Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class And the Other in Antiquity; Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers (ASOR Annual)

THE

ARCHAEOLOGY GENDER, THE STUDIES

OF

ETHNICITY, "OTHER"

DIFFERENCE CLASS

AND

IN ANTIQUITY

IN HONOR OF ERIC M. MEYERS

EDITED BY DOUGLAS R. EDWARDS AND C. THOMASMCCOLLOUGH

Volume 60161

THE ARCHAEOLOGY

OF DIFFERENCE

THE ANNUAL OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH Volume 60/61 Series Editor Nancy Serwint

THE

ARCHAEOLOGY

GENDER, AND

ETHNICITY,

THE OTHER" STUDIES

OF

DIFFERENCE CLASS

IN ANTIQUITY IN HONOR

OF

ERIC M. MEYERS

edited byDouglas R. Edwards and C. ThomasMcCollough

AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH ?BOSTON, MA

ANNUAL OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH VOLUME 60/61

?

2

7

American Schools ofOriental Research ISBN-10: ISBN-13:

0-89757-070-7 978-0-89757-070-1

The archaeology of difference :gender, ethnicity, class and the "other" in antiquity : studies in honor of Eric M. Meyers / edited by Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCollough. -schools of oriental research (The annual of the American p. cm. references and index. Includes bibliographical

;v. 60/61)

ISBN 978-0-89757-070-1 (alk. paper) East. 3. Ethnic I. Social archaeology?Middle East. 2. Ethnoarchaeology?Middle Social classes?Mid Sex role?Middle 5. 4. East?History. ity?Middle East?History. Eric M. I. 6. Middle East--Antiquities. dle East?History. 7. Meyers, Meyers, Eric M. R. III. McCollough,

II. Edwards, Douglas CC72.4.A7347

C. Thomas.

2007

9394?dC22

2

Printed

in the United

7 3842 States of America

on acid-free

paper

CONTENTS

List ofFiguresix List ofTables

xiii

SETTING THE STAGE Chapter

The Archaeology ofDifference:SettingtheStage

C. Thomas McCollough Chapter

2

Jewish and Muslim

and Douglas

Heritage

R. Edwards

in Europe:

The Role ofArchaeology inDefendingCultural Diversity 13 Neil Silberman ? SECTION I NEOLITHIC Chapter 3

THROUGH PERSIAN PERIODS

The Emergenceof Social Complexity in theNeolithic of theNear East 19

Of er Bar-Yosef

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Gender and SocialHierarchy in theChalcolithicPeriod in theLightof thePeqfin Cave, Israel 41 Zvi Gal Howard SmithlineandDina Shalem Ethnicityand theArchaeologicalRecord: The Case ofEarly Israel 49

William Chapter

6

G. Dever

From Field Crops to Food: Attributing Gender and Meaning

to Bread Production

Carol Meyers

Chapter 7

in Iron Age

Israel

67

Queen orCrone? GenderedArchaeology inan LB Tomb atGezer 85 JoeD. Seger

Chapter

8

Chapter 9

No Stelae, No Queens: Gary A. Rendsburg

Two

Issues Concerning

the Kings of Israel and Judah

The Problemof theOther(ed)Woman inNahum 109 JuliaM. O'Brien

Chapter

10

Linguistic Variation Emphasized, Raymond E Person, Jr.

Chapter

11

Representing the Cushite Other: The Use of Cushite Ph?notypes inNumbers Rodney S. Sadler, Jr.

Linguistic Variation

V

Denied

119

12 and Jeremiah 13:23

127

95

SECTION II ?HELLENISTIC Chapter

12

What

THROUGH BYZANTINE PERIODS

Sort of JewsWere

the Tobiads?

141

Adam Porter Chapter

13

Chapter

14

The Relationship Between Galilean Historical Jesus Research 151 JohnDominic Crossan Zum

Standort des Tempels

Archaeology

and

163

Volkmar Fritz Chapter

15

"When

Went

to Rome..

The Jerusalem Temple Steven Fine Chapter

16

Miqwa?t

.There I Saw theMenorah..

Implements Duriug

and Second Temple

Sectarianism

the Second Century c.e.

169

181

Carol SelkinWise

Chapter

17

The Stepped Water Katharina Galor

Chapter

18

Stepped Pools and theNon-Existent Stuart S.Miller

Chapter

19

Jewish Ossuaries of the Early Roman Period: 235 Continuity and Change inDeath Ritual R. McCane Byron

Chapter

20

Attitudes Toward Against

Installations of the Sepphoris Acropolis Monolithic

Protective Measures Employed of Tombs, Coffins, and Ossuaries

215

the Dead:

the Desecration

RachelHachlili

Chapter

21

Khirbet Qanas Necropolis Peter Richardson

Chapter

22

Monumental

Chapter

23

The Butchers of Sepphoris: Archaeological Bill Grantham

Chapter 24

"Miqveh"

201

and Ethnic Questions

243

257

Changes: Architecture and Culture in Late Roman and Early Byzantine Sepphoris 267 C. Thomas McCollough Evidence

of Ethnic Variability

Sepphorisand theEarliestChristianCongregations 291

James F Strange Chapter

25

The Lives of Glass-Workers Alysia Fischer

Chapter

26

Two Terracotta Melissa

Aubin

at Sepphoris

Figurine Fragments

301

from the Sepphoris Acropolis

311

279

Chapter

27

The Archaeology Rami Arav

Chapter

28

Caesarea

Chapter

29

of Bethsaida

(Paneas)

Philippi Vassilios Tzaferis Rabbis, Romans,

A Case Study Barbara

and the Historical

in the Roman

JesusQuest

and Byzantine

and Rabies: Religion, Disease,

Periods

and the "Other"

Geller

of Pergamum: Stephen Goranson

a Critic of Early Christianity

Chapter

30

Celsus

Chapter

31

Marketing Religious Difference in Late Antique as Clientele Indicators Clay Oil Lamps

Locating

Syria-Palestine:

EricG Lapp

Chapter

32

"Set the Showbread

on the Table Before Me Always" (Exodus 25:30) of the Showbread Table in Early Jewish

Artistic Representations and Christian Art Zeev Weiss Chapter

33

Christians Among de Vincenz

Jews in En-Gedi

Anna Chapter

34

Nomad

Settlement

Early Moslem

in Palestine During

Period

Zeev Safraiand OferSion Index

vii

the Late Byzantine

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 3 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

Chronological chart based on calibrated and uncalibrated radiocarbon dates with the 21 periodic subdivision of theNeolithic sequence and a few of the cultural entities. in text Levant PPNA sites of the with mentioned the (aceramic Neolithic) Map indicating the geographic position of the Levantine Corridor. Map of Levantine, Upper Mesopotamian, and Eastern Anatolian PPNB sites indicating the interaction

Fig. 4

zones

between

mobile

foragers

and

farming

communities.

23 27

indicating the geographic spread of PPNB entities, "tribes,"with themain material

Map culture

characteristics

of each

28

territory.

CHAPTER 4 Fig. 1

showing the location of Peqi'in and other sitesmentioned.

Map

2

An

ossuary

with

Fig.

3

An

ossuary

with

Fig.

4

An

ossuary

made

Fig.

5

A

Fig.

Fig.

human

42

features.

43

applied a lid, six and symbolic face. legs, box with painted face. of a closed female

applied

43 43

breasts.

44

An ossuarymade of a closed box with six legs and applied human features.

44

7

A

45

8

A burial

Fig. 6 Fig.

lid with

a lid and

three-dimensional, jar with

human

sculpted female

head.

breasts.

45

CHAPTER 7 Fig. Fig.

1

Cave

2

Plan

Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 CHAPTER Fig. 1 Fig. 2 CHAPTER Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

I.ioA

east-west

of upper-phase

86

profile. burials

in tomb

I.loA.

87

Individual #i, "Sarah," the last person buried inTomb I.1OA in situ upper-phase deposits. Burial objects associated with Individual #1, "Sarah." All objects stem from Locus 10079.P. Egyptian sand-core molded glass vase (DD9).

89 90

14 Der Tempelplatz von S6idostenmit den Resten der monumentalen Treppe (Photo von C. F.Tyrwhitt-Drake um 1870). Der s6idliche Bereich des Tempelplatzes mit den Resten dermonumentalen

166 Treppe (1).

167

17 Plan of theWestern Acropolis at Sepphoris. Sepphoris stepped pool 1. Sepphoris stepped pool 2.

205 206 206 1X

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

4 5 6 7

Chapter Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Sepphoris stepped pool Sepphoris stepped pool Sepphoris stepped pool Sepphoris stepped pool

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

Wooden

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

9 10 11 12

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

14 15 16

13

17 Fig. 18 Fig. 19 Fig. 20 Fig. 21 Fig. 22

Chapter Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Chapter Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Chapter Fig. 1 Fig. 2

8.

208

Stepped pool installation (SP17) fromArea 84.2. 219 Early Roman period stepped pool (SP 4) and cistern complex fromArea 85.1. 20

Fig. 7 Fig. 8

207 207 208

18

Chapter

Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6

3. 4. 10.

221

coffinfromEn Gedi, wound around with rope. 244 and with Killebrew 1999: holes, Jericho (Hachlili .45). 244 Ossuary and with Killebrew 1999: IH-49). 244 holes, Jericho (Hachlili Ossuary .51). 245 Ossuary with holes, Jericho (Hachlili and Killebrew 1999* .47). 245 Ossuary with two lids, Jericho (Hachlili and Killebrew 1999: .8); a) An iron lock plate of a wooden coffin,Jericho (Hachlili and Killebrew 1999? b) Iron lock graffitoon ossuary, Jerusalem (Rahmani and Sussman 1994: no. 403)? 246 Lid of lead coffinwith rope design (afterRahmani 1999: pi- 38:77)? 246 248 Inscription 1 (afterAvigad 1953: pi. 9b). Inscription 2 (afterSukenik 1931: pi. 11,2). 248 Inscription 5 (afterRahmani and Sussman 1994? no. 70). 249 249 Inscription 6 (afterMilik 1956-57: figs. 2-3, Inscription Ai). 249 Inscription 7 (afterBilig 2000: fig. 3). 249 Inscription 8 (afterPuech 1989: fig. III.i). Inscription 9 (afterRahmani and Sussman 1994: no. 455). 249 Inscription 10 (afterRahmani and Sussman 1994: no. 610). 250 250 Inscription 11 (afterAvigad 1961: fig. 1). Inscription 12 (afterRahmani and Sussman 1994: no. 259). 250 Inscription 13 (afterRahmani and Sussman 1994? no. 142). 250 Inscription 14 (afterRahmani and Sussman 1994: no. 559). 250 Inscription 15 (afterAvigad 1976: fig. 104). Inscription 16 (afterAvigad 1976: fig. 105). Inscription 17 (afterAvigad 1976: fig. 106).

251

251 251

23 Distribution of saw cuts. 285 Proportion of sawn bone by period.

286 Distribution of sawn bones by archaeological period.

286

25 Glass-blower with protective padding inCairo. 305 Glass-blower with brick heat-shield inNaur, Jordan. 306 Glass-blowers using furnace to heat water kettle inGorece, Turkey. 307 26 Sepphoris terracotta fragment 85.3031.3X. Sepphoris terracotta fragment 85.3100.ix.

312 3!3

Chapter Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6

Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11

Fig. 12 Fig. 13

Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Chapter Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Chapter Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4

Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8

27 318 Map of Bethsaida. - the "Fisherman's House." Reconstruction of a house inArea 320 An iron fish hook. 320 A room in the "Roman House" inArea B. Note that there is no paving on the floor. A "Herodian" oil lamp from the "Roman House" inArea B. 321 Reconstruction of a house inArea C - the "Wine Makers House." 321

321

A wine cellar in the "Wine Makers House." 322 A Rhodian wine jar. 322 Bethsaida coin chart. 323 Aerial photograph ofArea A. Note the remains of the temple in the center of the picture. Frieze of floral scroll decoration fromArea A. 325

Frieze of floral scroll decoration fromChorazim. Note the similarity to theBethsaida frieze. The floor of the temple. 326 Incense shovel from the temple area. 326 A juglet from thefavissa of the temple. 3 26 A basalt votive anchor. 326 The pediment fromChorazim. Note thefloraldecoration similar to the frieze inBethsaida. 326 The top of theChorazim pediment. Note theRoman eagle. 327 28 General view of the archaeological site of Banias. The springs and the cave of Pan. 336 The western colonnade of the cardo. 337 Remains of the palace inArea D. 338

334

The palace ofAgrippa II. 338 One of the vaulted passages of the palace. 339 Bath installations (hypocausts) in one of the courts of the palace. Wall mosaics covering the arch of the basilica. 342 Area with the remains of theChristian basilica. 344

341

32 The Showbread Table on a coin ofMattathias Antigonus from the second half of the first century b:c.e. (afterMeshorer 2001:54). 382 Showbread Table incised on a plaster fragment from theHerodian period, found

ex situ in the JewishQuarter, Jerusalem (afterHabas 2003: 332, photo 12:4). Close-up of the Showbread Table depicted on theArch of Titus inRome

382

383 (afterPfanner 1983: plate 59:3). The Tabernacle, The Christian Topography of Constantine ofAntioch. Sinai, St. Catherines Monastery, MS 1186, 77V. The Showbread Table with the loaves of bread on the four corners is depicted on the upper right side of theminiature Weitzmann and Galavaris 1990:1, 56, pi. LXVI). 383 (after Dura Europos, Miraculous Well of Beer. The round Showbread Table stands in front of the tabernacle, at the foot of themenorah (afterKraeling 1956: pi. LIX). 384 Sepphoris: The Showbread Table (Sepphoris Expedition, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Photo by G. Laron). 384 El-Khirb?, detail of a panel from the Samaritan synagogue depicting theTabernacle and several of itsutensils (courtesy of Y. Magen). 385 Marginal Psalter ofMount Athos, Pantocrator 61, fol. 165r. The round Showbread Table is depicted

above

the curtained

(courtesy ofH. L. Kessler).

entrance,

between

385 xi

the menorah

and

the manna

vessel

324 325

Chapter Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11

33 Candlestick lamps from En-Gedi. 392 Crosses on Late Roman C platters fromEn-Gedi. 392 Lamp with crux gemmata fromEn-Gedi. 392 Lamp with edicule fromEn-Gedi. 392

393 Glass pilgrim flask (afterBarag 1970: 59,fig. 2C). Cross fromglass pilgrim flask (afterBarag 1970: 52,pl. IV,firstcross). 393 Cross fromglass pilgrim flask (afterBarag 1970: 52, pl. V, second cross). 393 Monza flaskwith Golgotha (afterGrabar 1958: pl. 10, ampoule 4 re.). 393 Monza Flask with Golgotha (afterGrabar 1958: pl. 32, ampoule 1). 393 Marble panel fromTabgha (afterBagatti and Testa 1978: 50, fig. 3). 393 Lead weight with Golgotha (afterBagatti and Testa 1978: 54, fig. 7). 393 cross on LRC vessel 393 1972: 79:76 366, ). (after Hayes fig. Stamped Monza flaskwith edicule (afterBiddle 1999: 23, fig. 18). 394

Fig. 12 Fig. 13 394 Fig. 14 Monza flaskwith edicule (afterGrabar 1958: pl. 11, ampoule 5, re.). Biddle Pewter medallion 394 1999: 23, 15 19). (after fig. Fig. 394 Fig. 16 Ceramic ampulla (afterBiddle 1999: 23, fig. 20). Edicule flask from 52, 1970: 17 (after Barag pl. VII, second cross). 394 Fig. glass pilgrim 18 flask Edicule from 1970: 52, (after pl. VII, firstcross). 394 Barag Fig. glass pilgrim Fig. 19 Mosaic

Chapter Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6

fromUmm al-Rasas (afterBiddle 1999: 24, fig. 22).

395

34 Urn Rihan (afterDar et al. 1986:10-11). 400 Khirbet Qerumit, an ordinary centralized village in the Judean plain 400 (afterSafrai 1993:13). Nomadic settlement in theMizpe Ramon area (afterHeiman 1991: 73). 401 Nomadic settlement in theMizpe Ramon area (afterArchaeological Survey of Israel, 401 Map ofMizpe Ramon Southwest (200) p. 62. The Sede Boker site, a hamlet in theNegev (afterCohen 1981: 68). 401

A scattered hamlet in the southern Negev (afterAvner 1998: 22). 401 on A hamlet the Hermon Hirschfeld 402 7 1997: 80). (after Fig. 402 Fig. 8 Magar Tbbaa, settlement plan (afterDar 1978:110). Dar Mazzrat settlement 9 Zabdin, 1978: 111). 402 plan (after Fig. 10 in Desert (afterShmueli 1970: 84). 403 of Taamra the The settlement of the tribe Judean Fig. 11 a in A of Bedouin settlement houses 403 (afterShmueli 1970: 91). group contemporary Fig. 12 a Note of in the blocs Umm al settlement northern Jimal, buildings Fig. Transjordan. military and the empty areas. This was a scattered settlement, the intermediate areas ofwhich were gradually built up (afterDe Vries 1981: 58-59). 404 a defined village center a area in Yatir The the settlement without settlements 13 region, Fig. 404 (afterHirschfeld 1997:102). no. at 166 Site Nahal settlement 404 14 So'a, plan (afterGuvrin, 1992:109). Fig. no. at Site Nahal settlement 405 Guvrin, 15 Anim, 158 1992:103). plan (after Fig. 16 Terrace lines and dams Safrai 405 1997: (after 23). Fig. agriculture Fig. 17 Khirbet Abu Suwwana, a small scatteredvillage in the JudeanDesert (afterSion 1997:184). 406 Fig. 18 Wadi el Baqquq, amonastery or small scattered village (afterPatrich 1994: site no. 85). Fence Sion around Misshore Addumim 406 19 1994: (after 223). Fig. 407 Fig. 20 Khirbet Handuma (afterSion 1997:150). 407 Fig. 21 Khirbet Sara (Sion, unpublished). 22 site Zertal 408 el-Hamra, 1996: fig. 356). Iraq plan (after Fig. site Khirbet Zertal Ghadbane, 408 23 1996: Fig. plan (after fig. 366).

406

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter Table 1

Table 2

5 Comparison of "cultural traits"exhibited in the Iron I archaeological record, by ethnic group; numbers refer to the list in the text. If these other Iron I groups in Palestine can be as they are in contemporary scholarship, so can our distinguished by an ethnic label, highland peoples. 54 Elements of continuity/discontinuity in cultural traits in the archaeological sequence from Iron I to Iron II. 59

Chapter

21

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

Khirbet Qana Necropolis. 259 Summary of Tombs 260 * Dimensions of shafts,chambers and loculi. indicates shafts exceeding the area of 6x6 cubits; t indicates chambers exceeding the area of 4 6 cubits. Only tombs 5 and 7 have dimensions exceeding theMishnahs courtyard and chamber size. 261

Chapter

23

Table 1

Distribution of sawn bones by area and chronology. 287

xiii

SETTING

THE

STAGE

1

Chapter The Archaeology Setting

of Difference: the Stage

byC. ThomasMcCollough and Douglas R. Edwards

Human artifacts and

call to develop more useful models to understand the role difference played in the ancient world as well as its on-going significance,

texts that connote

the clarion

difference have long intrigued interpret ers of the ancient world. Notably in the

even in areas not easily accessible to the modern interpreter.Many depict a marriage of processual

last century, efforts to elucidate religious, ethnic, social, and even gender boundaries have expanded

archaeology with careful consideration of theway artifacts (including texts) display ideas, symbols and elements of difference, a kind of cognitive

dramatically. Many attempts have had their staunch critics. Disinterest, even disaffection, grew in no from the sinister uses some ap small measure

processual archaeology (Renfrew and Bahn 2000: 491-96). The ongoing significance of such analysis

reconstructions proaches played in nationalistic to II. War the and after World Moreover, prior

isevidentinNeal Silbermansinsightful studyof the

rise of "New Archaeology," with its apparent rejec tion of4 empiricist culture-history" and increased

"archaeology of outsiders," where he demonstrates the importance of continuing tomonitor the sig

on "economic and subsistence strategies, emphasis or economic orga exchange networks and social

nization," made ethnicity, in particular, some an "outmoded and unfashionable

Indeed, (Renfrew and Bahn 2000). archaeology Eric Meyers and several contributors to this vol ume were early proponents of itsuse. As evidenced in this collection of essays, interpreters have not remained

Jews and Muslims, formation of complicated societies. Steven Fine examines how menorahs

archaeo

logical paradigm" (Jones 1997: 5). Near Eastern archaeology still retains its strong ties to "New Archaeology" or, better, processual

stuck in some processual mud. Many in to this volume have participated

contributors

ofminority groups, such as in Europe and their role in the

nificant contributions

seem for

fluenced

both ancient

have

in

and modern

sensibilities, the menorah taken notably, by the Romans after the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e. An entire mythology has

most

developed about its possible storage in a Vatican museum basement. Indeed, Fine observes that Jew ish pilgrims (primarily JewishAmericans) go to the a central Christian with the Vatican, pilgrim site, 1

C. THOMAS MCCOLLOUGH

Such "pilgrimages' hope of seeing the menorah. Fine argues in persuasive detail, reflect long-stand ing traditions that venerate themenorah.

a related front,Volkmar Fritz suggests that current research indicates that the location of the On

altar and the central shrines of the First and Second Jewish Temples were not located over the bedrock now associated with theDome of the Rock. Indeed, he argues, the tradition thatmarked the Dome as the location of the First Temple only developed during the Islamic period at the time of the build in order to lend the site greater ing of the Dome

prominence and venerability. The modern tions for this thesis should be evident.

implica

Sadler's nuanced Rodney study of Cushite text in the Biblical illustrates how im imagery

portant clear discussions of race in antiquity are to discerning the nature of difference in the past.

it leaves aside the negative overtones Moreover, of the "other' as so often happens today.William Dever in his essay is certainly correct that efforts to

discern ethnic identities in antiquity need not fall a priori into some post-modernist and relativist strait jacket and merit reasoned and careful discussion. The strength of the essays in this collection rests in the cumulative effort to use material culture and texts to address what persons and societies as social presumed about difference in areas such

mores, cultural expectations, or ethnic identities.

ARCHAEOLOGY

IN A NEW AGE

of difference." The critiques

ofNew Archaeologyhighlightedboth the limita

tions of its positivist epistemology and the many problems associated with developing an adequate "middle range theory:' Ian Hodder (1985) and a growing cadre of archaeologists concluded that cul tures could not be viewed as purely adaptive to an external environment. This new approach reiterat culture was "actively manipulated and thus expressive of social strategies, religious convictions, ethnicity, and gender. Mate rial culture, as well as texts, had embedded within

ed how material by people"

GLAS R. EDWARDS

them such social constructions.

This made

fertile

soil for a growing interest in engagement with the "archaeology of difference." As Foucault observed

in his classic work, The Archaeology ofKnowledge, perceived differences between groups often convey

such symbolic power thatwhole societies structure their laws, gender roles, ethnic identities, and views toward the "other" in light of these perceptions.

the expressions of and the forces Ascertaining in the ancient world is a difference governing to use the phrase as the conceptual guide "archaeology of difference" for this book was intended to facilitate discussions

demanding

task. The decision

that bear on core issues and questions regarding the ma interpretation of ancient texts and of the sparse terial remnants we have of ancient people and their

communities. Many of the issues that arise in the contributions are ones that Eric Meyers has long reflected upon, argued about, and even changed the direction of our thinking. In a career that has

spanned over three decades, his contributions to the fields of Judaic studies, Biblical studies, and ar chaeology have been substantive and multifarious.

The breadth and quality of the contributions to this work on the "archaeology of difference" reflect the as well as the challenges vibrancy of the approach, and opportunities for future work.

THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN TEXT AND ARTIFACT

gender definitions,

The growing dissatisfaction with aspects of the "New Archaeology" brought about a renewed inter est in the "archaeology

AND DOI

interpretive relation should exist between text and artifact?When gender, ethnicity, or race enter the conversation there seems a natural move

What

sur toward debate regarding method. Discourses in arise the issues that of reading identity rounding of texts have often shaped the understanding of the culture without themselves being subject to critical analysis. On the other hand, the profound

material

distrustof thesubjectivenatureof thetexthas led some to a mistaken sense of the "objective" nature record. As this collection of of the archaeological studies makes evident, the study of ethnicity, gen der, and cultural differentiation cannot go forward

without carefuland criticalengagementwith the historical sources as well as artifacts and the persis tence of dialogue between text and artifact.

The

Archaeology

of Difference:

Enriching the dialogue between text and artifact on critical depends not only analysis, but also relies on an infusion of new ways of conceptualization and practice entailed in the study of difference.

EricMeyers has long championed the dialogic

paradigm of text and artifact,most notably placing "Biblical archaeology" in conversation with related disciplines, such as anthropology and sociology. With Carol Meyers, he proposed a paradigm shift

thatwould result in Biblical archaeologybeing

into the emerging discipline of social world studies" (Meyers and Meyers 1989: 143). Such a shift has dramatically broadened the con "subsumed

since it involved "the integrative use of archaeology with all its ecological facets, of Bibli

versation,

cal materials,

and of comparative sociological and information and models" anthropological (Meyers

and Meyers

1989:143). A number of contributors

to this volume draw

explicitly on theoretical models, often using the insights of other disciplines. Ofer Bar-Yosef illus trates the character of Neolithic villages through an astute analysis of ethnographic parallels and close study of the archaeological record. Alysia

attempts a similar exercise in discerning glass makers in the Byzantine period, drawing on her study of traditional glass making techniques, Fischer

notably inmodern day Jordanand Egypt. John Crossan argues that the use of studies of ceramic manufacture in a variety of settings to nature clues the of social systems and provides

Dominic

exploitation during the time of the Galilean Jesus, while Carol Selkin Wise shows the value of ritual theory for unpacking the thorny issues surround ing the study of miqwaot.

To be sure, interdisciplinary approaches can be perilous. As Ofer Bar-Yosef remarks, "Searching the anthropological literature is like crossing a

stormy sea, and in ethnographic records one can always find the desired analogy." The articles in this

volume

demonstrate

the fruitfulness of such dis

ciplinary boundary crossings, with the caveat that the interpreter must demonstrate through careful, cautious, and critical analysis what is borrowed or used as analogous. John Crossan, Carol Meyers, William Dever, and Gary Rendsburg in their respective articles

Setting

the

Stage

3

call to archaeolo well Eric Meyers gists and textual scholars alike that one needs an "archaeological-literary approach for the study and

demonstrate

reconstruction

of ancient

culture"

(Meyers and From the side of the archaeolo

Meyers 1989:143). gist, the approach demands that the data be made available in a timely manner. It also means that itmust be accessible to the non-specialist and is open to and conversant with the range of forces that impact communities or individuals. Eric Mey ers own excavations of and publications on towns and synagogues in northern Galilee Excavation lectively as the Meiron

(known col Project) are

sterling examples of timeliness, accessibility, and a broadened approach archaeological (Meyers et al. 1981). The volume on the synagogue of Gush Halav (Volume 5 of theMeiron Excavation Project Reports), in particular, offers a paradigm of how close and technically astute analyses of loci and related data can lead towell-documented historical reconstructions

(Meyers et al. 1991). The text scholar, as Crossan notes, seeks insight from the archaeological record while noting its lim itations in offering a full portrait of narrative tradi tions that reflect particular periods. As Meyers has argued, however, the absence of a true interchange between text and artifact can lead to acrimonious debate of the sort that swirls around the historicity of Israelite beginnings. Here, "revisionists" are seen to be pitted against conservative "Biblical archae ologists" (Meyers 2000: 350; see also Dever and in this volume). Gary Rendsburg provides an instructive example of a text scholar following excavations closely the results of archaeological

Crossan

as a check on, or corrective

to, Biblical portraits ancient Israelite kings really avoid the practice of constructing stelae to display royal inscriptions? Were there no queens in ancient Israel, as the texts suggest? In each case, the search for counterevidence in the archaeological material this sort of serious proves fruitless. Nevertheless, of ancient Israel. Did

and careful effort at "interchange" results in a con clusion that cannot be readily dismissed. The

text and artifact has between dialogue richest and most productive in the field of ancient Near Eastern and Biblical studies. It has developed more slowly in the study of Judaism

been

4

C. Thomas

McCollough

and early Christianity. As Meyers has noted, "The archaeological discoveries of the past decades have

and

Douglas

R. Edwards

trate the character of gendered space in this period. In this volume, Barbara Geller draws on Mishnaic

on thedisciplinesof Jewish had littleeffect history

and Talmudic

scholarship" (Meyers 1988:71). Jewish scholarship had given "modest recog nition of the discipline of archaeology as it relates to

She notes thatmedicine

and New Testament

While

the period of theHebrew in archaeology

Bible," ithad little interest "as it relates to the beginning of the

era (which witnessed, in connection with the creation of theMishnah and Talmud, the de of rabbinic Judaism)" (Meyers 1988:72). velopment common

Likewise, "New Testament scholarship has been slow to take archaeology seriously..." (Meyers 1988: 72), something that has changed somewhat during the last decade, although with mixed results (e.g.,

Crossan

in this volume; Moreland 2002; Reed

2004; Horsley Stegemann and

2000; 1996; Chancey Stegemann 1999). All too often social and historical reconstructions become reduced to images drawn from texts and that critical period of Jewish-Chris tian interaction and interdependence is leftunre

covered. Only when texts are joined with artifacts can there be a "process of historical reconstruction" that produces "a reliable picture of these historic religions..." (Meyers 1988: 78). between text and artifact as a The dialogue

means

the base of analysis beyond ancient Israel is evident inMeyers work on early Judaism (orwhat, at one point, Meyers called "Tal mudic Judaism"). As he noted in a programmatic for broadening

article on the value rabbinic materials:

of archaeology

for studying

In light of the ever-increasing sophistication in archaeological fieldmethods, ceramic ty

pology, numismatic analysis, environmental it is quite possible that these studies...etc., mute stones might speak with a far greater clarity than many of the texts...Indeed, the Talmud is a document of everyday life. It can lend itself uniquely to clarification (Meyers through the use of archaeology... 1975: 34). Peskowitz (2004) and Miriam Cynthia Baker an ap of such the fruits have illustrated (2004) on Mishnaic as Talmudic and draw proach they

material

as well as

archaeological

remains to illus

as well as classical Greek and Roman

texts to illustrate the role rabies played within a theological framework conceived by the rabbis.

and magic interchange fre in the rabbis (and others) discerned ways quently nature the (and healing) of rabies, although the rabbis always addressed it through the lenses of the law. Stuart Miller

s utilization ofMishnah

and

in regard to the question of the use of the a "stepped pools" at Sepphoris offers fine example

Tosefta

of the ways inwhich these texts can at once shed on practice and at the same time inhibit light naive correlations between idea and artifact. The

ofwater and purity in the rabbinic to presume certainly makes it reasonable these pools were for ritual purity purposes. But, as Miller cautions, "...we should not believe for a rich discussion sources

thatwe know all of the possible uses of the stepped pools." The attempt to restrict these pools to either ritual or profane use ismade problematic,

moment

ifnot unwarranted. Within

the range ofmaterial

evidence that could

be investigated for such "clarification," Meyers has often focused his efforts on synagogues. This was, one

might

say, an obvious choice given Meyers' that "everywhere in the classical world

argument the main vehicle

for the transmission

of ancient

Judaism was the synagogue" (Meyers et al. 1972: 28). This conviction about the value of the syna gogue ledMeyers not only to excavate synagogues and villages of northern Galilee, but also to assess evidence for the entire range of archaeological

synagogues and its bearing upon the reconstruc tion of early Judaism. As one of the leading inter preters of ancient synagogues has noted, interest

synagogue has grown enormously in the last decades (Levine 2004: 70), and this is in no small measure owed to the formative work in the ancient

ofMeyers and his colleagues. The article by Ze'ev Weiss offers substantive evidence for how careful study of synagogues and the features associated with them provide a glimpse of the diverse world of Judaism.

The

Archaeology

of Difference:

ETHNIC MARKERS search for the material evidence of early not end with synagogue excavations. did Judaism His more recent work centered on the ancient city

Meyers

A

large urban site in lower Galilee, represents an important site to be put

of Sepphoris. Sepphoris

of the reports from northern Galilee. (initially in collabora Beginning in 1985,Meyers tion with Hebrew University ?until 1989 ?and alongside

later under

the rubric of the Sepphoris Regional a large portion of the acropolis

excavated

Project) of the ancient

a now well-known

city, exposing triclinium and itsbeautiful mosaic

floor. The exca

area also exposed numerous the interpretation of which raises stepped pools, one of themost critical and controversial aspects

vation of the domestic

of the "archaeology of difference:" the validity and ? ethnic interpretation of the material correlates ? of identity. markers Si?n Jones has been an influential critic of ar archaeology and historical mate in has the identified particular chaeology in the rial manifestations of ethnicity. Distortions the way

in which

interpretation argues, when

of the material

culture arise, she

attempts to seek out the archaeological known ethnic correlates of historically

ignore the situated and groups...often nature of the historical sources, subjective and also...disregard qualitative differences in themanifestation of ethnicity inwritten sources and material

culture..

.the descrip

tion and interpretation ofmaterial remains is positively within historical archaeology of identity derived (Jones 1999: 220-21).

saturated with discourses

from written sources

regards the archaeology of ancient Israel and Roman Palestine, she quotes Tessa Rajaks remarks on studies of Jewish sites in ancient Palestine:

As

in advance what is Jewish is not (or even "probably" not) is to operate with a pre-conception of Jewish our task is, precisely, to seek identity when

To determine and what

to define that identity (Rajak 1994: 239).

Setting

the

Stage

5

Jones critique points the search for ethnicity away on preconceived from a dependence categories of difference and argues instead for a recovery of "the praxis of ethnicity."Working from Pierre Bourdieus notion of habitus, ethnic difference objectified in particular contexts, espe contexts in of contestation or opposition. A cially striking example of transient and confrontational

becomes

expressions of ethnicity is to be found in Sepphoris. As James Stranges study of Sepphoris in the early s article Roman period and Thomas McColloughs on the city in the Byzantine period make evident, context may very well be the determinate of eth

nic or cultural expression. As Strange notes, this was "nestled between non-Jewish territories," city which meant that "the citizens of Sepphoris and all faced daily the problem ofmaintaining Jew ish identity...the Galileans used certain elements

Galilee

of the material

culture tomaintain

their identity,

stone vessels and ritual baths."

namely Zeev Safrai and Ofer Sion provide another case the modality of expres of context conditioning sion of identity. The value of a typology of settle

ment patterns is tested against the archaeological evidence of nomad settlement in the Late Byzan

tine-Early Moslem period in Palestine. What they settlement found was that the "typical" nomadic

was not followed consistently and thus could not incursions. be effectively used to locate nomadic

At particular times and in certain locales this type appears, while at other points it is evident that a centralized type of settlement pattern was adopted.

Jones evocation of the notion of the praxis of ethnicity is relevant and, in fact, of fers a challenge to the "seemingly coherent ethnic In these cases,

are produced at a discursive level" categories which (Jones 1999: 229). But this challenge is not new. Eric Meyers has

long urged caution in assigning ethnic identity based on ceramic, structural, or even faunal re mains. What often appeared to be easy markers of wares as one point (e.g., glazed ceramic identity at can evidence of the onset of Islamic occupation) turn out to be less helpful, as further excavations reveal the errors of clear delineation of identity ac

cording to a particular artifact or structure. Indeed, for theGraeco-Roman period the challenge is, as he

6

C. Thomas

McCollough

notes, "particularly great" (Meyers 1993: 743). The Greek and later Roman domination of Palestine produced a cultural complexity that often defies clear linkages between artifact or structure and

and

Doi

glas

R. Edwards

the Byzantine period, coinciding with a decrease in standardized butchery practices, which Grantham suggests denotes a change in culture, probably as the result of an increase in Christian population. such as themenorah, can as Eric Lapp demonstrates

s ethnicity or gender. As Adam Porter analysis of texts relating to the identification of the Tobiads in

have multiple meanings,

ancient texts.

concerns may govern religious symbols. Economic themakers and distributors of oil lamps that have a menorah as a design. Indeed, he argues, themaker

dicates, this is a cautionary tale thatmust be taken seriously not only by those who study artifacts but also by those whose scholarly world is defined by William

Dever

finds elements of Jones agenda troubling. Notably, he argues that ethnicity isbased on careful attention to re assemblages ofmaterial mains. Contrary to revisionist approaches, Dever

are not simply social constructions driven by current nationalistic or scholarly agendas, although he recognizes that contends

that ethnic

constructs

can occur. Rather, ethnic through recognition of patterns

such misconstructions

Even clearer markers,

inhis studyof themarketingof clayoil lampswith

and distributor may not be Jewish at all. Promoters of their ceramic ware seek to attract religious audi ences with admonitions

to purchase their products to the gods. Lapp argues that products found in shops indicate the sellers marketed their to dedicate

products to a religiously diverse audience. But lamp makers also apparently targeted particular groups, as indicated by crosses on some lamps

on others. Complications occur and menorahs identity evolves that appear in assemblages. He proposes an im in determining how the symbols were viewed by portant set of criteria, an "archaeological trait-list," those who bought them, since some lamps with for determining ethnic differences, especially in menorahs were found in Christian burials.

roughly contiguous and contemporary societies. For later periods, the articles by Carol Selkin Wise, Katharina Galor, and Stuart Miller offer detailed

and persuasive discussions that draw on textual and material remains at Sepphoris to discern the or "stepped pools," themore neutral term Galor prefers. She analyzes

nature and function ofmiqwa?t

the context of the stepped pools, often of varying sizes and construction, to determine if they had a ritual character. She concludes that many did,

although theywere not always used for ritual pur posesi Here one finds a sophistication of analysis that achieves a dynamic relationship between text, artifact, and identity. Likewise, in Bill Granthams study of the faunal remains at Sepphoris, one finds convincing evidence based on literary, epigraphic, and archaeological grounds that butchers at Sep

phoris during the Roman period followed ritual in cutting theirmeat, indicating itwas observance intended for Jewish consumption. Standardized an active

commercial

cutting patterns suggest enterprise and offer important clues to particular there is a remarkable ethnic practices. Moreover, absence of pig bones in the Roman period. This contrasts with increased amounts of pig bones in

But significant inferences regarding such sym bols can often be drawn. In her article, Anna de Vincenz uses ceramic evidence, including lamps,

inscriptions, and other material remains to argue that Jews and Christians coexisted at En-Gedi. Notably, two lamps had clear Christian symbols: one a

cross and the other an aedicule, in bejeweled Christian presence inwhat literary sources dicating and material remains suggest was largely a Jewish village in the fifth and sixth centuries c.e.

GENDER AND THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF DIFFERENCE Feminist

readings of the Bible and feminist cri tiques of Biblical scholarship have made us aware of how both ancient texts and the studies of those same texts are replete with complex and sometimes troubling issues relating to women and women's

roles in the ancient world. One and address

cannot hope to these issues without

fully appreciate a dialogue between text and artifact. This volume brings together studies of both sorts to illustrate the value of such a dialogue.

The Archaeology

From the side of text studies, JuliaO'Briens

of Difference:

study

ofNahum illuminestheway inwhich theBibli

cal text, using female imagery, attempts tomake over against Judah. The radically "other" boundaries between the two are, however, ren dered problematic when the text employs sexual

Nineveh

assault as themeans

by which Yahweh vanquishes observes, "Nahums feminiz allows feminist readers to see in the

As O'Brien

Nineveh.

ing ofNineveh face ofNineveh

their own faces, as well as those of victims around theworld. No longer the abject rape other, the foe becomes Victim likeme." sort of "reading

against the text" has its archaeological corollary in studies of material culture that argue against assumptions and bi This

ases which

are embedded

in the readings of the record. literature Archaeological archaeological a notion to to continues, for example, give credence

to patri of progressive change from matrilineal in terms of lineal society, to definitions ofwomen

their reproductive capacity (as opposed tomen in their social capacity), and to simplistic notions of the domestic/public such biases split. Overcoming

and assumptions has been slow, but the last decade or so has seen important advances in the study of gender and archaeology. Roberta Gilchrist noted that one can trace a pat tern of evolution that shows a strong correlation

"gender studies in archaeology and the progression of feminism" (Gilchrist 1999:2). Break ing down themarch of feminism into threewaves,

between

she notes the firstwave, with itsbasic concerns for securing public emancipation of women, resulted in, among other things, a call for the recognition of the contributions of female archaeologists. The sec

ond wave

of feminism focused on how patriarchy led to the subordination of women. This "second

wave" manifested the ways

itself in archaeological

exposing ies had perpetuated

inwhich a

studies by stud archaeological

"gender mythology." Citing Conkey and Janet Spector, Gilchrist notes how this feminist critique made it the work

ofMargaret

apparent that archaeological studies drew implicitly "on contemporary gender stereotypes..." and in so doing legitimized "a long-standing continuity of gender roles, a linear evolution connected intrinsi women and cally with the biological functions of

Setting

the

Stage

7

(Gilchrist 1999:4). This second waves call for attention to transitions in gender relations and the cultural specificity of gender opened the thirdwave

men"

with

its postmodernist

emphasis

on the creation

of subjectivity and the rejection of universal laws of female (or, for thatmatter, human) experience. to give more at The thirdwave led archaeologists

tention to symbolic and cultural manifestations of to accentuate and and expressions gender identify of diff?rence in thematerial

culture.

This evolving conversation between archaeology and feminist studies has stimulated, among other things,

a call for a shift in focus tomore micro-scale

analyses of architecture and artifacts and a greater attention to the "traces of everyday occurrences and relations between people, on subtle shifts in power

and relations of production" (Gilchrist 1999: 29). Carol Meyers exemplifies this in her ex amination of archaeological and textual evidence to determine

the intertwining character of gender the production of bread. She observes that interpreters have been "seduced into viewing ar ? or even chaeology primarily as themeans to trace verify?the large-scale social and political process and

involving tribes and nation states" and, therefore, have neglected the "primary units of society, family households." Meyers' article on bread production

in Iron Age Israel is an impressive example of this shift in focus. Her approach illustrates how one can illumine the "everyday occurrences" and "read

and perceptions against" long held presumptions of ancient society. Drawing on ethnography, eth argues that nohistory, and iconography, Meyers thematerial

evidence we have available

on bread

reveals "the female monopoly of the nature and the of the quasi-communal technology in turn, challenges labor." This conclusion, "the women as that viewed conventional wisdom pas

production

sive and powerless," the private/public separation in a of sphere of influence, and male dominance hierarchical structured society.

THE ARCHAEOLOGY

OF DEATH

studied artifacts Early in his career, Eric Meyers related to burials as a means of reconstructing the ancient world and its convictions. One ofMeyers'

8

C. Thomas

McCollough

os earliest publications analyzed Jewish use of use suaries for burials and showed how such fits with

the larger ancient Near Eastern pattern of funerary practice (Meyers 1971). Archaeological investigation of burial sites and practices has, in

and

R. Edwards

Douglas

the cultures most basic norms and values ritual, in other words, ture" (McCane 2003:18).

