Garden of Uzza†(2 Kgs 21,18);
Amon’s body is interred “in his tomb in the Garden of Uzza†(21,26);
Josiah is buried “in his tomb†(23,30); the resting places of Hezekiah
and Jehoiakim go unmentioned though their deaths are acknowledged
(20,21; 24,6); Jehoahaz is said to die whilst in Egyptian captivity
(23,34); and neither the deaths nor the burials of Jehoiachin and
Zedekiah are noted. Given the important theological and narrative
functions of the death and burial notices in emphasizing the continuity
of the Davidic dynasty (3), these variations have proved problematic
for many commentators.
In seeking to account for the variations among the burial notices
of the later kings of Judah, Na’aman proposes that Hezekiah
established a new royal burial ground away from the traditional site in
the palace. This relocation, he argues, occurred in response to priestly
concerns that the palace tombs defiled the adjacent temple, such as
may be reflected in Ezek 43,7-9 (4), in which YHWH demands that the
(1) “Death Formulae and the Burial Place of the Kings of the House of
Davidâ€, Bib 85 (2004) 245-254.
(2) The subclause “(buried) with his ancestors†is not included in the burial
notices for David (1 Kgs 2,10), Solomon (11,43), or Abijam (15,8).
(3) B.O. LONG, 1 Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOTL
9; Grand Rapids, MI 1984) 22-28; see also K.-J. ILLMAN, Old Testament
Formulas about Death (Ã…bo 1979) 37-48.
(4) So R. WEILL, La cité de David. Compte rendu des fouilles exécutées Ã
Jérusalem, sur le site de la ville primitive: Campagne de 1913-1914 (Paris 1920)
35-40. N. Na’aman correlates Hezekiah’s decommissioning of the palace tombs
FOLLOW US