Death

for life.

is an artifact of cul

SITE AND REGIONAL STUDIES

deed, proved fruitful,yielding not only spectacular finds (e.g., the bones of a victim of crucifixion at Givat ha-Mivtar or the ossuary inscribed with the

Eric Meyers has long called for the discernment of distinctive regional attributes in the study of name Caiaphas) but, perhaps more importantly, particular sites or a large empire (Meyers 1979; cf. critical data for the reconstruction of ordinary life Millar, who has issued a similar call [1983,1987]). A regional analysis means, among other things, ways in the ancient world. The study of skeletons as it comes to us and and grave goods, as well as the geography and being sensitive to the data common forces architecture of burial have brought to light rich avoiding generalizations. While data that bears upon a host of questions relevant to this collection of studies. The archaeology of

death has given us vital evidence relating to gender, to social status, to the interaction between culture and religion (e.g., Hellenism and Judaism), and to linguistic practice. The contributors proven Segers

to this volume have surely the value of the archaeology of death. Joe study of the skeletal remains and grave

a goods in Late Bronze Age tomb atGezer provides a fascinating example of the way in which both status and "gender distribution patterns of work

activity" can be teased out of the artifacts associ ated with death and burial. Similarly, the work of Zvi Gal, Howard Smithline and Dina Shalem on a Chalcolithic

burial cave inUpper Galilee yields into "social insights hierarchy within this Chalco lithic society and gender aspects...," also enriching the discussion of iconography by way of itsunusual

mortuary figures. In the articles by Byron McCane

(Jewish ossuar ies) and Peter Richardson (the tombs of Khirbet burial and tomb design are in Qana), practices for evidence

of the extent of cultural

vestigated intrusions and incorporation (notably, Hellenistic and Phoenician cultures) in shaping identity. The article by Rachel Hachlili reveals the convergence

ofmagical formulae and structural configurations from Jewish tombs, coffins, and ossuaries for the sake of avoiding desecration. The archaeology of is replete with data that bears upon iden has tity formation and expression. As McCane remarked, "rituals of death and burial, then, are that represent culturally specific symbolizations

death

in play (e.g., Roman imperialism, Hel lenization), the interchange with these forces can be quite distinctive. At one point, itmay call forth

may

be

aggressive

expressions of difference, at another, and symbiosis. Meyers archaeological

absorption reports on the synagogues and villages of northern Galilee, for example, make evident the importance of addressing such influences as regional economic

forces, geology, architectural styles, and religious sensibilities that define synagogue construction in are a number of articles in regional terms. There this volume that have benefited from the paradigm established by these reports. Ofer Bar-Yosef draws on core/periphery analy sis and other anthropological insights to create a

social history of theHolocene period in southwest as hierarchical complex villages, especially they relate to larger regional patterns. He notes that

Asian

at an early stage long-range trade existed, as evi denced by obsidian from Anatolia and shells from the coast. Moreover, complex systems, often hier archical and reflecting distinctive status changes,

in villages and their surrounding areas developed during the PPNB period, including structures

and statuary devoted to ritual and cultic activity. His analysis extends to determining the causes of abandonment of villages within large areas at the period, offering an astute discus sion ofwhat can occur to complex societies in the

end of the PPNB

climate changes (his proposal) or environmental degradation, conflict, economic, or social changes. face of dramatic

In terms of historical

Aubins

archaeology, Melissa two terracotta study of figurines from Sep

The

of Difference:

Archaeology

phoris reveals the caution necessary in using arti facts to argue for the impact or even the reality of trade and importation. While both figurines show stylistic signs of influence outside of lower Galilee (i.e.,Cypriot and western Roman Empire), one can

not assume these figurines are evidence of import without further "provenience testing."Aubin agrees with Ora Negbi (1966) "that one cannot determine

on stylistic grounds alone." place of production Moreover, as Aubin notes, "Sepphoris would have a hospitable environment for producing provided crafts thatwere suitable for distribution within

the

city and region." Rami Arav and Vassilios

the

Tzaferis broaden

canvas to consider the architecture, coins, and fau n?i remains of the town of Bethsaida and the city In the case of Beth Philippi/Paneas. an excavation that has exposed saida, Arav has led evidence which allowed him to trace the evolution

of Caesarea

of the identity of the towns population Iron Age into the early Roman period. Roman

from the

The early settlement turned out to be one ofmodest

size

inhabitants) and, (likely "several hundred" based primarily on numismatic evidence, largely Jewish inmakeup. The elevation of the town to the status of a polis

in 29/30 ce.

appears

to have led to

thebuilding of a Roman temple,but thisdid not

lead to a "thoroughly Hellenistic presence site...There are no remains of Hellenism

at the

Setting

offers an important a in tension with, local population example of rather than absorbed by or absorbing, the Roman floor" Bethsaida

imperial culture. Tzaferis excavations of Caesarea

Philippi/Paneas reveal a city whose architectural plan as well as structural elements were initially designed to con and control over tinue a pattern of Hellenization the regions of Gaulanitis (Golan), Ituraea (north

(northern Hula valleys) begun by Antiochus III. This urban administrative center, imposed on the landscape by the tetrarch Phillip, son ofHerod and Ulatha

the Great, grew and flourished centuries. The archaeological

9

pagan deities. This is an urban space in a region of Roman Palestine that not only retained itsGreco as a consequence. identity but prospered Indeed, as Tzaferis notes, "...all the available

Roman

sources, archaeological, epigraphic, numismatic, and literary clearly confirm that Caesarea Philippi was actually replete with sanctuaries, temples, and cult statues." In a more

standard

literary study, Stephen argues that identifying the region from which Celsus wrote, which he believes is Pergamum Goranson

in Asia Minor, lends insight into the images and inclinations of the author. Indeed, the confluence of the Second Sophistic with increased concern to interpret Roman power through the lens of Greek concern regarding Christian ideals make Celsus

disruptive activities all the clearer. There were more appropriate ways to address Roman power (Swain 1996: 87-89). The essays

offer a variety of the nature and character of dif

in this collection

to discern

ways ference as understood

through the archaeological and textual record. They represent a small slice of

a are intended to stimulate ongoing large topic and in areas that Eric Meyers has champi discussion oned over many years.

in the

of the houses, not one single Greek fashion in the way it capital and any Hellenistic is represented at the nearby site of Tel Anafa and

ern Golan Heights), and southern Bekaa

Stage

that the city prospered by way of its favorable loca tion on trade routes and its association with various

A TRIBUTE

architecture

no mosaic

the

in the 2nd and 3rd evidence suggests

This book, along with essays in an earlier work dedicated to Eric, Religion and Society in Roman Palestine (Edwards 2004), testifies to the respect for and profound influence of the long career of Eric

M. Meyers as a leader, a teacher, and a scholar. As a member of the faculty of Duke University since the outset of his career, he continues as the Bernice

Lerner Professor of Judaic Studies and a a visiting professor at Archaeology. He has been as Brandeis University, number of institutions, such and Morton

Williams

Jewish Theological Seminary, College, and the Free University of Berlin, and served as the director of theAlbright Institute ofArchaeological

in Jerusalem, the Annenberg Research Institute, and the Center for Judaic Studies at Duke University. His long and faithful service toASOR, Research

10

C. Thomas

McCollough

and

R. Edwards

Douglas

as its president, as well as his notably long tenure as scholar and teacher has brought many important contributions to scholarship and has

ways of gathering and assessing both the literature and material culture of the religions (and Judaism The in particular) of the ancient Mediterranean.

to honor him. The

to honor the significant contributions that Eric M. Meyers has made and continues tomake.

most

resulted in a wealth

of friends and students eager in this book stand as

studies

tribute to his leadership, his work, and his friend ship. At the same time, they continue towiden the path of Meyers insightful and often pioneering

editors and contributors to this volume dedicate

May

it

,2006

REFERENCES

Baker,

C.

Levine,

2004

Imagined Households. Pp. 113-28 in Religion and Society inRoman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, ed. D. Edwards. New York,NY:

2004

Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, ed. D. Edwards. New York, NY: Routledge.

Routledge. Chancey,

2002

M.

D.

Edwards,

2004

A.

TheMyth ofa Gentile Galilee. Cambridge: Gam bridge University. R.,

M.

Foucault,

McCane,

2003

ed.

Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches. New York, NY: Routledge.

1972

The Archaeology ofKnowledge. London: Rout ledge. Gilchrist, R. 1999 Gender and Archaeology. London: Routledge. Hodder, I. 1985 Postprocessual Archaeology. Pp. 1-26 in Ad vances inArchaeological Method and Theory 8,

1996

Meyers,

1971 1975

1979

Jones,

1997

1999

S.

The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in thePast and thePresent. London:

Back from theEdge, eds. P. Paulo, A. Funari, M. Hall and S. Jones.London: Routledge.

Students, eds. M. Fishbane and P. R. Mendes Flohr. Leiden: Brill. The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Judaism.Pp. 686-702 in

Forschung,

1988 1993

Routledge.

Historical Categories and the Praxis of Identity: The Interpretation of Ethnicity inHistorical Ar chaeology. Pp. 219-32 inHistorical Archaeology:

E. M.

JewishOssuaries: Rebirth and Reburial. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. in Understanding The Use of Archaeology Rabbinic Materials. Pp. 28-42 in Texts and Re sponses: Studies Presented toNahum N. Glatzer on theOccasion ofHis SeventiethBirthday byHis

Aufstieg undNiedergang derR?mischenWelt: Ge schichteund Kultur Roms Im Spiegel derNeueren

R. A.

Archaeology, History, and Society inGalilee: The Social Context of Jesus and theRabbis. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity International.

B.

Roll Back the Stone: Death and Burial in the World ofJesus.Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Interna tional.

ed.M. Schiffer.New York, NY: Academic.

Horsley,

L.

The first-century Synagogue: Critical Reas sessments and Assessments of the Critical. Pp. 70-102 in Religion and Society in Roman

2000

vol.

II.19.1,

eds. H.

Temporini

and W.

Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter. Early Judaism and Christianity in the Light of Archaeology. Biblical Archaeologist 51: 69-79. and Ethnic Groups Identifying Religious Through Archaeology. Pp. 738-46 in Biblical

Archaeology Today Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology Jerusalem,June 1990. Jerusalem: Israel Explora tion Society. Ceramics Chronology and the Historical Re construction. Pp. 344-50 in The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays inHonor ofJamesA.

Sauer, Coogan.

eds.

L. E.

J.A. Greene

Stager,

Winona

of Difference:

Archaeology

The

and M.

D.

IN: Eisenbrauns.

Lake,

Meyers, E. M.; Kraabel, A. T.; and Strange, J.F. 1972 Archaeology and the Rabbinic Tradition at Khirbet Shema : 1970 and 1971Campaigns. Bibli

1989

Meyers,

1981

E. M.,

C.

E. M.;

Meyers,

C.

1971-72,

1974-75,

L.;

and

Strange,

J.F.

Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, 1977. Meiron

Excava

tion Project, vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: American Schools ofOriental Research. Excavations at theAncient Synagogue of Gush Halav.

Meiron

Excavation

Project,

vol.

5. Wi

nona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Millar, F. 1983 The Phoenician Cities. A Case Study ofHelleni sation. Proceedings of theCambridge Philological Society 209: 55-71. 1987 Empire, Community and Culture in theRoman Near East: Greeks, Syrians, Jews and Arabs. Journal of Jewish Studies 38:143-64.

Moreland,

2004

2004

D. Edwards. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gender, Difference, and Everyday Life: theCase ofWeaving and itsTools. Pp. 129-45 inReligion and Society inRoman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, ed. D. Edwards. New York, NY:

Routledge. T. Rajak, 1994 Inscription and Context: Reading the Jewish Catacombs of Rome. Pp. 226-41 in Studies in W. van Henten Early JewishEpigraphy, eds. J. and P.W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill. Reed, J.L. 2000 Archaeology and theGalilean Jesus:A Re-rExami nation of theEvidence. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International.

Renfrew,C, and Bahn, P. 2000 Archaeology: Theories,Method and Practice, third ed. London: Thames and Hudson Swain,

S.

1996

Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in theGreek World, ad 50-250. Oxford: Oxford University.

M.

The Galilean Response to Earliest Christianity: A Cross-cultural Study of the Subsistence Ethic. Pp. 37-48 in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, ed.

11

M.

Peskowitz,

L.

Expanding theFrontiers of Biblical Archaeology. Eretz Israel 20:140-47.

Israel,

1991

and Meyers,

Stage

Negbi, O. 1966 A Deposit ofTerracottas and Statuettes fromTel Sippor. 'Atiqot (English Series) 6:1-22.

cal Archaeologist 35: 2-31.

Meyers,

the

Setting

Stegemann,

1999

E. W.,

and

Stegemann,

W.

The JesusMovement: A Social History of Its First Century, trans.O. C. Dean, Jr. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

2

Chapter Jewish and Muslim The Role in Defending

in Europe:

Heritage of Archaeology Cultural

Diversity

byNeil Silberman

In

todays ever-unifying Europe, cultural heri tage has always been an important tool in a sense of European fostering identity. In that

task, archaeology's role has been central. From the pioneering excavations of the 18th and 19th centu new

ries to today's techniques and ongoing research we now possess a rich and complex record ofmate rial life in Europe, extending from the Paleolithic, con through the long succession of cultures and

quests, all theway to the battlefields and industrial sites of the late 19th and early 20th century. And in of the scope and enhancing public consciousness

variety of European material heritage, archaeolo gists have not only discovered and scientifically documented

technology, architecture, and artistic they have helped to physically integrate

expression; the archaeological

into the European

sites and monuments

of the past of landscape today. Europe has now also become a

Unfortunately, society of strangers. The multi-ethnic

landscapes cities are a growing of 21st-century European source of social tension, occasional violence, and of nationalistic the main targets for demagogues

nostalgia who hark back to images and slogans of ancient cultural "purity." Many of those images and monuments

of nationalistic

significance have or illustrated by archaeological and have been preserved as cultural

been unearthed excavations heritage

sites. Yet, as we all know, archaeology icons. At much more than national

produces construction

sites in busy cities, inwide-ranging surveys of settlement patterns, and in new analyses of ancient foodways and trading connections, the

European past has proved to be anything but static or pure. Waves of immigration, trading connec tions, and shifting networks of military alliances and commerce

have left through the millennia a complex and multifaceted record of human interaction ? and new understandings of what

"European" identity might historical period.

have meant

in each

we

refer to European material heritage, however, where should the boundaries be drawn? The nation-state has until recently been the When

main

point of reference; antiquities services and preservation agencies have been largely focused

13

14

Neil

Silbermam

on presenting to their various publics a national patrimony. Now, with the increasing influence of to the European Union, efforts have been made

incorporate formerly distinct national heritage cultural and traditions into a shared European historical legacy. But isEuropean material heritage

sum of its various national parts? What is just the and cultural the responsibility of archaeologists in Europe to study and present heritage managers thematerial culture of groups that have always been depicted

as outsiders?

This chapter is about the ofMuslim and Jewish heritage

public presentation in Europe, though there are of course other heri tages from Africa and Asia that would represent the same phenomenon. Yet, itcould be argued that no two other groups of "outsiders," ifwe call them that, have left such a deep material record and were so deeply involved in the formation of European civilization and identity. Muslim

material

into two main

heritage

in Europe is divided areas and is confined

geographical to twomain periods of time. The earlier is of course

rule over al-Andalus, Anda in From the time of its conquest by lusia, Spain. the Umayyad general Tariq in 711 ce. to the final expulsion of theNasrids from the city of Grenada the period ofMuslim

in 1492, this area was the home to a unique and creative civilization, known not only for its literary and scientific achievements, advanced agricultural

technology, and urbanism, but also for the splendor of its architecture and decorative arts. The other

area of significant Muslim material heritage in Europe lies at the other end of theMediterranean and encompasses the islands of Cyprus and Crete and most of the Balkan Peninsula. Itwas incorpo rated into the Ottoman Empire beginning in the late 15th century; a significant Muslim remains there today. Itsmonuments

population consist of a

and other range of mosques, marketplaces, structures. and excavations public Archaeological

wide

surveys have been conducted throughout the Bal kans, but their presentation to the public and even

more

so their preservation as cultural heritage sites remains entirely dependent on issues of modern

warfare

and ethnic tension, sadly far beyond the or cultural heritage

power of either archaeologists to control. managers

an heritage of the Jews presents of historical The different presence picture. entirely Jewish communities is recorded in every European The material

in country, with the earliest mentions beginning the Roman period and continuing to the present, punctuated by tragic interludes of expulsion and massacre. Jewish museums throughout Europe significant collections of ritual objects, artworks, and artifacts of daily life. Of Jewish in Europe, the best known are syna monuments In some places, the former cemeteries. and gogues preserve

and Quarter of a cityis identified ghettoor Jewish

protected. Since the 1990s, detailed architectural surveys have been undertaken throughout Central and Eastern Europe to document and systemati were damaged or cally describe the remains that and in the years neglected during the Holocaust of Communist

rule. And

in at least three notable

cases, in France, Germany, and Austria, archaeo inmedi logical excavations have been conducted

eval fewishQuarters whose remains were exposed in the course ofmodern urban development. How is this heritage presented to the public?

the most part, it remains somewhat out of both historically and admin the mainstream,

For

istratively. In Spain, extensive efforts have been made by national and regional administrations to incorporate both Muslim and Jewish contributions into a shared cultural

tradition. But elsewhere, seen Muslim and Jewish heritage is all too often na as onto main of the flow something grafted tional historical traditions: useful tomention, but still something of an exotic, ethnic curiosity. The impetus for public presentation of sites and

monuments

is steadily growing, but it is largely or sponsored by international bodies

unofficial, local communities.

Cultural heritage routes have sites to link important Muslim been established in, Spain and in the Balkans and the Council of Europe's annual European Day of Jewish Culture, which now offers public open admission to hun

in twenty dreds of Jewish sites and monuments three countries, attracted almost 100,000 visitors last year. Elsewhere, unfortunately, heritage is a matter of dispute. Many of the important sites of heritage in Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo were destroyed or badly damaged in the recent

Muslim

Jewish and Muslim

years of ethnic fighting, but the restoration of the Mostar Bridge between the Christian and Muslim Quarters of Sarajevo, scheduled to be completed this summer, offers a note of hope. What role does archaeology have to play in con

tributing to an understanding of Europe's historical the value of cultural diversity and appreciating I have diversity today? already mentioned archaeo logical work Empire and

in the former areas of the Ottoman

Jewish Quarters, and I would suggest that archaeology has great potential for addressing some important historical questions in medieval

roles in the shaping of Jewish and Muslim itspublic presentation And civilization. European can, I believe, constructively expand the definition about

itself.

of European

heritage The archaeological work already undertaken has provided new insights into the nature ofMuslim

in medieval and early and Jewish communities modern Europe. The excavations beneath the Pal ace of Justice inRouen, for example, have revealed the existence of a large and impressive 12th-century

building in the heart of themedieval JewishQuarter. Its architectural form is similar to chancellery chambers in contemporary Norman

Romanesque

castles. Latin and Hebrew on the walls

of the main

identification

were scratched graffiti hall. And its tentative

as a Talmudic

vided the firstmaterial

has pro Academy evidence of the emergence institution thatwas deeply

Heritage

in Europe

15

In the coming years, archaeology's contributions can be even more substantial. The traditional un derstanding of Jewish settlement history in Europe has always been straightforward: these communi ties are the descendents of Roman Jewish popula

tions from around theMediterranean, themselves with a direct connection to Jerusalem. Following the Roman troops northward, they gradually estab lished communities

in themajor

cities ofGaul. The

is rare but suggestive, such archaeological as the oil lamps ornamented with the distinctive candelabra or "menorah" found seven-branched evidence

in the excavations

of Roman

end of the Empire,

Trier. But after the

even that faint material

trail

suddenly disappears. Traditional historiography texts and scattered references in early medieval in communities existed that France, Jewish suggest

the Low Countries, and in the Rhine and Danube ? Valleys only to push eastward to Eastern Europe in the wake of the Crusades. But even this basic

is now under question. Only in the nth century does there appear a significant corpus of Hebrew inscriptions and dated tombstones, particularly in the Rhine Valley. What happened scheme

to the Jews ofWestern

Europe

from the 4th to the

nth centuries?And why did theyappear in the archaeological

record so suddenly? has proved its value

Archaeology traces of ancient ing material

in uncover

cultures

that were

of a Jewish communal unknown or only incompletely known from the affected by the surrounding culture and, in turn, written record. In this respect, it is possible that can a role in deeply influenced the institutions of world Jewry. archaeology play solving the great in the medieval Excavations of the of European of centuries" Jewish Quarter mystery "missing as Finds Frankfurt have revealed a wide range of material such the Jewish history. single, isolated Hebrew gravestone discovered by chance in the culture connections that offer additional insight on the role of the Jews in commerce and trade. And the elaborate virtual reconstruction of the Jewish

Quarter ofVienna in the late 13th century, based on the recent excavations, has offered a new perspec tive on medieval

life and culture, inwhich are seen as the Jews neither marginal nor entirely alien, but as an integral part of life in medieval urban

a new Through their incorporation into the archaeo branch of the city's JewishMuseum, a multimedia presentation logical remains and

Vienna.

offer an enlightening perspective public education tool.

and an effective

19th century inTienen, Belgium, on themain trade route from Cologne and the Rhine valley to Brus sels and Bruges, may hint at the existence of still un

known early medieval Jewish communities. More intensive surveys and continued archaeological

study of Jewishmaterial culture are essential tools to a possibility of filling in the historical gap. Does the apparent absence of Hebrew inscriptions and

other obvious

indicators before

suggest that a massive population place in that period, or were more of ethnic self-definition

the 11th century explosion took

subtle processes occurring at that time?

16

These

Neil

Silberman

are essential

questions for understanding the role of Jewswithin European society. Islamic archaeology has also shown great po

tential. Ithas already supplemented the traditional art historical approach with new on tech insights and into introduced nology agricultural systems Europe

from theMuslim

world.

Excavations

and

and surveys of irrigation systems in Andalusia Ottoman plantation and sugar refining in farming Crete and Cyprus provide evidence of far-reach

ing social and economic changes thatwould affect Europe for centuries to come. Beyond the carefully preserved confines of theAlhambra Palace and the and elaborate public fountains and cara mosques vanserais

of the Balkans

evidence

is the still-to-be explored of communities deeply

archaeological involved in the process of change. The continuing impact of Islamic town forms and the pattern of

distribution

of such simple artifacts as decorated tobacco ter clay pipes throughout the Ottoman ritories offer fascinating insights not only into the interaction ofMuslims

with Europeans, but also about their shared interaction with the discovery of the New World. In sum, it is already apparent

that the archaeological and heritage of Muslims a in not is reflection of Jews Europe passive merely entirely external cultural influences, but represents

dynamic networks of social, economic, and artistic connections that contributed both to the develop ment of a distinctively European culture and to the of specific Jewish and Muslim cultural as well. expressions The cultural identity of Europe is not and never emergence

has been static; today it is changing with unparal leled speed. New immigrants, new social land

scapes, new economic and political tensions, and the continuing ideal of European unification force

all of us to discard restrictive definitions of separate national legacies and to redefine what kind of a

a society multi-national, multi-cultural Europe of the 21st century will be. For archaeologists across now it is evident that old, essentialist defi Europe, nitions of "Romans," "Barbarians," "Franks," "Celts,"

"Teutons," and all the others do not represent dis tinctive and unchanging groupings but a creative mixture of preexisting cultures and developing

social forms. Such is also true ofminority groups seen on the long periphery of European history. the Indeed, periphery is no longer so easy to dis tinguish. The incorporation of many voices and

perspectives in our emerging scientific picture of the past provides a stark contradiction to themod ern voices of discord and separation. Archaeology can continue to show us that Europe's national and

regional cultural traditions have always been en riched by the continent's turbulent, ever changing mix of peoples, connections, and ideas.

Two objectives must be sought to place minority heritage in themainstream of European heritage: the first is for Jewish,Muslim, and other ethnic

sites to be recognized minority by antiquities services throughout Europe as an essential part of the historical and cultural landscape, as potentially

significant for official preservation as monuments and periods ofmore traditional "national" interest. The other is for archaeological research agendas and heritage policies to recognize that the defini tion of Europe's common heritage is a dynamic

field for reflection and reconsideration

inwhich the

storyis farfrombeing completelytold.The public

presentation of archaeology, in this respect, isnot a matter of merely conveying scientific knowledge to the general public. It is a two-way process, inwhich the involvement ofminority communities ? both of the past and of the present ? in the study and preservation of material remains can potentially widen and deepen modern discussions of history and identity. If given adequate arly attention, the archaeology great potential for encouraging

support and schol of "outsiders" has a

a constructive pub lic appreciation of the complexity and diversity of record. Sites Europe's material and archaeological and artifacts long overlooked and still to be discov ered can demonstrate that the vibrant interaction of

ideas, cultures, and peoples of Europe's cultural legacy.

is a fundamental part

SECTION NEOLITHIC

THROUGH PERIODS

I PERSIAN

3

Chapter

of Social Complexity The Emergence in the Neolithic of the Near East byOf erBar-Yosef

A JL

social interpretations to archaeo remains is far from being an easy logical success is dependent task. Our upon

pplying

ZA A.

of the evolution of social in perceived models formulation of relevant questions, the stitutions, and, with the available data, testing the suggested

interpretations. Archaeologists rarelyworry about the sources of their inferences. Searching the an literature is like crossing a stormy thropological sea, and in the ethnographic records one can always

to rely analogy. The tendency is studies. For example, the Khoisan (San served for several decades as the living

find the desired on known bushmen)

the representatives of Palaeolithic people. When was of modern hunter-gatherers enlarged, sample a more balanced picture emerged and the amount

of socioeconomic

variability

increased

consider

ably (Kelly1995). INFERENCES: THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL A FEW ECLECTIC REMARKS

gies to past farmers can be derived and Earle 2000). Although

aspects of the social complexity ofNeolithic village society. Pursuing this line of investigation, analo

traditional agricultural

techniques are quickly disappearing during the

twentieth century, we still live in a world where peasants lifeways can be observed.

The difficultiesin interpreting earlyNeolithic

societies

in the Levant

is due

to the need

to un

from hunting to and gathering incipient farming occurred. This socioeconomic shift, which apparently major derstand

how

the first transition

lifeways of people in the Near some eleven millennia ago, is known as the Neolithic Revolution. By studying later, historical affected the basic

East

we know that the process technological revolutions, is initiated in a particular area within a certain group of people. Hence, as archaeologists, we face

of identifying the population or a of populations foragers who became farmers in core area (Price and Gebauer B. Harris 1995; 1996; Smith 1998; O. Bar-Yosef 1998a; 1998b). the uncertainties

Current

In the followingpages, I will address several

from a larger

sampleof livingpopulations (Wolf1966; Johnson

social determinations

refer to societies

culture in the Levant as com amore plex hunter-gatherers, a termwhich requires explicit, detailed definition (Bettinger 1991; Kelly such as theNatufian

19

20 Ofer

Bar-Yosef

1995; Hayden 1995; Johnson and Earle 2000). This societal category is generally regarded as non-egali tarian and, in an archaeological sample, we suppose that one can trace thematerial attributes for social the sources of information ranking. Commonly, for such an inquiry are grave goods and/or body decorations, the variable dimensions of domestic structures, and evidence of public buildings. On the basis of ethno-history, it is assumed thatmembers of such a society often reside in permanent villages

or hamlets and that seasonal dispersals are part of their annual schedule. Craft specialization eventu

ally emerges, thereby creating a particular niche for artisans within the social structure. Ceremonies or rituals are carried out as public events or performed closed places by certain members of the

within

the territory of each population, group. Within sacred sites,monuments, or worshiped geographic features are noticeable. Annual aggregations of the entire population in a holy place are expected as acts that enhance

social cohesion. The meeting feasts,mating, political

often serves for communal

and other social negotiations. we compose As archaeologists, the social the data from interpretations by incorporating

the region as a particular sites and considering whole. While one large village may inhabit an en

tire viable biological entitywhere mating arrange ments do not violate the incest taboo (O. Bar-Yosef

1998a; 1998b), relationships with other social units (whether in neighboring villages or a few hamlets) require a regional approach to the archaeological information. We, therefore, cannot escape the

lesson that there are differences between a "core area" and a "periphery," and for analyzing we records do not necessarily need to prehistoric

historical

resort to a world

system model. The concept of "core" and "periphery," as used by the author, can be applied to the prehistoric past, but this approach is

not uniformly accepted. However, as will be shown below, the evidence from the early Neolithic of the Near East strongly suggests the presence of a "core area" as well as marginal spaces, all incorporated within larger interaction spheres. Each investigation that advances the desirable

goals of social archaeology stems, in part, from the advances made in the anthropology of technology.

It is the improved understanding of the role of human agency in the past technologies and daily

actions that facilitates the analysis of silent artifacts, houses, and lithic and bone assemblages (Lemon nier 1992; Pfaffenberger 1992; Dobres 2000; Dobres

an adopting we remains, pretend, either explicitly or implicitly, to identify social entities or particular populations. However, and Hoffman

1994; Clark 1999).While anthropological view of thematerial

resolutions concerning "ethnicity," language, gene the re drift, or gene flow remain elusive. While

culture may seem tedious and the scientific tech incorporated unrewarding, new niques produce insights. Among these are the organization of subsistence systems (e.g., identify search of material

ing seasonality, patterns of hunting and butchering, herding wild species, cultivation, and the like), the and implementation of stone tools manufacture

rawmaterial sources, core (e.g., tracing identifying reduction techniques, curation of selected artifacts, hafting, recognizing specific stone tools employed in rituals, and so on), and finally the techniques employed in building houses.

The following pages aim to demonstrate, based on the available evidence, how modes of produc tion, spatial distribution of sites and their hierar chies, societal structures, and certain environmen tal fluctuations intertwined in forming the social

in the Levant. In spite history of the early Holocene ofmissing data, by employing a radiocarbon cali brated time scale the documented and interpreted

data may indicate how in Southwest Asia complex hierarchical villages emerged, heralding the emer

gence of chiefdoms. In this narration Iwill follow as used the periodization by most writers (fig. 1). The Neolithic

of the Levant

is traditionally sub

divided either into twomain periods (Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and B, coined by Kenyon, and abbrevi

ated as PPNA and PPNB) or by Periods 1through et al. 5, as designated by the Lyon school Aurenche ( 1981). The basic definitions of the PPNA and PPNB rely on the techno-typological characteristics of the lithic industries. The periodization by numbers is

based on radiocarbon chronology, recently cali brated (Aurenche and Kozlowski 1999). A further, more is oriented subdivision anthropologically that following the polythetic definition of archaeo

The

of Social

Emergence

B*P?

B.C.

h6.000_4.000 7|000*** 5-000

4*000

Cultural entities

d'urioolili?ic

7,000 W00-J

NeoO&ic Pottery

0

8.000

PPNG

FM fl^OOO 7,000-j f? ?MO?7,000

10,000

21

East

B.C.

B.P. 6,000

of the Near

in the Neolithic

Complexity

?,

-j

TahurUan

Earty

?jouhmIri Untaci

A

11,000 1-10,000-8.000

14000 ?MMO-4

tate Natuflan

1?11,000?9,000

13,000 ?.

0

=1

Earty

Natuflan

iaooo?11,000

15*000 18*000

16,000 14.000-1

Fig.

Chronological

?*4

chart based on calibrated

radiocarbon

and uncalibrated

dates

with theperiodic subdivisionof theNeolithic sequence and a few of thecultural entities.

logicalculturesas proposed byChilde (1929) and

are the (1978). Examples by Clarke and the Sultanian (both generally of Mureybetian elaborated

1994; Gebel dates from the various

Kozlowski

et al. 1997). Radiocarbon sites increase rapidly, and

calibrated dates are more

often cited. Calibration

on thebasis of geography, chronologyis employedin thispaper throughthe PPNA age), identified tool-kits, imagery, types of buildings, and dated use of the latter possibly indi by radiocarbon. The

use of CALiB 4.1 (Stuiver et al. 1998).

are Finally, the finds from the earlyNeolithic sites in several generally well-described and summarized

The firstNeolithic

cates, for example, that the Sultanian lasted longer than the Mureybetian, and, therefore, does not with fit the periodic subdivision. comfortably

recent publications ( J.Cauvin 2000a; Aurenche and and Kozlowski 1999; Kozlowski 1999; Kozlowski Numerous Gebel 1996; Guilaine 1999; Kuijt 2000a). preliminary and interim site reports complete the was broadly painted picture, although much that discovered awaits the detailed accounts (Gebel and

INITIAL VILLAGES OF CULTIVATORS AND HUNTERS

as the Khiamian.

entity in the Levant is known Unfortunately, due to the paucity

samples and radiocarbon still poorly defined (J.Cauvin 2000a). in the various exposures soundings

of excavated

identification

dates, it is The small

make

the

of possible mixtures with earlier a difficult task. The time span of the

assemblages seems to have lasted for a few centuries, Khiamian

22 Ofer

Bar-Yosef

ca. 9,700-9,200 B.c.E. (Kozlowski 1999; Kozlowski and Gebel 1996; Aurenche and Kozlowski 1999; and Belfer 1994a; 1994b; Gopher Goring-Morris

1997), although J.Cauvin (2000a) views it as a cultural horizon that encompasses the entire Levant with longer duration.

Cohen

The aerodynamically

shaped el-Khiam projectile sickle blades, some micro points, asphalt-hafted ? a liths, and high frequencies of perforators typical ? Neolithic tool characterize the lithic industry of theKhiamian. Bifacial or polished celts, considered Neolithic "markers," are absent from theKhiamian contexts, although with further excavations may turn up. The Khiamian when

period was probably of food production

they

the time

the mode changed from harvesting cereals in natural fields to in tentional cultivation. Archaeobotanical remains

indicate that the first strides toward achieving stable sources of staple food were probably made during the Younger Dryas or immediately after (Hillman 2000; Colledge 1998). One may hypoth esize

that the population that took this crucial on had survived step exploiting cereals that grew in natural stands. With the continuing cold and

as C3 were affected plants dry conditions, cereals the CO2 (Monnin et by decreasing atmospheric in al. 2001), which apparently resulted declining

yields of einkorn, emmer, rye, and barley in their natural environment. Witnessing the change and as common among pre-literate societies, having, of plants and their life cycles, a had to be made. The options were increased mobility and time to search for resources,

the knowledge social decision

residential movements

into the northern neighbor or territories while ing risking physical conflicts, to start cultivating naturally wetted soils such as or shallow

alluvial fans, river overbanks, lakeside shores. In addition, as marginal areas became drier, we may expect that kin-related groups moved and caused population densities tomount within the fertile, coastal-hilly belt of the Levant. The evidence for incipient farming began to ac cumulate in recent years. Colledge (1998) analyzed the relationship between the occurrence of the vari

ous plant taxa (as published earlier by van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1986). By applying correspondence

analysis to the assemblage from PPNA Mureybet, which takes into account the ecological classifica tion of the various species, Colledge concluded that cereals was practiced near the (2000) noted that the rise of weedy grasses, which characterizes cultivated fields in a dry land such as inAbu Hureyra, occurred at about cultivation of wild site. Hillman

11,200-10,400 b.c.e. and was accompanied by the firstappearance of charred domesticated rye grains. This botanical evidence

is one of the clearest indica

tions for the first attempts to intentionally cultivate plants. Similar conclusions concerning the growth ofwild barley were reached by Kislev (1997) in re porting the plant assemblage from Netiv Hagdud, a PPNA

site in the Jordan Valley. Genetic studies of einkorn and barley support the contention that

their oldest progenitors were present across the (Heun et al. 1997; Badr et al. 2000). In sum, the initiation of cultivation took place within what is archaeologically defined as the Late Levant

entity (such as in Abu Hureyra Epi-Palaeolithic no 1). There is yet comparable archaeobotanical evidence from the Late Natufian in the southern Levant. Overall

similarities between

the lithic as

ib and the semblages ofAbu Hureyra 1,Mureybet Late Natufian sites of the southern Levant were noted by various scholars (M.-C. Cauvin 1980; 1981; Valla 1995; Olszewski 2000), although the differences in the details resulted in incorporat as two neighboring ing all within one "culture" or entities. The

distinct

differences

are expressed the Natufian is

in the ground stone tools. While characterized by deep mortars and pestles, in the northern Levantine sites the shallow grinding slabs and dishes dominate (Moore 2000). The earlyNeolithic settlements are better known

fromthe Jordan Valley and theneighboringhilly ranges on both

sides. The main

sites (fig. 2) are

Jericho(Kenyon 1981),Gilgal (Noy 1989),Netiv

Hagdud

(Bar-Yosef and Gopher

1997), Gesher

(Gar

finkelandNadel 1989),Dhra (Kuijt1995),and inthe

hilly region Nahal Oren (Lechevallier and Ronen

(Noy et al. 1973), Hatoula 1994), Ain Darat (Gopher

1995), Iraq ed-Dubb (Kuijt 1994), andWF16 in

Feinan (Mithen et al. 2000). Other of sites include Tel Aswad in the Damascus

Wadi

Jerfel-Ahmar

groups basin,

(Stordeur et al. 2001) and Mureybet

The

Emergence

of Social

Complexity

in the Neolithic

of the Near

23

East

Fig. 2 Map of theLevant withPPNA (aceramicNeolithic) sitesmentioned in the textindicating thegeographicposition of theLevantineCorridor.

II (J.Cauvin 1977) on the Euphrates, and Qermez et al. 1989) as well as the lower level Dereh Watkins (

at?ay?n? (A.?zdogan 1999).Most but not all of these hamlets and villages are three to eight times larger than the largest Natufian sites (Bar-Yosef 1998a; 1998b). Their actual area varies from 0.2 to

2.5 ha and deserves a separate cultural definition.

On thebasis of thetypologicalcharacteristics of

the lithic industries and their geographical variabili ty,three cultural entities are identified in the Levant:

in the north, theAswadian in the theMureybetian center, and the Sultanian in the south (J.Cauvin 20ooa; Aurenche and Kozlowski 1999; Gopher in

1999). This subdivision does not take into account the material remains of hunter-gatherers who continued to survive in semi-arid areas. Kozlowski

The lithictechnologyexhibitscontinuityfrom

the Khiamian,

with

the el-Khiam

small blades

or bladelets

for

points (M.-C. Cauvin 1974; making et al. 1991), blades used with or without Nadel

24 Ofer

Bar-Yosef

retouch as sickle elements, and other cutting ob jects. Perforators are frequent inmost PPNA sites.

among groups (Bar-Yosef 1986), suggests that the PPNA wall was erected on thewestern side of the

from limestone and basalt made

it seems that therewas only one tower in this settlement. The function of this 8.5 m high structure with interior steps is unknown,

Bifacially chipped axes/adzes are common in the southern Levant and were made with a working a edge formed by transverse removal. Polished celts their first appear

ance. In the the common types are Mureybetian, adzes {herminettes), which were shaped as unifaces from large and thick flakes. The limited amount of

microwear

studies suggests that most axes/adzes were employed in woodworking. These tools were, therefore, required in the course of activities such as

building, creating furniture, and even boat con struction, which probably began during the early millennia of the Holocene when Cyprus was first colonized

(Peltenburg et al. 2000). The shift in kitchen techniques from the Natu fian is clearly expressed in the common types

of ground

stone tools. The previously abundant tools gave way to the PPNA flat slabs pounding with cupholes, rounded shallow grinding bowls, and hand stones, often loaf-shaped (Wright 1994; Bar-Yosef

and Gopher 1997). Their distribution, in situ, is both in open courtyards and indoors.

when

found

With an increasing number of excavated sites and larger exposures, domestic and public architec ture is becoming better known. Rounded to almost with

squarish pit-houses walls built of plano-convex

stone foundations

and

unbaked mudbricks are reported from various sites. Hearths are oval and sometimes possess cobble floors. The

or adobe

use of heated rocks in cooking resulted in abundant fire-cracked rocks inmost sites. Storage facilities are found in every site, either as small, stone-built

site to protect the settlement against mudflows and flash floods. In spite of the limited areas exposed in

of thePPNA layers Jericho, by tracingthethickness

across themound

but itcould have accommodated shrine on the top. Although for public ritual ismissing,

of the tower (area M) the "plaza" in ?ay?n?

a small mudbrick

evidence unequivocal the open space north

may have been similar to (Turkey), which served for

public gatherings(A.?zdogan 1999). Clear

evidence

rituals was provided at Jerfel-Ahmar on themiddle

for public

by the excavations Euphrates River (Stordeur 2000; Stordeur et al. 1997; 2001; Stordeur and de Margueron 1998). Two

major discoveries were recently reported. First, a communal building that is a "round house with cells," similar to the one uncovered

inMureybet

A (house 47; J.Cauvin 1977),encircledbywhat

seems to be a series of family houses. Apparently, this type of settlement plan began at an earlier time when the communal building was the "house with slabs" (le b?timent aux dalles), a pit-house with a encircling the walls with six column bases

bench

spread at equal distances

at its edge. The outer face

of thebenchwas shapedby a seriesofuprightslabs

incised with a zigzag pattern. Both the decoration on the slabs and the grooved objects (shaft straight eners?) connect Jerfel-Ahmar imagery with the Mureybetian world of symbols (J.Cauvin 2000a) as well as with the later PPNB

sites in this region. and Mortuary practices figurines are considered as indications of belief systems and rituals. In the

bins or larger, built-up mudbrick structures (J. Bar-Yosef and 1977; Sultanian, most burials are single with no grave Gopher 1997). The best examples, as yet, of communal building goods. Skull removal was performed only on adults, efforts are thewalls and the tower of Jericho. while child burials were left intact. Isolated crania Origi as a are defense sometimes found in domestic areas or special nally interpreted by Kenyon (1957)

Cauvin

system against raids by human groups, her conclu sion disregarded plans of historical town walls. To fortifya town, towers are built as protruding struc tures from the outer face of thewalls. This design

purpose buildings. The entire array and sequence ofmortuary practices in this period is interpreted as efforts in an keeping egalitarian social structure

vocate

children and adults, the latter carried a higher so

facilitates shooting sideways at climbing attackers. The alternative interpretation, which did not ad the absence

of conflicts either personal

or

(Kuijt 1996). However, the differentiated treatment along age lines reflects changes in attitudes toward the dead. It seems that by differentiating between

The

cial value

of Social

Complexity

evidenced

by the conservation of their contexts. This is one of the clear

skulls in domestic markers

Emergence

for additional

ranking, which from the Natuflan tradition.

departure An exception

tomost

PPNA

burials

the excavators

various ways

Economic

or

to the PPNA

(Kenyon 1981). are more frequent in PPNA figurines in the Mureybetian, when contexts, especially to Levantine earlier periods. They are compared limestone and from shaped clay and depict either Human

or standing kneeling females. The figurines classi fied as representing the "seated woman" may herald

of the same image in civilization. This explicit

the elaborate manifestations

the succeeding PPNB expression of gender, which was not evident in the

culture, may indicate the emerging role of in a society of farmers. Some suggest that this shiftbrought about the cult of the "mother god

Natufian women dess"

in later centuries

(J.Cauvin 2000a; 2000b). of PPNA settlements within the

The economy belt of early villages, as mentioned

above, was based on hunting, trapping, gathering wild seeds and fruits, and cultivation of cereals and legumes. The common

game animals in the middle Euphrates area were equids and cattle, while in the Jordan Valley people hunted wild cattle, gazelle, fox, fal

low deer, and wild boar (Tchernov 1994; Peters et al. 1999; Horwitz et al. 1999). The broad spectrum that started earlier continued

with

exploitation the trapping of large numbers of birds, especially ducks. Lizards and tortoises were also gathered, women and children. probably by

the large PPNA interaction sphere there is ample evidence for long-distance exchanges. from central Anatolia was found in Jeri Obsidian in cho, Netiv Hagdud, Nahal Oren, and Hatoula Within

shells were brought coast, with fewer from

the southern Levant. Marine

from the Mediterranean

the Red Sea. Their selection differs from theNatu fian culture. Glycymeris

25

in Jericho

people killed in the course of a conflict, although the stratified deposits that ac cumulated following this phase were attributed by humans

East

stress the

Jericho Tower (Cornwall 1981). One may wonder whether these skeletal relics are not a group of PPNB

of the Near

shells (yielded where important, but Dentalium were excavated deposits sieved) were still in use (D. E. Bar-Yosef 1991; Reese 1991).

is the group of a dozen complete inside the lower passage in the

and Netiv Hagdud skeletons buried

in the Neolithic

sp. and cowries became

and social competition expressed in is expected as part and parcel of the between groups or even tribes. One

relationships way is physical conflict. Itwould be naive to as sume that therewere no conflicts within sedentary communities, either on an individual basis or along extended family and clan lines. Disagreements

concerning territorial subdivision, exploitation of suitable land plots, control over sources of water

away from the perennial rivers are all expected in a farming society.With the declining use of natural resources such as game animals, obtaining meat in

marginal areas could have been the trigger to the use of bows and arrows not just for hunting. Such with the relative events, along depletion of non-ma to the natural population to the due food growth availability of weaning as as well reduced of stuff, females, may mobility have led to the establishment of new villages. More nured fields in addition

serious could have been clashes between villages, a among peasant societ phenomenon well-known

ies.Unfortunately, the archaeological evidence for such conflicts is rare until the first appearance of true defensive walls such as Tel as-Sawwan (Abu

Es-Soof

1968; Al-Adami 1968). In sum, the archaeology of PPNA sites clearly demonstrates the emergence of a non-egalitarian society of cultivators-hunters that continued to rely on

inMureybet gathering. The public buildings and Jerfel-Ahmar indicate signs of ranked social In the latter site, the pit-house with organization.

benches

all around

resembles

shrines such as in PPNB Nevah

later temples or ?ori and G?bekli

(Hauptmann 1988; 1999). The tower of Jericho, except for having been the results of communal

Tepe

as a center for building efforts,probably functioned is Social also public gatherings. expressed ranking inmortuary practices (different treatment of adults and children). Indeed, the entire suite of data sets from all PPNA villages and hamlets does reflect the emerging social complexity, but the picture is as

yet blurred, due to the small number of excavated sites. It becomes clearer with the proliferation of archaeological

evidence

from PPNB

sites.

26 Ofer

Bar-Yosef

THE PPNB CIVILIZATION The newly discovered aspects of archaeological PPNB sites demand a social definition different from previous

references as to a world of suppos

edly egalitarianfarmers(Kuijt 1996).While the term "civilization" has declined

1999). Finally, the of the geographic distribution and radiometrie ages arrowheads were interpreted asmarking the advent

BAI; Aurenche

in use, except in

general summary volumes (e.g., Lamberg-Karlo 1978), historians vsky and Sabloff 1979; Redman often use the term "civilization" when discussing

inMesopotamia, the Nile cultural manifestations Valley, and later inGreece and Rome. The current field evidence and preliminary analy elements, as briefly presented below, use of the term "civilization" when we justify the refer to the PPNB Levantine-Upper Mesopotamian

accumulated

of PPNB

and Kozlowski

communities westward

into theAnatolian

plateau. Hence, the difference between the spread of the stone tools and the agricultural systems delineates

the boundaries

between

the Levantine

interaction sphere and the one of the Anatolian also Zagros foothills (figs. 3-4). In the latter region, known as the Eastern Wing

of the Fertile Crescent,

the production of microliths continued through most of the Early Neolithic times. The suggestion that the process of "neolithization" or adoption

by diffusion and not was proposed for expansion through population the Zagros foothills and the intermontane val

ses ofmaterial

of agriculture was

a complex sphere. Characterized by regional social structure, variable economic bases, elaborate cosmologies, and geographic social sub

leys (Hole 1994; 1998;Kozlowski andGebel 1996;

interaction

units (tribes?), this civilization, without a writing system but with markers of personal property and long-distance trade routes, survived successfully

a half millennia. Its col during about two and b.c.e. raises intriguing lapse around 6,400-6,200 a the of questions concerning capacity complex social structure to adapt itself in the face of abrupt climatic change. However, the subsequent record of the region demonstrates that the ensuing social formations could fall under the category of a pre chiefdom or chiefdom level (Hassuna, Samarra),

paving the way to the emergence chiefdom (Flannery 1999). The

assignment

of the Halafian

of assemblages,

layers, and

sites to thePPNB period is done on thebasis of

lithic techno-typological attributes. The common Levantine core reduction strategywas named after the shape of the discarded cores, i.e., the "naviform core technique" (Nishiaki 1994;Wilke and Quin tero 1994; Quintero and Wilke 1995). The blades obtained by this particular method are often long

with flat profiles and were suitable for shaping arrowheads and sickle elements. The recurring were named after sites of types projectile points such as Jericho, Byblos, and Amuq ( J.Cauvin 1978; 1998; O. Bar-Yosef 1981;Gopher 1994a; 1994b), and their large size led Kozlowski (1999) to suggest term the Big Arrowhead Industry (abbreviated as

Kozlowski

achieved

1999; O. Bar-Yosef 2001; Aurenche

and

Kozlowski

1999). The variance inmaterial

culture across the Le

cross axis) gave rise to the ongoing controversy regarding the subdivision of the PPNB period, which according to the calibrated

vant (on a north-south

chronology subdivision

lasted about 2,200-2,500 years. One recognizes the four phases of Early,

Middle, Late, and Final PPNB. Several scholars do not accept the "Early PPNB" phase as a valid distinc tion. Other scholars defer to a proposal naming the last phase as PPNC on the basis of the uppermost PPN assemblage atAin Ghazal (Rollefson et al. 1992; Rollefson and K?hler-Rollefson 1993). The increas ing number of calibrated radiocarbon dates has a practical solution that defines cultural generated entities chronologically and geographically, regard less of their present attribution to a PPNB "phase." Radiocarbon

dated assemblages

Levant and Upper Mesopotamia

in the northern

indicate that the

PPNB lithictechnologyemergedfirstin thissub

region, which can be defined as the "core area" of The typical Sultanian the Neolithic Revolution. assemblages continued to dominate the southern

Levant

for a few additional

centuries (Aurenche Cauvin 2000a; Gopher 1999; J. 1994a; 1994b). This conclusion is based on the new in the earliest layers at G?bekli Tepe discoveries and Kozlowski

(Schmidt 1999a; 1999b; 2001), Gopher s analysis of the arrowheads (Gopher 1989), Cauvins interpreta

The

Emergence

of Social

Complexity

in the Neolithic

of the Near

East

Fig. 3 Map ofLevantine,UpperMesopotamian, and EasternAnatolian PPNB sites indicating the interaction zones

between mobile foragers

and farming

communities.

tion of the symbolic data including architectural remains, figurines, and bovid skulls (J. Cauvin

and Balkan-Atli 1997; 1999; ?zdogan 1994; A. If this is conclusion sustained 1999). ?zdogan by additional discoveries, itwill greatly assist in trac

core area was located in themiddle suggested the of sites such as Euphrates Valley. Excavations

a topicbeyond the scope of thispaper.

20ooa; 20oob), and the chronological continuity of the Sultanian in the Southern Levant. Cauvin

Nevah ?ori (Hauptmann1988;1999)also point to the area between

the upper Euphrates

and the val

leyof theBalikh,or thewesternportionofUpper Mesopotamia,

as part of the core area (M. ?zdogan

ing the emergence of early chiefdoms in this region,

The economy of the PPNB settlements was based on the full suite of annual crops, such as barley, wheat, rye, flax, and legumes (including broad beans and chick peas), thatwere already domesti cated (Garrard 1999; Anderson

1998; Aurenche

and

Bar-Yosef

Ofer

houses Polishedaxes/adzes (celts) Gritl-plan & sculptures with reliefs 'White ware" Stelae/pillars iI

Fig. 4 Map material

indicatingthegeographic spread ofPPNB entities,"tribes"with themain

culture characteristics

of each

territory.

common made topen pigsearlieratHallan ?emi (Rosenberg Middle and Late PPNB the Animal reflect bones herding etal. 1998),butnotuntilthe (Kuijt2000b).

Kozlowski

1999). Storage facilities were

and

later the domestication which were the predominant

of goat and sheep, game of foragers in

ranges. At least in the firstmil and lennium, goat sheep bones do not demonstrate the change in size that was previously seen as a marker of domestication (Hesse morphological the Taurus-Zagros

1984;Legge 1996;Zeder andHesse 2000; Vigne et

al. 2000). Following the penning and herding of these two species, both were introduced into vil lages of the central and southern Levant (Martin 1999; Garrard

et al. 1996; O. Bar-Yosef

2000).

It

indicate intentional pig even thenmostly in themore humid farming, and areas of the north (such as ?ay?n?) and the coastal Levant (Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995).

does

the faunal evidence

By contrast, the domestication of cattle, at least in the case of Southwest Asia, was motivated by reasons more than by basic dietary needs religious

2000a; 2000b). This interpretation is (J.Cauvin based on the contexts inwhich cattle remains were uncovered

at various

and Anatolia.

sites in the northern Levant

Skulls with horns were found intact

was onlyduring thePottery Neolithic period that indwellingsand pits and are known fromtheby was of thestep now famousexamplesof the?atalh?y?k buildings inhabitants the adoptedby herding not before theearlyChalcolithic that (Mellaart 1967;Hodder 1999).As with goats and pic belt and

a common full-fledged pastoral nomadism became in Eastern Near deserts. life of the way

of cattle and pigs followed that of goat and sheep. It appears that attempts were The domestication

cattle were sheep, it does seem that domesticated herded southward, although wild oxen are known from Epi-Palaeolithic assemblages from this region (Tchernov

1993; Horwitz

et al. 1999).

The

Emergence

of Social

Complexity

were flourishing farming communities and expanding. In the Levantine region this isman ifested in the increased size of sites, which range PPNB

from 2.5 ha to 12 ha. Similar sizes were recorded on the Anatolian plateau. Among the sites them selves there is a clear size hierarchy (Kramer 1983; Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995; Kuijt 2000c). Ethno studies (Kramer 1982; 1983;Watson archaeological 1979) demonstrate that exact surface areas cannot

be translated by a simple formula into number of ifwe consider themeasure inhabitants. However, of hectares as providing a relative scale and taking into account

differences

the "life history" of every site, then in population size can be shown. The

in the Neolithic

of the Near

East

29

Kirkbride1968;Byrd 1994;?zdogan and?zdogan

1998). In addition, within each of the "tribal territo ries" we may expect a sacred settlement for annual or seasonal pilgrimage. G?bekli Tepe (Hauptmann 1999; Schmidt 1999a; 1999b), Kfar HaHoresh

(Gor

ing-Morriset al. 1995),possiblyBa'ja (Gebel and

or a certain 2000), and ?atalh?y?k, have that of served for could it, purpose portion (Hodder 1999). In each of these sites, the archaeo logical context reflects a mixture of domestic as

Hermansen

well as ceremonial continuum

and ritual activities, forming a from the sacred to themundane.

The complexityof symbolsfromboth animal

and human

realms exemplified by the inventory of the sculptures at G?bekli Tepe and Nevah ?ori, as

is that the largest tested sites accom assumption modated a viable biological unit of about 400-500 1989), while people (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen

well as the reconstructed

by about 1,000-2,500 people. In each large village, domestic

regional particularities as well as common themes within the PPNB interaction sphere. Jacques Cauvin (2000a; 2000b) views the figu rines and bucrania in the earlier Khiamian context

smaller villages or hamlets had only 50-100 people. Given the average occupation length of each major village as about 300-400 years, it is cautiously esti mated that a "tribal" territory (fig. 4) was inhabited buildings reflect the basic social units. Thus, nuclear families prob the rectangular houses of various ably occupied

were later types(Hole 2000;M. ?zdogan 1996)that subdivided

into smaller

rooms, while

extended

families shared accommodations in compounds such as seen in Bouqras A. et al. Akkermans (P. a more in and in 1983) A?ikli (Esin complex pattern 1998). Houses with two storeyswere more common

in the later part of the PPNB. Among these are the "corridor houses" in Beidha (Byrd 1994) and the two-storey houses of the "cell" type well-preserved in Basta (Nissen et al. 1987). It seems that house size reflected family wealth and unequal social status. are Examples only known from sites where the area excavated is large, such as in ?ay?n?, where ca. 4,500 m2 were exposed (?zdogan and ?zdogan A. 1998; 1999). ?zdogan An attribute of complex social structures is the

presence of ceremonial areas, special buildings for rituals, and shrines. Such architectural components are recognized in sites where large exposures are available and in some cases where the edge of the include A?ikli village was uncovered. Examples Nevali and Beidha (Esin 1996; ?ori, H?y?k, ?ay?n?,

and the numerous

mobile

buildings

at ?atalh?y?k

imagery objects from are not easy to decipher various sites (J.Cauvin 2000a; 2000b; Voigt 2000; Schmidt 2001). Scholars agree that the various suites of images demonstrate

and Jerfel-Ahmar as marking the first of "theWoman and the Bull" images appearance that become the emblems of the new religion.

ofMureybet

in order to fully understand the new cos Cauvin the artistic mology, employs expressions from ?atalh?y?k, which represents the westward Hence,

diffusion of later times, to explain the conceptual structure. The woman, a is seen mother-goddess,

as giving birth to the bull, and the two remain the major deities during the ensuing millennia. The continuity over time and geographic space is to testified, according Cauvin, by their images on

Halafian

pottery. He

interprets the emergence

of

thenew symbolicsystemas signifying a change in

collective psychology, which

preceded

the advent

of theveritableNeolithic village society( J.Cauvin In thematerialistic

world, he ties the shift PPNB expressed by imagery to the transition from rounded (representing "female," natural rounded

2000a).

lines) to rectangular (representing "male" desire to control) architecture. link Voigt (2000) warns that the demonstrable between economic and age political changes, on

30 Ofer

Bar-Yosef

one hand, and Neolithic ideology and ritual, on the other hand, are limited. In her analysis of the ?atalh?y?k figurines, she stresses the aspect of

information about the variable mortuary practices, the comprehensive data set can serve as a basis

forevaluatingthe social complexityof thePPNB

rather than the aspect of "fertility," civilization within its various tribal territories. when domesticated plants and animals ensured the The presence of special shrines, open spaces for survival and wealth of village inhabitants. social and ceremonial activities, human statues "abundance"

less important are the caches of human in Jericho and plaster statues uncovered Ghazal (Rollefson 1983; 2000). Their archaeological No

context testifies to the intentional burial of used

cultic objects (Garfinkel1994). The breakage of

such holy items prior to their interment is a well known phenomenon from later historical periods in theNear East. The interpretation of the plastered

statues, some of which are only busts, is not easy. to the position of their hands, those According

holding the lowerpart of thebellyare considered female representations (Aurenche and Kozlowski 1999). All have eyes encircled with asphalt lines and stripes of red color on their bodies. By employing

an archaeological the analogy to later millennia, statues seem to represent a pantheon of deities,

inwhich thehuman figure representsboth the

real and the mythological (1962) image. Amiran these of mode of that the production suggested statues ? constructed from reeds, cloth, and plas ter? resembled the creation of Man as depicted in the Gilgamesh epic. Hence, it is quite probable

that the cosmology of the PPNB civilization, orally transmitted in the Near Eastern world, found its later. written expression several millennia The territories of what

seem to have been kin

were marked by sacred localities ship-based entities that symbolize ownership of the land, similar to

and stelae (with or without animal carvings), hu man and animal figurines (some of which could have been just temporary teaching devices), and the special locales that symbolize ownership of a certain landscape reflect a dynamic ranked society with elite cohorts in the largest villages.

THE COLLAPSE OF THE PPNB CIVILIZATION and concerning site abandonment are common among PPNB stratigraphical gaps settlements survived formany few villages. Very as dates demonstrate. of C14 clusters the centuries, studies indicate that the pres Ethnoarchaeological

Observations

ence of deserted houses and courtyards is a com mon attribute of village life (Kramer 1982;Cameron and Tomka 1993). Various

reasons account

for the abandonment

ofhouses in a livingvillage,fromthedeath of the

head of the family to the outcome of verbal and the entire village physical conflicts. However, when is deserted, the reasons could be more complex,

of the immedi ranging from over-exploitation ate environment and successful aggression by a to the impact of consecutive neighboring village for conflicts that ended in droughts. Examples are rare during the PPNB burning the entire village

Sheikh tombsin southernSinai (Marx 1977).Such period (GanjDareh; P. Smith1976),althoughtheir a special localityis thedark cave filledwith ritual paucity does not necessarily reflect the endurance of the geographic boundary between the Judean desert and the northern Negev. Among

data concerning lifeways.On the contrary, is conflicts accumulating as more skeletal physical collections are published. Under any circumstances, the abandonment of one and/or several sitesmay

with collagen), stonemasks, small human figurines, remains of plastered statues, special lithic tools, and various other objects (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988; Bar-Yosef and Schick 1989; Schick 1989; Goren et

precipitate societal restructuring, especially among to farming communities. It is, therefore, necessary to and of abandonment the document first timing or a local phenomenon ascertain whether it is only

paraphernalia this sitemarks

in Nahal

Hemar.

The

location

of

modeled with asphalt (mixed theobjectsare skulls

al. 1993). In sum, when nial and domestic

the evidence

ceremo

for public ritual activities is compiled with

peaceful

a regional event. Second, we need to search for the reasons, which among scholars inspire both lively debates and disagreements.

The

Emergence

of Social

Complexity

The stratigraphie gap between the latest PPNB was no deposits and the Pottery Neolithic pits

and Kenyon in Jericho. Similar cases of rebuilding on phenomena, including rare across the Levant (Ban the site,were documented ticed by Garstang

M. ning and Byrd 1984;Gopher andGophna 1993;

in the Neolithic

of the Near

East

31

exploitation of pastures by herding goats and tree felling forplaster production and building elements (Rollefson 1990; Rollefson and K?hler-Rollefson et al. 1992). To expect that the 1989; Rollefson same processes took place in both Anatolia and the Levant is to advocate that the same destructive

operated across every ecological belt As this the entire eastern Mediterranean.

1996; A. ?zdogan 1999). Further support ?zdogan of for observations concerning the abandonment PPNB villages was gleaned from the subsequent establishment of new hamlets and farmsteads in

mechanism

various parts of the Levant. The better known cul tural entity in the southern part is the Yarmukian

wide-ranged change. Another perspective would be to see the collapse as motivated by societal over-exploitation. Unfor

(Banningand Siggers1997;Stekelis1972;Garfinkel

1993). Recent excavations at the type-site at Shaar uncovered HaGolan large built-up compounds

(Garfinkel1999).

In the early days of archaeological when radiocarbon measurements were

research,

rare, rela tive chronology was based on ceramics and lithics.

The presence of potteryproduction in latePPNB contexts in the northern Levant reached the south

ern Levant, only to be found in Pottery Neolithic sites that do bear certain cultural attributes of the PPNB.

This observation

served as a basis for rec

ognizing a cultural gap of unknown duration. The maximal guess was of a thousand years and a lesser one suggested five centuries (Gopher and Gophna 1993 and references therein). Perrot (1968) regarded thismajor change as the result of a climatic crisis that caused the desertion ofmost populated areas

of the southern Levant. Subsequent field research that the cultural gap in and dating demonstrates amajor shift in settle reflects this region essentially

ment pattern without a distinctive time gap. It is also evidenced in the northern Levant, for example in the Balikh valley (P.M. M. G. Akkermans 1993; Akkermans and Duistermaat 1996) and further north at the site of ?ay?n? (A. ?zdogan 1999), as

well as in sites across the Anatolian

plateau. proposals for explaining the collapse of the PPNB were derived from contemporary eco logical awareness of environmental deterioration Other

caused by the Industrial Revolution and the ensu increase and population ing rapid development the nineteenth

and

twentieth centuries.

during Thus, the change within the sequence Ghazal was interpreted as a consequence

of Ain of over

within

seems unlikely, another cause or,more likely, causes need to be exposed to account for a geographically

we have no evidence for the presence of a tunately, or another kind of chief, in spite of intricate Big Man exchange systems or the enslaving of smaller com

munities by larger, richer ones. This isnot to say that there is no evidence for social ranking or clear signs for the existence of personal property marked by stamps. Perhaps future excavations will record the from the presence of slaves, a known phenomenon coast of the Northwest North of sedentary villages

America

(Ames and Maschner 1999). as the Today, image of the PPNB civilization is fuller than before, its collapse through the entire

region should lead us to examine the possibility that an abrupt climatic change was responsible for the rapid worsening of environmental condi tions. It is proposed

6,400-6,200

B.C.E.,

that the climatic crisis around as

recorded

in

ice

cores,

was

the culprit (Alley et al. 1997).The impactof the

change is reflected invarious terrestrial and marine from Greece pollen in the eastern Mediterranean

(van Zeist and 1995), Anatolia (Rossignol-Strick Bottema 1991), and the Levant (Baruch and Bot tema 1999). In addition, it is clearly marked in the

curve of the Ol6/l8 sequence in palaeo-climatic cave et al. 1997; (Bar-Mathews 1999). Soreq In the event of a series of droughts, a complex on society that subsisted farming and herding,

where

the demands

of more

affluent individuals

(orfamilies)drove theflowof foreigngoods, could

not continue

to accumulate

the pattern of seasonal

surplus. The shift in precipitation imposed the

search for pastures further away and resulted in lower yields of summer harvests. Finally, the eco nomic deterioration resulted in a societal change

32 Ofer

expressed in the disappearance villages and the establishment

of previously

Bar-Yosef

large

of smaller villages, hamlets, or farmsteads. The new conditions prob ably enhanced the reliance on the more flexible subsistence

strategy of pastoral nomads. The events in Anatolia could have triggered another wave of colonizers moving westward into temperate Europe.

Other

colonizers

brought the delta or into the

system to the Nile

agricultural

and beyond. Perhaps regions of the Caucasus more important was the "push" given to societies that had already developed irrigation control dur

With the ing the PPNB in Upper Mesopotamia. hierarchical social structure in place, establishing was over Mesopotamia "hydraulic civilization" all the step that heralded the emergence of chiefdoms and city states.

REFERENCES Abu

Tell es-Sawwan Excavations of the fourthSeason (Spring 1967). InterimReport. Sumer 24: 3-16.

Akkermans, R A.; Boerma, J.A. K.; Clason, A. T.; Hill, S. G.; Lohof, E.; Meiklejohn, C; leMi?re, M.; Molgat, G. M. E; Roodenberg, J. J.; Waterbolkvan Rooyen, W.; and van Zeist,W. 1983 Bouqras revisited:Preliminary Report on a Proj

ect inEastern Syria.Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 49: 335-72. P. M.

Akkermans,

1993

P. M.

Akkermans,

G.

M.

G.,

K.

and Duistermaat,

Of Storage and Nomads. The Sealings fromLate Neolithic Sabi Abyad, Syria. Commentaires de R. Bernbeck, S. Cleuziou, M. Frangipane, A. Le Brun, H. Nissen, H. T. Wright et r?ponse des auteurs.

Pal?orient

22, no.

2:

17-44.

K. A.

Al-Adami,

1968

M.

Villages in theSteppe: Later Neolithic Settlement in theBalikh Valley,Northern Syria. Ann Arbor, MI: InternationalMonographs in Prehistory.

1996

Excavations at Tell es-Sawwan (second season). Sumer

24:

54-94.

.;Mayewski, P. A.; Sowers, T.; Stuiver,M.; Alley, R. . and Clark, P. U. C; Taylor, 1997 Holocene Climatic Instability: A Prominent, Widespread Event 8200 yrs ago. Geology 25, no. 6: 483-86. Ames,

1999

. M.,

and Maschner,

Anderson,

1998

D.

Peoples of theNorthwest Coast: Their Archaeol ogy and Prehistory.New York, NY: Thames and R.

1962 Myths of the Creation ofMan

and the Jericho

History ofHarvesting and ThreshingTechniques for Cereals in the Prehistoric Near East. Pp. 145-59 in The Origins ofAgriculture and Crop Domestication,

eds. A. B. Damania,

and C O. Qualset. Aleppo:

J.Valkoun,

G.

ICARDA.

Aurenche, O.; Cauvin, J.;Cauvin, M.-C; Copeland, L.; Hours, E; and Sanlaville, P. 1981 Chronologie et organisation de l'espace dans le Proche Orient de 12000 ? 5600 avant J.C.Pp. 571-78 in Pr?histoire du Levant, eds. J.Cauvin and P. Sanlaville. Paris: CNRS.

Aurenche,

1999

O.,

S. K.

and Kozlowski,

La Naissance duN?olithique au Proche Orient ou Le Paradis Perdu. Paris: Editions Errance.

.; Sch?fer-Pregi, R.; El Rabey, H; Badr, A.; M?ller, .H.; Pozzi, G; Rohde, W.; and Effgen, S.; Ibrahim, E Salamini, 2000 On the origin and domestication history of barley (Hordeum vulgare). Molecular Biology and Evolution 17,no. 4: 499-510. . Banning, E. B., and Byrd, E 1984 The architecture of PPNB Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research 225: 15-20. 1997

G.

P. C.

Willcox

Banning, H.

Hudson. Amiran,

Statues. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools ofOri ental Research 167: 23-25.

.

Es-Soof,

1968

E. B., and

Siggers,

J.

a Technological Strategies at Late Neolithic Farmstead inWadi Ziqlab, Jordan.Pp. 319-32 inThe Prehistory ofJordan, II. Perspectivesfrom 1997, eds. H. Gebel, Z. Kafafi and G Rollefson. Studies inEarly Near Eastern Production, Sub sistence

and

Environment.

Berlin:

Ex Oriente.

The

of Social

Emergence

Complexity

in the Neolithic

Bar-Mathews, M.; Ayaion, A.; and Kaufman, A. 1997 Late Quaternary Paleoclimate in the eastern Mediterranean

Region from Stable Isotope Analysis of Speleothems at Soreq Cave, Israel. Quaternary Research 47:155-68.

Bar-Mathews,

M.;

A.;

Ayalon,

Kaufman,

A.;

andWasserburg, G. J. 1999 The Eastern Mediterranean Paleoclimate as a Reflection ofRegional Events: Soreq Cave, Israel. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 166: 85-95. D.

Bar-Yosef,

1991

1981

The "Pre-PotteryNeolithic" Period in the south ern Levant. Pp. 551-70 inPr?histoire du Levant,

eds. J.Cauvin and P. Sanlaville. Paris: CNRS. 1986 The Walls of Jericho:An alternative Interpreta tion. Current Anthropology 27: 157-62. 1998a On the Nature of Transitions: theMiddle to Upper Palaeolithic and theNeolithic Revolu tion. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8, no. 2: 141-63.

1998b Introduction. Pp. 39-94 in Last Hunters - First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition toAgriculture, eds. T. D. Price and A. B. Gebauer. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe,NM: School ofAmerican Research. 2000 The Context ofAnimal Domestication in South western Asia. Pp. 184-94 inArchaeozoology of theNear East IVA. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on theArchaeozoology ofSouthwesternAsia and Adjacent Areas, eds.M. Mashkour, A. M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis and F. Poplin. Centre forArchaeological Research and Consultancy Publication 32. Groningen: ARC. 2001 From Sedentary Foragers toVillage Hierarchies: the Emergence of Social Institutions. Pp. 1-38 in The Origins ofHuman Social Institutions, ed. W. G. Runciman. Proceedings of the British Academy O.,

Bar-Yosef,

and Alon,

Excavations 18:

Bar-Yosef,

1989

110. Oxford: Oxford University. D.

in theNahal Hemar Cave. Atiqot

1-30. O.,

and

Belfer-Cohen,

A.

The Origins of Sedentism and Farming Commu

33

4: 447-98.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Gopher, A. (eds.) 1997 An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley Part I: The Archaeology ofNetiv Hagdud. Pea body Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

1995

,

Schick,

Early Neolithic organic Remains from Nahal Hemar Cave. National Geographic Research 5, 2:

U.,

Baruch,

176-90.

and

Bottema,

S.

A New PollenDiagram fromLake Hula: Vegetation al,Climatic, and Anthropologenic Implications.Pp. 75-86 inAncient Lakes: TheirCultural and Biologi calDiversity,eds.H. Kawanabe, G.W. Coulter and A. C. Roosevelt. Belgium: Kenobe Productions.

Bettinger,

1991

and

O.,

no.

1999

R. H.

The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. Pp. 39-94 in Last Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on thePrehistoric Transition toAgri culture,eds. T. D. Price and A. B. Gebauer. School ofAmerican Research Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe, NM: School ofAmerican Research.

Bar-Yosef,

1989

and Meadow,

O.,

Bar-Yosef,

O.

Bar-Yosef,

1988

3, no.

Changes in the Selection ofMarine Shells from theNatuflan to theNeolithic. Pp. 629-36 inThe Natufian Culture in theLevant, eds. O. Bar-Yosef International

East

nities in the Levant. Journal ofWorld Prehistory

E.

and F. R. Valla. Ann Arbor, MI: Monographs in Prehistory.

of the Near

R. L.

Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolution ary Theory. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, The Language of Science. New York, NY: Plenum.

.F. Byrd, 1994 Public and Private, Domestic and Corporate: The Emergence of the Southwest Asian Village. American Antiquity 59, no. 4: 639-66. Cameron,

1993

C. M.,

and Tomka,

S. A.

Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Eth noarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches. New Directions inArchaeology. New York, NY: Cambridge University.

Cauvin, J. 1977 Les fouilles de Mureybet (1971-1974) et leur significationpour les origines de la s?dentarisa tion au Proche-Orient. Annual of theAmerican Schools ofOriental Research 44: 19-48. 1978 Les premiers villages de Syrie-Palestine de IX?me au Vll?me mill?naire avant J.C. Lyon:Maison de 1 Orient. 1998

La n?olithisation de FAnatolie. Pp. 207-14 in Light on Top of theBlack Hill. Studies Presented toHolet ?ambel, eds. G. Arseb?k, M. Mellink, J. andW. Schirmer. Istanbul: Ege.

34 Ofer

2000a

Bar-Yosef

The Birth of theGods and theOrigins ofAgricul ture,trans.T.Watkins. Cambridge: Cambridge

1998

University.

2000b The Symbolic Foundations of the Neolithic Revolution in the Near East. Pp. 235-51 in Life inNeolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, ed. I. Kuijt. New York, NY: Plenum.

1974

Fl?ches ? encoches de Syrie: Essai de classifica tion et d'interpr?tation culturelle. Pal?orient 2,

no.

2:311-22.

Du Natoufien sur l'Euphrate? Pp. 11-20 in Le Moyen Euphrate: Zone de Contacts etd'?changes, ed. J.C. Margueron. Leiden: Brill. 1981 LEpipal?olithique de Syrie d'apr?s les premiers recherches dans la cuvette d'el-Kowm (1978 1979). Pp. 375-88 inPr?histoire du Levant, eds. J.Cauvin and P. Sanlaville. Paris: CNRS.

1980

Childe, V. G. 1929 The Danube

inPrehistory.Oxford: Oxford Uni

versity.

Clark, J.E. 1999 Comments - On "Stone Tools" byG. Odell. Lithic Technology 24, no. 2: 126-35. D.

Clarke,

L.

1978

AnalyticalArchaeology,2nd ed. London: Methuen. Colledge, S. 1998 IdentifyingPre-domestication Cultivation using Multivariate Analysis. Pp. 121-31 inThe Origins ofAgriculture and Crop Domestication, eds. A. B. Damania, J.Valkoun, G. Willcox and C. O. Qualset. Aleppo, Syria: ICARDA. 1981

The pre-potteryNeolithic Burials. Pp. 395-406 in Excavations at Jericho,Vol. Ill: The Archi tectureand Stratigraphy of the Tell, eds. K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland. London: British School ofArchaeology in Jerusalem. M.

Dobres,

2000

Technologyand Social Agency Oxford: Blackwell. Dobres, M., and Hoffman, C 1994 Social Agency and theDynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory 1,no. 3: 211-58. Esin,

1996

1999

U.

Asikli, Ten Thousand Years Ago: A Habitation Model from Central Anatolia. Pp. 19-30 in Housing and Settlement inAnatolia: A Historical Perspective. Istanbul: The Economic and Social History Foundation of Turkey.

Chiefdoms in the earlyNear East: Why its so hard to Identify them. Pp. 44-61 in The Iranian World: Essays on Iranian Art and Archaeology, eds. A. Alizadeh, Y.Majidzadeh and S.M. Shah mirzadi. Teheran: IranUniversity.

Garfinkel, Y. 1993 The Yarmukian Culture in Israel. Pal?orient 19, no.

1: 115-34.

1994

Ritual Burial ofCultic Objects: The Earliest Evi dence. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4, no.

1999

Radiometrie Dates from Eighth Millennium B.P. Israel. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research 315: 1-13.

2:

159-88.

Garfinkel, Y., and Nadel, D. 1989 The Sultanian Flint Assemblage from Gesher and its Implications forRecognizing Early Neo lithicEntities in theLevant. Pal?orient 15,no. 2: 139-51. Garrard,

1999

A. N.

Charting theEmergence ofCereal and Pulse Do mestication in SouthWest Asia. Environmental Archaeology 4: 67-86.

Garrard, A. N.; Colledge, S.; andMartin, L. 1996 The Emergence ofCrop Cultivation and Caprine Herding in the "Marginal Zone" of the Southern

Levant. Pp. 204-26 inThe Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism inEurasia, ed. D. Harris. London: University College London.

I.W.

Cornwall,

.V.

Flannery,

M.-C.

Cauvin,

The Aceramic Site of A?ikh and its Ecologi cal Conditions based on its Floral and Faunal Remains. TurkishAcademy ofSciences Journal of Archaeology (TUBA-AR) 1: 95-103.

Gebel,

2000

H. G,

and Hermansen,

B. D.

The 2000 Season at Late PPNB Baja. Neo-Lithics 2000,

no.

2-3:

20-22.

Gebel, H. G, and Kozlowski, S. K. 1994 Remarks on Taxonomy and Related Questions of Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries in theFertile Crescent, as Related to theirContemporaries in theAdjacent Regions. Pp. 453-60 inNeolithic Chipped Stone Industries of theFertile Crescent: Proceedings of theFirstWorkshop onPPN Chipped

Lithic Industries, eds. S. K. Kozlowski and H. G Gebel. Berlin: Ex Oriente.

Gebel, H. G; Kafafi, Z.; and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.) 1997 ThePrehistoryofJordan,II. Perspectives from 1997. Studies inEarlyNear Eastern Production, Subsis tence, and Environment 4. Berlin: Ex Oriente.

The

Emergence

of Social

Complexity

Gopher, A. 1989 Neolithic Arrowheads in theLevant: Results and Implications of a Seriation Analysis. Pal?orient 15, no.

1:57-64.

1994a Arrowheads of theNeolithic Levant: A Seriation Analysis. Dissertation Series 10.Winona Lake,

in the Neolithic

Levant PPN Cultural

1995

and S. K. Kozlowski. Berlin: Ex Oriente. Ain Darat, a PPNA Site in the JudeanDesert. Neo-Lithics 1995, no. 1: 7-8.

Gopher, A. and R. Gophna 1993 Cultures of the eighth and seventhMillennium BP in Southern Levant: A Review for the 1990 s. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 7, no. 3: 297-351. Goren, Y.; Segal, L; and Bar-Yosef, O. 1993 Plaster Artifacts and the Interpretation of the Nahal Hemar Cave. Journal of theIsrael Prehis toricSociety IS: 1201-31.

1984

A. N.;

Goren,

Y.; Horwitz,

L. K.;

Bar

Yosef, O.; and Hershkovitz, I. 1995 Investigations at an EarlyNeolithic Settlement in theLower Galilee: Results of the 1991 Season at

Hillman, G. C. 2000 Abu Hureyra 1 :The Epipalaeolithic. Pp. 327-99 in Village on theEuphrates: From Foraging toFarming at Abu Hureyra, eds. A. M. T. Moore, G. C. Hill man and A. J.Legge. Oxford: Oxford University. Hodder, I. 1999 Renewed Work at ?atalh?y?k. Pp. 157-64 in Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle ofCivilization. New Discoveries, eds. M. ?zdogan and N. Ba?gelen. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat. Hole,

1994

1998

des

Harris, D. (ed.) 1996 The Origins and Spread ofAgriculture and Pas toralism inEurasia. London: University College London. Hauptmann,

1988 1999

H.

Nevali ?ori: Architektur.Anatolica 15: 99-110. The Urfa Region. Pp. 65-86 in Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle ofCivilization. New Discoveries, eds. M. ?zdogan and N. Basgelen. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat.

Hayden, B. 1995 Pathways to Power: Principles forCreating So cioeconomic

Inequalities.

Pp.

15-86

in Founda

tions of Social Inequality, eds. T. D. Price and G.

F.

InterregionalAspects of theKhuzestan Aceram ic-Early PotteryNeolithic sequence. Pp. 101-16 inNeolithic Chipped Stone Industries of theFertile Crescent: Proceedings of theFirst Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries, eds. H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski. Berlin: Ex Oriente. The Spread ofAgriculture to the Eastern Arc of the Fertile Crescent: Food for theHerders. Pp. 83-92 inTheOrigins ofAgriculture and Crop Do eds. A.

mestication,

Kefar HaHoresh. Atiqot 27: 37-62. Guilaine, J.(ed.) 1999 Premiers paysans du monde: Naissances agricultures. Paris: Editions Errance.

These are our Goats: The Origins ofHerding in West Central Iran. Pp. 243-64 in Animal and Archaeology, 3. Early Herders and Their Floch, eds. J.Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson. BAR In ternational Series 202. Oxford: BAR.

Heun, M.; Sch?fer-Pregl,R.; Klawan, D.; Castagna, R.; Accerbi, M.; Borghi, .;and Salamini, F. 1997 Site ofEinkornWheat Domestication Identified by DNA Fingerprinting. Science 278: 1312-14.

Goring-Morris, A. N., and Belfer-Cohen, A. 1997 The Articulation ofCultural Processes and Late Quaternary Environmental Changes inCisjor dan. Pal?orient 23, no. 2: 71-94. Goring-Morris,

35

.

Hesse,

Se

quences: Time-space Systematics through Ty pological and StylisticApproaches. Pp. 387-92 inNeolithic Chipped Stone Industriesof theFertile Crescent: Proceedings of theFirst Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries, eds. H. G. Gebel

East

M. Feinman. Fundamental Issues inArchaeology. New York, NY: Plenum.

IN: Eisenbrauns.

1994b Southern-central

of the Near

2000

B. Damania,

J.Valkoun,

G

Willcox and C. O. Qualset. Aleppo: ICARDA. Is Size Important? Function and Hierarchy in Neolithic Settlements. Pp. 191-209 in Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organi zation, Identity,and Differentiation, ed. I. Kuijt. New York, NY: Plenum.

Horwitz, L. K.; Tchernov, E.; Ducos, P.; Becker, C; von den Driesch, A.; Martin, L.; and Garrard, A. 1999 Animal Domestication in the Southern Levant. Pal?orient

25, no.

2: 63-80.

Johnson,A. W, and Earle, T. 2000 The Evolution ofHuman Societies: From Foraging Group toAgrarian State. 2nd ed. Stanford, CA:

StanfordUniversity. R. Kelly, 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity inHunter Gatherer Lifeways.Washington, DC: Smithson ian Institution.

36 Ofer

Kenyon,

1957

1981

Bar-Yose

. M.

Digging Up Jericho.London: Benn. Excavations at Jericho,Vol. Ill: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell London: British School ofArchaeology in Jerusalem.

Research: Directions and Trends. Pp. 311-22 in Life inNeolithic Farming Communities: Social

Organization, Identity,and Differentiation, ed. I.Kuijt. New York, NY: Plenum. 2000c People and Space inEarly Agricultural Villages: Exploring Daily Lives, Community Size, and Architecture in the Late Pre-PotteryNeolithic. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 19, no.

Kirkbride, D. 1968 Beidha: Early Neolithic Village Life south of the Dead Sea. Antiquity 42: 263-74. Kislev,

1997

M.

Early Agriculture and Paleoecology of Netiv Hagdud. Pp. 209-36 inAn EarlyNeolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, eds. O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum ofArchaeol ogy and Ethnology.

The EasternWing of theFertileCrescent: Late Pre historyofGreaterMesopotamian Lithic Industries. British Archaeological Reports International Series 760. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Kozlowski, S.K, and Gebel, H. G. K. (eds.) 1996 Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of theFertile Crescent and Their Contemporaries inAdjacent Regions: Proceedings of theSecond Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries,Warsaw 1995. Berlin: Ex Oriente. Kramer,

1982 1983

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C, and Sabloff, J. 1979 Ancient Civilizations: The Near East and Me soamerica. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cum mings. Lechevallier,

1994

S. K.

Kozlowski,

1999

1: 75-102.

E.

C.

VillageEthnoarchaeologyNew York,NY: Academic. Spatial Organization in Contemporary South west Asian Villages. Pp. 347-68 in The Hilly Flanks and Beyond, eds. T. C Young, Jr.,P. E. L. Smith and P.Mortensen. Studies inAncient Civi lization 36. Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute.

Kuijt, I. 1994 A BriefNote on theChipped Stone Assemblages of Iraq ed-Dubb, Jordan.Neo-Lithics 1994, no. 2: 2-3.

1995

Legge,

1996

M.,

and Ronen,

A.

Le gisement de Hatoula en Jud?e occidentale, Isra?l Paris: Association Pal?orient. T.

in The Beginning of Caprine Domestication Southwest Asia. Pp. 238-62 in The Origins and Spread ofAgriculture and Pastoralism inEurasia, ed. D. Harris. London: University College Lon don.

Lemonnier,

1992

P.

Elementsfor an Anthropology ofTechnology.An thropological Papers,Museum ofAnthropology, 88. Ann Arbor, MI: University ofMichigan. L.

Martin,

1999 Mammal

Remains from the Eastern Jordanian Neolithic, and theNature of Caprine Herding in the Steppe. Pal?orient 25, no. 2: 87-104.

Marx,

1977

E.

Communal and Individual Pilgrimage: The Re gion of Saints' Tombs in South Sinai. Pp. 29-51 inRegional Cults, ed. R. P.Werbner. The Hague: Mouton.

Mellaart, J. 1967 ?atal H?y?k, a Neolithic Town inAnatolia. London: Thames and Hudson.

Pre-PotteryNeolithic A Settlement Variability: Evidence for Sociopolitical Developments in Mithen, S.; Finlayson, B.; Pirie, A.; Carruthers, D.; and the Southern Levant. Journal ofMediterranean M. Kennedy, Archaeology 7, no. 2: 165-92. 2000 New Evidence forEconomic and Technological 1996 Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A Con Diversity in the Pre-PotteryNeolithic A: Wadi sideration of Late Natufian and Prepottery Faynan 16. Current Anthropology 41, no. 4: Neolithic A Period Mortuary Practices. Journal 655-63. ofAnthropological Archaeology 15: 313-36. 2000a Life inNeolithic Farming Communities: Social Monnin, E.; Indermuhle,A.; Dallenbach, A.; Fluckiger, J.;

Organization, Identity,and Differentiation, ed. I. Kuijt. New York, NY: Plenum. 2000b People and Space in Early Agricultural Vil lages: Exploring Daily Near Eastern Neolithic

Stauffer, B.; Stocker,

2001

T.; Raynaud,

D.;

and Barnola,

J.-M.

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over theLast Glacial Termination. Science 291: 112-14.

The

A. M.

Moore,

Emergence

of Social

Complexity

T.

The Excavation of Abu Hureyra 2. Pp. 327-99 in Village on theEuphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra, eds. A. M. T. Moore,

2000

in the Neolithic

1994

University.

17, no.

1: 109-19.

Nishiaki, Y. 1994 The Naviform Method at Houara Cave II, Pal myra, Syria. Pp. 363-78 inNeolithic Chipped Stone Industries of theFertile Crescent: Proceed ingsof theFirstWorkshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries, eds. H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski. Berlin: Ex Oriente. J.;Muheisen, M.; Gebel, H. G.; Becker, G; Neef, R.; Pachur, H. J.;Qadi, N.; and Schultz,M. 1987 Report on the firsttwo Seasons of Excavation at Basta (1986-1987). Annual of theDepartment of Antiquities of Jordan 31: 79-119. Nissen, H.

Noy,

1989

Gilgal

1: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Pal?orient

15, no.

site, Israel.

Stone. Pp. 133-54 in Village on theEuphrates: From Foraging toFarming at Abu Hureyra, eds. A. M. T.Moore, G. C. Hillman and

A. J.Legge. Oxford:Oxford University. ?zdogan, A. 1999 ?ay?n?. Pp. 35-64 inNeolithic inTurkey:Cradle

ofCivilization. New Discoveries, eds.M. ?zdogan and N. Basgelen. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat. ?zdogan, M. 1996 From Huts toHouses: "Firsts" inArchitecture. Pp. 19-30 inHousing and Settlement inAnatolia: A Historical Perspective. Istanbul: The Economic and Social History Foundation of Turkey. 1997 Anatolia from theLast Glacial Maximum to the

1999

Peltenburg, E.; Colledge, S.; Croft, P.; Jackson,A.; McCartney, G; and Murray, M. A. 2000 Agro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10thMillennium BP: Initial Assessments. Antiquity 74, no. 286: 844-53. Perrot,

Holocene Climatic Optimum: Cultural Forma tions and the Impact of theEnvironmental Set ting.Pal?orient 23, no. 2: 25-38. Concluding Remarks. Pp. 225-36 inNeolithic inTurkey: Cradle ofCivilization. New Discover ies, eds. M.

?zdogan

J.

1968

La pr?histoire palestinienne. Cols. 286-446 in Suppl?ment au Dictionnaire de la Bible, vol. 8. Paris: Letouzey and Ane. Peters, J.;Helmer, D.; von den Driesch, A.; and Segui, S.

1999

Early Animal Husbandry vant.

Olszewski, D. I. 2000 The Chipped

Arkeoloji ve Sanat.

and N.

Basgelen.

Istanbul:

.

Balkan-Atli,

?zdogan, M., and ?zdogan, A. 1998 Buildings of Cult and theCult of Buildings. Pp. 581-601 inLight on Top of theBlack Hill. Studies Presented toHolet ?ambel, eds. G. Arseb?k, M. Mellink, J.andW. Schirmer. Istanbul: Ege.

1:11-18.

Noy, T.; Legge, A. J.;and Higgs, E. S. 1973 Recent Excavations at Nahal Oren, Israel. Pro ceedings of thePrehistoric Society 39: 75-99.

37

Ex Oriente.

M.

T.

East

South-east Anatolian Chipped Stone Sequence. Pp. 205-6 inNeolithic Chipped Stone Industries of theFertile Crescent: Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries, eds. H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski. Berlin:

G. C. Hillman and A. J.Legge. Oxford: Oxford

Nadel, D.; Bar-Yosef, O.; and Gopher, A. 1991 Early Neolithic Arrowhead Types in the South ern Levant: A Typological Suggestion. Pal?orient

and

M.,

?zdogan,

of the Near

Pal?orient

25, no.

in theNorthern Le

2: 27-47.

Pfaffenberger,B. 1992 Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review ofAnthropology 21: 491-516. Price, T. D., and Gebauer, A. B. (eds.) 1995 Last Hunters - First Farmers:New Perspectives on thePrehistoric Transition toAgriculture. School ofAmerican Research Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe,NM: School ofAmerican Research. L. A.,

Quintero,

1995

and Wilke,

ern Levant.

Reese,

Pal?orient

21, no.

1: 17-33.

C.

Redman,

1978

P. J.

Evolution and Economic Significance ofNavi formCore-and-Blade Technology in the South

The Rise ofCivilization. San Francisco: Freeman. D.

S.

Shells in the Levant: Upper Paleolithic, Epipaleolithic, and Neolithic. Pp. 613-28 in The Natufian Culture in theLevant, eds. O. Bar-Yosef and R R. Valla. Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs in Prehistory.

1991 Marine

Rollefson, G O. 1983 Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal (Jordan). Pal?orient 9, no. 2: 29-38. 1990 The Uses of Plaster at Neolithic Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Archeomaterials

4, no.

1: 33-54.

38 Ofer

2000

Bar-Yosef

Ghazal. Ritual and Social StructureatNeolithic in 165-90 in Neolithic Communi Pp. Farming Life ties:Social Organization, Identity,and Differentia tion,ed. I.Kuijt. New York,NY: Plenum.

Rollefson, G. O. and K?hler-Rollefson, I. 1989 *The Collapse of Early Neolithic Settlements in the Southern Levant. Pp. 73-89 in People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, ed. I.Hershkovitz. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 508. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1993 PPNC Adaptations in the First Half of the 6th Millennium B.C. Pal?orient 19, no. 1: 33-42. Rollefson, G. O.; Simmons, A. H.; and Kafafi, Z. 1992 Neolithic Cultures atAin Ghazal, Jordan,journal ofField Archaeology 19: 443-70. Rosenberg, M.; Nesbitt, R.; Redding, R.W.; and

Peasn?ll,

1998

P. E. L.

1976

Reflections on Four Seasons of Excavations at Tapeh Ganj Dareh. Pp. 11-22 inProceedings of the IVth Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran, ed. F. Bagherzadeh. Teheran: Iranian Centre forArchaeological Research.

Stekelis,M. 1972 The Yarmukian Culture. Jerusalem:Magness/ Hebrew University. D.

Stordeur,

Jerfel-Ahmar et l'?mergence du N?olithique au Proche Orient. Pp. 31-60 in Premiers paysans Gui du monde: Naissances des agricultures,ed. J.

2000

laine. Collection des Hesperides. Paris: Editions

Errance.

Stordeur, D.; Brenet, M.; 2001

Les b?timents communautaires de Jerfel-Ahmar etMureybet horizon PPNA (Syrie). Pal?orient 26, no.

1998

Pal?orient

26, no.

1: 45-54.

Smith,

B. D.

1998

The Emergence ofAgriculture, 2nd ed.New York, NY: ScientificAmerican Library.

1:29-44. and

D.,

Stordeur,

M.

Schmidt, K. 1999a Boars, Ducks, and Foxes - theUrfa-Project 99. Neo-Lithics 1999, no. 3: 12-15. 1999b Fr?he Tier- und Menschenbilder vom G?bekli Tepe Kampagnen 1995-98: Ein Kommenti erterKatalog der Gro?plastik und der Reliefs. IstanbulerMitteilungen 49: 5-21. 2001 G?bekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey: A Pre liminaryReport on the 1995-1999 Excavations.

and

f.-C.

Sea-Land Correlation of Pollen Records in the Eastern Mediterranean for theGlacial-In terglacial Transition: Biostratigraphy versus Radiometrie Time-Scale. Quaternary Science Reviews 14: 893-915.

Schick, T. 1989 Early Neolithic Twined Basketry and Fabrics from theNahal Hemar Cave in Israel. Pp. 41-52 in Tissage, Corderie, Vannerie: Actes des IX?mes Rencontres Internationales dArch?ologie et d'Histoire dAntibes, 20-22 Octobre 1988. Juan les-Pins: APDCA.

der Aprahamian, G;

Roux,

B. L.

Hallan ?emi, Pig Husbandry, and Post-Pleis tocene Adaptations among theTaurus-Zagros Arc (Turkey). Pal?orient 24, no. 1: 25-41.

Rossignol-Strick,

1995

Smith,

de Margueron,

T.

Espace naturel, espace construit ? Jerfel-Ahmar sur l'Euphrate. Pp. 93-108 inEspace Naturel, Es pace Habit? en Syrie du Nord (10e-2e mill?naires av. J-C). Actes du colloque tenu ?Wniversit? Laval (Qu?bec) du 5 au 7 mai 1997, eds. M. Fortin and O. Aurenche. Toronto: Canadian Society forMesopotamian Studies.

Stordeur,D.; Helmer, D.; andWilcox, G. 1997 Jerfel-Ahmar: un nouveau site de l'horizon PPNA sur lemoyen Euphrate syrien. Bulletin de la Soci?t? Pr?historique Fran?aise 94, no. 2: 282-85.

Stuiver,M.; Reimer, P. J.;Bard, E.; Beck, J. W.; Burr,G . McCormac, G; van der A.; Kromer, B.; S.; Hughen, M. and Plichi, J.; Spurk, 1998 INTCAL98Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000 0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40, no. 3: 1041-84. E.

Tchernov,

1993

A Pre From Sedentism to Domestication: Review Levant. for the Southern Pp. liminary 189-233 inSkeletons inherCupboard: Festschrift

for JulietClutton-Brock, eds. A. Clason, S. Payne and

H.-P.

Uerpmann.

Oxbow

Monograph

34.

Oxford: Oxbow. 1994 An EarlyNeolithic Village in theJordanValley II: The Fauna ofNetiv Hagdud. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 44. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography.

Emergence

The

Valla,

1995

of Social

Complexity

F. R.

The First Settled Societies Natuflan (12,500 10,200 BP). Pp. 169-89 in The Archaeology of Society in theHoly Land, ed. T. Levy. London: Leicester University.

in the Neolithic

of the Near

East

39

Watkins, T.; Baird, D.; and Betts, A. 1989 Qermez Dere and theEarly Aceramic Neolithic inNorthern Iraq. Pal?orient 15, no. 1: 19-24. Watson,

P. J.

Iran. Archaeological Ethnography inWestern Arizona. of AZ: Tucson, and Bakker-Heeres, University Zeist, W., 1986 (1984) Archaeobotanical Studies in the Levant Wilke, P. J.,and Quintero, L. A. 2. Neolithic and Halaf Levels at Ras Shamra. 1994 Naviform Core-and-Blade Technology: Assem Palaeohistoria 26: 151-70. blage Character as Determined by Replicative S. van Zeist, W., and Bottema, Experiments. Pp. 33-60 inNeolithic Chipped Stone Industries of theFertile Crescent: Proceed 1991 Late Quaternary Vegetation of theNear East. Bei on PPN Chipped Lithic hefte zum T?binger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, ingsof theFirstWorkshop Industries, eds. H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski. Reihe A (Naturwissenschaft)Nr. 18.Wiesbaden: Berlin: Ex Oriente. Reichert. J.A. H.

van

Vigne,

1979

J.-D.; Carr?re,

I.;

Sali?ge,

J.-F; Person,

A.;

Bocherens, F.;Guilaine, J.;and Briois, F. 2000 Predomestic Cattle, Sheep, Goat, and Pig during the late 9th and the 8thMillennium cal. BC on

Wolf, E. R. 1966 Peasants. Foundations ofModern Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wright, K. I. 1994 Ground Stone Tools and Hunter-Gatherer Sub sistence in Southwest Asia: Implications for the A: IV East Near the Transition to Farming. American Antiquity 59, Proceedings of zoology of theFourth International Symposium on theAr no. 2: 238-63. Asia and Southwestern Adjacent . chaeozoology of .

Cyprus: Preliminary resultsof Shillourokambos (Parekklisha, Limassol). Pp. 83-106 inArchaeo

Areas,

eds. M.

Mashkour,

A. M.

Choyke,

H.

Buitenhuis and F. Poplin. Centre forArchaeo Publication logical Research and Consultancy 32. Groningen: ARC. Voigt, M. M. 2000 ?atal H?y?k inContext: Ritual at EarlyNeolithic Sites inCentral and Eastern Turkey. Pp. 253-93 inLife inNeolithic Farming Communities: Social I. Organization, Identity,and Differentiation, ed. Kuijt. New York, NY: Plenum.

Zeder,

2000

A.,

and Hesse,

of Goats (Capra Initial Domestication Mountains in the 10,000 Years hircus) Zagros 287: 2254-57. Science Ago. The

4

Chapter Gender

Features

and

Social

Hierarchy Period

in the Chalcolithic in the Light

of the Peqfin

Cave,

Israel

byZvi Gal, Howard Smithlineand Dina Shalem

uring the course of road construction

thevillageofPeqfin, inUpperGalilee (fig.

), a unique Chalcolithic burial cave was (Gal et al. 1997)1. The cave is located on the lower western fringe of theMt. Meiron massif, mS

PEQFIN BURIAL CUSTOMS AND THE HUMAN MOTIF

in

is common

in Chalcolithic burial caves, pre on the coastal plain, the burials found dominantly are all secondary. Unusual here, however, is that alongside the great variety of ossuaries and jars

revealed

As

the highest mountain west of the Jordan River, and remote from any of the known regional cultural spheres related to this period: the Golan Heights,

utilized

for the reinternments

are reburials

in the

cave soil, outside any receptacle. The cave contains the richest assemblage of ossuaries yet found. in the with the vessels found other These, together a cave, indicate the existence of technologically

the Jordan RiftValley, the Judean Desert, the north Negev and the Coastal Plain. The finds in the

ern

cave, however, reflect for the first time artifactual aspects of all of these dispersed regional cultures in a single site.2 It is, as yet, the most combined northern Chalcolithic mortuary site discovered in

culture with highly artistic, creative, and spiritual aspects and expressions. Both social hier

advanced

Israel. The cave, a geologically impressive environ ment of stalagmites and stalactites, was originally utilized as a domestic habitation in the early stage

archywithin thisChalcolithic societyand gender

its definitive b.c.e., but experienced use the Ghassul phase (mid-5th-mid-4th during It was at this time that the millennium b.c.e.). cave was transformed into a major burial site or

some of which riety of types, shapes, and models, are unique. The largest group consists of rectan a flat base or four or six legs and gular boxes with

of theChalcolithicperiod, at thebeginningof 5th

millennium

aspects may be interpreted through a study of the cave and its finds. The ossuaries, all ceramic, were found in a va

a separate gable lid (figs. 2-3). A series of small on horizontal handles was placed diametrically

necropolis. 41

42

"

y

:'

Fig.

"

;v,;

Zvi Gal,

Howard

Smithline

Dina

Shalem

^

.

. :yyyi

^^^

^^.:..: v,-

"

Map showingthe locationofPeqtin and othersitesmentioned.

theboxes and the lids in order to facilitatetheir Often thefa?adesof these lids being tiedtogether. are decorated with portrayals of anthropomorphic facial features in a variety of fashions: symbolic

faces (fig.3),painted faces (fig.4), applied features (figs. 2, 5-6), and three-dimensional

man heads (fig.7).

and

sculpted hu

Another ossuary type is a closed box, sometimes

with fouror six legs (figs.4, 6). Each is equipped with an opening, either on its front or on the rear side, to enable the placing of bones inside th? box

and a fa?ade with a prominent nose and eyes, either sculpted or painted.

A few classes of ossuaries are outside the scope of this study but, nevertheless, require mentioning. as zoomorphic ossuaries are modeled Numerous

consists of shal portrayals. An additional group boxes with low, open, rectangular large horizontal or a holes series of handles along the rim. pierced It is assumed that they were covered by a sheet made of an organic material that was fastened to

thehandles or tied to theholes and which long

Gender

Features

and

Social

Hierarchy

in the Chalcolithic

Period

43

face. Fig. 3 An ossuarywith a lid,six legsand symbolic

Fig. 2 An ossuarywith a lid and applied human features.

no trace. Red geometric patterns, perhaps imitating clothing, are commonly found painted on the sides of all the different os ago decomposed,

leaving

suary types. The heavy nature of the ossuaries left on their base the impressions of the variety ofmats

upon which theywere constructed before firing.

and left to dry

common Secondary burial in jars, though less than ossuary reinterment, was practiced as well.

Most of the jars have largepierced handles for carrying and transporting, and similar smaller handles for attaching a cover. Some of the jars have or painted applied human features, female breasts, human features (fig. 8). Many were painted red or decorated with red-painted linear, circular, or other geometric patterns. The outstanding artistic innovations cave are the three-dimensional

Peqfin and painted

ceramic heads. This

from the

sculpted is the first time

Fig. 4 An ossuarymade ofa closed box withpaintedface.

that various natural human to express a fully human

features are composed portrayal on ossuaries.

Togetherwith the largeapplied plastic nose and sculpted female breasts, already known as features

Zvi Gal,

Howard

Smithline

and

Dina

Shalem

Fig; 5 A lidwith appliedfemale breasts.

was common in Secondary burial in ossuaries the Chalcolithic culture, however, the evidence from the Peqfin cave shows that secondary burial

without

ossuaries

was

of the natural niches

In some also practiced. along the walls of the cave

were orderly bundles of bones, mostly long bones of arms and legs. One of the niches contained nineteen disassociated that skulls. It is possible in order

to reuse ossuaries

the skeletal remains

and skulls were removed from their ossuaries subsequently

reburied

and

in these niches. However,

were ratherorderlyplaced in the thefactthatthey

niches, even imitating the ordered placement of the long bones in the ossuaries, makes this less likely and suggests that these individuals were intention cave. Multiple ally reinterred in the soil within the reinterments in a single ossuary have been found

previously (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: 68-69, figs. 114-15); in Peqi'in there is also at least one ossuary that contained two skulls.

Fig. 6

An ossuary made

of

As mentioned above, iconographie art in Chal colithic culture has been essentially symbolic, ap pearing on both ossuaries and basalt pillar figures.

a closed box

withsix legsand appliedhumanfeatures.

Its representation has been limited to the prominent

nose are nostrils, eyes, (figs. 2, 5-7). The

(e.g., Perrot and Ladiray 1980:113; Epstein 1998: 230, pis. 30-33) and painted eyes (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: figs. 32-33). In addition, there are some arti

interpreted symbolic anthropomor phic representations have, with the discovery of this cave, suddenly become complete and more features such as these complex. Anthropomorphic

and theGilat ceramic statue (Alon 1976). Facial and other physical human features have been generally

on some Chalcolithic ears, mouths,

ossuaries, and beards teeth,

previously

were found painted or molded and even high-footed bowls.

on ossuaries,

jars,

facts with portrayals of full complementary facial features: the Beer Sheva ivoryfigurines (Perrot 1959)

as attributes of deities and, as such, served in a purely cultic function (Epstein 1982).

considered

GENDER

FEATURES

AND SOCIAL HIERARCHY

IN THE CHALCOLITHIC

45

PERIOD

Fig. 8 A burialjar withfemale breasts.

Fig. 7

A

three-dimensional,

sculpted

human

head.

In contrast, the human sculpted heads and other on the Peqi'in ossuaries iconographic expressions

and other vessels present an array of full human facial characteristics within a mortuary environ

ment (Gal et al. 1999). Numerous ossuaries have the in typical nose and/or painted or relief eyes -all are More elaborate vessels symbolic presentations.

decorated with the typical prominent nose formed with nostrils and accompanied by eyes, mouth, ears, beard, painted or applied hair representation, - in some instances - also hands (fig. breasts, and 2). Some of these vessels were carefully designed and produced as individual, one of a kind items. In these cases therewas no single pattern or standard facial representation used as the basis for these ar

tifacts; each head was molded or painted according to a particular model or idea.Most of the ossuaries, nonetheless, including those that are apparently unique, may be grouped into a number of definable

types. The ability to produce these complex vessels demonstrates the advanced technological ability of the Chalcolithic pottery workshops.

The widespread use of such a variety of anthro faces demonstrates that, in contrast pomorphic to already known Chalcolithic burial sites either on the coastal plain or in the northern Negev,

the

anthropomorphic motif played a central role in the mortuary ritual at Peqi'in. During the pre period the anthropomorphic ceding Neolithic

motif, although rarely found, is evident in certain aspects of society, not restricted to mortuary

practices: plastered skulls (e.g., Jericho: Kenyon 1957: 60-65, Beisamon: Lechevallier 1978: 179-81, Kefar Hahoresh: Goring-Morris 1995: 47-48, figs. 8-1o), masks (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988), and the 'Ain Ghazal 1998). statuary (Schmandt-Besserat Plastered skulls have been interpreted as relating to ancestor worship (e.g., Kenyon 1957: 85; Cauvin 2ooo: 127; Kuijt 2ooi; for a 1972; Goring-Morris

different opinion see Bonogofsky 2003), while the 'AinGhazal statuary is believed to personify deities (Schmandt-Besserat

1998: 13).

GENDER FEATURES The

ossuaries, lids, and jars anthropomorphic both male and female depict gender aspects that at be first identified, may glance, by the presence or a of breasts beard (figs. 5-7). Several of the os an unusual styled with whose fan-shaped faeade (e.g., fig. 5) shape, as Yadin (1976) pointed out in regard to previously discovered ossuaries, is reminiscent of the Chal suaries and

colithic

lids are also

"violin- figurines." Violin

figurines

are

46

Zvi Gal,

Howard

Smithline

considered as an expression of female aspects Alon ( and Levy 1989:185-87) to related usually fertility. Unfortunately, no in situ skeletal remains were found in these ossuaries3 and, thus, any correlation between the gender of the deceased and the ossuary it is type is impossible to determine. Nevertheless, clear that the ossuaries bear gender characteristics,

which apparently were significant in certain aspects of themortuary practice. Due to the centrality of the Peqi'in cave, it seems that this phenomenon reflects some aspects of the Chalcolithic belief. specific artifacts are among the objects the burials. The previously men accompanying tioned violin figurines may be interpreted as be

and

Male

reinterment may be identified by the presence apparently specially prepared for burial. They are traditionally associated with either masculine activities performed during the lifetime of flint adzes

or as representing themale sexual 2000: In this vein 88-94, 244-49). organ (Barkai then, could themany mysterious flint discs with a central piercing be interpreted as being representa tive of either unspecified feminine aspects or,more of the deceased

specifically, the female sexual organ?

SOCIAL HIERARCHY

Shalem

groups of the deceased, as interpreted through each specific reburial. The following groups also contain subgroups and are not listed in any hierarchically relevant ascending or descending order. Individuals

reburied outside ossuaries

Individuals

reburied in open boxes reburied in "simply designed"

Individuals ossuaries

Individuals Individuals

reburied in sculpted ossuaries reburied in plain jars

Individuals reburied inGolan-type jars (cf.Note 2) Individuals reburied in sculpted jars

Gender

ing abstract representations ofmore recognizable female figurines. This interpretation is enhanced by the uncommon violin figuremodeled with breasts.

Dina

The mere existence of this cave itself is an indica tion of a structured and hierarchical

society oper in the northern Chalcolithic cultural ating sphere. A number of factors are to be taken into account. This major necropolis was

isolated from the known, densely occupied regions of the Chalcolithic pe riod,4 necessitating the existence of an organized the cave s functioning and system thatmaintained the order of the placing of the ossuaries and jars in this very cramped environment. This

determined

createdby necessity is amplifiedby thedifficulty

that apparently permeated the cave. The final placing of each individual ossuary was the darkness

probably determined by the status attained by the or deceased during his/her lifetime, by his/her status determined

The Chalcolithic

period has been classed as a pas toral egalitarian society (Levy 1995). However, the ? out variety of burial practices revealed at Peqi'in

side ossuaries, within ossuaries, and, most notably, in the richly diverse and imaginative ossuary types ? themselves reflects different degrees of attention to the individuals reinterred in the cave. It applied

may be conjectured that those who were buried in ossuaries were of a higher social status than those whose bones were placed in thewall niches reserved for common reburial. To carry this anal

ogy a step further leads us to suggest that those who were reinterred in more complex ossuaries with anthropomorphic attributes were of a higher status than those whose bones were in placed simple and less expressive ossuaries. We can ten tatively enumerate at least seven socio-hierarchical

after his/her death. It should be

pointed out that no children under the age of three were buried in the cave (Nagar and Eshed 2001). They were buried somewhere else, most likely as by the excepted hierarchical structure of the society. Most probably the reburials were or accompanied by cultic activities, either prior to

determined

at the time of reburial, which would require the ? a functioning of a group of individuals priestly

in performing these activities. It be these people who were required possibly tomaintain thememory of this unique burial site

class ?versed

would

within

the collective consciousness

of the society and upon whom itwas required to incorporate the secondary burial into seasonal cultic activities.

Gender

Features

and

Social

CONCLUSIONS The unique iconographyapplied to the Peqfin

raises the question of its purpose and meaning. Many scholars who have studied 7th-4th b.c.e. Near Eastern millennium iconography ossuaries

that its source is to be found in the divine

concur

of gods and goddesses (e.g., Kenyon 1957: 84; Epstein 1982; Beck 1989; Tadmor 1989;Merhav 1993; Schmandt-Besserat 1998). There are, however,

world

major

differences between

the circumstances

and

com functioning of the Peqfin iconography and sites: parable iconography from other Chacolithic the Golan from Nahal Mishmar, basalt figures, the Gilat figurine, the Beer Sheva as well ivory figurines, the violin shaped figurines, themetal

hoard

as the Neolithic

Ghazal

statues. All of these or cultic

objects originate from either domestic contexts and not from a burial context. The Peqfin a new direc mortuary iconography thus presents of the for tion iconography. expression interpreting A number of suggestions maybe

in the Chalcolithic

Hierarchy

offered. A simple,

Period

47

relevant to representation personal one-on-one each deceased individual may be possible in some cases, but does not appear to be the rule. The practice of ancestor worship, where both male and female ancestors play an influential role, is strongly implied within the context of secondary burial and as a manifestation

of the early state of communal the of Chalcolithic period. organization study of the skeletal remains Anthropological shows that the minimum

number

of individuals

in the cave was ca. 600, with themaximum number being possibly twice as much. The grave goods accompanying the reburials clearly represent

buried

cultures of the regional Chalcolithic as a cave while the functioned southern Levant, of central burial site for an extended population the various

several villages or, perhaps, several regions. In the an light of the diversity of artifacts and the large

cave may be considered thropological sample, the as a of the Chalcolithic period wherein paradigm social status and gender definition were already defined.

NOTES The excavation was carried out on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. 2 Along with ossuaries and burial jars, the cave yielded several other ceramic vessel typesofwhich themost common were the low- and high-footed bowls. De numerous Golan-type serving of mention are the in basalt rich inclusions, that are considered jars, characteristic of theGolan Chalcolithic subculture. Among the finds were a number of bronze objects,

an ivoryfigure,an assortment of stone violin figures,' and flint tools and artifacts.

3 The cave was extremely disturbed and apparently had been subject to robbing and destruction, most possibly within theChalcolithic period. Most of the burial receptacleswere overturned or broken and the bones were randomly strewn around (Gal et al. 1997: 147). 4 A Chalcolithic sitewas recentlydiscovered within the boundaries of the village of Peqi'in, across thewadi (Getzov, forthcoming). Shalems study (2003) shows more than twentyvillages in themountains of the Upper Galilee, most of them small (ca. 5 dunam).

REFERENCES

Al?n,

1976

Two Cult Figurines

from Gilat. Atiqot

11:

116-18. Al?n,

1989

Sanctuary at Gilat. Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 2: 163-221.

D.

D.,

and

Bar-Yosef, Levy,

E. T.

The Archaeology of theCult and theChalcolithic

1988

O.,

and Alon,

D.

Nahal Hemar Cave. Atiqot

18: 1-30.

48

Zvi Gal,

Howard

Smithline

Barkai,

R.

2000

Flint and Stone Axes as Cultural Markers: So cio-economic Change as Reflected inHolocene Flint Tool Industries of the Southern Levant. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,Tel Aviv University.

Beck,

1989

P.

1972

Epstein,

C.

Cult Symbols in Prehistoric Palestine. Bolletino del Centro Camuno dei Studi Preistorici 19:

1998

The Chalcolithic Culture of theGolan. IAA Re ports 4. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. .;Smithline, .; and Shalem, D. A Chalcolithic Burial Cave at Peqi'in, Upper Galilee. Israel Exploration Journal 47: 1-12. New Iconographie Aspects in theChalcolithic Art - Preliminary Observations on Finds from 1-17. Peqi'in. Atiqot37:

63-82.

1999

Getzov,

N.

Forthcoming Peqi'in,

in Excavations

2000

New

Kenyon,

Merhav,

York,

NY:

Kluwer

University.

Scepters of the Divine from the Cave of the Treasure at Nahal Mishmar (in Hebrew). Pp. 21-42 in Studies in theArchaeology and History ofAncient Israel, ed.M. Heizer, A. Segal and D.

51:27-35. Perrot,

1959

J.

Statuettes en ivoire et autres objets en ivoire et en os provenant des gisements pr?historiques

de la region de Beersheba. Syria 36: 8-19. Perrot, J.,and Ladiray, D. 1980 Tombes ? ossuaries de la region c?ti?repalesti nienne au IV mill?naire avant 1?re chr?tienne. Paris:

Association

Pal?orient.

D.

Ain Ghazal "Monumentar Figures.Bulletin of the American Schools ofOriental Research 310:1-18. D.

Shalem,

2003

The Chalcolithic Period Sites in theMountains of the Galilee - Settlement Distribution and Ceramic Characteristics. Unpublished MA thesis,University ofHaifa (Hebrew with English summary). M.

Tadmor,

1989

Academic.

K. M.

The JudeanDesert Treasure fromNahal Mish mar: A Chalcolithic Traders' Hoard? Pp. 249-61 in Essays inAncient Civilization Presented to Helen

1957

Digging up Jericho.New York, NY: Praeger. I. Kuijt, 2001 Place, Death and the Transmission of Social Memory inEarly Agricultural Communities of theNear East Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Pp. 80-89

Leicester

Kaufman. Haifa: Haifa University. Nagar, Y., and Eshed, V. 2001 Where are theChildren? Age-Dependent Burial Practices in Peqfin. Israel Exploration Journal

1998

Investigations at an Early Neolithic Settlement in theLower Galilee: Results of the 1991 Season at Kefar HaHoresh. Atiqot 27: 37-62. The 1997 Season of Excavations at theMortuary Site of Kfar Hahoresh. NeoLithics 3: 1-4. The Quick and the Dead: The Social Context of Aceramic Neolithic Mortuary Practices as seen fromKfar Hahoresh. Pp. 103-36 inLife in Neolithic Farming Communities, Social Organi zation, Identity,and Differentiation, ed. I. Kuijt.

London:

R.

Schmandt-Besserat, N.

Goring-Morris,

1998

Cult, Metallurgy and Rank Societies Chalco lithic Period (ca. 4500-3500 bce). Pp. 226-44 in The Archaeology of Society in theHoly Land, ed. T. Levy.

and Surveys in

Israel.

1995

T.

1995

Religions n?olithiques de Syro-Palestine.Librairie dAm?rique et d'Orient. Paris: Maisonneuve.

1982

Gal, 1997

Levy,

M.

- Deux Abou Gosh et Beisamoun gisements du VII mill?naire avant Vere chr?tienne en Isra?l Paris: Association Pal?orient.

1978

1993

J.

Shalem

inSocialMemory, Identityand Death: Anthropo M. on logicalPerspectives Mortuary Rituals, ed. Chesson. Archaeological Papers of theAmerican Anthropological Association 10.Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association. Lechevallier,

Notes on the Style and Iconography of the Chalcolithic Hoard fromNahal Mishmar. Pp. 39-47 inEssays inAncient Civilization Presented toHelen J Kramen eds. A. Leonard and B. B. Williams. Chicago, IL: Chicago University.

Bonogofsky,M. 2003 Neolithic Plastered Skulls and Railroading Epis temologies. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research 331: 1-10. Cauvin,

and Dina

J. Kantor,

eds. A.

Leonard

Jr. and

B. B.

Williams. Chicago, IL: Chicago University. Yadin,

1976

Y.

Note on theViolin-Shaped Figurine fromGilat. Atiqot 11: 121.

5

Chapter Ethnicity

and

the Archaeological The Case of Early Israel

Record:

byWilliam G. Dever

ETHNICITY AND "ISRAELITE ORIGINS" IN RECENT SCHOLARSHIP

an a specific "ethnic identification" of an ancient people be determined on the basis

culture remains unearthed by That question poses one of themost archaeology? most fundamental, urgent, yetmost difficult issues in archaeology. The author of themost recent book material

^^^of

on thesubject,1 TheArchaeologyofEthnicity, begins

with a statement ofOlivier

In thewake of Israeli archaeological surveys in the Bank in the 1980s, first reported to thewider world in 1988 by Israel Finkelstein in The Archae

West

and Coudart

(1995:365) that "the crucial theoretical question of archaeol or more ogy today is that of national identity,

discussed

and summarized

by several archaeolo

gists,including myself,and bynow shouldbe well

specifically that of the relationship archaeology enjoys with the construction (or the fabrication) of collective identities" (Jones 1997:1).

known

to most

biblical

scholars

and historians.4

This extensive complex ofmany types of diverse but related data constitutes what archaeologists call an

chapter will use the case of early the question of "Israelite origins" ?as a test-case in addressing the issue of ethnicity in record. It is offered as a tribute the archaeological This

Israel ?or

an "assemblage." And such assemblage is always as sumed to have cultural, and therefore what Iwould

call "ethnic," significance. The aspects of this Iron I or i2th-nth centuries b.c.e. assemblage that are relevant for our discussion here will be discussed

to Eric M. Meyers, a colleague and friend ofmore than thirty-five years, who has been a pioneer in

concerns in confronting similar methodological his efforts to identify early Jewish and Christian ethnicity in the archaeology

ology of the Israelite Settlement, the discussion of "Israelite origins" in Canaan has burgeoned.3 The basic archaeological evidence has been widely

presently. Prior to the availability of the recent archaeologi cal data, scholars have had as their only source for the history of the formative era of early Israel (the

of the Galilee.2

"period of the Judges") the narratives of in the Hebrew Bible. the "exodus and conquest"

biblical

49

50 William

G. Dever

Yet there has been

increasing skepticism in recent years among scholars of all schools, "maximalists" as well as "minimalists," as towhether much, if any,

Ethnicity, however, is an interpretive histo riographical fiction.... Ethnicity is hardly

cally tendentious. The current, pervasive

physical effects of such collective decisions are often arbitrary and are, indeed, always accidental (1997:175).

a common

aspect of human existence at this very early period.... Ethnicity is only a modern to describe societal attempt and collective decisions...the relationship

genuine historical information can be derived from the biblical texts.5 These texts are all later literary compositions, highly selective in content, idealist and elitist in perspective, and, above all, theologi

historiographical crisis in studies has brought us to the point where leading scholars can assert that there was no "early Israel" in the i2th-nth centuries b.c.e., indeed not even an Israelite Monarchy before the 9th century no b.c.e., and Judean (or southern) kingdom wor

biblical

It is no wonder Israel, Thompson

show, uninformed notions at that. These assump tions are: (1) that the Iron I hill-country archaeo we now that have, although well logical assemblage documented, cannot be confidently associated with

any known ethnic group because of the limitations of all archaeological evidence; and (2) that, in any a case, "ethnicity" is modern "social construct," and

therefore it is illegitimate to project it back upon the ancient textual or archaeological record. Thus, the "revisionists" simply "write early Israel out of 1995).

history" (Halpern Here are some typical "revisionist" statements. Niels Peter Lemche concludes his 1998 book, The Israelites inHistory and Tradition, with this state

concludes

that

... somuch

of the Bible deals with the origin traditions of a people that never existed as such. This metaphorical nations land and

thy of the name before the 7th century b.c.e.6 For adherents of the "revisionist" schools of Sheffield and Copenhagen ? themost radical of the current schools of biblical criticism ? the skepti cism rests not only on a minimalist (if not nihil ist) view of the biblical texts, but upon two other

theoretical assumptions. Unfortunately, these are rarely advanced as rigorous intellectual constructs, merely what Iwould call "notions," and, as I shall

then that in his 1999 book, The

MythicPast: BiblicalArchaeologyand the Myth of

language, this imagined peoples history, moreover, is an origin tradition that belongs to the new Israel' (i.e.,much later Judaism:

WGD), not the old' (1999:34).

Elsewhere, Thompson broadens his skepticism to include other ancient peoples. Thus, Philistines, Canaanites, and Israelites are all "peoples writ large in tradition for purposes fictional."7 Keith W. Whitelams position in his The Inven

tion ofAncient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History goes to the point of absurdity. The "biblical Israel" is a fiction, concocted by ancient Judaism as a tortuous exercise in self-identity, and perpetuated later all and scholars (especially Christian Jewish by Zionist Israelis). There was no ancient or Iron Age

"Israel" in an ethnic sense. Yet the "Palestinians" as ? a distinct ethnoi ? flourished already in people the Bronze Age; historians and archaeologists bi

a

ased by the Judaeo-Christian tradition have simply written them out of history.8 A recent collection of essays by biblical scholars,

ment:

The Israel of the Iron Age proved to be most elusive, in historical documents as well as inmaterial remains, where hardly anything carries an ethnic tag that helps themodern investigator to decide what is Israelite and

what Thomas

is not (1998b: 166).

L. Thompson

simply disposes

of the issue:

Ethnicityand theBible (Brett1996),does not deign to include any archaeologists, presumably because the editors did not consider their data relevant. Yet

one of them, Diana V. Edelman (now with the Shef field group), draws up a "trait list" of the sort that

has been used by some archaeologists in the past to identify "ethnicity."Nevertheless, she concludes that attempting to identify any of the Iron I?II peoples of Palestine

ethnically, based

on material

culture

Ethnicity

and

the Archaeological

remains, "is to wish upon a star" (1996: 55).9 As she puts it in the very first sentence of her chapter: "Given the present state of textual and artifactual

evidence, nothing definitive can be said about the Israel" (1996: 25). ethnicity of premonarchical Most of the above statements scarcely need refu

as tation. For Lemche, Thompson, and Whitelam, well as Philip R. Davies, there cannot have been an "ancient Israel," because that would not suit their (for that iswhat they are).10 And presuppositions notions that ethnic mark incredible Thompsons

ers are all "arbitrary, accidental," if taken seriously, would put all the social sciences out of business, since these disciplines proceed on the essential

principle that culture is "patterned," i.e., inten tional, and thus diagnostic for describing culture and cultural change (below). As for Edelman, her

data is typi survey of some of the archaeological cal of the selective, cavalier, and amateurish use of archaeology by most of the other "revisionists."11

some Unfortunately, the "anti-positivist" bias of ? in a biblical scholars my judgment largely reflex of the na?ve, belated borrowing of "post-modern ist" epistemology?has

affected a few Palestinian

(below).12 Most archaeologists until archaeologists have been comfortable and confident in recently

or Iron Age applying to typical Bronze assemblages in Palestine such ethnic labels as "Canaanite,"

"Egyptian," "Philistine," "Aramaean," "Phoenician," and, of course, "Israelite." Now, however, it seems suddenly fashionable to

into question and to impute to scholars still using them im ? in the case of the term "Israelite," proper motives or biblicist bias (asWhitelam a 1996). theological call such ethnic identifications

even

Ironically, the most outspoken current opponent of the "Israelite" terminology, or even my cautious

term "Proto-Israelite," is Israel Finkelstein. He had on the subject, The originally "written the book" the Israelite Settlement (1988). But Archaeology of since 1991, Finkelstein has denied thatwe can use the ethnic label "Israelite" for the Iron I hill-country somuch to put on themap. assemblage that he did

In 1996, specifically attacking my more optimistic treatments of early Israel (Dever 1992a; 1995a), Fin kelstein argues that the distinctive material culture traits that we both acknowledge on the LB/Iron I

horizon

Record

are more

51

the result of environmental

and

factors than reflective of any new "ethnic" elements in the population. To support socioeconomic

the importance his views, Finkelstein minimizes of a unique, new combination of agricultural tech ? even ? terraces, silos, cisterns nologies denying that they are innovative. Finally, he misrepresents my

reconstruction

as based

either on Gottwalds

or on theories "too wed

"peasant revolt" model ded to the Biblical story." He

concludes

that an

even on texts, such as those of the Hebrew Bible, is an "illusion." Yet in his most recent popular book, Finkelstein speaks " an throughout quite glibly about "early Israel All this, inmy opinion, is ideology, not reasoned, well documented, balanced scholarship.13 ethnic identification based

On

the other hand,

tained a more

I have

consistently main view, presumably one in

positive line with mainstream archaeological

scholarship,

although I have not defended thisview explicitly

until now

(but cf. 1998). Nor is there much other treatment of the subject of "ethnicity" in the litera ture of Palestinian archaeology.14

One of the few explicit treatments of archaeology and the problem of "Israelite ethnicity," although focused on Iron II rather than themore problematic Iron I period, is that of a young Tel Aviv archaeolo

gist,Avraham

Faust (2000a; 2000b), with excellent general bibliography. Faust concentrates on the ru ral areas of 9th-8th century b.c.e. northern Israel,

where he persuasively identifies an "Israelite" as well as a regional "Canaanite-Phoenician" archaeologi cal assemblage, coinciding with both geographical and socioeconomic

or cultural "boundaries."

Of particular significance here is Faust s utiliza tion of McGuire's (1982) postulate that it is not

the totality of cultural traits that identifies ethnic differences, but rather "those traits that the groups utilize as symbols of their identity separate from other groups." These traits,McGuire holds, "may be behavioral

Furthermore,

or material

in form" (1982: 160). "ethnic boundaries" may be most

are not connected readily recognized (1)when they with factors such as ecology, wealth, social status, or setting; and (2) when the focus is on simpler,

rural groups. Faust s supposedly more monolithic areas at in Iron II is closely look rural consequent

52 William

to our look at the comparable overwhelmingly rural "Israel" in Iron I.

G. Dever

are may be called "ethnic boundaries" No but doubt; flexible, constantly changing. mean not exist not that do that does again they

(2) What

A similar attempt to identify "Judean ethnicity" in Iron II has been made recently by another young Tel Aviv archaeologist, Raz Kletter. Kletter analyzes two distinctive

in reality or cannot be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and systematic analysis. Here, too, the as well as with analogy with culture in general,

classes of southern artifacts of the

certain aspects of culture such as religion, is

late 8th-7th centuries b.c.e.:

(i) "pillar-base" (Ash erah) figurines, and (2) stone shekel-weights. Not s surprisingly, Kletter detailed distribution maps of

both (1999:31,35) coincide almost exactly with the as reflected in texts political boundaries of Judah

appropriate. (3) Specific markers, or "ethnic traits," either can not be adequately characterized or will turn out not to be reflected inmaterial culture. If true, however, archaeology as a dis cipline would be impossible, since archaeology thiswere

of the 7th century b.c.e. Deuternomistic history in II Kings. Thus, a sense of "Judean ethnicity" must have actually prevailed in late Iron II and was not

iswidely acknowledged to be essentiallythe

study of the material correlates of behavior, i.e., of culture in all itsdimensions, including a sense of ethnic identity. If there are no "material

simply "invented" by the biblical writers and later editors, as the "revisionists" fatuously proclaim.15

GENERAL THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ON "ETHNICITY"

correlates," then human thought, behavior, and culture are all arbitrary, inscrutable, and not susceptible to any systematic analysis. Yet that isnot the case, as I shall show presently. Culture is "patterned" social behavior or it is nothing;

of the theoretical objections noted above to the use of the concept of "ethnicity" stands up to

None

close scrutiny. Let us analyze them in order. (1) "Ethnicity" is amodern "social construct." This, of course, is simply one of the typical slogans

of post-modernism, borrowed mindlessly here. The point is that all intellectual formulations are "social constructs," as, indeed, culture itself is? unless one supposes that the phenomena

from heaven. Religion is a "social construct." Does thatmean that it isnot or that it a significant factor in cultural change is too elusive to be analyzed?

are handed

down

and archaeology seeks to comprehend those patterns, as they are inevitably reflected inma terial culture remains as well as in ideology.

(4) Finally, "revisionists" and others assert that without texts,material culture is "mute" and thus cannot be said to reflect any specific ethnic are valid, identity. Yet if the arguments above it is evident that archaeology can character ize distinctive material

culture assemblages and then can legitimately assume that they ethnic groups. It is only the specific ethnic label that texts necessarily case of ancient "Israel," we supply. And in the

do reflect various

The question is only the degree towhich such "constructs" reflect facts, i.e., reality. In the case of "ethnicity," the construct is the reality. "Eth means sense of simply "a peoplehood" nicity" (Greek ethnos, "a community of people"). And if a certain group thinks itself a distinctive

"people," then they are by thatvery fact. Finally, is not a modern such a sense of peoplehood

as claimed by the "revisionists," phenomenon, but has characterized every known human

community in every time and circumstance. A sense of unique selfhood is fundamental to human nature, not amere epiphenomenon, arbitrary and flimsy "social construct."

an

have the requisite texts, both biblical and non

biblical (below).

If one examines rhetoric about

the currently faddish negative "ethnicity," as in Sian Jones' The

ArchaeologyofEthnicity(1998;above), itsoon be comes evident thatmuch

of the skepticism is due to the confusion of attempts to identify "ethnicity"

racism, which is and should be politically incorrect. Thus, Jones' principal case study in the abuse of the concept of "ethnicity" is the program

with

to use archaeology to document the their "super race." But that is surely a of superiority

of the Nazis

Ethnicity

and

the Archaeological

caricature. Such a distorted concept of "race" has long been repudiated by archaeologists

monstrous

and anthropologists everywhere. But that does not invalidate the category of "ethnicity," which was never really based on supposed racial characteris tics and still remains both valid and useful. Ironically, the call ofmany post-modernist social scientists for "multi-cultural" approaches presup

distinctiveindividual poses our abilityto identify "ethnic groups." And ifwe can do so inmodern times, why not in antiquity, as long as we have ad equate evidence? Instead of denying the existence

are engaged identity," archaeologists in recognizing and indeed celebrating it.We are

of "ethnic

the true "multi-culturalists," and instead of using a tool of cultural imperialism, as archaeology as sometimes charged, we archaeologists are the real champions

of cultural diversity.16

TOWARD AWORKING ARCHAEOLOGICAL MODEL OF "ETHNICITY" of the current

and apparent in the archaeo failure in recognizing "ethnicity logical record" is due, I believe, to (1) inadequate or unrealistic definitions of "ethnicity;" and (2)

Much

frustration

the lack of an appropriate analytical methodology, especially in assessing "ethnic traits" in material culture remains. Elsewhere

on the work

I have drawn

of the

eminent anthropologist and ethnographer Fredrik (1969) in order to define an "ethnic group"

Record

53

list of distinctive and specifically archaeological 4 ethnic traits" that may realistically be expected

to be preserved and capable of being identified in the archaeological record of typical sites. Yet few archaeologists, and none in the field of Palestinian such an archaeology, have developed trait the follow offer list (Table ).171 archaeological as a tentative step in the direction. After right ing

or biblical

me thatwe ought to be long reflection, it seems to able to discern "ethnic differences" in comparing

the following material culture traits in different are assemblages and cultures, especially when they or contiguous roughly contemporary: (1) Environmental setting (2) Settlement type and pattern

(3) Demography (4) Technology, adaptation, pecially food systems

and subsistence,

es

(5) House type

(6) Burial customs

(7) Dress (8) Language

(9) Social organization (10) Political structure

(11)Religion and cult

(12) External relations These are, of course, modern

egories, which

ancient

analytical cat would not have

peoples in the same way that we do or of comprehended which they may not even have been consciously

aware. But nevertheless, I would argue, they did the "differences" that such traits reflect,

Barth

understand

as a population that is (1) biologically self-per a fundamental, shares (2) recognizable, petuating; relatively uniform set of cultural values, including

especially when comparing themselves with other groups. In short, the "ancient Israelites" of the Iron

(3) constitutes

a

partly independent a membership that sphere;" (4) has defines itself, as well as being defined by others, as a category distinct from other categories of the language; "interaction

same order; and (5) perpetuates its sense of separate identity by developing rules formaintaining ethnic

as well as for participating in inter boundaries, ethnic social encounters (Dever 1995a: 201).

heuristically valuable the methodol and other ethnographers may be, it is of Barth ogy best suited to the analysis ofmodern, not ancient, cultures. Our primary task here is to identify a However

Age in Palestine surely knew who theywere; and it is up to us to find that out, even when they have not always candidly revealed themselves in the biblical texts. It is archaeology thatmay be our best clue.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE EARLY "ISRAELITE" ETHNICITY

FOR

In summarizing the archaeological data now avail able thatmight bear upon each of the above "ethnic

for identifying an "early" Israel, Imust be brief, referring tomore extensive documentation

markers"

elsewhere.18

54

William

G. Dever

Table

Comparison of "cultural traits"exhibited in the Iron I archaeological record,by ethnic group; numbers refer to the list in the text. If these other Iron I groups in Palestine can be distinguished by an ethnic label, as they

are in contemporary scholarship, so can our highland peoples.

Trait

Canaanite

Egyptian

1

Central

2

Declining urban

3 4

"Proto-Israelite"

Coastal Strategic

Marginal; hill-country

Forts; garrisons

New urban foundations

Village/Rural

LB urban tradition

"Residencies'

Non-specific

"Four rooniVcourtyard

Long-term decline

Penultimate collapse

Slow growth

Rapid growth

Mixed,

5

Philistine

local

Mixed

Subsidized

Agrarian

6 7

Stagnant

8

Long-term

9

Stratified

Foreign, innovative

Egyptian Canaanite

Bi-lingual

Hierarchal

Local,

innovative

Unknown

"Canaanite"

Elitist

Egalitarian

10

Declining city states

Imperial

City state

Segmentary

11

LB Canaanite

Egyptian(?)

Aegean

"Canaanite"

12

Isolated; some Egyptian

Egyptian

Aegean,

-

Environmental

than 300 small Iron I or i2th-iith century b.c.e. villages, which constitute our best evidence forwhat I have designated a "Proto-Israelite" popu lation, are all located inmarginal areas. They are found in the heretofore sparsely occupied central

hill-country, principally in Samaria and Judea, but also extending into the northern Negev and prob ably into lower Galilee. The environmental setting

in these regions, with ample rainfall, is conducive to dry farming, stock breeding, and pastoralism, but only with the development of new technologies (below). The isolation and scarcity of resources, however, do not encourage larger-scale industry, less trade or international connections.

This

is in sharp contrast to both the Late Bronze Age Canaanite city states and the contemporary Phi listine establishments

riverine valleys.

Mycenaean

2 - Settlement Type and Pattern

Setting

The more

much

dialect

along the coast and in the

The basic features have been noted above. The es sential point here is that the settlements and their distribution mark again a sharp and relatively sudden shift from the prevailing urban pattern of

as well as the Late Bronze Age Canaanite society, a contrast to the coastal Philistine sites. None of the 300 or so "Proto-Israelite" sites is larger than a in excess of about 300, few acres, has a population exhibits monumental architecture, or boasts city

defenses. This is a decidedly rural culture, which, our best test case. as we saw above, may provide 3

-

Demography

The demographic data, based on recent surveys of the hill-country sites, show another radical change the transition from Late Bronze accompanying

society into the early Iron Age. The Age Canaanite estimated population of the central hill-country, for

Ethnicity

and

the Archaeological

instance, grows dramatically from ca. 12,000 in the 13th century b.c.e., to ca. 50,000 in the 12th cen tury b.c.e., to ca. 75,000 in the '11thcentury b.c.e.19 cannot possibly be Such a "population explosion explained by natural increase alone, but points to

a

new peoples, whom large-scale in-migration of it is not unreasonable to designate as an "ethnic group," especially when other evidence points in the same direction.

and from where. 4

-

The only questions

adduced

above

and Subsistence shows that the Iron

I hill-country assemblage reflects a society and that are fundamentally economy village-based and agrarian. A major agricultural component is visible, of course, in the society and economy of every era in ancient Palestine, from the Neolithic onward. Yet, in scarcely any other period does the "rural" aspect dominate so exclusively as it does in the Iron I hill-country assemblage. Nearly all the new technology is geared to adapting to the

challenges opening

of setting the hill-country frontier and it for agricultural development: extensive

terracing of the hillsides; the hewing out of cisterns in the bedrock; stone-lined silos for grain storage; large "collar-rim" jars for storage of various food stuffs; the introduction of heavy iron implements

(although limitedat first);and theproliferation

of stereotyped courtyard houses especially well suited to farming families. Some aspects of these technologies go back to the Bronze Age, but the

peculiar and standardized combination is new in Iron I and also peculiar to the hill-country settle ments.20

is now widely aspect of food production to be significant, even by skeptics: acknowledged One

the almost

complete

of pig bones in the sites of "Proto-Israelite"

absence

presumed hill-country Iron I, whereas they are common

in other peri ods and areas. This phenomenon suggests that one of the most conspicuous "ethnic markers" of the later,well-documented culture ?the prohibition

an

early distinction

culture.21

- House

55

Type

typical Iron I hill-country village house has been mentioned above. These houses are very in plan, with three banks of rooms stereotyped

The

a central surrounding courtyard (thus the common name, "four-room house") and usually a second story. The ground floor provides animal stables, ample storage facilities, and food-preparation areas. The second story,with its six to ten rooms,

a large, accommodate multi-generational as of many as 20-25 people. These family perhaps are ideal farmhouses, and with rare obviously

would

Technology, Adaptation,

The evidence

are who

5

Record

Israelite

(or biblical) in fact of pork ?was from Canaanite religion and

are unattested in the preced exceptions they Late Bronze the fact that this ing Age. Despite was formerly dubbed "the Israelite type-house," structures have recently been brought to light in Transjordan, which may or may not have been part of the "Proto-Israelite" territories. similar

These distinctive houses do, however, characterize later and undisputedly Israelite sites inWestern Palestine

in the ioth-6th

centuries

b.c.e.

If the

type provides one of the most instructive commentaries on ethnicity, as most archaeologists and anthropologists would maintain, then these unique courtyard houses of the Iron Age reflect ? in a distinctive this case, one that "mentality" enshrines an agrarian, family-based lifestyle and house

its social and communal

6 - Burial

values.22

Customs

no thus far we have discovered Unfortunately, cemeteries associated with the hill-country settle and only an occasional individual b.c.e. burial elsewhere.23 century

ments

7

-

i2th-nth

Dress

Manner

of dress is another well-recognized "ethnic marker," but again our evidence is scant or non-ex istent,due to the fact that textiles are well preserved in the archaeological

circumstances.

record only under exceptional is sometimes Dress indicated in

tomb or wall paintings, where, for instance, in earlier periods we can clearly distinguish between Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians, and others. But we have no such evidence for the i2th-nth centu ries b.c.e. and no surviving portraits of Israelites at all, until much later in the Iron Age.24

56 William

8 - Language Language is,without doubt, one of themost critical and sensitive indicators of ethnic affiliation and has been so regarded since Herodotus discussion of the Greek ethnos. Currently we have only a handful of

putative "early Israelite" inscriptions, including a Hebrew personal name on a jarhandle from Khir bet Radanna and an abecedary (or list of alphabetic characters in order) from ?Izbet Sarta. The form of the letters is demonstrably Old Canaanite, and this plus other linguistic data from later periods

of the Iron Age derived directly from Late Bronze Age Canaanite. But by the 10th century b.c.e. at latest, Hebrew had diverged sufficiently in vocabulary, syntax, demonstrates

that Israelite Hebrew

orthography, and script so as to constitute a sepa "national" language. By the rate, well-developed Iron II period, Hebrew was distinguished as well from Aramaic, Phoenician, and such languages of

as Ammonite, Moabite, Transjordan both by language and script.25 9

and Edomite,

- Social Organization

Social organization

is not nearly as elusive as many suppose, and it can be inferred

non-archaeologists from several of the categories of material culture In keeping with small-scale already discussed.

agrarian societies in general, the social structure of our hill-country assemblage may best be character ized as kin-based, centered on extended family and

clan units, relatively unstratified and with strong "egalitarian" tendencies. Lawrence Stager (1985) has shown that the typical clusters of courtyard houses

reflect almost exactly the Biblical ideal of themisp?ha or "extended multi-generational fam

ily," of the Books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel (later compositions, but set in the Iron I period). can This correspondence scarcely be fortuitous and suggests that later traditions of what I have called the "domestic mode of production" had

ancient

roots.26

10 - Political

Structure

organization has already been hinted at above. There can be little doubt that the i2th-nth

Political

centuries

b.c.e.

"pre-urban,"

complex represents not only a but a "pre-state" level of political

G. Dever

a Organization, probably even "pre-chiefdom" level in the typical parlance of the literature on state-formation processes. Later biblical traditions

recall the formative period nostalgically as "tribal" not entirely without reason, but perhaps "segmen tar/' best describes the early system of political

In any case, it contrasts sharply organization.27 with the Late Bronze Age Canaanite system of city states and also with the contemporary Philistine "feudal" system. il -

Religion

and Culture

one of themost funda Religion, like language, is mental indicators of ethnic identity. The archaeo logical data for religious belief and practice in the i2th-nth century b.c.e. highland villages consists, com on the one hand, of negative evidence: the plete absence of the temples and their impressive

paraphernalia that characterized the previous Late Bronze Age Canaanite civilization. Nor is there any trace of themythological and liturgical literature so well attested from Canaan

in this period, much less the organized priesthood and cult personnel who could have produced such a literature.28

On the other hand, we do have at least one open cult place, Mazar s "Bull Site" in the tribal territory of Ephraim (Mazar 1982). It is a small hilltop shrine with a low enclosure wall, a standing stone remi niscent of the biblical m?sseb?, and a few scraps ofmetal

and Iron I pottery. The only outstanding find is a fine bronze bull figurine, almost identical to a Late Bronze

example

from Hazor

and best

of "Bull understood in thelightof theiconography

El," the principal male

deity of the old Canaanite

pantheon.

we have both elements of continuity Again, and discontinuity with Late Bronze Age Canaan.

It is noteworthy that the El cult continues into later Israelite society, the name itself and typical

El epithets being common in the older strands of the biblical literature. Thus, what littlewe can say of the religion of our hill-country settlements

suggests that it grew out of the Late Bronze Age Canaanite cult, but itwas more in keeping with the simple character of the new settlements, yet on its

way toward becoming syncretism,

"Yahwism."29

a new and unique

religious

Ethnicity

12 - External

and

the Archaeological

Relations

By "external relations," I refer to those relationships of a community with outsiders, or "others," that help to define who "we" are. The notions of "us" and

"them" will always be, of course, partly subjective, but they are, nonetheless, real as perceptions and thus subject to analysis. In the case of the Iron I hill-country assemblage, it is the relative isolation of the peoples in question that strikes us. Part of this isolation was due to the natural setting of the

of small villages in a region that had long been on the somewhat remote frontier ofCanaanite dozens

civilization, hitherto sparsely settled. Itwas not so much a matter of physical distance, since the hill

country, at least the foothills, lies in fairly close a proximity to the lowlands, but rather matter of new settlements constituted access. The of difficulty

Record

57

There are, inmy opinion, two arguments that taken are conclusive. together A Distinctive

Iron I Archaeological

and Etimos The first argument

is based

Assemblage

on

analyzing the cul tural traits reflected in the archaeological record as

above, in order to compare and contrast a putative "early Israel" with other Iron I ethnic existence and identity is beyond whose groups,

outlined

reasonable

doubt. The results of such an analysis for brevity's sake in Table 1. Itwill

are tabulated

hardly be sufficient to dub these the "X-people," if for no other reason than thewell-known reference to "Israel" on the "Victory Stele" of the Egyptian Pharoah Merneptah. Dated closely to 1207 b.c.e., this inscription refers to several ethnic groups in

a "mountain

Palestine identifiedby Egyptian intelligenceand

kind. There are none of the Syrian, Egyptian, Cy imports so characteristic priot, and Mycenaean

dom

redoubt," much like the small Chris tian enclaves in themountains of Lebanon today. There is little evidence of outside trade of any

of the previous Late Bronze Age, and scarcely any trace of even the contemporary Philistine "Bi chrome" pottery. The overwhelming impression

one has is that of an entirely self-sufficient economy and society, one moreover that is not interested in

outside contacts, perhaps even hostile to them. The transitional Late Bronze Age/Iron I culture might be said to represent a new group of people in the

marginal zones, whose ethnic self-identification is based partly on its sense of being "displaced," both and ideologically.30 This groups geographically isolation was relatively short-lived, however, in the i2th-nth centuries b.c.e., but itwas nevertheless ? formative indeed, if I am right, later mytholo in Bible as a "golden age," the the Hebrew gized ideal Israel.

THE IRON I HILL-COUNTRY ASSEMBLAGE: "PROTO-ISRAELITES"? It is time now to draw together the principal argu in favor of labeling the Iron I hill country I archaeological assemblage as "Israelite" or ?as ? on caution the of "Proto-Israelite." side prefer,

ments

to be perceived as a threat, sufficientlywell-known them the common Egyptian "Hurrians," among term for the Canaanite inNew King population

times (the texts also mentions "Canaanites" and term the followed "Israelites," directly), by the determinative sign for "people," rather than nation phrase being a plural gentilic, thus "the Israelite peoples."31

state, thewhole

designating The reading

"Israel" has never been seriously and the date of ca. 1207 b.c.e. is fixed questioned, within the margin of a very few years. Further

the location of the Egyptian strongholds, of and Gezer, of the "Hurrian" or Canaanite population, and the "Shasu" or nomadic

more,

sites likeAshkelon

of other Egyptian texts can easily be populations charted on a map of Palestine, and the only area "Israelites" is in the central left forMerneptahs hill-country north and south.32 Thus, we have in the Merneptah inscription a firm extra-Bibli cal reference to "Israelite peoples" in Palestine,

precisely when and where the recently discovered late i3th-early 12th century b.c.e. settlements are ? and furthermore inwhat was the heart located Israel," which is even better documented (below). textually The Merneptah datum alone would seem to be land of later "biblical

sufficient textual warrant I settlements ists,"who

for designating

"Israelite." How

do

the Iron

the "revision

as we have seen are skeptical of the very

58 William

concept of Israelite ethnicity, confront this "incon venient" datum? Lemche is themost sanguine, al

though he refers to the inscription as the "so-called Israel-stele." He does concede that the entity in question is to be located somewhere in the central

highlands, but he concludes that this evidence has little to do with later, biblical "Israel."33 concedes that the Merneptah stele an entity called "Israel," but he argues that "the term 'Israelite when applied to these (Iron Whitelam

mentions

I) settlements ismeaningless" ently that is to be understood Whitelam,

(1996: 228). Appar as "meaningless" to since itdoes not meet his expectations of

datum significant information. Yet theMerneptah ? tells us all thatwe need to know at this point that a late 13th-century b.c.e. "Israelite" ethnic group exists

in the highlands. The archaeological data, which the "revisionists" all refuse to connect with this Israel and scarcely appreciate anyway, reveal much of the structure and political rest, such as socioeconomic organization and even origins, if I am correct. as usual, is the most radical. He Thompson, dismisses the reference to "Israel," declar simply

ing that "it does not correspond with the highland Israel or any biblical Israel" (1999: 79). Elsewhere, he contends that the Egyptian term "Israel" is to be paired with the term "Canaan" as a spouse, and that the two are "metaphorical parents of three

towns destroyed by theEgyptian army" (1999:

81).34What

is a sensible person

to make

of such

"scholarship"? treatment of theMerneptah Edelmans stele is no equally tortured. Not only does ityield "almost

G. Dever

ethnic group. Instead, it seems to be a revolution in lifestyle" (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001:107). that Finkelstein does not seem to understand we moderns "ethnicity" is lifestyle! The fact that do not know all we wish to know about the Israel ites' lifestyle or perceptions of themselves in Iron I does not mean that they had no such percep tions. Finkelsteins reluctance to use specific ethnic

terms is reminiscent of Lemche's dictum that "the Canaanites

of the ancient Near East did not know

that they were themselves Canaanites" (Lemche Yet Lemche "knows" that they somehow 1991:152). were not. This elevates "creeping skepticism" from a proper critical attitude to an overarching scholarly method.35 simply

TheContinuityof "EarlyIsrael"

and "Biblical Even

the most

Israel"

doctrinaire

of the "revisionists"

that there was an "Israel" in ? but only Palestine by themid-9th century b.c.e. records dealing because a series of Neo-Assyrian are forced to concede

with military campaigns in thewest now mentions such an entity (The biblical narratives, of course, are all dismissed as late and unhistorical). For instance, in the Neo-Assyrian annals describing their very a coalition of western kings first encounter with III at Qarqar following the battle of Shalmaneser in central Syria in 853 b.c.e., the text refers to one of the kings as "Ahab of Israel."36

Even this explicit reference to Israel, however, is not sufficient to dispel the "revisionists'" doubts (or predilections?). They consistently prefer the later

term "house (dynasty) of Omri," firm data about this unit or entity,"but the reading Neo-Assyrian "Israel" is suspect and "could just as well be Jezreel," or the still later usage "province of Samarina." As Lemche puts it, "there can be no doubt that in the i.e., the Jezreel Valley (1996: 36). Finkelstein, an archaeologist now virtually in eyes of theAssyrians, after they obtained a firsthand the "revisionist" camp, does somewhat better. In knowledge of the territories of Palestine, Israel was not the name of the Northern Kingdom" his latestwork, he acknowledges that the reference (1998b: to "Israel" does indicate that some group by that 53). The extraordinary lengths towhich the "revi name was

is probably

ments

inCanaan

at the time and that this group

to be linked with

the highland

settle

of the period (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 57). But elsewhere, Finkelstein continues to deny that any of the textual or archaeological data an ethnic group. Thus, he declares that distinguishes the evidence gives "no sign...of a clearly defined

sionists" go to delegitimize even the name "Israel" suggests tome that it is ideology, not scholarship,

that is at work here. There cannot have been an

"ancient Israel," because that is a biblical concept (read "social construct" or "fiction"). recent attempts to rather desperate Despite "erase

ancient

Israel

from history"

(Halpern

Ethnicity

Table

2

Elements

Iron I to Iron II.

Cultural

and

the Archaeological

59

in cultural traits in the archaeological

of continuity/discontinuity

trait

Record

continuous

Mostly

sequence

from

Discontinuous

1 - Settlement Type or Pattern X 2 - House Type X 3 - Demography X 4 - Subsistence, Economy X 5 - Technology X 6 - Pottery X 7 - Social Structure X 8 - Political Organization 9 - Ideology, Art, Religion X 10 - Language, Literature X 11 - External Relations

to any honest and 1995)) it should be obvious well-informed person that an "Israelite" state (or

biblical dividedmonarchy) did exist in Palestine

era that archaeologists designate throughout the the Iron II period, ca. 900-600 b.c.e.37 The point can be shown that the fundamental here is that if it material

culture of this Iron II "Israel" is in direct

continuity with and derives from that of the Iron I assemblage, then the lattermay be legitimately known as "Israelite," or better "Proto-Israelite," as well. Yet virtually no scholar seems to have seen the force of such an argument, which I would regard as impeccable in principle and certainly founded now on ample evidence.38 Again, archaeological in the interest of brevity, a chart will be used summarize a mass of data (Table 2). Note that the only elements of discontinuity

to

in

(nos. 1, 8, 11) that have to do with urbanization ? those traits that and centralization precisely literature in the comparative and cross-cultural

the emergence of the in the conventional 10th century is b.c.e. or in theminimalist 9th century b.c.e.? "statehood."39 And

state?whether

not only well attested by extensive archaeological

the ar

I have tificial thatmay seem to some. Elsewhere, argued that when the "core history" of the bibli cal narratives is isolated, stripped of itsmythical and propagandistic elements, it coincides closely

"facts on the ground," then archaeological historians are on reasonably solid ground (Dever

with

2001a).

to favor the term Why, then, do I continue I do for the Iron I assemblage? "Proto-Israelite" so principally to err on the side of caution ? both "ethnicity" is difficult to define archaeo some logically and also because the objection of that this "Israel" is not the same as the later, bibli

because

(as far as itgoes). Thus inmy of peoples of the Iron I view, the conglomerate settlements, although they were neither highland nor constituted anything like a homogeneous modern nation-state, nor were even conscious of cal "Israel" is sound

the entire Iron I?II sequence of central Palestine over the span of some 600 years are those three

define

evidence, but it also fits remarkably well with biblical scheme of "tribe to nation," however

all the implications of the ethnic term "Israelite," were nevertheless the authentic progenitors of later biblical Israel in the Iron II period. Several other scholars, even Finkelstein at times, while the term "Proto-Israelite," adopted others have objected to it as too cautious or even

have

60 William

are familiar and arbitrary.40 But archaeologists comfortable with various "proto"-terminologies, in attempting to define transitional especially II-Iron

I horizon,

like the Late Bronze periods where cultural changes are gradual and complex. The "Israelite" peoples and states did exist. But they did not spring into existence overnight: they had a

long prehistory. Much editors knew that.

later biblical writers and

G. Dever

CONCLUSION current ideologically driven trend to deny the earliest Israelites their ethnic identity is omi first step in an agenda thatwould erase nous?the ancient and biblical Israel from history, from

The

and from any claim tomoral authority Fortunately, there is ample empirical evidence from archaeology to frustrate this scheme and to

memory,

discredit

its perpetrators.

NOTES This chapterwas written in 2001 and was only slightly updated in 2003. Later literaturecannot be discussed now but would includemy own Who Were theEarly Israelites, and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), as well as, specifi cally on the question of archaeology and "Israelite ethnicity," the following: E. Bloch-Smith, "Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology PreservesWhat Is Remembered andWhat Is Forgotten in Israel'sHis tory,"Journal ofBiblical Literature 122 (2003): 401-25;

R. Miller, "IdentifyingEarliest Israel,"Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 333 (2004): 55-68; A. E. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines and Early Israelites (Leiden: Brill, 2005); R. Kletter, "Can a Proto-Israelite Please Stand Up?" Pp. 573-86 in "JWill Speak theRiddles ofAncient Times:" Archaeological andHistorical Studies inHonor ofAmi haiMazar on theOccasion ofhis SixtiethBirthday,eds. A. M. Maeir and P. deMiroschedji (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006); A. Faust, Israels Ethnogenesis: Settlement,

Interaction,

Expansion

and

Resistance

(London: Equinox, 2006). 2 For representativeworks ofMeyers on Jewish and early Christian ethnicity, see Meyers and Chancey 2000; Meyers 1993. 3 For the basic survey data, see the original report and brief synthesis in Finkelstein 1988; and cf. the final report in Finkelstein and Lederman 1997. See also the review of the latter inDever 1999b. 4 Full references to the literaturewill be found con veniently in Dever 1995a; 1995b; 1997b; 1998. The response from biblical scholars other than those of the "revisionist" or "minimalist" school has been scant, but see Gottwald 1993; Stager 1998;McNutt

1999^ 64-103; Miller and Callaway 1999 forbalanced, centrist interpretationsof thedata. For the "revision ists," see n. 5, below.

5 See, for instance, Grabbe 1997. The basic literature and a summary of various schools of thoughtwill be found inDever 1999a. See also my own later treat ments inDever 2001a; 2001b, and add now Lemche 1998a; 1998b; Thompson 1999. For an authoritative survey of contemporary scholarship on theHebrew

Bible ingeneral,with a critique of "revisionist" ideol ogy similar tomy own, see now Barr 2000 (and cf. Lemche s response in 2000). 6 See references in works cited in nn. 4-5 above, especially essays in Fritz and Davies 1996; and cf.

Lemche 1998a; 1998b; Thompson 1999 for the latest "revisionist"

treatments.

7 Thompson 1997:177. Thompson's entire chapter (in Grabbe 1997) consists of a vicious, often slanderous attack on my early,positivist views of "Israelite eth nicity" such as Dever 1993; 1995a; 1995b.Thompson's

nihilism regarding any historical "Canaanites" is undoubtedly borrowed from Lemche 1991; but see the decisive refutation of Rainey 1996. Thompson's similar skepticism regarding the archaeological identificationof "Philistines" (as 1997:173 reveals his complete ignorance of archaeological scholarship of

the past 15years); cf., for example, Stager 1995; 1998 and references there.On archaeological data and the "ethnicity"ofCanaanites, Philistines, and thepeoples of Transjordan, see furtherDever 1995a; 1998.

8 See Whitelam 1996: passim; and cf.my critique of Whitelam's ideological biases and his distortion of the archaeological data inDever 1998; 1999a. Even Whitelam's fellow-"revisionist"Lemche (1997:151)has pointed out the absurdity of his attempt to identify

Ethnicity

and

the Archaeological

the IronAge population of Palestine as "Palestinians;" cf.also Thompson 1997:179.This is simply ideological cant. Lately Thompson has even refused to use the term "Israelite," preferring to see the people (not an ethnos) in question as something like "the IronAge cf. population of southern Syria'smarginal fringe;" 1997:176-77 184; 1999:168,190, 235. 9 Edelman, to her credit,has done some archaeologi cal fieldwork, and she is currently one of the staff ofMazar 's excavations at Tel Rehov. And, despite her recent affiliationwith Davies, Whitelam, and other "revisionists" at Sheffield, she is not as radical as they are. Nevertheless, her basic "minimalist" as "there are position is revealed in such statements can no artifactual remains that consistently be used a to understand groups ethnicity" (1996: 26; italics hers).

10 See references in nn. 4-6 above, especially Dever 1998;

1999a;

2000;

2001a.

11 See Edelman 1996: 39-54. Despite some reference to the archaeological data and literature, this entire discussion lacks authority. It is typical of the "mono resort on logues" that result when most biblicists their own to archaeology; cf.Halpern 1997. 12 On the post-modernist background of much "re visionist"

discourse,

see Dever

1998;

2000;

2001a.

Ironically, "post-modernism's" overriding emphasis on "multi-culturalism" ought to have stimulated a renewed appreciation of the ethnic distinctiveness ofmany cultures. It iswe archaeologists who are the realmulti-culturalists, as the astute social criticCa mille Paglia has pointed out (1999). On Finkelstein's flirtation with the "post-Zionist" version of post modernism,

see below.

13 See Finkelstein 1996: passim; and cf. his further at tack on my views in Finkelstein 1997.These articles actually go back to an ideological shift in the early 1990s,which Finkelstein rarelyacknowledges or cites. For his latest reversion to using the term "Israel," see Finkelstein and Silberman (2001: for instance, throughout Chapter 4, 97-122). The popular book referred to here is Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; cf. the review inDever 2001b. 14 In addition toFinkelstein 1996; 1997,discussed above; my 1995a; 1998;Kletter 1999; and Faust 2000b, I can

cite only Bunimovitz and Yasur-Landau 1996, and Bunimovitz and Faust (2001; 2003). 15 See Kletter 1999. Note the overweening use of the terms "invention" byWhitelam (1996), and "myth" insist by Thompson (1999).Whitelam and Thompson that the ancient Israelites and Judeans did not know who theywere; but theyknow.

16 See

Record

61

. i2, above.

17 Oddly enough, only Edelman (1996) ?a Biblical scholar? has employed such a "trait list,"although . il above. The scant works of superficially; cf. other biblicists, such as Sparks (1998), ignore the ar on texts,with chaeological data completely and focus results. unrealistic and minimal quite predictably On Finkelsteins fundamental skepticism regarding "ethnic

traits,"

see, for instance,

1996:202-6.

He

sees

? i.e., the statistically significant absence of only diet ? as a in bones early Iron Age hillcountry sites pig valid "ethnicmarker;" cf.Finkelstein 1996:206; 1997: 227-30; and furtherbelow. Obviously, I think that therewe have many other ethnic markers. On pot tery,for instance, see Bunimovitz and Yasur-Landau 1996 ("Philistine ethnicity"). 18 The fundamental evidence, on which all reconstruc tions necessarily rest, are first the survey data, for which see Finkelstein 1988; Finkelstein and Naaman 1997. The few 1994; Finkelstein and Lederman excavated sites would include Ai (Callaway 1993); Radanna (Callaway and Cooley 1971;Callaway 1983); Tzbet Sarta (Finkelstein 1989); Shiloh (Finkelstein 1993a); and Giloh (Mazar 1981). One might add Tel

(Fritzand Kempinski 1983;cf.Dever 1990); the "Bull Site" (Mazar 1982); and theMt. Ebal installation (Zertal 1986-87). A convenient, semi-popular sum mary of the evidence isDever 1992b; cf. also Stager

Masos

1985; 1998. 19 For the figures, see Finkelstein 1988: 296-97,330-35; 1994:154? Cf. Stager 1985: 3, 21, 23,with slightlydif ferent results (ca. 17,000 in LB; ca. 48,000 in early Iron I). Elsewhere, Stager (1998:135) documents an increase in the number of individual sites from 36 in LB to 319 in early Iron I,most of the latternewly founded in the 12thcentury b.c.e.

20 On these aspects of technology, cf. Finkelstein 1988: 202-4,264-69; Stager 1985:5-10, and full references inboth. I have argued strongly that it isnot a single, innovative technology that characterizes the new

hill-country archaeological assemblage in Iron I, but rather thedistinctive combination (Dever 1992b: 38, 79; 1995a: 207-8). Finkelsteins criticisms (1993b: 64-65; 1996: 201-2; 1997: 222-23) are a distortion of my views. Originally, he himself had emphasized the importance of such technologies as terracing, the ? at hewing of cisterns, and the construction of silos least for the Iron I settlements west of the central ridge, i.e., themajority (1988: 202-4; 264-69). One ? ? aspect of technology ceramics has been omitted here, since the discussion is very technical; but see Dever 1995a, and contrast Finkelstein 1996: 204.

62 William

21 Cf. Finkelstein 1996: 206; 1997: 227-30; Hesse and Wapnish 1997.At least Finkelstein and I agree on the ethnic significance of this particular datum. 22 On the early Iron Age courtyard houses, cf. Stager 1985:11-17; Finkelstein 1988:254-59; 1996:204-6. On itsdevelopment and diffusion in Iron II, see the ex

tensive treatmentofHolladay 1992. In a forthcoming ? paper, Bunimovitz originally a skeptic regarding ? in the "ethnicity" archaeological record has dem onstrated convincingly that theubiquitous courtyard or "four-room" house in the Iron II period reflects precisely an "Israelite" cultural ideal; cf.Bunimovitz and

Faust

2003.

23 See Bloch-Smith 1992: 60, 64. Ithas even been sug gested that the "Proto-Israelites" typically cremated theirdead, but that is extremelyunlikely.On mortu ary customs and ethnicity, see Brown 1971. For 24 perhaps the only real portraits we have on the famousNeo-Assyrian depictions of the fallof Lachish in 701 B.c.E.

see Ussishkin

1982:

84, 88,100,113.

25 For the 'Izbet Sarta abecedary, see Demsky 1977; for the Radanna jarhandle, see Callaway and Cooley 1971: 20-21. On the related Iron Age West Semitic languages and scripts in general, see Naveh 1982. 26 See furtherDever 1991a: 201; themodel is adapted from Sahlins (1972). This is in some ways similar to Gottwalds "communitarian" model (1993). 27 The issue of whether Israels "tribal" origins were historical or simply one aspect of the nationalist

ideology of the later literary traditions isvexed. For my own view,with references to thewider literature, see Dever 1997a. Cf. also the exhaustive but rather ideological discussion of Gottwald 1979: 224-28, 429-76.

28 For a general discussion of the archaeological evi dence forearly Israelite religion, seeDever 1997b and references

there.

29 For the latest treatmentsof the development ofYah see wism, Day 2000; most other standard treatments by biblical scholars are deficient, because they fail to utilize the archaeological and art historical data. For my own synthesis, see Dever 1992b; 1997b. 30 The term "displaced" owes much toNorman Gott

pioneering study (1979), although I would ? place less stress on the ideological aspects simply because the archaeological evidence is scant and

walds

ambiguous.

31 The latest,exhaustive treatment is thatofmy student Michael Hasel (1999). 32 For the best map locating the peoples referred to on theMerneptah stele, see Yurco 1990: 34; note the

G. Dever

obvious lacuna in the central hill-country,where I would

the "Proto-Israelites."

place

33 See Lemche 1998a: 75; 1998b: 35-38, 42, 57.Lemche concedes that the stele does refer to "some sort of ethnic (sic) unity,which was identifiable as far as it had itsown name, Israel" (1998b: 36). But he thinks thatwhat this is not "easy to ascertain" (1998b: 36).

Perhaps not easy?but possible. 34 In a session of the Second International Congress on Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology inCopenhagen inMay 2000, where Thompson and I presented pa pers opposite each other,he went so faras to suggest

that the Egyptian scribemay have simply invented the name "Israel," and that itsbeing identicalwith

the biblical "Israel" is coincidental. Leading Egyp tologistswith whom I have consulted consider all of Thompson s opinions absurd. 35 On "creeping skepticism", see Hallo 1990; and cf.

my expansion of this as part ofmy critique of the "revisionists" in the conclusion ofDever 2001a. 36 See, for example, the reference in Lemche 1998b: 52. Nevertheless, Lemche and Thompson both regularly a ignore this clear extra-biblical reference to 9th century

b.c.e.

"Israel";

see below.

37 Note that standard recent archaeological handbooks devote hundreds of pages to this Iron Age "Israel," never once supposing that it is not consonant in many or even most ways with "biblical Israel;" cf. Weippert 1988 (264 pages); Mazar 1990 (127 pages); and Ben-Tor 1992 (71 pages). Why is this evidence never cited by the "revisionists"?

38 Even Finkelstein, who has reservations about my term

"Profo-Israelite

(see

n. 40

below),

agrees

un

equivocally with the argument based on Iron I?II continuity,which he says "is doubtless correct" (1996: 200).

For details,

see Dever

1995a:

207-10.

39 See the full exposition inDever 1997c.The "revision ists" while vociferously denying that therewas an " early Israelite state,never really define "statehood nor do they show familiarity with any of the extensive anthropological and archaeological literatureon what are called

"state

formation

processes."

40 For the introductionand rationale of the term "Proto Israelite,"seeDever 1991b:87 and subsequently 1992a; 1993; !995a: 208-10; 1997b:42-45. Finkelstein initially accepted the term, then rejected it,and now (1996) uses itwithout comment.Mazar (2003), on theother hand, argues that it should be abandoned as need lesslyhesitant. Similarly,Stager (1998) speakswithout qualification of an early "Israel" in the i2th-nth century

b.c.e.

Ethnicity

and

the Archaeological

Record

REFERENCES

Barr,

J.

2000

History and Ideology in theOld Testament: Bibli cal Studies at theEnd of aMillennium. Oxford:

Oxford University. F. Barth, (ed.) 1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Or ganization ofCulture Difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. A.

Ben-Tor,

(ed.)

The Archaeology ofAncient Israel. New Haven: Yale University. Bloch-Smith, E. 1992

1992

Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs About the Dead. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic.

Brett,M. G. (ed.) 1996 Ethnicity and theBible. Leiden: Brill. Brown, J.A. (ed.) 1971 Approaches to theSocial Dimensions of Mortuary Practices.Washington, DC: Society ofAmerican Archaeology. Bunimovitz,

2001

2003

S., and

Faust,

Chronological Separation,Geographical Segrega tionor EthnicDemarcation? Ethnography and the IronAge Low Chronology. Bulletin of theAmeri can Schools ofOriental Research 322:1-10. Building Identity:The Four Room House and the IsraeliteMind. Pp. 411-23 in Symbiosis, Symbol ism and the Power of the Past: Canaan Ancient Israel and TheirNeighbors, eds.W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona

Bunimovitz,

1996

A.

Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

S., and Yasur-Landau,

A.

Philistine and Israelite Pottery: A Comparative Approach to theQuestion of Pots and People. Tel Aviv 23: 88-102.

Callaway, J.A. . VisitWith Ahilud. Biblical 1983 A Archaeology Review 9, no.

1993

5: 42-53.

Ai. Pp. 39-45 inNew Encyclopedia ofArchaeo logicalExcavations in theHoly Land, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Callaway, J.A., and Cooley, R. E. 1971 A Salvage Excavation at Radanah, in Bireh. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research

201:9-19.

Day, J. 2000 Yahweh and theGods and Goddesses ofCanaan. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic.

Demsky,

1977

Dever,

A.

A Proto-Canaanite Abecedary Dating from the Period of the Judgesand Its Implications for the History of theAlphabet. Tel Aviv 4: 1-13. W.

G.

1990

Archaeology and Israelite Origins: Review Ar ticle.Bulletin of theAmerican Schools ofOriental Research 279: 89-95. 1991a Unresolved Issues in theEarly History of Israel: Toward a Synthesis ofArchaeological and Tex

tual Reconstructions. Pp. 195-208 in The Bible and thePolitics of Exegesis: Essays inHonor of Norman K. Gottwald on his Sixty-FifthBirthday,

eds. D. Jobling,P. L. Day and G. T. Sheppard. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim. 1991b Archaeological Data on the Israelite Settlement: A Review of Two Recent Works. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 284: 77-90.

1992a Archaeology and the Israelite "Conquest." Pp. 545-58 inAnchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York, NY: Doubleday. 1992b How to Tell a Canaanite from an Israelite. Pp. .Shanks. 27-56 inThe Rise ofAncient Israel, ed. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society. 1993 Cultural Continuity, Ethnicity in theArchaeo logical Record, and the Question

Origins.

Eretz-Israel

24:

of Israelite

22*-33*.

1995a Ceramics, Ethnicity, and theQuestion of Israels Origins. Biblical Archaeology Review 58, no. 4: 200-13.

1995b Will

theReal Israel Please Stand Up? Archaeol ogy and IsraeliteHistoriography: Part I. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools ofOriental Research 279: 61-80.

1997a Philology, Theology, and Archaeology: What Kind ofHistory Do We Want, andWhat Is Pos sible? Pp. 290-310 in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing thePast, Interpreting thePresent, eds. N. A. Silberman and D. Small. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic. 1997b Archaeology and theEmergence of Early Israel. Pp. 20-50 inArchaeology and Biblical Interpreta tion,ed. J.R. Bartlett. London: Routledge. 1997c Archaeology and the "Age of Solomon:" A Case Study inArchaeology and Historiography. Pp.

217-51 inThe Age ofSolomon: Scholarship at the Turn of theMillenium, ed. L. Handy. Leiden: Brill.

64 William

1998

Archaeology, "Ancient"

or

Ideology, and the Quest "Biblical"

Israel. Near

chaeology 61, no. 1: 39-52. 1999a Histories and Nonhistories Bulletin of theAmerican Research 316: 89-195.

Eastern

for an

of Ancient Israel.

Did They Know It?What Archaeology and the Bible Can Tell Us About Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

2001b Excavating the Hebrew Bible, Or Burying It Again? Bulletin of theAmerican Schools ofOri ental Research 322: 67-77.

Faust,

2000a

Pots and Peoples Revisited: Ethnic Boundaries in the IronAge. Pp. 216-37 in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing thePast, Interpreting the Present,

Schools of Oriental

of Archaeology, 1997, Bulletin of theAmerican Schools ofOriental Research 313: 87-88. 2000 Save Us from Postmodern Malarkey. Biblical Archaeology Review 26, no. 2: 28-35, 68. 2001a What Did theBiblical Writers Know, and When

1996

1997

Ar

1999b Review of I. Finkelstein and Z. Lederman, eds., Highlands of Many Cultures: The Southern Samaria Survey, The Sites, Tel Aviv: Institute

D. V.

Edelman,

G. Dever

Ethnicity and Early Israel. Pp. 25-55 inEthnicity and theBible, ed.M. G. Brett. Leiden: Brill. A.

The Rural Community inAncient Israel during Iron Age II. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research 317: 17-39.

2000b Ethnic Complexity inNorthern Israel During IronAge II. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 132: 2-27.

Finkelstein, I. 1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1989 Tzbet Sartah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Haayin, Israel. British Archaeological Reports International Series 299. Oxford: British Ar

chaeological Reports. 1993a Shiloh: TheArchaeology ofa Biblical Site.Tel Aviv: InstituteofArchaeology, Tel Aviv University. 1993b Response. Pp. 63-69 in The Rise of Israel, ed. H.

Shanks.Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeologi cal Society. 1994 The Emergence of Israel: A Phase in theCyclic History of Canaan in the Third and Second Millennia bce. Pp. 150-78 inFromNomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects ofEarly Israel, eds. I. Finkelstein and N. Naaman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1996 Ethnicity and Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands ofCanaan: Can theReal Israel Stand Up? Biblical Archaeologist 59, no. 4: 198-212.

eds. W.

A.

Silberman

and

D.

Small.

Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic. Finkelstein, L, and Naaman, N. (eds.) 1994 From Nomadism toMonarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects ofEarly Israel Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Finkelstein, L, and Lederman Z. (eds.) 1997 Highlands ofMany Cultures: The Southern Samaria Survey The Sites.Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 14. Tel Aviv: Institute ofArchaeology, Tel Aviv

University. Finkelstein I., and Silberman, N. A. 2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision ofAncient Origin of Its Sacred Texts.New York, NY:

Press.

and Davies,

Fritz, V.,

1996

Free

P. R.

(eds.)

The Origins of theAncient Israelite States. Shef field: SheffieldAcademic.

Fritz,V., and Kempinski, A. (eds.) 1983 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet 1972-1975. Wiesbaden: el-Msas (TelM?s?s) Harrassowitz.

Grabbe, L. L. (ed.) 1997 Can a 'History of Israel" Be Written? Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic. . . Gottwald, 1979 The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of Liberated Israel 1250-1050 b.c.e. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. 1993 Method and Hypothesis inReconstructing the Social History of Early Israel. Eretz-Israel 24: *77-*82. Hallo,

1990

Halpern,

1995

1997

W. W.

The Limits of Skepticism. Journal of theAmeri can Oriental Society 110: 187-99. B.

Erasing History: The Minimalist Assault inAn cient Israel. Bible Review 11,no. 6: 29-35, 47. Text and Artifact: Two Monologues. Pp. 311-41 inTheArchaeology ofIsrael:Constructing thePast, InterpretingthePresent, eds.N. A. Silberman and

D. Small. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic. Hasel,

1999

M.

G.

Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in theSouthern Levant, 1300-1185 b.c. Leiden: Brill.

Ethnicity

., and Wapnish,

Hesse,

1997

and

the Archaeological

P.

Archaeology of Israel: Constructing The Past, Interpreting thePresent, eds. N. A. Silberman and D. Small. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic. Holladay, J.S., Jr. 1992 House, Israelite. Pp. 308-18 vol.

3, ed. D.

N.

New

1997

1982

1999

Meyers,

1993

S.

The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in thePast and Present. London: Rout

Pots and Polities: Material Remains of Late Iron Age Judah in Relation to Its Political Borders. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools of Oriental 314:

Research N.

1991 1997

19-54.

P.

The Canaanites and Their Land. Sheffield: Shef fieldAcademic. Clio Is Also Among the Muses! Keith W.

Whitelam and theHistory of Palestine: A Re view and a Commentary. Pp. 123-55 in Can a "Historyof Israel" Be Written?, ed. L. L. Grabbe. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic. 1998a Prelude to Israels Past: Background and Begin nings of IsraeliteHistory and Identity.Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. 1998b The Israelites inHistory and Tradition. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster 2000

/JohnKnox. Ideology and the History of Ancient Israel. Scandinavian journal of theOld Testament 14, no.

Mazar,

1981 1982

2:

165-93.

A.

Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site near Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 31: 1-36. The "Bull Site" - An IronAge IOpen Cult Place. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools ofOriental Re search

247:

27-42.

1990

Archaeology of theLand of theBible 10,000-586

2003

Remarks on Biblical Traditions and Archaeologi cal Evidence Concerning Early Israel. Pp. 85-98 in Symbiosis, Symbolism and thePower of the Past: Canaan Ancient Israel and TheirNeighbors, eds.W. G. Dever and S. Gitin.Winona Lake, IN:

b.c.e.

E. M.

and Ethnic Groups Identifying Religious Through Archaeology. Pp. 738-46 inBiblical Ar chaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of theSecond InternationalCongress on Biblical Jerusalem,June 1990, eds. J.Aviram and A. Biran. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

R.

Lemche,

R. H.

The Study of Ethnicity inHistorical Archaeol ogy. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 1: 159-78.

ledge. Kletter,

Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Library ofAncient Israel. Louisville, KY: West minister/John Knox.

McGuire,

in Anchor Bible Freedman.

York, NY: Doubleday.

Jones,

1999

65

P. M.

McNutt,

Can Pig Bones Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East? Pp. 238-70 in The

Dictionary,

Record

New

Eisenbrauns.

York,

NY:

Doubleday.

Meyers,

2000

E. M.,

and

Chancey,

M.

How Jewish Was Sepphoris in JesusTime? Bibli cal Archaeology Review 26, no. 1: 18-33, 61.

Miller, J. M., and Callaway, J.A. 1999 The Settlement in Canaan: The Period of the Judges.Pp. 55-89 inAncient Israel: From Abra ham to theRoman Destruction of the Temple, ed. H. Shanks. Revised and expanded edition. Washington: Naveh,

1982

Olivier,

1995

Biblical Archaeological

Society.

J.

Early History of theAlphabet: An Introduction to West SemiticEpigraphy and Paleography. Leiden: Brill. L., and Coudart,

A.

French Tradition and theCentral Place ofHis tory in the Human Sciences: Preamble to a

Dialogue Between Robinson Crusoe and His Man Friday. Pp. 363-81 in Theory inArchaeol Ucko. London: ogy:A World Perspective, ed. P. J. Routledge. Paglia, C. 1999 The Right Kind ofMulticulturalism. The Wall Street Journal, September 30, 1999: 2. Rainey,

A.

1996 Who is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research 304: 1-15.

Sahlins,

M.

1972

Stone Age Economics. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Sparks,

1998

D.

.L.

Ethnicity and Identity inAncient Israel: Prole gomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in theHebrew Bible. Winona Lake,

IN: Eisenbrauns.

66 William

Stager,

1985

1995

1998

L. E.

Weippert, H. The Archaeology of the 1988 Pal?stina in vorhellenistischer Zeit. Munich: Family inAncient Israel. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools Oriental Re Beck. of search 260: 1-35. Whitelam, K. W. The Impact of the Sea Peoples (1185-1050 bce). 1996 The Invention ofAncient Israel: The Silencing of Pp. 332-48 in The Archaeology of Society in the Palestinian History. London: Routledge. . ed. E. Holy Land, Levy. London: Leicester University. Forging an Identity:The Emergence ofAncient Israel. Pp. 123-75 in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed.M. D. Coogan. New York,NY: Oxford University.

Thompson,

1997

T. L.

Defining History and Ethnicity in the South Levant. Pp. 166-87 in Can a 'History Israel" of Be Written?, ed. L. L. Grabbe. Sheffield:Sheffield Academic.

1999

G. Dever

TheMythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Ussishkin, D. 1982 The Conquest ofLachish Sennacherib.Tel-Aviv: by InstituteofArchaeology, Tel-Aviv University.

Yurco,

1990

E

J.

3,200-Year-Old Picture of Israelites Found in Egypt. Biblical Archaeology Review 16, no. 5: 20-38.

Zertal,

1985

A.

Has

Joshuas Altar Been Found on Mt. Ebal? Biblical Archaeology Review 11,no. 1: 26-45. 1986-87 An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mount Ebal: Excavation Seasons 13-14:

105-65.

1982-1987. Tel Aviv

6

Chapter

to Food: Field Crops and Meaning Gender Attributing in Iron Age Israel* to Bread Production From

byCarolMeyers

ago, the field projects carried out in Upper Galilee by Eric Meyers and his as their colleagues had goal the recovery

Decades

of the village

context as well

note, this essay about food production is dedicated to him also because he has contributed bountiful intellectual and emotional, as well as edible, food table for over four decades.

as the monumental

to our marital

architecture present at those sites.1 (synagogue) in Lower Galilee at Similarly, his team working or while uncovering Sepphoris, exploring stunning

? public buildings the palatial Roman building

? al with Dionysos mosaic and the Roman theater so conducted extensive excavations in the residen

HOUSEHOLD ARCHAEOLOGY AND GENDER involved in converting a major processes source ? cereal crops ?into nutritional edible forms were carried out in social units designated

The

tial quarter on thewestern acropolis.2 In attending to the remains of domestic as well as communal and his associates

as households.

Except for themost elite sectors of the population, activities daily grain-processing a in central role the survival of played virtually

have recovered

activity,Meyers the kind of data that allow for the understanding

of

in the Iron Age. Be all families in Syria-Palestine cause households have left substantial traces in the

life and, consequently, of the gendered of that life. aspects this chapter deals with an earlier peri Although

household

od ?the era ?its

archaeological of household

Iron Age rather than theRoman-Byzantine and focus on households acknowledges

remains

recovered by field projects. Using those data must take into account, first archaeological and foremost, the nature of households.

the fact that by his holistic approach to ancient Jewish sites Eric Meyers has contributed in important ways to the possibility for studying house holds and their activities. And, on amore personal celebrates

record, the investigation of this set activities can draw upon material

As has long been understood by social anthro a pologists, arriving at definition of a household that 67

68 Carol

is universal

Meyers

across cultures is virtually impossible. certain features of a household in pre

However, modern societies can be identified. For one thing, involve groups of people but are not households coterminous with families. Although they overlap, and families are distinct social phenom

households

ena (Bender 1967:495;Wilk andNetting 1984:3).

Similarly, despite considerable overlap, households and domiciles are not the same, the latter being structural configurations that constitute livingplaces

for certain groups of people. In short, a household is a built environment consisting of not only persons and their "hardware" (theirmaterial culture, includ ing their domicile and all itsassociated artifacts) but

also their activities and other aspects of their daily lives (Rapoport 1994: 461). Thus, demographic and architectural aspects of Syro-Palestinian households

in the Iron Age were intertwined with economic ones (see Goody 1972:106). a household in premodern More specifically, agrarian societies consists of three elements. First, as a demographic or social unit itcomprises varying

as well configurations of affinals and consanguinals or servants as, sometimes, unrelated sojourners. Also, as a demographic unit itencompasses human reproductive functions. Second, it has material components, namely, a residential structure along ? ? with the items artifacts that enable its inhabit ants tomeet their physical and social as well as spiri tual or ideological needs. These material aspects to be recovered it possible for households make

archaeologically. The third element is behavioral; it is the set of activities carried out in the household context tomeet Seen

damental because

the needs of its residents.

this way, a household

emerges as a fun feature of human society organizing it is the level at which premodern social

1999? 79)? Because it is the site of fundamental and essential activities that are embedded inmaterial is susceptible to analyses of culture, the household how people organize their economic production and of the social interactions rooted in productive activities (Whitridge 1998: 2). Near Eastern archaeologists, especially those of us

working in the so-called historical periods, have rarely, ifever, been willing to venture into the busi ness of analyzing the social context of thematerial

culture of everyday life. Part of the reason for this is that such analysis is difficult; complex interpreta tive processes are required in order tomove from

physical remains to theories about social dynamics among household members. But more likely, the availability ofwritten documents from the Bronze

it seem, perhaps falsely, and Iron Ages has made we more direct and reliable that have access to sources of information about the past than the si lent artifacts themselves. This notion persists even

remains (unlike most documents) contemporaneity with the societies that

though material

possess interest us, especially for the periods of theHebrew Bible, and, even more important, are not subject to the distortions and biases ofwritten records. Another consideration

factor that has virtually precluded of households and their inhabitants

is that the information inwritten sources, notably books of the Hebrew Bible, has

the "historical" us

into viewing archaeology primarily to trace ? or even verify?the large scale social and political processes involving tribes

seduced

as themeans

that are presumably recorded in Scripture. The text-driven agendas of the archaeol ogy of the Iron Age of Syria-Palestine have thus, in their focus on polities and ethnicities, neglected the primary units of society, family households. The and nation-states

groups articulate directly with the environment can be in order to survive. That is, a household a strategy that both participates as conceptualized

tribe or city state or kingdom has been labeled the primary unit of social organization (as by Gottwald 1979: 237-92). Yet, itmay be more appropriate to consider the household, which is the basic unit

the productive

of production and reproduction, as the primary unit. As the social and physical spaces in which all members of a culture experience their daily

in and utilizes material

culture in order to meet

and reproductive needs of humans and (Wilk Rathje 1982: 618). The economic di mension of this conceptualization is based on the

simple premise, going back to Polanyi (1944: 53), that people produce for their own sake and/or for

thatof thegroup(s) towhich theybelong (Henshaw

are the necessary lives, households for themore complex socio-political

any society.

foundations

structures of

From

Field

In redressing the archaeological emphasis on issues that have characterized diachronic Syro

outset (C.Meyers archaeology from the we to learn from well would do 1997b: 273-74), examining prehistoric cultures. archaeologists

Palestinian

Prehistorians have long been aware of the centrality and for several decades they have of households; been quite explicit in their practice of "household

is meant a micro-scale by which or the of spatial components and investigation to in environment the built order ganizations of archaeology,"

understand

the economic

activities and the social

relations of this basic unit of society (Steadman 1996). By using the excavated architectural and artifactual

remains

nature of diverse

as the main

subsistence

to Food

Crops

data base, the tasks and of divided

can be ascertained, the relations of production and consumption can be inferred, and even associated ideologies can be theorized. task performance

69

"identify or assert the presence of the activities of some of women" (Conkey and Gero 1997: 414-15), which can be differentiated from the activities of men

in the archaeological record. activities the of either gender in Identifying volves the gender attribution of sets of behaviors

constituting productivity. In premodern agrarian societies, both women and men must contribute to substantially, perhaps in nearly equal measure,

the subsistence tasks of a household unit (C. Mey ers 1983; cf. C. Meyers 1988:168-73). However, for reasons of efficiency and for strengthening group life through cooperation and interdependence

1987: 44-45), not everyone same tasks. Although there is some performs all the women and men and even children overlap, with and Lenski

(Lenski

same operations (such as together at the at most certain times, household labor harvesting)

working

is divided

into tasks carried out more often or even

clearly holds the investigation of households no promise of providing information available in

one exclusively by gender rather than the other. Even in the simplest societies, gender is a key factor in the allocation of subsistence tasks (Brown 1970;

ar too often been neglected by Syro-Palestinian on intent recovering themonumental chaeologists ? ? of architecture temples, palaces, fortifications the elites (C. Meyers 1988:17-18). It is now time to that the ubiquity and abundance of acknowledge

Costin

The

other way about human behavior. Households

have

signify the availability of information life in the Iron Age was experienced of the population, not just the military,

households

about how by most

political, and cultic leadership. In thinking of the household as the locus of peo ples lives, the potential of household archaeology

for learning about women as well as men becomes apparent (C. Meyers 2003a). Males may have been dominant inmilitary, political, and cultic leader

1996:112; Kent 1990:148).

The division of laborby genderhas longbeen

and recorded by social scientists. Con sequently, evaluating the contributions of women or men to household life as a prelude to recon recognized

structing gender relations is contingent upon iden tifyingwomen's work as distinct frommen's work.

no tasks, however, are Virtually universally ascribed to a single gender, whereby women and men of all cultures always perform certain household jobs. To be sure, some tasks are linked more strongly with one gender rather than another, as will become clear below. Yet, because the gender of those who

ship, but females were present in approximately the same proportions as males in family households.

perform specialized tasks in any society cannot be assumed, identifying the gender of major house hold activities is a necessary step in understanding the role of women and men in the household and

economic

in the larger communities inwhich households are embedded. Because bread (or,more generally, food made from grains) was a critical staple of the diet of

If archaeology can, in fact, situate household architecture and artifact assemblages within an

and social context, then the gendered relations of production, present in all known hu man societies, can be explored (Lawrence 1999: is equated 121-23). Too often, human behavior with males.

The examination

havior of household this androcentric

members tendency;

of the gendered be allows us to redress

itmakes

itpossible

to

Iron Age agrarians, the gender attribution of bread production is an appropriate test case for examining the daily activities of Israelite households

and the

power dynamics that played out in the relationships of household members.

70 Carol

Meyers

BREAD PRODUCTION The preparation, distribution, and consumption of a cereal ? wheat and barley in the case of the biblical world ? probably consumed a considerable portion of household activity in terms of time and space. Because only the seeds of cereals but not the outer husks are edible and because

the nutritional

starch in the seeds cannot be easily digested in raw form, a complex series of processing activi

or or soaking, milling grinding, ties?parching ? in is order to essential and/or heating, leavening transform the grain into an edible form, whether itbe porridge, gruel, or more commonly bread. In so important as to frequently represent "food" in the Hebrew Bible (Reed 1992: 1995: 523-24). 778; Dommershausen The growing of grain as a field crop is a necessary itselfwas

fact, bread

preliminary

to bread production

and itself requires

plowing, sowing, reaping, 1987: 47-70). (Borowski threshing, winnowing Those activities, however, are not part of daily life.

multiple

operations:

Rather, they are limited to two periods of several months each, as is clear from the Gezer Calendar and other ancient sources (Borowski 1987: 31-38,

as well as from agronomic data. fig. 2, tables 1-3), and barley would have wheat Sowing of both taken place in two winter months (yrhw zr = "two months of sowing"), with harvesting and ingather ing, followed by threshing and winnowing,

in virtually all household production (tanurs or tabum), baking trays, settings. Ovens and various stone grinding tools are the principle

of bread

taking

? place in thespring probablyApril forbarley (yrh = "amonth of harvesting barley") and May qsrs'rm forwheat (yrh qsr -/-, probably = "amonth of har

[Cassuto 1954]). Thereafter, vesting and measuring" was stored in bulk or in jars in a variety of grain subterranean (pits, silos, cellars) and above-ground facili (granaries, storerooms, storehouses) storage ties for availability for conversion to edible form

during the entire year (Borowski 1987: 71-83). Bread production, in contrast, was a daily activ in urban or ity in virtually every household. Even elite settings, where grain might be procured in markets or as income from tenant farmers, indi vidual households were the sites of the multiple involved in transforming grain into operations bread or gruel. The archaeological record preserves several kinds of evidence attesting to the location

to the processing of grains. such artifacts are widely found in

artifactual witnesses Although

sites of the Iron Age, they are not in the publications of excavated that allow for their find-spots and

Syro-Palestinian always available

sites in ways their architectural

context to be determined, as is in order to establish household use. That

necessary is, archaeological publications commonly illustrate ceramic and artifactual materials in stylistic group

ings, or typologies, rather than in locus groups 1993: 26-27). This publication (Daviau strategy a interests of the is function of the diachronic excavators, who seek to trace change over time in relation to socio-political history.Moreover, ovens are not always depicted on schematic building

plans, which are meant more than functional undoubtedly

been

to show architectural form

space. Valuable data have lost because of excavation and

as well as publication record-keeping techniques, to the possibil goals, that have not been sensitive inways materials of ity recovering archaeological of household that allow for the reconstruction and, ultimately, of gendered activities (Steadman 1996: 3). Nevertheless, some information can be salvaged

economies

from past projects. This in discussions embedded

is typically of the so-called "four

information

room house," apparently a type of structure formed

in the IronAge to fill the functionalneeds of

and Negev agrarian settlements in the hill-country highlands (Holladay 1992; 1997; Stager 1985:11-17) this remains somewhat and eventually?although ? with Israelite associated controversial becoming Faust and 2003). Al (Bunimovitz ethnogenesis use of certain spaces in those highly though the standardized dwellings is still debated, inferences these based on ethnography have established to as structures functional adaptations dry-farming

mixed with horticulture and animal husbandry in Iron Age hamlets, villages, and towns, largely in sites considered Israelite or Judean.3The large cen tral space in the four-room house probably served as the major work area for a variety of activities, flour and the including the pounding of grain into

From

Field

Crops

kneading of flour with water to produce dough and, or loaves. ultimately, cakes or basalt limestone Large shallow objects, called variously grindstones, grinding slabs, slabs, querns, or saddle querns,4 are often recovered in the large space of four-room houses (Mazar 1992: 1997: 339). These tools have a con 488; Holladay cave work surface, a flat back, and are generally twice as long as they are wide. They serve as lower grinding stones and have as their counterparts

upper grinding stones, sometimes called grinders or handstones. The length of the typically convex stones is upper usually somewhat less than the

width of the associated

lower grinding stones; the were two held with former hands and moved for

over the latter (see Pritchard 1954: fig. 149). Most grain was probably crushed in such sets of upper and lower grinding stones, which presumably were located in each household. ward

and backward

At Tzbet Sartah, for example, the thirteen grinding stones of Stratum II-IV (late eleventh-early tenth were century) evenly distributed, with one to three

to Food

71

even harder to Kneading troughs are identify in the archaeological record, perhaps because they or sometimes wooden have been slabs may simply pieces of fabric laid upon the cobbled or dirt surface of the workspace.5 The mention

of ovens

in the archaeological conflicting or, rather, variant information. Baking ovens made of clay, usually

literature contains

foundations of small stones, are sometimes found in themain workspace of four-room houses; in other instances they appear outside the struc

with

ture in an open area (courtyard space) or special structure (Mazar 1992: 488). Indeed, they are not necessarily found in every household, but rather

may be positioned several households

in outdoor

spaces accessible to at el Tell Far ah, North; see (as use. 1997: 339), suggesting communal Holladay Bread could also be baked in bread pans or on

griddles (see Lev 2:5,7; 7:9), both ofwhich would

have entailed the use of hearths

(see 1Kgs 19:6 and are Isa 44:19). These notoriously difficult to locate in the archaeological record, let alone in archaeo

in every four-room building unit and none found logical publications, possibly because, as ethno outside the living areas (Finkelstein 1986: 93-94). graphic evidence suggests, hearths, unlike ovens, The fact that sometimes were often situated in three grinding stones second-story rooms or, in were found in one household is noteworthy, for it the hot months, outside the domestic structures in indicates that two or three people were processing exterior courtyards (Kramer 1979:147-48). at same an the time, do not grain example of simple task Although publications archaeological

simultaneity(Wilkand Rathje 1982:622),which is

a useful way of organizing labor when suming procedures are involved. Mortars

ally made

time-con

(round, concave stone artifacts, usu of limestone or basalt and smaller than

with pestles (conicalor grindingstones) together cylindricalpounding stoneswith slightlyrounded bases), probablyused mainly forgrindingsmall grains such as herbs, spices, or pigments, may also have been used as supplemental tools for grinding small quantities of cereal grains (see Num 11:8; cf. Prov 27:22). These tools are also sometimes re ported in archaeological publications, but the lack of illustrations and the confusion

of terminology it difficult to assess locations or make quantity. The hammerstone or pounder was also a common grinding tool, but it is often overlooked because of artifact collection strategies that favor more stone tools (Ebeling 2002). recognizable ground

always provide easy access to them, it seems certain that the implements and installations used in trans

forming grains into edible form can be located in or near households, in interior or exterior workspaces. What is not readily apparent, however, is the iden tity of those who used these tools and structures. The artifacts and ovens or hearths are not intrin

sically gender noisy. Precisely because the gender attribution of responsibility for specific household subsistence tasks is not universal, one cannot sim ply assume that the archaeological assemblages associated with in Syro-Palestinian bread-making

can be assigned to one gender or the other. In order to assess the experiential world of the Iron Age and interrogate any household activity for information about human behavior, hierarchies,

households

and power differentials, the practitioners of that activitymust firstbe identified. Prehistorians doing the archaeology of gender (as Gero and Conkey

72 Carol

Meyers

i99i;Wright 1996; Nelson 1997) have devised strate gies for determining with reasonable certainty the gendered use of artifacts; those strategies can be employed effectively in ascertaining the gender of

in Iron Age Israel. bread-producers Gender attribution analysis utilizes three major sources: ethnography, texts, and iconography (see Costin 1996: 117-20). All of these are frequently used in the interpretation of thematerial remains recovered

by Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Eth for has been nography, example, heavily utilized for studies of Iron Age dwellings and their various

Indeed, the most important studies of the four-room house (such as Stager 1985; Holladay that is, 1992; 1997) have been ethnoarchaeological; on have several classic they depended ethnographic

functions.

analyses of agrarian Iranian villages (Kramer 1982; Watson some would question 1979). Although the value of recent behavior patterns observed by

ethnographers for understanding archaeological remains, analogical interpretation is arguably es sential for all archaeological work, especially if the information comes from the same ethnographic

general geographic region as the excavations and thus bears the possibility of cultural continuity ? written docu (see Carter 1997). Textual sources ments

of the populations the artifact producing ? are in also de question rigueur for assemblages the interpretation of Iron Age remains from Syria

Palestine.6 The Hebrew

Bible is thewritten source

par excellence and also the one most notoriously attacked as ideologically biased and therefore un

reliable, but that judgment may be less relevant for

thebiblical allusions to household lifethan they

are for the assessment

of the political or religious issues that are the raison d'etre of the biblical cor

pus. Other ancient written sources, such as those from Mesopotamia and Ugarit, may be relevant, although their focus on urban elites means they,

too,must be used cautiously. Finally, iconographie materials, though relatively scarce for Syria-Pales tine in comparison with Mesopotamia and Egypt, are occasionally available. Artistic representations of household activities from nearby societies may

also be useful ifused critically, given the differences as well as similarities between Israelite and other

Near Eastern

cultures.

GENDER ATTRIBUTION OF BREAD PRODUCTION Ethnography The

for engendering and foremost, first comes, bread-production from the large cross-cultural data base amassed ethnographic

evidence

and White (see Murdock by George Murdock the Human of Area Relations 1969), developer on Files (HRAF). Using information 185 sample

and Provost (1973; cf.Mur societies, Murdock dock 1937) identified 50 technological activities or tasks and arranged them according to the ratio of male

and female participants, beginning with those mostly, or even exclusively, associated with men (e.g., smelting ores, hunting large aquatic fauna) and ending with those predominantly as signed to women. Although a few activities are

exclusively performed by males in all 185 societ ies, none is done by females alone.7 Nevertheless, some activities appear within women's domain in

a

high percentage of societies; and the one most associated with women is the preparation of veg

to animal, foods (Murdock and etal, as opposed Provost 1973: tables 1 and 5). In 145 societies such work was exclusively female, and in only 3was it cases (with data exclusively male. In the other 27 unavailable for 11more) vegetal food preparation was performed by both genders. studies across Many individual anthropological cultures corroborate those findings. They also pro vide some additional relevant information about

grain-processing tasks, namely, their social aspect. Ethnography shows that tedious sets of activities,

such as grinding grain and kneading dough, are often performed in gendered work groups. Women there can be several of one household ?and or adult women

in the extended family were households that probably typical for Iron Age C. Meyers 1997a; settlements 1985; agrarian (Stager ? Faust 2000)8 and even of neighboring house holds frequently gather together to grind, knead, and bake (Friedl 1991: 208; Sweely 1999:168). The adolescent

last operation has an ecological and labor-saving as well as a social one; that is,where motivation fuel is relatively scarce, firing an oven to produce multiple loaves for several households may reduce

From

the amount of fuel thatwould

Field

Crops

otherwise have been

required for individual household ovens. Ethnographic data from regions close to Syria Palestine, including Turkey and Iran, invariably depict women controlling bread production and

activities (Kramer 1979; other food-processing even Palestinian 1979). examples may be more relevant. Ironically, studies of local domestic

Watson

architecture and related activity patterns have been rather under-utilized by "biblical" archaeologists

intent inmany other ways in interpreting the re sults of their excavations. Following in the footsteps

of the few explorers (such as Canaan Palestinian 1942) who documented

1933;Dalman

a

dwellings, late 1970s survey, sponsored by the Center for the Study of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv, investigated in great detail fifteen Ottoman-period houses in

theHebron district (Hirschfeld 1995). The survey team interviewed older family members and also studied the architecture and the installations for

food preparation. Although primarily interested in construction techniques, the researchers nonethe less recorded several kinds of ethnographic infor relevant to bread production. In particular,

mation

they ascertained the occupancy levels of dwellings and also certain aspects of household activities, location and including gender. To

their surprise, they discovered that the number of inhabitants averaged sixteen (Hirschfeld 1996: 135, table 5). This figure, repre senting three to four generations, is consonant with

maximum

notions of the Israelite extended family as the basic social unit. Another feature is that bread ovens were often built in outdoor spaces and courtyards, some times thereby serving several households, whereas

hearths were

not permanent

usually (Hirschfeld 1995: 133,140-41,166). views with both female and male vealed

structures

Finally, inter re occupants

thatwomen were the ones who determined

of space for objects and activities in the household (Hirschfeld 1995:148-49,152,182). The communal nature of bread production, as well the allocation

as the female control of the artifacts and space in which bread was prepared, thus emerge as salient features of Palestinian

ethnography.

to Food

73

Texts Iron Age textual information from Syria-Palestine is in accord with the ethnographic data. First, with in the respect to grinding, a number of passages

Bible mention millstones or the grinding of grain. Most of them provide no information about the gender of those using the grinding stone, NRSV "hand-mill" (r?hayim, a Hebrew dual form a probably representing grinding artifact consist Hebrew

ing of two parts: upper and lower grinding stones). For example, in Jer 25:10, the sound of grinding

stones is indicativeof happy familylife; inDeut

24:6, neither a "handmifl" nor part thereof, i.e., an "upper millstone," is to be taken as collateral; and inNum 11:8, the "people" ? probably a gender-in ? clusive term collectively gather manna and grind itwith millstones or in amortar. The two passages

inwhich the gender of those grinding is apparent In Exod 11:5,Egyptian slave both denote women. girls work themillstones; and in Isa 47:1-2, Baby lon is personified as a woman who loses her royal status, becomes a peasant woman, hand-mill to produce flour.

and takes the

Similarly, theHebrew word for the upper grind ing stone {rekeby from the root rkb, "to ride," as a stone "riding" on the lower grinding stone) is found three times in the Hebrew Bible, once in a gender

neutral passage (Deut 24:6, where it appears with the dual "handmill" = pair of grinding stones) and twice in reference to a woman (the woman of Thebez), who rescues her city and its population an and throwing it by seizing "upper millstone" a from tower onto the upstart Abimelech and kill

ing him (Judg 9:53-54; 2 Sam 11:21; see C. Meyers 200od). Because large, stationary, rotarymills with fitted turning stones for grinding were probably not introduced until the Persian or Hellenistic

period (Amiran 1956; cf. Frankel 2003), the "upper mill stone" used by the woman of Thebez would have

been the portable upper grinding stone, usually la beled a grinder or rubbing stone in the archaeologi cal literature; that is, she used one part, the upper part of the dual rehayim, as her deadly weapon. Also

relevant is the use of the verb thny"to grind," Bible. Sometimes this term denotes

in theHebrew the crushing

of substances

other

than grain, as

74 Carol

when Moses

pulverizes the idolatrous golden calf (Exod 32:20; cf. Deut 9:21), or when First Isaiah (3:15) bemoans theway the poor are being crushed

by the elite. However, whenever

the verb mentions

the grindingof grain in a way that links itwith

one

gender, women are specified. The reference to maiden Babylon transformed to a woman at work has her grinding meal (Isa 47:2). In Job 31:10, Job in

siststhatifhe has been unfaithful, thenhiswifewill

"grind for another,"which may be a double entendre a sexual as well as a denoting milling activity. And,

although it probably dates to the Persian period and not the Iron Age, Eccl 12:3 seems relevant in its reference to "women who grind," which epitomizes

labor, in parallel strong women doing household with a reference to the strongmen of the house (C. Meyers 2000e); the diminution with age of strength to grind will mean that the sound of handmills will diminish (Eccl 12:4). The only two texts inwhich males are linked to grinding stones maintain the as

sociation of those tools with females, because both situations. In Judg 16:21, an emasculated and sightless Samson, without hair or eyes, is relegated toworking a grindstone (way?h? texts depict abnormal

t?h?n) in a Philistine prison; and in Lamentations 5, the destruction of Jerusalem is expressed by a lengthy catalogue of ways inwhich the "normal" order has been reversed ? slaves now rule (v. 8) and young men hold millstones (bah?r?m t?h?n n?s?u, v. 13). The various passages in theHebrew Bible that re fer to bread-baking contain similar gender informa

tion. One of them,Gen 19:3, implies that aman (Lot) baked bread for "two angels;" but the Lot narrative is fraught with difficulties about sex and gender roles and perhaps can, therefore, be discounted. And an ? an other (Gen 40:1) refers to a foreigner Egyptian

can in charge of bread-baking ?and likewise be discounted; or, itcan be compared to Lev 24:5, which implies that (male) priests prepared the

administrator

bread for the golden table in the Tent ofMeeting. conform to the notion of specialized

This would

or elite bread production over by men being taken (Goody 1982:101). Similarly, commercial production of bread in the trulyurban setting of the royal capi

tals of Jerusalem or Samaria might have men (Jer 37:21; Hos 7:4).

involved

Meyers

However, biblical texts indicate thatwomen in non-ur family households produced bread in the

ban contexts inwhich most

Israelites lived in the

Iron Age. Among the covenant curses at the end of the Book of Leviticus, one of the disasters that

will resultifthepeople disobeyGod will be a great in the availability of food. This paucity is indicated by a scenario in which "ten women

reduction

shall bake your bread in a single oven" (Lev 26:26). ? the bread image is that of a bread shortage

The

of ten households

in an oven usually The idea of households

can be baked

serving fewer households. an oven is noteworthy. So, too, is another sharing of this text, in which the task of allotting aspect

to others belongs to the women who have it: the women "shall dole out your bread in other words, control food by weight." Women, portions; they allocate life-sustaining resources (C. a Meyers 2000b). Another text depicts woman, the bread

baked

of Endor, providing unleavened cakes as as meat from a stall-fed calf that she herself

medium well

and slaughters in order to provide psychological sustenance Sam for Saul 28:24). (1 physical of bread in the central Cultic preparation

sanctuary may have been a male priestly task; but was arguably household religious practice, which dominated by women (C. Meyers 2005), involved women as producers of loaves for the Queen of Jeremiah 7:18 reports that fathers build fires and children gather kindling, but that "moth ers knead dough, to make cakes for the Queen

Heaven.

(see also Jer Jeremiahs emphasis on women as makers these cereal of 44:15-19, 25) offerings, along with libations and the burning of Heaven."

of incense, may indicate that the worship of the of Heaven was particularly attractive to Queen women 1989). Men did participate (Ackerman too, however, and inmaking fires theymay have been sharing a predominantly female role, which appears as womahs work in First Isaiahs portrait of the demise of normal life (27:11; see C. Meyers

2000c). Starting fires and keeping them going in a world without matches probably involved the cooperative efforts of neighbors and nearby kin; tending fires embodies the cooperative aspect of the communal world ofwomen more than that of

men

(Goody

1982: 70).

From

Field

Crops

One other gendered reference to bread produc tion is the famous passage in Samuel, inwhich the prophet Samuel tries to dissuade the people of

early Israel of their demand formonarchic rule. He asserts that a king may, indeed, provide stability and justice but that therewill be a cost: heavy taxa

tion and the conscription of both young women to menial positions in the military and The tasks listed for these palace bureaucracies. and men

young people probably reflect Israelite patterns of division of labor by gender: males will become soldiers, makers of ornaments, and workers in the serve as "perfumers s king fields; and females will and cooks and bakers" (8:13). Usually, when tasks performed bywomen in domestic settings become

or professions connected specialty occupations with courts or temples, they are taken over bymen, case in ancient Israel for the as was apparently the as mentioned above. production of cultic bread,

But, according to the Samuel text, Israelite women retained bread-making, along with two other fe even when those male tasks, jobs became linked with the political elites (C. Meyers 2000a).

The existence of a Syro-Palestinian source, the Bible, containing references to women

Hebrew

grinding grain and producing bread precludes the necessity of looking to other ancient Near Eastern cultures. Yet it isworth noting thatMesopotamian and Egyptian texts also linkwomen with the prepa

sources indicate ration of bread. Mesopotamian thatwomen spent much time in carrying out the processes required for producing loaves or cakes;

to Food

75

thought to have been introduced to Cyprus from Syria-Palestine via Phoenician coroplasts (Vande

nabeele 1986), examining Cypriot as well as Le vantine examples is appropriate. A terracotta from

Ahzib (Pritchard1954:152),dating to the late Iron shows a female figure bending

Age,

over a bread

troughandkneadingdough.The plethoraof similar

Cypriot pieces includes a number of examples in which two women are performing this task in tan dem (Karageorghis 1998: fig. 24, pis. 29:9, 30:1-2). Similar figurai compositions appear in ancient and a Boeotian

terracotta

showing four a communal in kneading dough together excavators of Dor to led Tel the interpret an trough installation in an Iron I context as a bread-kneading

Greece, women

trough (Stern et al. 1997: 52-56, figs. 10-12). from ancient Egypt, Iconographie materials from largely periods preceding the Iron Age, depict

women

grinding grain or carrying out some other step in the process of producing baked goods. A from the Middle Kingdom famous tomb model

(Robins 1993: fig. 32; see also Pritchard 1954:149), for example, shows a kneeling woman rubbing grain

by pressing an upper stone or grinder on a lower grinding stone. Such depictions suggest that bread production was one of the few activities that usually

involved exclusively women, in elite households as well as in those ofworkers (Robins 1993:102,118).

DISCUSSION

indeed, millstones might even be part of a woman's

together, these sources make it reasonably certain that the various steps in the daily produc tion of cereal foods can be attributed to women.

women of all classes were suggest that responsible for a variety of household technologies, especially those associated with baking (Robins

an

dowry (Harris 1992: 949). Similarly,Egyptian

documents

1993:100-102,117-19,126).

Iconography Late Iron Age iconographie materials, chiefly small terracotta figurines, consistently depict women,

grinding or kneading. Most of these artifacts, part of a large corpus o? genre scenes, come from Cyprus. However, because several have been recovered from Syria-Palestine and because rather than men,

the production

of those terracottas

in general

is

Taken

In addition,

several features of these data suggest important aspect of female bread-making,

some or all of the requisite proce namely, that were dures done by women working together (cf. Matt 24:41 for similar information from the New sources for Testament).The gender attribution fit with the archaeological picture, in which several and grindstones appear within single households ovens

in which

serve several households.

the notion

dition, households

of women

within

In ad

and across

on a series of tedious working together tasksmakes sense in light of the significant amount of time ?two hours or more per day?required

76 Carol

for bread production (Bossen 1989; cf. Brumfiel literature abounds with 1991: 238). Ethnographic women of descriptions lightening the hard and time-consuming process of grinding by working together, singing and chatting (Goody 1982: 69). For this study, the two salient emerging fea

tures of bread-production in Iron Age agrarian are on the the female thus, households, monopoly nature of the technology and the quasi-communal labor. That is, bread production involved women's group work. Based on this information, a number

of inferences, again using ethnographic analogy, can be made about women's lives and about gen der dynamics in Iron Age agrarian communities. the implications of identifying bread However, as women's group work cannot be production fully grasped without first acknowledging conceptual obstacles.

several

themost significant obstacle to under the importance ofwomen's contributions standing to household life in biblical antiquity is present Perhaps

mindedness. work

The meaning and value of women's cannot be ascertained on the basis of our

experience in contemporary middle-class western culture (Nelson 1997:13-21,88). Despite the objec tions of many second-wave American feminists, women's household activities are tacitly considered supportive and secondary, and are thereby trivial ized and marginalized, while activities historically

or traditionally associated with men tend to be imbued with power and/or prestige. These nega tive perspectives ofwomen's work are rooted in the identification ofwomen with the home

inwestern

ideologies of the last two centuries (Lawrence 1999: 121),which in turn is the result of the removal of significant economic processes from the house hold as part of the industrial revolution. Women's housework

seen as

simply the a result, As chores. performance itbecame increasingly difficult to acknowledge the economic value and the attendant social power and unpaid

became

of housekeeping

prestige ofwomen's labor inpremodern households (C. Meyers 1999a: 154-58). The traditional view of women as passive and in virtually all premodern societies is powerless now known ductive

to be deeply flawed. Women's pro in such societies have major

activities

Meyers

economic value (Brumfiel 1991:224-25), and newer ethnographic studies show thatwomen's household

roles, in craft production as well as in subsistence tasks, functioned inways that challenge our persistent and often unexamined notions of economic

female dependence and patriarchal dominance. It is now clear that the work patterns and authority structures in premodern societies meant that daily

lifewas rarely organized along hegemonic, male dominated, gendered lines. To put it another way, women's technologies have been rescued from their or even power degraded status, and the prestige women is now recognized. they have accorded to A second and equally powerful obstacle to reach ing an ernie, or insider's, perspective on Iron Age so society is the set of values associated with the

called public/private dichotomy. This dichotomy is an analytical construction, also stemming from changes brought about by industrialization, that

the public (political and economic institu tions and activities) and the private (family or do mestic life) as separate domains. This private/public binary was popular several decades ago in assessing views

roles in traditional societies

(as Rosaldo no 1974; Sanday 1974), but it is longer considered a useful or even accurate analytical framework

women's

(Sharistanian 1987; C. Meyers 1988: 32-36,175-76; 1980; Lam Helly and Reverby 1992; cf. Rosaldo

1993; Gilchrist 1999). A more integrated now sees that "public" and "private" are approach overlapping domains in premodern societies. All

phere

household household

activities have significance for both the and the larger community in which it

is embedded ?the

domestic

is political

and the

private is public (Hegland 1991: 216-18, 228-29). in Iron Age activities Women's productive as in other households, premodern societies, must, therefore, be perceived as dynamic elements of the social and political fabric of their communities 1996: 47). Ethno (Yanagisako 1979: 191;Hendon that gender graphic research has demonstrated associated artifacts signify gender-associated economic

activities, which

in turn signify gender to power in themodern

linked power. Approaches west tend to focus on formal institutions, whereas informal power relations in traditional societies are the concomitant

of the control of productive

From

Field

Crops

activities (Sweely 1999:155-56). Because people in premodern communities exercise power in ways that are related to their productive tasks, the iden

as a women's activity tification of bread-making has significance forhousehold power differentials. Three kinds of female power can be identified for

woman

as bread-producers. female control of the complex technologies First, for transforming the raw into the cooked ? grain into bread ? likely signified social power within households. have documented, Ethnographers across cultures, that important household deci

accrue towomen by virtue of sion-making powers their dominance of essential household processes 1998: 2, 4). The virtual exclusivity in (Counihan

of women as producers and Israelite households distributors of the fundamental nutritional source, which cannot be obtained in any other way, thus

denotes female power. Note that a general notion of female provision of all food for Israelite households

appears in the passage describing the strong female in Prov 31:15? the woman of household manager

that acrostic provides nourishment (Hebrew terep; see Wagner 1986: 253) for her entire household.

bread (and probably most produced other cooked foodstuffs), allotted portions, and thereby exercised control over critical aspects of

Women

household

life.

The control by Israelite women of activities that provided sustenance cannot be compared towestern

domestic patterns, with women as traditional "gate keepers" of food into the home and onto the tables. In themodern world, where food can easily be ob tained outside the home and without technological

expertise, provisioning food can even sometimes be linked to female subservience (DeVault 1991). Not so in premodern societies, where providing food

is linked with power. To be sure, the total effort for in ancient Israel involved supplying nourishment

both female and male

labor. Tasks associated with

to growing field crops were probably allocated males, according to textual data: plowing (Isa 28:24; 1 Kgs 19:19; Job 1:14), sowing (Gen 26:12; Isa 28:25; 32:20), and harvesting (2Kgs 4:18; Isa 28:28; Jer9:21; Amos 9:13; but cf.Ruth 2:2,8-9). This complemen

tarityof food production is likely to have equalized gendered power in household life (C. Meyers 1988:

to Food

77

ac 168-73; cf. Kahn 1986). Still, food-processing tivitieswithin or near the domicile itselfwere daily, female-controlled activities; and theywere also the

final stages of the chain of activities required tomake field crops edible. Both these features may have

in terms of internal household privileged women differentials (C. Meyers 1991: 49-51). power A second kind of power in relation to food

production must power, or valued upon

also be considered:

the personal sense of self, that is contingent the importance of a set of tasks and the

gratification derived from performing them. Two aspects of womens work are relevant to assessing 1997a: 26-27). First, fe gratification (C. Meyers male tasks in the aggregate in premodern agrarian

require more technological skills than those ofmales and, thus, for Israelite women would have been qualitatively different in their ability to

households

produce a sense of accomplishment. Second, wom en's tasks produce items that are immediately useful or consumable. The products of male labor ? the ? were assessed in amounts that growing of crops were on nature, whereas dependent unmanageable womens work produced usable/edible items that were on dependent manageable technology. Again, satisfaction and an attendant sense of personal worth may, thus, have been more consistently part ofwomens daily experience than ofmen's. A third kind of power ? socio-political pow ? er is implicated in the communal aspect of bread activities. The gathering of women producing

in groups to perform repetitive, labor-intensive tasks signals the formation of women's networks. Women working together over extended periods of time on a daily basis not only share informa tion and

are

relevant to the tasks they techniques but also share information about performing

each other and each other's families. They know each other intimately, and this social knowledge

creates a sphere of female relationships. Women in such social contexts obtain information that is

tomen and thatmay often be critical for forging supra-household political connections. At the least, such information is essential for solv ing sporadic economic problems, such as the dif unavailable

ferential need for field labor among households, and for assisting with difficulties such as illness or

78 Carol

death

Mey?

in individual households

(C. Meyers 1999a: cf.Ardener 1993: 9; Sirman 1995). ?76-77,182-83; More simply, women's social knowledge and the solidarity meant thatwomen would if a given household was short of field labor

concomitant

know

at a critical time in the agricultural also know which household

would

enough

older unmarried

children

calendar

and have

might to be able

to

to a struggling thatwomen would know

assistance

temporary provide household. Or itmeant

if a neighboring woman was too ill to carry out her household tasks, and they could deploy labor resources

These

to

compensate.

informal alliances

among women, which

areprobablysignified by theterms?k?n?t("female

neighbors") or other similar terms (see C. Meyers 1999b), were hardly casual affairs. They may rep resent a more diffuse and, thus, less visible form of powerful female agency than do more visible male social groups. Yet, especially in communities with limited material and human resources, such informal women's networks are essential for the vi

as awhole (Strathern 1979; ability of the community March and Taqqu 1992; Zonabend 1986; Marcus 1996). They constituted the informal but important

mediating group that forged households into larger "kin" groups. Those groups are likely the equivalent as a of biblical mispahot, which are understood "protective association of families" that extended social, economic, and military aid to its constituent

1979: 257-67; cf. Lamphere 1993: 70). Furthermore, because Israelite women into one household while still retaining married households

(Gottwald

tieswith their natal households, they had structural links with two descent groups, whereas men had

connections with only one such group. These mari tal and consanguinai ties, along with their daily communal labor, meant that women were often better positioned than men, socially and spatially, tomediate community relations (Lamphere 1993: 70). Female household members typically channel and regulate many interactions among households. This overlapping of "domestic" and "public" realms

even today in third world countries, the state does not always reach into rural areas. Politics in such communities are typically is visible

where

conducted

through kin relationships.9

rs

In conclusion, I want to suggest that this un of female power has implications derstanding for understanding the social structure of ancient Israel. Because

was

the primary social and economic unit of society, and because womens economic tasks made them part of a web of social

the household

to community life, the in about male dominance

roles essential

conventional

wisdom

structures affecting all do interaction in Iron Age agrarian communities must be contested. Itmay be more hierarchical

pervasive mains of human

accurate to consider the gendered spheres of those settlements as interconnected and complementary, rather than discrete and hierarchical. The concept of heterarchy, an organizational structure inwhich 4 each element possesses the potential of being un ranked (relative to other elements) or ranked in a number of different ways depending on systemic more requirements" (Crumley 1979:144), may be for that of acknowledg appropriate than hierarchy ing the variability, context, and fluctuation of social relations in peasant societies (Levy 1995:17). In this perspective, womens activities and net

works along with those ofmen are considered sub systems that together constitute the heterarchical

whole. Such sub-systems are recognized as relating laterally to each other, rather than vertically. This

seems to be an especially useful model inwhich to situate the social power accruing to Iron Age wom

of critical aspects life (C. Meyers 2006). 10Theyworked in female cohorts to produce life-sustaining food, other essentials such as textiles they produced

en, because

of their dominance

of household

and even the tools themselves

(Ebeling 2002), and controlled critical aspects of household reli they were thus replete with life. lives Their gious daily intricate and subtle opportunities for contributing to household

and communal well-being and for the attendant aspects of social and experiencing personal power. It is time to deconstruct the notion ofmale-dominated

hierarchies

in our reconstruc

tions of ancient

Israelite society. Acknowledging the reality and significance of womens economic, and also religious roles renders socio-political,

a problematic and inappropriate gender hierarchy model and allows for amore nuanced and accurate understanding

of gender as difference.

From

Field

Crops

to Food

79

NOTES *

A limited treatment of bread production appeared along with a discussion of textile production in C.

Meyers 2003b; and a differentversion of thispaper is found inNashim 5 (2002). The editors of both those publications, as well as of thepresent one, graciously

agreed to these overlapping studies. 1 These projects were Khirbet Shema (E. Meyers et al. 1976),Meiron (E.Meyers et al. 1981),Gush Halav (E.Meyers et al. 1990), and Nabratein (Meyers and Meyers, forthcoming). Only at Gush Halav did re strictionson the excavation permit preclude adequate

exploration of domestic structures. 2 Among themany reports on Sepphoris, see Nagy et al.

1996.

3 The usual translation of theHebrew word '?rtm as "cities" ismisleading (C.Meyers 2003b: 425-26, n. 1). Villages and towns, some of the latterwalled, rather than cities, dominated in the IronAge as invirtually all past agrarian societies (Lenski 1984:199-200). 4 That many terms are used for grinding stones in dicates that the classification of ground stone tools lacks the refinement in terminology that character izes ceramic typologies. Prehistorians, however, have

provided useful descriptive categories (Milevski 1998: 61-62).

5 See thediscussion of iconography,below, fora possible interpretationof stone troughs as kneading basins. 6 Documentary evidence is routinely used, wherever possible, even for studying prehistoric cultures or those that have not produced written sources. For example, anthropologists who study Northern, or Meso-American

Southern,

cultures

sometimes

depend on theprobability of cultural continuity and thus value reports from early colonial eyewitnesses; see Conkey and Gero 1991:18 andmany of the studies

inGero and Conkey 1991. 7 Note that breast-feeding and caring for newborns, which are exclusively female tasks, are not consid ered technological and thuswere not included in the Murdock and Provost study. 8 Holladay (1995:387-89) claims that thenuclear fam ilywas the basic social and domestic unit in Iron II agrarian groups, but his claim should be modified by the fact thatunrelated servantsmight be attached to thenuclear family,by the realization that thenuclear family ispart of a segmentary structurewith the ex tended family as the next level of complexity, and by thepossibility that certain activitieswere performed jointlyby familymembers from beyond the nuclear

unit.

9 Not long ago, ethnographic observation inAlaiabad in Iran revealed that "personal and domestic relations were also public and political relations" (Hegland 1991: 215). 10 Definitions of power vary among social scientists. One possible understanding of power is that it is the "net ability or capability of action to produce or cause intended outcomes or effects,particularly on the behavior of others, or on others outcomes" (Szinovacz 1987: 652). Issues of household power are typically resource based, with significant labor output and control of technology?both aspects of womens lives inpremodern agrarian societies ? thus signifying the presence of female power.

REFERENCES S.

Ackerman,

1989

rael, ed. P. L. Day. Amiran,

1956

Ardener,

1993

Minneapolis,

MN:

Fortress.

The Millstones and the Potters Wheel. Israel 4: 46-49 (Hebrew). S.

Ground Rules and Social Maps forWomen: An Introduction. Pp. 1-30 inWomen and Space: Ground Rules and Social Maps, ed. S. Ardener. RI:

Berg.

O.

Borowski,

Eretz

R.

A Refinement of the Concept of Household: Families, Co-residence, and Domestic Func tions.American Anthropologist 69: 493-504.

1967

1987

R.

Providence,

D.

Bender,

"And theWomen Knead Dough:" TheWorship of theQueen ofHeaven in Sixth-Century Judah. Pp. 109-24 inGender and Difference inAncient Is

Agriculture inIronAge Israel Winona

Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns. Bossen,

L.

1989 Women and Economic Institutions. Pp. 318-50 inEconomic Anthropology, ed. S. Plottner. Stan ford,CA: StanfordUniversity.

80 Carol

Brown,

Meyers

Crumley,

J.

A Note on the Division of Labor. American Anthropologist 72: 1073-78.

1970

E. M.

Brumfiel,

1991 Weaving and Cooking in Aztec Mexico. Pp. 224-51 inEngenderingArchaeology:Women and Prehistory,eds. J.Gero and M. Conkey. Oxford: Blackwell.

S., and

Bunimovitz,

2003

1979

Faust,

NY: Academic. G.

Dalman,

Arbeit und Sitte in Pal?stina, VII: Das Haus. G?tersloh: Bertelsmann.

1942

A.

Building Identity:The Four-Room House and the IsraeliteMind. Pp. 411-23 in Symbiosis, Symbol ism,and thePower of thePast: Canaan, Ancient Israel and TheirNeighbors from theLate Bronze Age throughRoman Palaestina, eds.W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona

Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

P. M.

Daviau,

The Palestinian Arab House. ItsArchitecture and Folklore. Jerusalem:Palestine Oriental Society.

1933

M.

DeVault,

Carter,

Dommershausen,

University. D.

M.

Cassuto,

the Gezer Calendar. Cols. 471-74 in Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 2, ed. E. L. Sukenik.

1954

Gezer,

Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (Hebrew).

M. Conkey, M. W, and Gero, J. 1991 Tensions, Pluralities, and Engendering Archaeol ogy: An Introduction toWomen and Prehistory. Pp. 3-30 inEngenderingArchaeology:Women and M. Gero andM. Conkey. Oxford: Prehistory,eds. J. Blackwell.

Program to Practice: Gender to Feminism in Archaeology. Annual Review ofArchaeology 26:

1997

Eerdmans.

Ebeling, J. as Womens in 2002 Bread Making Technology Ancient Israel. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Faust,

C.

1996

Exploring the Relationship between Gender and Craft inComplex Societies: Methodological and Theoretical Issues of Gender Attribution. Pp. 111-40 inGender and Archaeology, ed. R. P.

vania.

1998

C. M.

Introduction - Food and Gender: Identity and Power. Pp. 1-10 inFood and Gender: Identityand Power,

Food Harwood

CO.

The Rural Community inAncient Israel in Iron Age II. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools ofOri entalResearch 317: 17-39.

Finkelstein, I. 1986 Tzbet Sartah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel. British Archaeological Reports International Series 299. Oxford: British Ar chaeological Reports.

L.

Wright. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsyl Counihan,

Boulder,

A.

2000

411-37. Costin,

W.

lehem. Pp. 521-29 in Theological Dictionary of theOld TestamentVII, eds. G. J.Botterweck,H. Ringgren and H.-J. Fabry. Grand Rapids, MI:

Ethnoarchaeology. Pp. 280-84 in The Oxford Encyclopedia ofArchaeology in theNear East, vol. 2, ed. E. M. Meyers. New York, NY: Oxford

1997

L.

Feeding theFamily: The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered Work. Chicago, IL: Univer sityof Chicago.

1991

1995

C. W

M.

Houses and TheirFurnishings inBronzeAge Pales tine.JSOT/ASORMonograph Series 8. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic.

1993

T.

Canaan,

C.

Three Locational Models: An Epistemological As sessment ofAnthropology and Archaeology. Pp. 141-73 inAdvances inArchaeological Method .Schiffer.New York, and Theory,vol. 2, ed.M.

eds. C. M.

Counihan

and

inHistory and Culture Academic.

S. L. Kaplan.

1. Amsterdam:

Frankel,

2003

R.

The Olynthus Mill, ItsOrigin, and Diffusion: Typology and Distribution. American Journal ofArchaeology 107: 1-22.

Friedl, E. 1991 The Dynamics ofWomens Spheres of Action inRural Iran. Pp. 195-214 inWomen inMiddle Eastern History: ShiftingBoundaries in Sex and Gender, eds. N. R. Keddie and B. Baron. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Gero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W. (eds.) 1991 EngenderingArchaeology:Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.

From

Field

Crops

Gilchrist, R. 1999 Gender and Archaeology: Contesting thePast. New York, NY: Routledge. Goody, J. 1972 The Evolution of the Family. Pp. 103-124 in Household and Family inPast Times, eds. P. Laslett and R.Wall. London: Cambridge University. 1982 Cooking Cuisine, and Class. Cambridge: Cam

1995

1997

Gottwald,

1979

Kahn,

.

The Tribes ofYahweh: A Sociology of theReligion ofLiberated Israel, 1250-1050 b.c.e. Maryknoll,

1986

NY: Orbis. Harris,

inAnchor

1992 Women. Mesopotamia. Pp. 947-51 Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York, NY: Doubleday.

.E. Hegland, 1991 Political Roles ofAliabad Women: The Public Private Dichotomy Transcended. Pp. 215-30 inWomen inMiddle Eastern History: Shifting Boundaries in Sex and Gender, eds.N. R. Kiddie

1998

Helly, D. O., and Reverby, S. (eds.) 1992 Gendered Domains: RethinkingPublic and Private inWomens History Ithaca,NY: Cornell Univer

Kent,

1990

Henshaw,

1999

Always Hungry, Never Greedy: Food and the Expression of Gender in a Melanesian Society. New York, NY: Cambridge University. V.

45-61.

S.

A Cross-cultural Study of Segmentation, Ar chitecture, and theUse of Space. Pp. 127-52 in

C.

Kramer,

1979

1982

An Archaeological View of a Contemporary Kurdish Village: Domestic Architecture, Household Size, and Wealth. Pp. 139-63 in Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, ed. C. Kramer. New York, NY: Columbia University. Village Ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran inArchaeo logicalPerspective.New York,NY: Academic.

A.

Location and Appropriation in the Arctic: an IntegrativeApproach toHistoric InnuitHouse

Lamphere,

Hirschfeld, Y. 1995 The Traditional Palestinian House: Results of a Survey in theHebron Hills. Pp. 109-215 in The Palestinian Dwelling in the Roman-Byzantine Period, by Y. Hirschfeld. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Minor 34. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing and Israel Exploration So

Gender inCross-Cultural Perspective, eds. C. B. Brettell and C. F. Sargent. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.

vol.

3, ed.

York, NY: Doubleday.

D.

N.

in Anchor Bible Freedman.

New

S.

Lawrence,

1999

Towards a Feminist Archaeology ofHouseholds: Gender and Household Structure in theAustra lianGold Fields. Pp. 121-41 in TheArchaeology ofHousehold Activities, ed. P.M. Allison. Lon don: Routledge.

ciety.

Holladay, J.S., Jr. 1992 House, Israelite. Pp. 308-18

L.

The Domestic Sphere ofWomen and the Public Sphere ofMen: The Strengths and Limitations of an Anthropological Dichotomy. Pp. 67-77 in

1993

hold Economies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18: 79-118.

Dictionary,

Foundation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University.

J.A.

Archaeological Approaches to theOrganization ofDomestic Labor: Household Practice and Do mestic Relations. Annual Review ofAnthropology

The Coroplastic Art ofAncient Cyprus, V. The Cypro-Archaic Period: Small Female Figurines, A. Handmade/Wheelmade Figurines. Nicosia:

Domestic Architecture and theUse of Space: An InterdisciplinaryCross-cultural Study,ed. S. Kent.

sity.

25:

M.

Leventis

and S. Baron. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

1996

Pp. 337-42 in The Oxford Encyclopedia ofArchaeology in theNear East, vol. 2, ed. E. M. Meyers. New York, NY: Oxford Four-room House.

Karageorghis,

R.

Hendon,

The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah:Political and Economic Centralization in the Iron II A-B (ca. 1000-750 bce). Pp. 368-98, 586-90 in The Archaeology of Society in theHoly Land, ed. T. E. Levy. New York, NY: Facts on File.

University.

bridge University. .

81

to Food

Lenski,

1984

G.

E.

Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Strati fication. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

82 Carol

Meyers

Lenski, G, and Lenski, J. 1987 Human Societies:An Introduction to Macrosociol NY: New 5th ed. McGraw-Hill. York, ogy, Levy, J.E. 1995 Heterarchy inBronze Age Denmark: Settlement Patterns,Gender, and Ritual. Pp. 41-53 inHet erarchy and theAnalysis of Complex Societies, eds. R. M. Ehrenreich, C. L. Crumley and J.E. Levy. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.

March,

1986

K.

S., and Taqqu,

R. L.

Womens

Informal Associations

Countries.

Women

in Cross-Cultural

inDeveloping Perspec

tive.Boulder, CO: Westview. Marcus,}.

1992

Mazar,

1992

A World ofDifference:Islam and GenderHierarchy inTurkey.London: Allen and Unwin.

1983

1988 1991

Dictionary of theNamed and Unnamed Women in theHebrew Bible, theApocryphal-Deuteroca nonical Books, and theNew Testament, eds. C.

New

York, NY:

Doubleday.

C.

Procreation, Production, and Protection:Male Female Balance in Early Israel. Journal of the American Academy ofReligion 51: 569-93. Discovering Eve: Ancient IsraeliteWomen inCon text.New York,NY: Oxford University Press. a Coun To Her Mothers House?Considering

Sheppard. New York, NY: Pilgrim. 1997a The Family in Early Israel. Pp. 1-47 inFamilies inAncient Israel, by L.G Perdue, J.Blenkinsopp, J.J.Collins and C. Meyers. Louisville, KY: West

minster JohnKnox. 1997b Recovering Objects, Re-Visioning Subjects: Archaeology and Feminist Biblical Study. Pp. 270-84 inA Feminist Companion toReading the

Academic.

Jr.,and T. Hiebert. Atlanta, G A: Scholars. 'Women of theNeighborhood' (Ruth 4.17): In formal Female Networks inAncient Israel. Pp. 110-27 in Ruth and Esther: A Feminist Com

R.

S. Kraemer.

Boston,

Testament,

eds. C. Meyers,

T. Craven

eds. C. Meyers,

T. Craven

and

R.

S.

Kraemer. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 2000c Women Making a Fire (Isa 27:11). Pp. 320-21 in Women in Scripture:A Dictionary of theNamed and Unnamed Women in theHebrew Bible, the New Apocryphal-DeuterocanonicalBooks, and the and

R.

S.

Kraemer. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 2000d Woman of Thebez (Judg5:53-54; 2 Sam 11:21). Pp. 241-42 inWomen in Scripture:A Diction ary of theNamed and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, theApocryphal-Deuterocanonical Books, and theNew Testament, eds. C. Meyers, T. Craven

and R. S. Kraemer.

Boston,

MA:

tonMifflin.

Hough

2000e Women Who Grind (Eccl 12:3). P. 310 in Women in Scripture:A Dictionary of theNamed and Unnamed Women in theHebrew Bible, the the New Apocryphal-Deuterocanonical Booh, and Testament,

T. Craven

eds. C. Meyers,

and

R.

S.

Kraemer. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 2003a Engendering Syro-Palestinian Archaeology: and Resources.

Reasons

Near

Eastern

Archaeol

ogy 66: 185-97. 2003b Material Remains and Social Relations:Women's Culture inAgrarian Households of the IronAge. Pp. 425-44 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the

Power of thePast: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and TheirNeighborsfrom theLate Bronze Age through

Bible: Approaches, Methods, and Strategies, eds. A. Brenner and C. Fontaine. Sheffield: Sheffield

1999a Guilds and Gatherings:Womens Groups inAn cient Israel. Pp. 154-84 inRealia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation inHonor ofEdward F. Campbell, Jr.,eds. P.M. Williams,

and

MA: Houghton MifiTin. 2000b Women as Bread Bakers (Lev 26:26). Pp. 213-14 Named inWomen inScripture:A Dictionary of the and Unnamed Women in theHebrew Bible, the New Apocryphal-DeuterocanonicalBooh, and the

Testament,

Archaeology of theLand of theBible, 10,000-586

terpart to the Israelite Bet ab. Pp. 39-51, 304-7 in The Bible and thePolitics ofExegesis: Essays inHonor ofNorman K. Gottwald onHis Sixty FifthBirthday, eds. D. Jobling,P. Day and G. T.

1999b

T. Craven

Meyers,

A.

B.c.E. Meyers,

panion to theBible, 2nd series, ed. A. Brenner. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic. 2000a Daughters as Perfumers, Cooks, and Bakers (1 Sam 8:13). P. 255 inWomen in Scripture:A

Roman

Palaestina,

eds. W.

G. Dever

and S. Gitin.

Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Households and Holiness: The Religious Culture of IsraeliteWomen. Facets. Minneapolis, MN:

Winona 2005

Fortress.

2006

Hierarchy or Heterarchy? Archaeology and the Theorizing of Israelite Society. Pp. 245-54 in Confronting thePast: Essays inHonor ofWilliam G. Dever, eds. S. Gitin, J.E.Wright and J.P.Des sel. Winona

Lake,

IN: Eisenbrauns.

From

Meyers,

E. M.,

and Meyers,

forthcoming Meiron

C.

Field

Crops

L.

Excavations at Ancient Nabratein. Excavation Project VI. Winona Lake,

IN: Eisenbrauns.

Meyers, E. M.; Kraabel, A. T.; and Strange, J.F. 1976 Ancient SynagogueExcavations atKhirbet Shema, Upper Galilee, Israel 1970-72. ASOR Annual 42. Durham, NC: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Meyers, E. M.; Meyers, C. L.; with Strange, J.F. 1990 Excavations at theAncient Synagogue of Gush Halav. Meiron Excavation Project V. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Meyers, E. M.; Strange, J.R; and Meyers, C. L. 1981 Excavations atAncientMeiron, Upper Galilee, Is rael, 1971-72,1974-75,1977. Meiron Excavation Project III. Cambridge, MA: American Schools ofOriental Research. Milevski, I. 1998 The Groundstone Tools. Pp. 61-72 in Villages, Terraces, and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987-89, eds. G. Edelstein, I.Milevski and S. Aurant. Jerusalem: Israel An tiquities Authority. Murdock, G. P. 1937 Comparative Data on theDivision of Labor by Sex. Social Forces 51: 551-53. Murdock,

1973

G.

P., and

Provost,

to Food

Reed,

1997

inArchaeology: Analyzing Power and Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Prestige. Polanyi, K. 1944 The Great Transformation.Boston,MA: Beacon. Pritchard, J.B. 1954 The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Rapoport,

1994

A.

Spatial Organization and theBuilt Environment. Pp. 460-502 inCompanion Encyclopedia ofAn thropology,ed. T. Ingold. London: Routledge.

MA:

Z,

1974 Women, Culture, and Society: A Theoretical Overview. Pp. 17-42 inWomen, Culture, and Society, eds. M. Z. Rosaldo and L Lamphere. Stanford,CA: Stanford University.

1980

Sanday,

1974

The Use and Abuse ofAnthropology: Reflections on Feminism and Cross-cultural Understand ing. Signs 5: 389-417. P. R.

Female Status in the Public Domain. Pp. 189-206 inWomen, Culture, and Society, eds. M. Z. Rosaldo and L Lamphere. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity.

Sharistanian, J. (ed.) 1987 Beyond thePublic/Private Dichotomy: Contem porary Perspectives on Womens Lives. Contri butions toWomens

Studies 78.Westport, CT:

Greenwood. N.

Sirman,

1995

Stager,

1985

Friend or Foe? Forging Alliances with Other Women in a Village ofWestern Turkey. Pp. 199-218 inWomen inModern Turkish Society: A Reader, ed. S. Tekeli. London: Zed Books. L. E.

The Archaeology of the Family inAncient Israel. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools ofOriental Re search 260: 1-35. S. R.

Steadman,

1996

S. M.

Gender

M.

Rosaldo,

329-69.

Nelson,

Bread. Pp. 777-800 in Anchor Bible Diction ary, vol. 1, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York, NY:

Doubleday. Robins, G. 1993 Women in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge, Harvard University.

C.

Nagy, R.; Meyers, E. M.; Meyers, C. L.; andWeiss, Z. (eds.) 1996 Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum ofArt.

S.

1992

Factors in theDivision of Labor by Sex: A Cross Cultural Analysis. Ethnology 12: 203-25.

Murdock, G. P., andWhite, D. R. 1969 Standard Cross-cultural Sample. Ethnology 8:

83

Recent Research in the Archaeology of Archi tecture: Beyond the Foundations. Journal of Archaeological Research 4: 51-93.

Stern, E.; Berg, J.;Gilboa, A.; Sharon, I.; and Zorn, J. 1997 Tel Dor, 1994-1995: Preliminary Stratigraphie Report. Israel Exploration Journal 47: 29-56. Strathern,

1979

M.

Women inBetween: Female Roles inaMale World. Seminar Studies inAnthropology 2. New York, NY:

Seminar.

Sweely, T. L. 1999 Gender, Space, People, and Power at Cer?n, El Salvador. Pp. 155-71 inManifesting Power: Gen der and theInterpretationofPower inArchaeology, ed. T. L.

Sweely.

London:

Routledge.

M.

Szinovacz,

1987

Family Power. Pp. 276-307 eds. B. Hess

Gender,

and M.

in The Sociology of Susman.

New

York,

NY: Plenum.

Wilk, R. R., and Netting, R. McC. 1984 Households: Changing Forms and Functions. Pp. 1-28 inHouseholds: Comparative and Historical

Studies of theDomestic Group, eds. R. McC. F. Netting, R. R.Wilk and E. J.Arnould. Berkeley, Vandenabeele, CA: University of California. 1989 Has Phoenician InfluenceModified Cypriot Ter racotta Production? Pp. 266-71 inEarly Society Wilk, R. R., and Rathje,W. L. inCyprus, ed. E. Peltenburg. Edinburgh: Edin 1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25: 617-39. burgh University. Wagner,

1986

Watson,

1979

S.

t?rap; terep; terep?; tar?p. Pp. 350-57 in Theo logicalDictionary of theOld Testament, vol. 5, eds. G. J.Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. P. J.

Archaeological Ethnography inWestern Iran. Viking Fund Publications in Archaeology 57. Tucson,

AZ: Wenner-Gren

Foundation

for An

thropological Research and the University of Arizona.

Whitridge, P. 1998 Gender, Labor, and theDivision of Space inTh?le Society. Paper (revised) presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of theCanadian Archaeological Association,

1997,

Saskatoon,

Saskatchewan.

Wright, R. P. (ed.) 1997 Gender and Archaeology. Philadelphia, PA: Uni versity of Pennsylvania. Yanagisako,

1979

S. J.

Family and Household: The Analysis of theDo mestic Group. Annual Review ofAnthropology 8: 161-205.

Zonabend, R 1996 An Anthropological Perspective on Kinship and Family. Pp. 25-39 inDistant Worlds, Ancient Worlds: A History of theFamily, vol. 1, eds. A. Burghiere, Zonabend,

M. C. Lapisch-Zuber, trans. S. H. Tenison,

Segalen, R. Morris,

A. Wilson. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

and

F.

and

7

Chapter

or Crone?

Queen Gendered

Archaeology LB Tomb at Gezer

in an

byfoeD. Seger

A.

an important nalysis of human remains is to research which gender roles path by in past cultures. From burial styles and

burial goods, inferences can be made regarding sex differen gender treatment. Details regarding tials in respect to workloads, diseases, physical risks, stresses, and rates ofmortality can all be as sessed. Similarly, the skeletal remains themselves

of her physical remains. Was she a queen, as may be inferred from associated artifacts? Or was she a more humble crone on testimony of the condition of her skeleton? Discovery of theCave I.ioa chamber occurred at the conclusion of the summer season of theHebrew at Tell Gezer in 1969. College Excavations The team inArea 10 at the southern end of Field I

Union

was clean everywhere and an opening under ing for final photography, when a ledge was observed. Excavation was resumed at this point for twoweeks inOctober 1969 and again for threeweeks in the spring of 1970. As the spring

had reached bedrock

often preserve patterns of trauma, disease, and/or stress that lead to better comprehension workload of gender specific conditions and cultural circum stances (Nelson

1997: 59; Cohen

and Bennett

1993:

273-78). An interesting case study in this regard is pro vided by remains in an LB IB-IIA (1450-1300 B. c.E.) tomb, excavated by the author during

1969 and 1971 in Cave in central Israel (Seger 1988). Of special interest is the status and character of the last individual to be buried in the chamber, a several

seasons

between

it became clear that workers work progressed, were clearing a large bell-shaped cistern. The entry point was shown to be fortuitous, provided for by section of the the antique collapse of a weakened to the access opening, chambers roof. Adjacent but beyond the limits of the excavation area above bedrock to the west, the shaft leading up through the chamber ceiling to the original cistern head was

I.10A at Tell Gezer

tall, gracile female, whose complement of associ ated grave goods suggests a status that seems to conflict with evidence derived from the analysis

discovered. During week two of the spring excava tions, however, after removal of almost sixmeters

85

86

Fig.

Joe

Cave

Lio a east-west

profile.

soil and debris

of accumulated

from the cistern

chamber, a level of burial remains was reached. Excavation continued during the succeeding week and also for additional six-week seasons in the summers demonstrated

of 1970 and 1971. These efforts that the original cistern chamber

had been converted

into a tomb at the start of the

LB IB period. This had been accomplishedby the cutting of a horizontal

tunnel from its south side,

throughbedrock,and out to the slope of thehill

below

the tell. Itwas

of the chamber

also shown that the collapse ceiling had occurred in the early

of the 14th century b.c.e., at a mid-point in the history of the use of the tomb. This collapse had admitted a deposition of soil and stone debris decades

. Seger

that entirely covered the early, "lower phase," burial materials and put themain chamber area out of use

a (fig. 1).However, in subsequent "upper phase," the was tunnel entryway partly re-cleared and prepared for continued use. The chronological profile of the ceramic and artifact assemblage associated with the

upper phase of burials places them comfortably in the LB IIA period. The tomb s use clearly extended the post-Amarna age of the mid-i4th was not most it but century, functioning certainly after 1300 b.c.e. (Seger 1988: 52). The disposition of burial remains in the upper through

phase was typical of the tomb in both phases, i.e., with bones, skulls and grave goods from earlier into casual heaps along the interments moved

Queen

or Crone?

87

07

Fig. 2

wall

Plan ofupper-phaseburials in tombLioa.

to the side and back of the tunnel chamber of the

(figs. 2-3). To judge from the arrangement last in situ burial, referenced as Individual #1, or more colloquially by the dig team as "Sarah," such clearance in the upper tomb level did not quite pro vide enough space for the proper prone extended placement

of the corpse

(fig.

2: Sections DD-EE,

SkullDDc). Both Sarah and Individual#88,the

these only other articulated skeleton found among upper remains (fig. 2: Section BB, Skull Bba), ap pear with knees semi-flexed. However, evidence remains from the lower tomb phase itclear that the fully extended prone posture

of articulated makes

was preferred (Finkel 1988:129). The orientation of the bodies, on the other hand, seems to be wholly #1 articulated Individuals random. Lower-level in the ceramic sarcophagus and #2, contained as Locus 10071, had heads to the south, designated while the head of articulated Individual # 39 from Sections F and I of Locus Individuals

10070. was to the north. #1 and #88 were oriented

Upper-level in opposite directions; #1 south-southwest north-northeast.

The inference, overall, is that the to regularly accommodated

rituals of burial were the practical

and #88

constraints of available

space.

88

Fig. 3 cleared

Individual lower-phase

#i, "Sarah," burial

the last person

buried

JoeD. Seger

in Tomb

I. io a

in situ upper-phase

deposits. Meter

stick rests on the already

surface.

The burial of Sarah is notable, not only because

shewas the last individualto be admittedto the tomb, but because of the character of her associ ated grave goods. These included an assemblage of seven items, consisting of a Cypriot Base Ring

to lightgreyandwhite. In situ,thevase laybroken

was across cleanly into two pieces. The fracture was themain body and the form easily mended.1 The restored form was 95 mm in height. Traces of fine, light reddish brown sand adhered

to the inner

II jug (DD5); threeitemsof localware: a pitcher surface of the small jar, testifying to the sand-core (EEi), a bowl (DD6) and a bowl base (DD7); a set method ofmanufacture. The vessel shape is typical for such mid-sec ofbone tubesand beads (CCi and CC7); a bronze b.c.e. sand-core molded knife(CC5); and an Egyptianglassvase (DD9; fig. ond-millennium glass 4).While thepotterygroup includesan imported jars,with a tallwide neck, a bulbous body with handles on two opposing sides, and a foot. Egyptian examples from chronologi flaring secure contexts provide a range in dates that cally extends from the reign of Thutmose IV (1413-1405 to that of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten; b.c.e.)

Cypriot jug, this isnot exceptional, since numerous imported Cypriot items are represented in each of

horizontal

prestige and wealth. That Sarah enjoyed

1367-1350 b.c.e.).

the burial phases. The repertoire of local ware is the other artifacts also quite ordinary. However, a woman of some have been that Sarah may suggest an elevated

status ismost

During

this era, the shape was

popular not only in Egypt, but such glass jars

specially witnessed

(with and without handles) were also exported to Palestine, Cyprus, Rhodes, and Crete (Barag 1988; Nolte 1968:184-85).

first found, its color was a deep blue with and turquoise blue wavy threads around the yellow neck. But once exposed, these colors rapidly faded

The Gezer Cave I.ioa vase is one of only six intact examples found in Palestine, and is the only one of these found in a closely dated context con

rare by the presence of the was vase vase This imported Egyptian glass (fig. 5). found alongside of her skull, next to her left ear.

When

Queen

or Crone?

89

2

1

Item

Item

Description

1

DD5

2

EE1

CypriotBRII jug Trefoilmouth jug; localware

3

DD6

Flaring

4

DD7

Bowl base; localware

Fig. 4

Burial

objects associated

carinated

bowl;

with Individual

local ware

Description

5

CC5

Bronze knife

6

DD9

7

CC7a

Egyptianglass vase Bone tubebead

8

CC7b

Bone tubebead

9

CCla-e

Bone

#i, "Sarah." All objects

stem from Locus

beads

10079.R

90

Joe

.Seger

temporary with parallels from Egypt. Three such jars were found at Tell el-Ajjul (Petrie 1932:10, pi. 26:139-140; 1934:11, pi. 36:2); one came from the Fosse Temple II at Lachish (Tufnell et al. 1940: pl. 24:78);

and one from Tomb

11 at Beth-Shemesh

(Grant 1938:24, no. 825, pi. 50:1) The possession of such a rare imported vessel, otherwise associated

with theEgyptiannoble classesand royalty, readily promotes the argument that Sarah was a person of some high statuswithin the population atGezer. As suggested by Barag, the vase "may very well have been among presents sent by the Egyptiam mon archs to the kings of Gezer" (Barag 1988:100).

In a more modest way, the other objects found with Sarah likewise suggest some prestige. The collection of seven bone beads (CC7a-b; CCia-e), found just next to the glass vase, likely are from a special necklace. Individual bone tubes and discs

of similar type can be cited from contemporary

deposits inTomb 216 at Lachish (Tufnell1958:pi.

28:11,54:5 and 7) and from theDominus Flevit buri als in Jerusalem (Sailer 1964:183-84, fig. 63:25-26), but no other such full assemblage is documented.

Bronze knife CC5,

found in the same artifact clus

Eig. s

Egyptian sand-coremolded glass vase (DD?).

tion and condition

of the teeth, and on evidence

blade of Egyptian type.Of its thatepiphysealunion had begun to takeplace in ter,is a sickle-style

total length of 175mm, only 55mm represent the cutting blade. The remaining 120mm served as a

handle and are straight and rectangular It is likely that the knife was prepared

in section.

to receive

some additional hafting. Petrie described this type of implement as a "cutting-out knife" and suggested that itwas used by women to cut linen (Petrie 1917: 51 and PI. 62:18). Linen cloth, one can postulate, was a

more luxury product found commonly among the It class. can, upper accordingly, be presumed that

Sarah enjoyeda placewithin the leadingcirclesat

Gezer during her life. This picture, however,

stands in some contrast

to the study of Sarahs skeletal remains carried out

David JonathanFinkel byphysicalanthropologist (Finkel 1988). The skeleton was completely articu lated and was in excellent condition when itwas

removed. Sex was determined

from the sacrum and

innominate bones and from the general gracility of the skeletal structure. Sarah was a female. Her age was estimated at 30 ? 3 years (Finkel 1988:132). This estimate was based on completed tooth erup

the skeleton, including the clavicles. Sarah was also rather tall: estimates made from all long bones sug gest amean of 169.7 cm (5 feet, 7 inches). Only one small artificial contusion was observed on the left front of the skull near the coronal suture. However, Sarah had suffered from severe Osteoarthritis. Her

vertebrae were all badly lipped, especially the lum bar. There was also deterioration of thoracic and cervical vertebrae Within physical

(Finkel 1988:132). the larger Cave I.ioa population, Sarahs state was not exceptional. A minimum

of 88 individuals has been estimated population (Finkel 1988:130). As a group it is extremely young, with 31 individuals of less than 10 years and only

than 35 years. Among the 57 adults, gender distinctions could be made for 37 individuals. Of these, 17were males and 20 females. 7 individuals

older

Excepting the nature of associated grave goods, no evidence was found to suggest any separation or differentiation of burials or burial practices in rela tion to gender. For 7 individuals within the adult group, a specific age could not be ascertained. Of

or Crone?

Queen

the remaining 45, the average age at death was 27.5 at 24 years. Just over half years, with the median died between the ages of 14 and 24, another third by 35 years, with the oldest individuals reaching only 55 years. Given the high incidence of infant mortality, it is clear that the life expectancy of this tomb population was extremely low.2 At the same time, most of the other adults, like Sarah, were also found to have suffered from Osteo arthritis. Almost

half of the lumbar vertebrae

re

covered were severely arthritic, and the rest showed at least slight lipping around the vertebral bodies: and cervical vertebrae show vary as well; and ing degrees of Osteoarthritis and metacarpals phalanges, metatarsals, reveal lipping and irregular faceting. There

Thoracic

is one case of the lower lumbar vertebrae

being fusedat thetopof thesacrum (Finkel 1988:130).

that this population was engaged inwork that re or similar postures that quired continuous stooping stress on their lower backs. That regularly placed this condition was endemic among a population so young is quite notable. the population studied is reasonably such that they with characteristics homogeneous, Overall,

of an extended family was considerable sexual dimorphism group.3 There in the population. The females appear to have been tall and gracile. Finkel notes thatwith the females, can be considered members

extensive development of ridges and tuberosities formuscle attachments is rare (Finkel 1988:131): the other hand,

the males

are distin

The occipital guished by theirrobusticity.

tori are large, oftenwith deep median fossae. The brow ridges are pronounced, and some are continuous

rather than divided. Supra crests and zygomatic processes are generally well developed. The long bones

mastoid

show pronounced robusticity. The linea aspera form a large pilaster, and the third trochanters are generally large (Finkel 1988:131).

also

arthritis and robusticity of bones are Degenerative suggestive of physical stresses and heavy workloads

(Cohen and Bennett 1993). It thus seems clear that this Gezer population was engaged in some form of intensive subsistence labor. The most ready is that these conditions

explanation

resulted from

agricultural practices, where the long hours ofwork in the fields, plowing, sowing, hoeing, and reaping, required extensive bending, placing severe stress

on backs and limbs. The earlier idea that it is nor

forwomen to function as4 gatherers," while men hunt and otherwise are the primary initiators of plant and animal domestication has now been

mative

effectively challenged (Watson and Kennedy 1991). In small-scale food-producing societies, thewhole

population,

men, women,

and children

share the

agricultural burdens, and such would fit the case of this group atGezer. However, the lack of robusticity among the females in the group suggests involve at a lesser scale, at least as far as any "heavy can also be noted that there lifting" is concerned. It

ment

The presence of such severe arthritic conditions, focused especially in the lumbar region, suggests

On

91

were no agricultural tools among the grave goods, but since tombs of the period rarely, ifever, contain this type of object, this is not ofmuch significance. Before returning to the question of Sarahs prob able role within the group, comment must be made

with respect to implications that can be drawn from the overall character of the tombs grave goods. There is a fairly broad sample of local ceramic ves sels, but, as noted previously, there are also large numbers of imported wares, mostly of Cypriot ori gin. In addition, however, there are numerous other imported objects and vessels from origins scattered

Of spe widely around the eastern Mediterranean. cial note is the already mentioned L.10071 ceramic sarcophagus. This coffin, though locally made, has parallels only among the repertoire of larnakes with

multiple handles that are common inMiddle Mi noan II and Late Minoan I tombs on Crete (Seger one other 1988:52). Only fragmentary form of such a coffin has been found so far in Palestine. This was in Tomb C2 of the so-called

Persian Garden

cem

etery atAkko

(Ben-Arieh and Edelstein 1977). Also from Crete, or otherwise from northern

possibly Canaan near Ugarit, is a flanged hilt dagger (item H6). Similar connections or influences reflective of north Canaanite metal working centers can also be

92

Joe D.

proposed for other bronze objects, including dag gers, arrowheads, and toggle pins. A more certain import from this northern area is one example of

a tall, red burnished for "Syrian" bottle (itemd), con now which type neutron activation tests have firmed the northern coastal provenance. Finally, in addition to the glass vase and the "linen-cutting" knife previously cited, there are numerous other objects of Egyptian export. Among other items, these most notably include several scarabs, four

with prenomina of Eighteenth-Dynasty pharaohs; two carved limestone kohl vessels with baboons

holding baskets; and an alabaster tazza or pedestal dish made of Egyptian calcite (Seger 1988: 50-52).

From this repertoire of imported goods it can be inferred that the early LB community at Gezer was in full contact with the trade networks of the period and that itheld sufficient residual wealth to be able to partake extensively in the broad-ranging exchange system. Stratigraphie evidence indicates that, after languishing

for almost

a century fol

lowingtheroutof theHyksos by theEgyptiansin

the late sixteenth century, Gezer recovered and by about 1425 b.c.e. supported a fairly sizeable popula tion.Within early LB ILA, recovery was sufficient to

provide occasion for the addition of a substantial wall system (Seger 1988: 57). The Amarna letters testify that just after this time, during the reign of Akenaten (Amenhotep IV; 1467-1350 b.c.e.), one Milkilu, prince of Gezer, respected the Pharaoh as overlord

and was

of concubines

actively involved in exchanges and materials for Egyptian goods

(Pritchard1955:487). It thusseems likelythatthe

community at this time may have included some immigrants and traders, but, as we have seen, the population of Tomb Lio a appears to represent

Gezer

an extended exclusively family of local char acter, albeit somewhat susceptible to international

more

influences. then do we finally assess the role played by Sarah within the Gezer community? Was she a queen, even possibly an ancestor ofMilkilu? While How

Segeb

there is, in fact, no certain evidence to substantiate such a claim, the presence of such a rare item of

as a direct as the gift Egyptian trade glass vase, be it or heirloom, is a clear indicator of some special sta tus. At the same time, on evidence of her arthritic condition, she would seem to have participated in the same regimens of work stress as did others in the clan group, at least to the same extent as did the implications should be drawn from the fact that themen within the group appear to be more robust? Does this indicate further that

other females. What

Sarah and the other women were of amore favored

group?Probablynot.While division of laborby gender is rarely absolute, and while gendered work is likewise not necessarily sex-segregated work

(Nelson 1997: 111), there is no reason to suppose either that some gender distribution in patterns of

work activity might not normallyapply (Hamlin exact details of the nature and 2001). Although character of the work in which the Tomb I.ioa

people were

involved can not be specified, some by gender to ordinary and to heavier

assignment work activities does

seem to have pertained. We can, however, postulate that the women at Gezer, like women in other small-scale food-pro a great deal of the produc ducing societies, did tive agricultural work, including gathering and harvesting, along with much of themaintenance,

food preparation, caring for children, sewing, and cleaning. Such daily toil would easily account for

thephysical stressesdisplayed by theirphysical

status Sarah held, she appar was not exempt from these rigors. Yet, at 30 ently or so years of age, she was much too young to be considered a crone. Given the overall assemblage remains. Whatever

of burials and tomb goods, along with the obvious economics involved in the preparation and mainte

nance of the tomb itself, itmay be concluded that the extended tomb family in Tomb I.ioa repre sented a somewhat elite, ifnot upper-class, part of theGezer LB population. Sarah, itwould seem, was one of themost highly regarded among them.

Queen

or Crone?

93

NOTES The restored vessel was complete,with the exception of some small chips thatwere missing offof thebody, thebase and one handle. The wavy threaddecoration

was wound around the neck and marvered into the surface in thefinal stages of preparation of theupper body and rim. The workmanship is less than excellent 2

(see Barag 1988). It can be noted, however, on evidence supplied by contemporary tomb populations atMegiddo, that

such a low estimate of lifeexpectancy isnot unusual for thismid-second millennium b.c.e. period. See Guy and Engberg 1938:111-13, table 6. 3 DNA analysiswould help to confirm such an associa tion.However, Finkels study of thesematerials was completed in an era before such analysis became an option.

REFERENCES Barag,

1988

D.

An Egyptian Glass Jar.Pp. 100-101 in Gezer V: The Field I Caves, ed. J.D. Seger. Annual of theHebrew Union College. Jerusalem:Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. S., and

Ben-Arieh,

1977

Cohen,

1993

Edelstein,

and

Bennett,

1938

2001

E.

Ain Shems Excavations TV: Pottery.Haverford, PA: Haverford College.

C.

Sharing the Load: A Study of Gender and Task Division at theWindover Archaeological Site (8BR246). Pp. 119-35 inGender and theArchae ology ofDeath, eds. B. Arnold and N. Wicker.

Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Nelson,

1997

S. M.

Gender Prestige.

inArchaeology: Analyzing Power and Walnut

Creek,

F.

Tools and Weapons. British School ofArchaeol ogy inEgypt 30. London: Quaritch.

Pritchard, J.B. (ed.) 1955 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to theOld Testament.

Guy, P. L. O., and Engberg, R. M. 1938 Megiddo Tombs. Oriental InstitutePublications 33. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Hamlin,

1917

S.

Skeletal Evidence for Sex Roles and Gender Hierarchies inPrehistory. Pp. 273-96 inSex and .Miller. Gender Hierarchies, ed. Cambridge:

Cambridge University. Finkel, D. J. 1988 Human Skeletal Remains. Pp. 129-46 inGezer V: The Field I Caves, ed. J.D. Seger. Annual of theHebrew Union College. Jerusalem:Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. Grant,

sling. Petrie, W. M.

G.

Akko Tombs near the Persian Garden. Atiqot (English Series) 12: 1-15. M.,

. Nolte, 1968 Die Glasgef?sse imAlten ?gypten. Berlin: Hes

CA:

AltaMira.

Princeton,

NJ:

Princeton

Univer

sity.

Sailer, S. J. 1964 The Excavation atDominus Flevit (Mount Olivet, Jerusalem), Vol. II: The Jebusite Burial Place. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing. Seger, J.D. (ed.) 1988 Gezer V: The Field I Caves. Annual of theHebrew Union College. Jerusalem:Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. Tufnell, O. 1958 Lachish IV (Tell ed-Duweir): The Bronze Age. New York: Oxford University. Tufnell, O.; Inge, C. H.; and Harding, L. 1940 Lachish II (Tell ed-Duweir): The Fosse Temple. New York: Oxford University. Watson,

1991

P. J., and Kennedy,

M.

C.

The Development of Horticulture in the East ernWoodlands of North America: Women's Role. Pp. 255-75 in Engendering Archaeology: M. Gero and M. Women and Prehistory, eds. J.

W. Conkey. Oxford: Blackwell.

8

Chapter No

Stelae, No Queens: Two Issues Concerning the Kings

of Israel

and

Judah

byGary A. Rendsburg

a variety of approaches in recent years. The answer to this question, however, regardless of the ap and Judah:(a) thelackof royalinscriptions proach employed, has been the same: yes, the kings fromthesekings,and (b) the lackofqueens in the of Israel and Judah did erect such monuments. I a answer: to courts treat like and The Samaria would of different no, they Jerusalem. propose royal ment will be relatively short? after all, we are deal did not. ? but I hope The flurry of recent scholarly activity absolves ing here with "lack," not with evidence that in the end the reader will agree that the issues me of having to present a full examination of the

This

chapter treats two independent issues relevant to the study of the kings of Israel

are ofmajor significance for our understanding of ancient Israelite society and religion. It gives me extreme pleasure to dedicate this chapter to Eric Meyers,

the person who

state of the question,

especially in light of Parkers Instead, (2000) fine and detailed contribution. a review of is brief the literature necessary, only

I shall pass tomy own analysis of the issue, including, most importantly, my reasons for a conclusion contrary to that posited by others.

afterwhich

introduced

me to the academic studyof Judaismduringmy

career more than thirtyyears ago.1 undergraduate I fondly refer to Eric as "my first teacher," and it is an enduring friendship after heartwarming to have more than three decades.2

The most

eloquent

statement

in favor of the

view that(at least) thekingsof Judaherectedroyal inscriptions was put forward recently by Naaman (1998). His basic argument, anticipated by others in a minor way (see, e.g., Montgomery 1951: 35

NO STELAE

and Van Seters 1983:301), runs as follows: selected passages in the book of Kings evoke the language ofWest Semitic dedicatory inscriptions, either the

The question of whether or not Israelite kings erected royal inscriptions has received consider able attention from a variety of scholars utilizing

building 95

type or themilitary

type; therefore, these

96

in Kings most

passages

likely are based

Gary

A. Rendsburg

on stelae

read by theauthor(s) ofKings, or perhapsby the

authors of the sources

cited by the author(s) of that is, the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel 14:19, etc.) and the Chronicles of the Kings

(at least he is themost likely candidate for the author of this document), and by Akkayush, not king of Ekron, at Ekron.5 Less dramatic and at Dan

Kings, (1Kgs of Judah (1Kgs 14:29, etc.). Parker (2000) agrees, in theory, that the Israelite and Judahite kings could have erected inscribed

the quite a royal inscription, but nevertheless work of a neighboring king or his scribe, is the Tel Siran bottle inscription of Amminadav, king of Ammon. Further afield we have the stelae of

ficiently different from the kind of inscriptions one finds on West Semitic stelae, and, therefore, believes that the author of Kings did not make use

king of Byblos, and various tomb epitaphs. It is not that archaeologists simply have not

stelae, but he demurs on the issue of the passages from Kings. He argues that the passages are suf

of such epigraphs, even if they existed. An idiosyncratic view is that ofWesselius

(1999a; 1999b), who posits that the Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan is the work of Jehu,which is to say thatwe now possess our first ancient Israelite royal inscription. But this analysis is not convincing, for it leaves unexplained such questions as towhy the text iswritten inAramaic (and not inHebrew), and

why the same individualcreditedby theBible as

eradicating Baal worship should twice evoke Hadad (= Baal) in a positive vein. Wesselius anticipated such criticisms and attempted to counter them in

his article, but I suspect that few scholars will be persuaded by his argument. I would

a new approach like to propose al the of Israel and not did Judah together: kings produce royal monumental inscriptions because of the social, political, and theological controls specific to Israel in the ancient Near Eastern world.

That is to say, Parker is correct that the author(s) of Kings (and/or the sources of Kings) did not utilize and oth royal inscriptions;3 but Parker, Naaman, ers are incorrect in existence the of such positing inscriptions. It seems tome

that after 150 years of excavation

in the land of Israel and

its environs, especially the of excavated and the range given variety places of discoveries made, if Israelite, Israelian, and Juda hite royal inscriptions existed, thenwe would have

found them by now.4 The evidence is as follows. In close proximity to Israel, archaeologists have uncovered royal inscriptions erected by Mesha, king ofMoab, at Dibon and at El-Kerak (the latter extremely fragmentary), by Hazael,

king of Aram,

various Aramean

kings found throughout Syria, and, of course, we have some relevant Phoenician documents such as the inscription of Yehawmilk,

excavated Israelite royal centers and other major cities to the same extent that they have excavated such sites in neighboring lands. Indeed, aftermore than a century of exploration, we can point to the

palace of Omri and Ahab at Samaria, major public works atMegiddo and Hazor, a large altar site at Dan, the remains of Shechem and Tirzah, fortifi cations and other structures at Lachish, a temple and numerous buildings in Jerusalem in

at Arad,

the excavated portions of the City ofDavid and the Ophel. And yet we have nothing, not a single royal inscription. We have inscriptions from almost all of the aforementioned sites, but none of them can be identified as a royal inscription.

Single fragments of two display inscriptions have been found, one in Samaria and one in Jerusalem, but the extremely fragmentary nature of these two finds prevents any conclusion as to their authors, contents, or purpose. The Samaria find includes only one word, apparently theword nra, presum ably the relative pronoun (Sukenik 1936),6 but no further statement can be made. The Jerusalem

find is theOphel inscription(Naveh 1982;Ben

Dov

1994; Ahituv 1992:17-18), inwhich only two or three complete words can be read. The subject appears to be waterworks of some sort, but we can say nothing further about this text. I certainly

would

not jump to the conclusion

of Ben-Dov

(1994:75):

This fragment...indicate[s] that itwas not uncommon for stelae, inscriptions and plaques bearing texts in praise of rulers.. .to

be installed in the capital of thekings of Judah.

No

Stelae,

No

are left, accordingly, with lack of evidence. most is notable in the case ofHezekiahs This silence We

tunnel, themost

sure correlation between a build

ingprojectundertakenby a kingof Israelor Judah

in the Bible and a known archaeological site.7 Indeed, we have an inscription from this site, but it is noteworthy that the words are conspicu

mentioned

a or ously not by the king but rather by workman foreman. One need only contrast this situation with the boasts of other kings about their water famous are the boasts of theAssyrian as including statements familiar to Isaiah

works. Most

kings, demonstrated

(1983). But we need by Machinist not travel so far to read such texts, because Mesha ofMoab

comparable activities (Mesha line 23), and the aforementioned

describes

Stele, especially s Tel Siran bottle inscription refers toAmminadav similar effort (line 5). I believe we may ask rather forthrightly: ifother Near Eastern kings, great and small, took credit for the construction of major water resource management projects, and if the dominant view that Israelite kings also wrote royal inscriptions is correct, should we not expect to find such a text at the site of Hezekiah In the current debate ists and the minimalists, lack of evidence

between

s tunnel?

described

above

the maximal indicates

that

thekingsmentioned in theBible eitherdid not

exist at all or were minor an

ismisdirected

petty rulers. But such in the extreme. There

approach plainly is enough evidence from Assyrian records, in particular, to establish the basic historicity of the

record presented in the book ofKings (see Halpern 1995: 30 for a convenient summary). But to return to the specific issue at hand, as suggested above, I

believe we will not find royal inscriptions, because therewere social, political, and theological controls that operated to prevent the kings from producing and displaying monumental epigraphs. One of themain

xn "ar reads as follows: nasn u*vm run ybp arm then rogance comes, disgrace comes, but with the

is wisdom."8 Other pertinent passages from the prophets and poetic books, all using the root MVyinclude Isa 11:4 ^?sh nran "and

humble

he shalldecidewith justiceforthehumble of the earth;" Zeph 2:3my wpn "seek humility;" Ps 25:9 ? n^y 7?Vn ?Dran n^?v "he leads the humble

with justice, and he teaches the humble his way;" Ps m by u JHim imw dwi "and the humble 37:11 shall inherit the earth, and they shall have pleasure in abundant peace;" Ps 149:4 rrawn wvy -u?p "he

adorns

the humble with victory;" and Prov 3:34 d'nwVi "and to the humble he grants grace." in irr The historical books, using the rootra, praise vari ous kings for having humbled themselves before God, e.g., 2Kgs 22:19, where Huldah says to Josiah, ram mm "?asa "and you humbled yourself before YHWH" (see also 2 Chr 12:6-7,12:12 concerning and his men humbling themselves be Rehoboam fore God

stelae and other, lesser

teachings of the Bible, repeated in a variety of contexts, is the emphasis on humility. The most famous passage, of course, isMicah 6:8

in the wake

33:12where Manasseh

invasion; 2 Chr humbles himself before God of Shishaks

while held captiveby thekingofAssyria;etc.).Even such a remark, as God says to ?> 1 nnnn "have you um Elijah in Kgs 21:29 &? seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me?"

Ahab

the latter claim that the

97

Queens

is accorded

The Bibles submit, was

emphasis on humility, I taken seriously by the people of Israel constant

to such an extent, it appears, that the kings of both refrained from kingdoms following the practices of neighboring monarchs

in erecting stelae boast their of Indeed, one can go ing accomplishments. further and note that in other matters, the kings of

Israeland Judahdifferedfromneighboringkings.

A classic example concerns Ahab, of all people. In a famous episode in the Bible, we read how thismon

even as teachings of Israel, he violated themost basic of Israels cultic practices. I refer to Ahabs acceptance of Naboths response in 1 Kings 21, without attempting to obtain the vineyard through illegal methods. Ahab appears arch observed

themoral

tobe guided by theprincipleof Tann*? "you shall

not covet" (Exod 20:17, Deut 5:21), so that he was inwhich the prophet states that one of the three unable to take further action. Jezebel, by contrast, basic items required by God is vrbx nv ro1? snxn was raised in a different cultural milieu ? in fact, in "to walk humbly with your God." The only other her culture the gods are portrayed as covetous (see attestation of the root rax in the Bible, Prov 11:2, CTU 1.12.1:38,1.92:29 for Baal, CTU 1.92:6 forAth

98

Gary

A. Rendsburg

? tart, CTU 1.17.VL13-14 forAnat) and, therefore, she did not feel constrained by Israels teachings 1963; 1996: 59-61). It is striking that (see Gordon Ahabs lack of action in this story runs counter to in 1 Samuel

Samuels

one

Now

might argue that the Chronicler

s cri

tique of arrogance represents only post-exilic the ology, with closer links to themoralizing of post

biblical Jewishtextsthan topre-exilicthoughtin But in lightof thepanoplyof texts Israeland Judah.

8. description of monarchy read that among the kings abuses will be np1?DOion Drrrrndd'?-d n*o orrniTOm\ "and your fields and your vineyards, and your good olive

Numb

of kingship was based on the reality of royal actions attested in the ancient Near East (seeMendelssohn 1956), among them the Ahabs lack of action is of appropriation property,9

Israelite thinking throughout the biblical period. The passage in 2 Chr 32:24-26 provides our best example relevant to a king of Israel or Judah, but

There we

groves he will take" (v. 14), and yet Ahab refrained from such action. When we recall further that Samuels

denunciation

even more

remarkable.

But to return to the issue of humility, a most instructive text appears in 2 Chr 32:24-26 concern ingHezekiah. Here the Chronicler, inwhat appears

to be an attempt to explain why this glorious king suffered from an unspecified disease, refers to Hezekiahs hubris, though in the end he amended his behavior

and thereby saved both himself and the nation from God swrath. The specific wordings are in1?nm "for his heart was haughty" (v. 25),

and in1?nmn irrprrryw\ "and Hezekiah humbled himself for the haughtiness of his heart" (v. 26). It is not quite clear which action by Hezekiah is

criticized here, but most likely the text refers to the king having shown his treasury to the emissaries from Babylon. True, this is referred to only in the older sources of 2 Kgs 20:13-15 = Isa 39:2-4, and

32:31) does not relate the visit by the Babylonian ambassadors directly to the Chronicler

(2 Chr

Hezekiahs pride. But inbothKings (/Isaiah)and the two episodes of Hezekiahs illness Chronicles, are and the visit by the Babylonian delegation juxtaposed

and intertwined, somost

likely it is this

displayofhubris thattheChroniclerhas inmind

ma "haughtiness of see Williamson heart" (for discussion 1982:386-87; It is 1993: 992-93).10 important to add that Japhet does not object to the wealth of the Chronicles

when he refers toHezekiahs

king. In fact, the description ofHezekiahs wealth in 2 Chr 32:27-29 ismuch grander than that noted in 2 Isa is clear: there The 20:13 (= 39:2). message Kgs is nothing wrong with riches and success, only in boasting about it.

? and I did pertaining to humility presented above not even cite perhaps themost famous of all texts: 12:3 nBixn 'as "and the man Moses

ira D7xn bin

us? rroawarn

was very humble, more so ? than any man on the face of the earth" clearly as a basic tenet of one must recognize this point

the theology reflected there is not an innovation of the post-exilic period.11 Another instructive text is Isa 22:15-16, where the prophet admonishes Shevna, the kings ma an elaborate for jordomo, having prepared such

tomb. It is our good fortune that we most likely have uncovered the actual tomb of this individual in Silwan.12 Assuming the tomb in Silwan is that of Shevna, this discovery represents another excel lent correspondence tunnel (along with Hezekiahs

above) between a biblical passage and an site. Shevnas burial site is among archaeological themost elaborate ever found in Israel; it is one of only four above-ground monolithic tombs found in the country (the other three are in close proximity of Silwan), and ithas several unique traits, e.g., an

discussed

installation apparently to allow offerings at all times (see Bloch-Smith 1992: 43, 209-10). an inscription includes the tomb Furthermore, that closely parallels the tomb inscription of Tab outside

nit, king of Sidon, in contrast to other Israelite tombs, which either lack epitaphs altogether or have simpler inscriptions.13 In light of this archaeo

we gain a fuller understanding of logical discovery, Isaiahs critique of Shevnas tomb. This royal official contradicted the Israelite teaching of modesty, a

point

that led the prophet

to single him out for

disapproval.14 The above evidence demonstrates a

that humility

special role in Israelite religion. Although played we occasionally have such statements in other Near Eastern traditions (e.g., in the Egyptian Instruction of Ptahhotep),15

the evidence

demonstrates

that

No

No

Stelae,

as well as other officials, ignored kings in particular, one this teaching; need only consider the enormous

sizeof theOld Kingdom pyramids,theNew King

dom mortuary temples, and similar monuments,

the Abu

Simbel

shrine, all intended as boastful

statements of the pharaohs. For a textual reference, 107, point to a passage such as Ahiqar

one may

Queens

99

king and the sons of the gevira" since these words are in themouth of the Judahite visitors, we cannot be surewhether

their use of theword gevira reflects their native usage or attests to the same position in the kingdom of Israel. In any case, we can reaffirm ' the statement that no "queen appears in the very detailed material concerning Saul, David, Solo and the dozens of of Israel and mon, Judah kings

[i]n rmrftp prro f?? "aking is liketheMerciful with no who followedthemafterthe splitin thekingdom. [= El/God], indeedhis voice ishaughty,"

condemnation

implied.16 In Israel, by contrast, the

kingsfollowedtheteachingofhumility(and other basic teachings as well, as noted above in the case of Naboths vineyard), a point which I believe ex plains the total absence of royal inscriptions from Israel and Judah.17 This contention is obviously

an argumentum

e

silentio,and Iwill be thefirstto jumpforjoy ifmy suggestionisdisprovedby thediscoveryof a royal

inscription from David, Solomon, or any of their dozens of successors in Israel and Judah. But, ifaf ter 150 years of digging we still have not found any,

my workinghypothesisis thattheydid not exist. NO QUEENS iswell known, the term ro^? "queen" is never in the court of Israel applied to a royal woman

As

or Judah. This term may be used for a reigning of Sheba from Arabia, viz., the Queen monarch in 1Kings 10, or for a Jewish woman married to ? the king of Persia, viz., Esther; but "queen" is never applied to any of the royal women within the constellation of the Israelite, Israelian, or Judahite 1988:130).18 This royal families (see, e.g., Gordon

point extends even to individuals such as Jezebel in Samaria and Athaliah in Jerusalem, both ofwhom wielded considerable power, the latter, of course, even serving as regent (note the participle form in 2 Kgs 11:3). In place of the queen in the royal court of Judah stood the gevira, best translated as "royal-lady," though

"queen-mother"

is the best functional

equivalent in English. Probably thekingdom of Israel included the same position with the same title gevira, though the evidence is less forthcom

ing. In 2 Kgs 10:13, royal visitors from Judah travel to Israel to visit ^ "the sons of the

to my preferring the term "royal-lady" over "queen-mother," Iwould not use the latter because

As

it includes theword "queen," thus running counter to the very point under consideration here.19 To the best of my knowledge, no one has of fered an explanation in for the lack of a queen

the courts of Israel and Judah. Iwill propose one below, but first let us review the evidence from

Israel s neighbors. In other cultures of theNear East, generally the wife of the king, that is, the queen, the king s con sort, served as the chief royal female in the court. Famous

examples include Tiy, wife of Amenhotep III, Nefertiti, wife of Akhenaten, Nefertari, wife

of Rameses II (all of Egypt), Puduhepa, wife of Hattusili III (ofHatti), and Sibtu,wife ofZimri-Lim

(ofMari).20 This is not to deny that on occasion the mother of the king served in an official capacity or wielded power in the court. For example, in As syria, themother

of the king ruled the harem con

sistingof theking swives and concubines (Leichty 1995? 949)? Ugarit has yielded several letterswritten

by theking to hismother regardingpolitical and administrative

issues (Heltzer 1982:182),21 and it is that the queen-mother played a role

quite possible in the royal succession discussion

1988; for further 1993: 65-66).22 In Hatti, "queen," was retained by the (Gordon

see Wiggins

the title Tawananna,

individualwho bore ituntil she died, evenwhen

she survived her husband

the late king, and only

thendid itpass to thewife of theking (Gurney 1952:66; Beckman 1995:537).23 In Egypt, Thutmose IV portrayed himself with his mother Tiaa more

oftenthanwith hiswives (Kozloffand Bryan 1992:

35-36), and Rameses II held a special place for his mother Tuya (Kitchen 1982:97). The Bible portrays themother of the king ofMassa, a tribe of the Syr ian desert (Ephal 1984:218-19),

advising her son in

100

Gary

A. Rendsburg

Prov 31:1-9. But side-by-side with these examples, cases of Rameses II and Hattusili certainly in the

III, we also see thewife of the king (as noted above,

Nefertari and Puduhepa,

respectively) functioning

as themajor femalefigurein theroyalfamily. This

pattern is clearly the general practice Near Eastern monarchy.

in the ancient

as the By contrast, the Bible portrays the gevira dominant royalwoman for the entire history of the

kingdom of Judah. The first sign of this is the state ment in 1Kgs 2:19 that Bathsheba was seated to the

on a throne reserved right of Solomon especially for her.We then read the numerous accession notices

of the Judahite kingsmentioning thename of the of the king, with no reference to thewife of the king (the firstoccurs in 1Kgs 14:21). Towards the end of the Judahite kingdom, we gain a fewmore

mother

specific references. For example, when Jehoiachin, king of Judah, leaves the city of Jerusalem in 598 B.c.E. tomeet Nebuchadnezzar, he is accompanied

by his mother (2 Kgs 24:12; see also Jer 29:2), and when God commands Jeremiah to address the royal im "say to the *f?tf? "couple," thewording is king and to the gevira"

(Jer 13:18).

In lightof thisevidence,bothbiblicaland extra

biblical, we may affirm that a significant difference existed between Israel and her neighbors. In Israel, the position

of queen

does not exist and the wife

of the reigningking plays no public role in the

in the Near East, notwithstand ing the evidence presented above regarding the the chief royal woman in the court queen-mother, realm. Elsewhere

was

thewife of the king. Moreover, on the queen wielded considerable power;

the queen,

occasion most

of striking is the diplomatic correspondence see Hatti of (for samples, Puduhepa conveniently Beckman 1996:123,125-31). We

now are in a position

to ask the important

question:Why?Why did Israelalone in theancient

Near East not provide a position of prominence

for

thewife of theking?

is well known, the king and queen in the typical ancient Near Eastern society had religious responsibilities. Most importantly, they served as As

the earthly representatives of the chief god and chief goddess of the pantheon. An up-to-date survey of the various cultures of the ancient Near East rei

evant to this point would be a welcome addition to the scholarly literature.24 For our present purpose, it suffices to point out only a few celebrated facts in the most general of terms. In major empires

such as Egypt, Hatti, and Assyria,

the king served

as high priestof thechiefgod, ifnot all thegods, at least in a de jure fashion, for naturally defacto on specially trained priests administered the cult

a regular basis. The melding of king and deity can be illustrated by the annual (re-)coronation of the Assyrian king atwhich the assembled shouted "As

sur is to the chief god of the king!" referring, that is, realm (Oppenheim 1964: 99). A similar ceremony existed inEgypt (Frankfort 1948:129-32), though, of course, in this case one can expand upon the point

the pharaoh was viewed as the god Horus incarnate. The Hittite king is referred to as "the Sun," and the Hittite queen has a special relation

because

ship with the sun-goddess (Gurney 1952:140-41). An important Hittite ritual text describes how the king and queen together exit the palace, proceed to the temple of Zab?ba, kneel, and then sit upon the throne (Gurney 1952:154-55). In sum, although

Kozloffand Bryan (1992:43) referspecificallyto Egypt innoting that"thetheologicalparadigmby

which the king s family relationships were patterned after those of the great gods," the same words could

be applied to the ancient Near East in general The system of governance in ancient Israel, by contrast, was designed to prevent such an under

standingof theking and hiswife. Firstof all, the

serve as or as priest at high priest, king could not the classical because any rank, system demanded

thattheking stemfromthetribeof Judahand the

priests from the tribe of Levi. Even in the north ern stem kingdom of Israel, where the king could we see not do from any of the northern tribes,

the king performing a sacerdotal role. Jeroboam as priests (1 Kgs 12:31), I appointed non-Levites but the phrase oynmsp? "from among the people" are exceptions to the implies non-royalty. There

but mostly they follow a generalization, an At pattern. early stage in the Israelite monarchy, above

was firmly presumably before the Levite monopoly sons served as priests (2 Sam established, Davids instances of royal involvement in The other 8:18). the sacrificial

service are limited to dedications

No

of temples and altars

(see Hurowitz

Stelae,

1992: 292),

thuswith David (2 Sam 6:17), Solomon (1Kgs

8:62-63),25 Jeroboam I (1Kgs 12:31-13:1), and Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:12-13). The singularity of these events is

inwhich self-evident; note especially themanner Ahaz instructs the priest Uriah on how to perform the sacrifices henceforth (2 Kgs 16:15-16). In short, there is no sustained involvement in the cult by the or Judah.26 king in either Israel Even if the king could not serve in a priestly role, it is still very possible that he was viewed in some

way as the representative ofYahweh on earth. After all, royal imagery is used for both God and king,

theshepherd metaphor is applied toboth,and the

two appear parallel in various biblical statements 1 see also Exod (e.g., Kgs 22:10,22:13, Qoh 8:2, etc.; irwa is used). "ruler" here the word 22:27, though as Ps 2:6-7, 89:26-27 In addition, passages such demonstrate

a close familial connection

between

the king and Yahweh.

that the average Israelite saw the agent on earth, there would be an inherent danger in elevating thewife of the king to

No

Queens

There

still is a need

for a royal woman

in the

court,and thisfunctionisfilledby themother of

the king. As we have seen, there were precedents for this royal female having some stature. It ap pears that Israel formalized this position in a way otherwise not encountered

in the ancient sources.

Exactly what the gevira did in the court can not be determined with any specificity. We have one well-known account of Bathsheba receiving and Adoni)ah serving as a channel of communi

cation to king Solomon (1Kgs 2:13-18), but we do not know whether this was a regular occurrence or not. Another episode informs us thatMaacah

was

involved with

the cult of Asherah,

an action

which led (most likely)her grandson (see above, n. 22), King Asa,

to dismiss her from the position

ofgevira (1Kgs 15:13); but thisseems tohave been a

singular event and we should not extrapolate from this that thegevira served as a religious functionary (see further below). I am content to assume that

Assuming king as Gods

the gevira

the level of official consort. The official religion of ancient Israel viewed Yahweh alone as the ruler of

as

the universe, with no attendant deities and, most importantly, no consort.27 Obviously, on a popular

101

served the general role of "royal-lady" definition above), if for no other reason than (my to provide a female presence alongside the king,

presumably required by the rules of etiquette (see 2 Kgs 24:i2).28 governing official occasions In short, I propose that the lack of a queen in the

level, such was not the case, as the presence of the "Yahweh.. .and his Ash expression nniwxVi.. .mrr*?

royal courts of Israel and Judah be seen as a direct reflection of Israels unique theology in the ancient Near East.29 Ironically, other scholars (for example, in a radical fashion Ahlstr?m 1963: 57-88; and,

otherwise, and we may assume that their convictions had influence over many

less radically, Ackerman 1993; 1998: 138-54) have a for the gevira, to be function proposed religious more specific, as symbolizing "the virgin goddess in the hieros gamos ceremony," or as the "ideologi

erah" at Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud clearly demonstrates. But the intellectuals responsible for the Bible believed

aspects of Israelite society, including the manner of the king.

one can understand Against such background, a as the official consort that the presence of queen

of the king would be considered theologically dangerous. One need only recall the Hittite ritual above, with king and queen present, or glance at the rock relief at Firatkin with Hattusili libat libating before the storm-god and Puduhepa

mentioned

(see van den Hout ing before the goddess Hepat to realize how perilous itwould be for 1995:1111) ancient Israelite theologians, political theorists, and the like, to countenance a queen in the royal court

of Israel or Judah.

cal replica" ofAsherah in her role as mother of the gods (Ahlstr?m 1963: 75-76). This understanding of the rank of gevira, however, imputes to Israel a

ceremony not attested in the Bible,30 and places far too much emphasis on the singular experience of Maacah. There simply is no evidence for this approach. Far from ascribing a religious function to the gevira, I am arguing for exactly the oppo site: that the elevation of the mother of the king to "royal-lady"

in ancient

Israel was

intended

to

dispel any suggestion that the king had a consort, thereby paralleling Israels view of Yahweh, a deity who had no consort.

102

Gary

A. Rendsburg

CONCLUSION to that essay takes an opposite approach offered in much of recent scholarship. The fash

This

ion among scholars today is to assume that the Israelites were in many ways indistinguishable from the Canaanites, and by extension shared the of the general theology polytheistic ancient Near

East. The

I have charted a different course altogether. once more I must record ?which

biblical

as an expression is to be understood emphasize of the official teachings of ancient Israel, often at

odds with popular currents in the society?reveals a religious tradition that charted a new course in the ancient world.

two items discussed

The

in ancient herein, both relevant to themonarchy Israel, represent two aspects where Israel differed.

The emphasis on humilitypreached by Israelite religious leaders prevented the kings from erect ing boastful stelae, and the uniqueness of Yahweh

among the gods of antiquity as a deity without a consort explains the absence of queens from the royal courts of Israel.31

NOTES Iwas a student at theUniversity ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill during theyears 1971-1975.At the time, the offerings in JewishStudies on that campus were limited, so Eric Meyers was imported from Duke

2

3

University to teach atUNC as well. Indeed, not even the intense basketball rivalry be tween the two neighboring institutionsofUNC and Duke has affected our amicable relationship! For

one

possible

quasi-exception,

see below,

n.

17,

regarding 1Kgs 6:1-2. 4 I use the term "Israelite" to refertopan-Israel (in this particular case, this refers to the united monarchy under David and Solomon), the term "Israelian" to referto thenorthern kingdom of Israel, and the term "Judahite" to referto the southern kingdom of Judah. In a separate article,Naaman (1999:112-13) argues that West Semitic royal inscriptions appear suddenly in the second half of the 9th century b.c.e. in imita tion of theAssyrian custom of erecting stelae, at the

very time thatAssyria began itswestward advance ment. Ifhe is correct, thenwe should not speak of

possible royal inscriptions of David and Solomon at all. It seems tome, however, that this argument denies any potential influence from Egypt in this regard. Of course, given my view expressed herein, these

are moot

points

for me.

the pronunciation of the name Akkayush, see Ephal (1999: 5). 6 Though see also Garr 1985:150, n. 55a. 7 The attempt by Rogerson and Davies (1996) to date the tunnel and the inscription to theMaccabean period has been refuted by a series of scholars in a follow-up article (Hackett et al. 1997). 5 On

8 Some have doubted that the rootm means "be humble," especially in theMicah passage (seeAnder sen and Freedman [2000:529-30] for recent discus sion). But laterHebrew (Ben Sira andMishnaic) and Aramaic usage shows this to be themeaning of the verb quite clearly (see the briefdiscussion inVargon 1994: 182). Chen (2000: 109) has identified jhxas a northern lexeme, based on its two occurrences in the Bible, Mie 6:8 and Prov 11:2, in contrast to the standard

terms

un and

lay. On

Proverbs

as a north

ern compilation, see Chen (2000); on Micah 6-7 as a northern text, see Burkitt (1926), van derWoude

(1971), and Ginsberg (1982: 25-26). The presence of ra in Ben Sira is the result of direct influence from Proverbs,

as per Chen.

9 SeeMendelssohn

(1956:19-20) for this specificparal

lel.

10 The Chronicler uses the expression in1?rm"his heart was haughty" inone other place, 2Chr 26:16, concern mn ingUzziah. Quite unexpectedly, the phrase in1? "his heart was high" predicated of Jehoshaphat in 2 Chr 17:6 carries a positive connotation (see Japhet 1993: 747). 11My interesthere is the critique of thekings of Israel and Judah, but it is important to note that foreign kings also are criticized for theirboastful claims. See, for example,

2

Kgs

19:21-28

=

Isa 37:22-29

(concern

ing Sennacherib, king of Assyria) and Isa 14:4-21 (concerning "the king of Babylon"). 12 The tomb cannot be identifieddefinitively as thatof Shevna, because thedeceased sname isbroken in the inscription.Only threefinal lettersremain, namely, im-,and of course this tellsus very little.The typical

No

Stelae,

assumption is that the full name of this individual is irraaw"Shevnayahu," ofwhich the biblical Shevna

is a hypocoristicon. Certainly, this is the conclusion of virtually everymajor scholar who has studied the text and who has pondered the point. See most im portantly Avigad (1953) and Ahituv (1992: 27-29). 13A second epitaph is found on the tomb of Zera.

45, no. 161: 121-45.

Japhet,S. 1993 I & II Chronicles. Old Testament Library. Lou isville,KY: Westminster JohnKnox. Kitchen, K. A. 1982 Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Rameses ILWarminster: Aris & Phillips. Kozloff,

1992

A.

P., and

Bryan,

Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. (Hebrew)

Bet Miqra>

. M.

Egypt s Dazzling

Sun: Amenhotep III and His World. Cleveland, OH: Cleveland Museum of

Naveh, J. 1982 A Fragment of an Ancient Hebrew Inscription from theOphel Israel Exploration Journal 32: 195-98.

Oppenheim, A. L. 1964 AncientMesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civili zation. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago. Otten,

H.

Puduhepa: Eine hethitische K?nigin in ihren Textzeugnissen. Akademie derWissenschaften und der Literatur,Abhandlungen der Geistes und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klassen, 1975/1.

1975

Art.

Leichty, E. 1995 Esarhaddon, King of Assyria. Pp. 949-58 in Civilizations of theAncient Near East, vol. 2, ed. J.Sasson. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Lichtheim, M. 1973 Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 1: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

M. Lindenberger, J. 1983 TheAramaic Proverbs ofAhiqar. Baltimore,MD: JohnsHopkins University. Machinist, P. 1983 Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah. Journal of theAmerican Oriental Society 103: 719-37. 1956

I.

Samuels Denunciation ofKingship in the Light of theAkkadian Documents fromUgarit. Bul letinof theAmerican Schools ofOriental Research 143:

17-22.

Montgomery, J.A. 1951 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book ofKings. International Critical Commen tary.Edinburgh: T. 8cT. Clark. Mulder,

1988

M.

Parker,

2000

Macmillan.

Mendelssohn,

Mainz:

J.

Pa' am asa Measure of Length in 1Kings 7.4 and KAI 80.1. Pp. 177-81 in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studiesfor E C. Fensham, ed.W. Claassen. Sheffield: JSOT.

Steiner.

S. B.

Did the Authors of the Books of Kings Make Use of Royal Inscriptions? Vetus Testamentum 50: 357-78.

Reifenberg, A. 1948 A Newly Discovered Hebrew Inscription of the Pre-Exilic Period. Journal of thePalestine Oriental Society 21:134-37. Rendsburg, G. A. 1990 Linguistic Evidence for theNorthern Origin of Selected Psalms. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 43. Atlanta, GA: Scholars. 1995 An Essay on Israelite Religion. Pp. 1-17 inAp proaches toAncient Judaism,New Series, vol. 8, J.Neusner.

ed. Rogerson,

Atlanta,

J., and Davies,

GA:

Scholars.

P. R.

1996 Was the Siloam Tunnel Built byHezekiah? Bibli calArchaeologist 59: 138-49.

Singer, I. 1999 A Political History of Ugarit. Pp. 603-733 in Handbook ofUgaritic Studies, eds.W. G. E.Wat son and N. Wyatt Handbuch der Orientalistik. Leiden: Brill.

Spanier,

.

1994a The Queen Mother in the Judaean Royal Court: - A Case Maacah Study. Pp. 186-95 in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings, ed. A. Brenner. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic.

No

Stelae,

1994b The Queen Mother in the Judaean Royal Court: Maacah and Athaliah. Pp. 75-82 inProceedings

2000

No

107

Queens

Vargon,

S.

1994

SeferMikha: (Iyyunimu-Ferushim.Ramat-Gan: Eleventh World Bar-Han the Studies, Congress ofJewish University. of Division A, The Bible and ItsWorld. Jerusalem: Weinfeld, M. World Union of JewishStudies. 1987 Israelite Religion. Pp. 481-97 in The Encyclo The Northern Israelite Queen Mother in the paedia ofReligion, ed.M. Eliade. New York, NY: Judaean Court: Athaliah and Abi. Pp. 136-49 in Macmillan. Boundaries of theAncient Near Eastern World: A Tribute toCyrus H. Gordon, eds.M. Lubetski, C. Gottlieb and S. Keller. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 273. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic.

Sukenik, E. 1936 Note on a Fragment of an Israelite Stele Found at Samaria. Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement 68: 156.

1996

Wesselius,

Feminine Features in the Imagery of God in Israel:The Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Tree. Vetus Testamentum 46: 515-29. J.-W.

1999a De eerste koningsinscriptie uit het oude Isra?l: Een nieuwe visie op de Tel Dan-inscriptie. Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrifi 53:177-90. 1999b The First Royal Inscription from Ancient Is rael: The Tel Dan Inscription Reconsidered.

Scandinavian Journal of theOld Testament 13: 164-86. Patterns ofQueenship inAncient EgyptianMyth and History. Uppsala Studies inAncient Medi Wiggins, S. A. terranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 14. 1993 A Reassessment of Asherah1. Alter Orient und Uppsala: n. pubi. Altes Testament 235. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu van den Hout, T. P. J. kirchener. 1995 Khattushili III, King of theHittites. Pp. 1107-20 Williamson, H. G. M. inCivilizations of theAncient Near East, vol. 2, 1 and 2 Chronicles. New Century Bible Com 1982 ed. J.Sasson. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster mentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Macmillan. . 2?ba, van derWoude, A. S. 1956 LesMaximes des Ptahhotep. Prague: Editions de 1971 Deutero-Micah: Ein Prophet aus Nord-Israel? FAcad?mie Tch?coslovaque des Sciences. Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrifi 25: 365-78. Van Seters, J. 1983 In Search ofHistory: Historiography in theAn Troy,

L.

1986

cientWorld and theOrigins ofBiblical History. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

9

Chapter The Problem

of the Other(ed) in Nahum

Woman

byJuliaM. O'Brien

In

bold and striking tones, the book ofNahum celebrates Yahwehs destruction ofNineveh. Af

ter the deity s dramatic theophany as theDivine Warrior in chapter 1,chapters 2 and 3 narrate vivid scenes of battle: scarlet-clad warriors march into the city, chariots dart like lightning, hearts faint, knees tremble, and corpses line the street: ".. .piles of dead, heaps of corpses, dead bodies without end ?they

stumble over the bodies!"

Scholars and people

(3:2). of faith have long wrestled

with the ethical dimensions of this littlebook, as be denigrated jingoistic or embraced as the just resistance nationalism to colonial powers. Less atten of the oppressed

whether

Nahum

the reader that such treatment of Nineveh ? is appropriate indeed, demanded. Here, I will explore theways inwhich Nahum renders Nineveh

vince

as theOther fit for annihilation, and the techniques by which the book attempts to distance Nineveh

from the reader and the reader s sympathies. In the course of this discussion, Iwill consider, too, the ul timate success ofNahums project. Might Nahums strategies undercut

one another?

1:1

The othering ofNineveh begins inNahums super scription where the book is labeled mass?y. While scholarly debate continues about whether massa) or should be translated as "oracle" (RSV, NRSV) "burden" (ASV, KJV), the term clearly is a technical

of a threatening nature, as seen a through consideration of other prophetic materials labeled mass?y. term forprophetic material

In the massay

it should

tion, however, has been devoted to the rhetorical strategies Nahum employs in its attempt to con

multiple

NAHUM'S TECHNIQUES

that begin at Hab 1:1, 1:1, the deity appears in bold

collections

Zee 9:1,12:1, and Mai theophany to act decisively

on Judahs behalf. In and Zechariah 3 9, God bursts in as a Divine Warrior and before whom mountains

Habakkuk

tremble, intent on saving the faithful. In 3, amessenger arrives to purify the Temple its and priests. In all of these collections, except the salvation of the faithful requires the Malachi, enemies

Malachi

of the nations: Habakkuk protests punishment thewickedness of the Chaldeans, Zechariah 9 de

nounces

Syrian and Philistine cities, and Zechariah 12 sharply distinguishes Judah from "all the nations of the earth" (12:3), envisioning a time in which

109

110

Julia M.

Jerusalem will become the cup of reeling for the stands alone nations, a heavy stone.While Malachi

in directing judgmentprimarilytoward Judahs

own

a people and priests (after short introductory at it nonetheless Edom), slap joins the other col lections in drawing a sharp distinction between

O'Brien

turns away from Nineveh toward an atemporal of Yahweh, God of Israel. The characterization reader first learns through a threefold repetition ? to that Yahweh is n?q?m vengeful, determined

assure

of that all persons reap the consequences their actions. Yahweh then appears as the Divine

"them" and "us" (e.g.,Mai 3:18) and in linking the Warrior, who comes to establish justice on earth salvation of Gods people with the destruction of and before whom the earth shakes.

the wicked.

The term massa* Isaiah

13-23

also begins various oracles

in

(13:1,15:1,17:1,19:1,21:1,21:11,21:13,22:1,

23:1, and 30:6). Erlandsson has argued that a strong anti-Assyrian thread runs throughout these oracles: all the nations here mentioned either already have

been defeated by Assyria, are on the verge of being defeated by Assyria, or belong to anti-Assyrian coalitions. He

further demonstrates

that

The final clause of Nah

1:2 stresses that

is against his enemies, and 1:3 vengeance adds that while Yahweh may be slow to anger he does not clear the guilty. The distinction is drawn

Gods

17:7; 37:40). God s character

in this opening sec contrast between his the through treatment of his friends and his enemies. Yahweh is is revealed

tion of Nahum

1970:102-3).

The corresponding salvation of Judah is less ex in Isaiah in the other massa) texts, than 13-23 plicit though still present. Isa i6:4b-i5 suggests that only when oppressors are vanquished can a just king sit on the throne of David, and 14:2 casts the future as a time inwhich the house of Jacob will rule over once oppressed its people. As a genre marker, then, the label massa* evokes a rhetorical world in which punishment those who

for thewicked

is necessary for the salvation of the and it clues its reader to expect harsh righteous, words for "them" and promises of salvation for "us." By designating Nineveh as the specific target of the massa* to follow, Nahums superscription

Nahum

as male).

Gods vengeance against enemies and his care for his own people most clearly in 1:7-8, where, as throughout the Psalms, "those who take refuge" stands as the antonym for "enemies" (Ps

crush Assyria and (3) the proclamation that it is Yahweh who will crush Assyria and guarantee Zions security (Erlandsson

punishment

intentions, Nahum repeatedly mentions Yahwehs enemies (my use of masculine pronouns follows the books consistent personification of the deity

between

The threads which bind together 14.24-23.18 are primarily (1) Assyria's behavior, (2) the attempts through a policy of alliances to

designates Nineveh as one whose necessary to Judahs salvation.

In the course of describing Yahwehs commit to justice and his ability to carry out his

ment

is

1:2-10

While

the opening theophany ofNahum may rep a resent redactional addition (for a discussion see Nogalski 1993), in itspresent placement it serves as a thematic introduction to the book. Here attention

vengeful toward and rages against his enemies (1:2), he is a place of safety for those who take refuge in him (1:7), and he pursues his enemies into darkness (1:8). Read in light of other Divine Warrior texts, this discrimination response is seen to arise from God

s

justice: throughout the Hebrew Bible, such texts rely on the conviction that God s vengeance iswarranted and just, a righting of wrongs (Hab 3:13,Deut 32:43, Ps 58:10).

Reading this section of Nahum together with its superscription bears important consequences. The indication that the book is a mass?^ against

gives specificity to the generic "enemies" of 1:2-10: Nineveh becomes the (or at least one of the) enemies against whom God rages and whose fate is

Nineveh

contrasted with those who take refuge inYahweh. The mythological nature of the Divine Warrior 1:2-10 in also casts Nineveh as a supra language

historical enemy of Yahweh: Nineveh is not only a formidable military foe of Judah but also a threat to the cosmic order. Related mythological language serves the same function in 1:11,as Floyd notes:

The

Problem

of the Other(ed)

character is generally identi fied as an enemy of Yahweh and more spe

This masculine cifically themoral

as the kind of enemy that threatens order of creation, whom Yahweh

therefore annihilates with an "overwhelm ing flood" and "pursues Floyd 2000: 48).

into darkness"

(1.8;

That the reader is to approve of God s activities is clear by Nah 1:7. Its affirmation that "Yahweh

made

is good"

directs

the reader to affirm a God who

This section continues and develops the "us/them" so far established in the book. Two dichotomy are directly addressed as "you" ? one threat figures ened with punishment, the other promised salva

Nah Many

however,

these addressees

1:11 speaks to a feminine singular "you." translators interpret the verse as chastising

thisfigure,as reflectedin therenderingsofNRSV

("From you one has gone out, one who plots evil one who counsels wickedness") against the LORD,

and NIV

(which expands theHebrew to read, has one come forth..."). that the feminine figure

"From you, O Nineveh, Floyd, however, argues addressed here is Judah, who

is not criticized but

salva rather reminded of a past act of Yahwehs tion. Translating the opening phrase as "from you rather than "from you has gone has departed" maintains that Judah is reminded of out," Floyd Sennacherib's departure from Jerusalem in 701

as the basis for believing in Yahwehs future Floyd's argument graciousness (Floyd 2000:50-51). fitswell with subsequent verses, inwhich Judah is b.c.e.

liberated from the bonds of an oppressor. Though not yet identified as Judah, the feminine "you" of 1:11 clearly is the one whom God will save.

"you" is addressed in 1:14. The gram a new matical shift tomasculine singular suggests The in the fate. as referent, does the change figures A second

figure will be cut off and his grave will be set. In Floyd's rendering, he is the same masculine referent designated by the "plotter" of 1:11 and of "his rod" in 1:13 (Floyd 2000: 48). The one whose

masculine

"you" will now be

punished himself. In sum, like the previous theophany, 1:11-14 contrasts God s friends and enemies. The feminine singular "you" is promised salvation and protec tion, as were "those who seek refuge" in 1:2-10. "He," who remains unnamed, stands against God s ? God s adversary and enemy (1:8), who purposes

will fall. ultimately

Nahum

2:1-14 of salvation in 2:1, as in the pre to a feminine singular "you,"

vious unit, is addressed

1:11-14

tion. Problematically, remain unnamed.

111

once held the feminine

bonds

The announcement

punishes Nineveh. Nahum

in Nahum

Woman

explicitlynamed for thefirsttimeas Judah.Nah

2:2 also addresses

another feminine singular "you," fate is clearly opposite that of Judah: Judahwas invited to celebrate (2:1), but this "you" is warned tomount a defense against an approaching but one whose

"scatterer." This new "you" is the target of amilitary siege, the description ofwhich dramatically builds in suspense and intensity through 2:11. In 2:9, without fanfare, the reader receives

a

crucial piece of information: the feminine "you" about to undergo siege is Nineveh, mentioned for the first time since the superscription (though NIV

adds

the name

of Nineveh

to 1:8, 1:11, and

2:1). This identification of Nineveh with the target of Yahwehs attack has profound implications for the book as a whole. In the unit itself, it serves to contrast two named female characters, Judah and ? one who can rest from Evil Nineveh (2:1) and one who

is now experiencing destruction. That the fate is opposite that of Judah ismade clear:

ofNineveh

Judah is called to rejoice because her oppression is described as under has ended, while Nineveh Divine and Nah the Warrior; siege by Yahweh, 2:1 opens with a messenger

bringing good

news

while 2:14 endswith theobliterationof to Judah,

Assyria's messengers.

When thisunit isread in lightofall thatprecedes

it in the book, Nineveh's

characterization

as Gods

enemy is intensified. The explicit naming ofNineveh in 2:9 ties the book to its superscription, clarifying that the target of the vengeful and angry God 1:2-8 is

the foreign city. She is the "adversary" and "enemy" of God (1:8), and the one who receives the threat of 1:14must find common cause with her.

112

Julia M.

In turn, by announcing to Judah the time for 2:1 names the celebration, explicitly beneficiary of Yahwehs favor. Judah, then, is the "one who takes one for whom Gods is vengeance refuge," the one no who will be "afflicted more" "good" (1:7), the

remains a massa*, a (1:12). Throughout, Nahum book in which the fate of "us" is a mirror image

of the fateof "them."Judah(thepositive female) receives God

s protection, while Nineveh

(the nega tive female) receives his judgment. The rhetoric of the book casts Nineveh as Judahs antithesis and

also equates Judahs enemy with God s enemy. The first two chapters of Nahum not only stake a clear dichotomy between "us" and "them," one

O'Br?en

the outpouring of lust; and in Jer13:22, Judah is not only exposed but also "violated."

Nah 3:5 ismarked as divine speech, only the third indication of such in the book. Here, Yahweh not

punishment but also only announces Ninevehs it out himself. He will that he will carry explains do the uncovering; he will throw filth on her and

despise her; he will make others look upon her. Indeed, 3:5-7 expresses great concern about the gaze of others. Not only will nations and kingdoms see Ninevehs shame (3:5), but she will also be a

"sight"(3:6)and allwill recoilfromseeingher (3:7).

The deity is imaged as aman who sexually assaults Nineveh as other nations, imaged as men, gaze at her nakedness.

comfort and the other his deserving Yahwehs wrath. They also encourage the reader to identify with Judah. Such a rhetorical device is found in the structure of 2:1. The opening particle hinn?h arrests

portrayal of the fall ofNineveh is gen der-specific: Nineveh is characterized as a woman who is exposed and raped. But to justify the brutal

the reader to that of Judah aligns their allegiances, inviting a reader to find comfort in the promise

for sexual acts (e.g., Joshua, Genesis) and figuratively to any promiscuous woman (e.g.,

the attention of the reader, who is invited to gaze at the feet of an anonymous bearer of good news. The commands that immediately follow, however, ad dress Judah. This easy slide from the perspective of

given to Judah of perpetual relief from the Evil that had threatened once before (1:11), and to rest assured

that thewrath of theDivine Warrior is not directed against us ( = Judah, 2:1 = those who take refuge in him, 1:7) but against the Other (Nineveh = his enemies, 1:2). Nahum

3:1-19

In this unit the destruction ofNineveh is revisited, this time in greater detail and gore. Nineveh, still described as a woman, is sexually assaulted for her crimes. The first verb in 3:5 is as usually translated the "uncovering" of the skirt, although the verbal

root gala is the same one used for "exile" in 2:8. The exposure of a woman's genitalia as a means of humiliation iswell-known from the prophetic literature, as in Isa 47:2-3, where daughter Babylon is stripped and humiliated, and inHos 2:2-3, where stripping ispreliminary to the death of thewoman. "Uncovering" often also carries the sense of sexual

in Lev 8:18 it is paralleled with a taking as rival to her sister; in the of description Israels whoring in Ezek 16:36 it is paralleled with

violation: woman

Nahums

treatment ofNineveh, Nah 3:4 casts her not as any woman, but rather as a specific kind of woman: a z?na, a prostitute. In theHebrew Bible, zona refers both literally to a professional prostitute who re ceives money

Ezekiel). As an extension of the figurative usage, z?na is used frequently in the prophetic literature in the context of themarriage

Deuteronomy,

in which Gods relation Israel/Judah metaphor, is compared to a mans relation to his wife and in which

religious unfaithfulness is compared to adultery. Such usages suggest that z?na refers to any woman who does not meet societal expectations of sexual conduct. Itmost often is a slur that demeans

by equating the object of scorn with women who sell their sexual services. sets Nineveh By calling Nineveh z?na, Nahum as the ultimate Other. The city is not only female and foreign but also a woman on the boundaries of society. Nah 3:4 confirms her dual status: although she isfilledwith debaucheries, she is also appealing, "gracefully alluring." Rather than attribute agency to the one who finds her attractive, the text blames

allure on her own sorcery; as in 2 Kgs 9:22 and Isa 57:3, the charge of z?na is paired with that ofwitchcraft.

Ninevehs

slur against a personified female differs from that of other prophetic literature. Nahums

z?na

The

Problem

of the Other(ed)

Hosea, Jeremiah and other prophets slan own as zona, Nahum directs der their people of the whore against a foreign the punishment

While

in Isaiah Tyre receives both Yahwehs punishment and the label of z?n?, Tyre for promiscuity, but rather the is not punished nation.

Although

are dedicated to Yahweh proceeds of her activities uses the Nahum (Isa 23:18). sexually freighted lan guage of his culture and of the prophetic genre to treatment, but, importantly, only justifyNinevehs in Nahum does Yahweh punish the promiscuity of one with whom he is not in covenant/marriage relationship. The apparently

rhetorical questions in 3:7 also strive to distance the reader s sympathy from the fate ofNineveh. Who will grieve Nineveh? Not the a call implied author, who began the chapter with to the reader of "woe!" From where will she receive

(the same verbal root as the name the character who Not from Nahum, Nahum)? authorizes this book. And, if the book ofNahum is comforters

successful, not the reader who witnesses

her fate.

CONCLUSIONS ON NAHUM'S TECHNIQUES uses various of its flow, Nahum strategies to convince the reader that

In the course rhetorical

ings were strong enough to protect her from dev astation. The good woman with her male protector woman (Judah) is safe, unlike the promiscuous

(Nineveh), and thewoman who trusted her home for protection (Thebes). The brutal treatment and the futil afforded the promiscuous Nineveh

a clear, self-defense communicate ity of Thebes consistent point to Judah: to be safe, Judah must not act like these women, but instead depend on Yahwehs protection. its diatribe against Nineveh, Na Throughout hum works hard to obscure the face of the enemy. is a suprahistorical enemy, In Nahum 1,Nineveh

"wicked;" inNahum 2 and 3, the are generic, unsexed bodies fallen of Nineveh the nondescript

(2:10; 3:3); and inNahum 3, the fallof the city is

is the harlot who described metaphorically?"she" the deserves punishment she receives. "naturally"

the reality that (innocent?) children will is never ad die in themarch of theDivine Warrior

Moreover,

dressed directly, but only inferred when Nineveh is compared to Thebes, whose children (also) were dashed to pieces at the head of every street (3:10). does not give face or voice they remain Other, Enemy, Them.

Nahum

is the "Other," fit for annihilation. Multiple structural techniques attempt to align the reader s

thatYahweh is good forpunishing thewicked in 1:7;thelinkageofGods enemywith Judahsenemy

results from a synchronie reading of 1:2-10 and 1:11-14; the slide between Judah and the reader in 2:1; and the rhetorical questions in 3:7 all serve

which

to set Nineveh Nahum

apart from the reader. also utilizes gender ideologies

to cast

over against the good woman Judah.Nineveh is thewhore, promiscuous, thewoman whose uncontrolled sexuality warrants sexual assault. In contrast, Judah is the ideal femi

Nineveh

as the bad woman,

nine. She is protected by Yahweh and follows his instructions (1:12; 2:1). Judah is both contrasted with and threatened the one who did not by the example of Nineveh,

113

take refuge in Yahweh. The example of Thebes, the already ravished woman (3:8), warns not only Nineveh but Judah as well: no physical surround

Nineveh

who is cast sympathies with Judah against Nineveh, as itsopposite. The genre label ofmassa*, the decree

in Nahum

Woman

to the fallen;

COUNTERCURRENTS of deconstructionist, ideological, and certain types of feminist criticism have longmain tained that texts have a way of working against efforts their own interests. In their heavy-handed

Practioners

to persuade,

Their various

texts often saymore than they intend. rhetorical techniques spill over into

one another and into other texts, destabilizing the individual pieces of the argument and undermin ing the cumulative effect of the whole. Read from as efforts to cast Nineveh such angles, Nahums

of thebooks Other are disruptedby the interplay own language and style.

IdentifyingtheEnemy As a rhetorical whole, Nahum depends on main taining the dichotomy between Judah and Nineveh

114

Julia M.

and their respective fates.This distinction, however, is rendered tenuous by the books enigmatic use of

pronouns. The problem is especially acute in 1:11 14,where the "you5 who will receive punishment is not clearly named. After having established in

1:2-10 the awesome potential of theDivine Warrior failure to immediately identify

to destroy, Nahums

the object of divine anger produces a reading anxi ety: against whom isGod angry? Similarly, Nahum does not identify themale character threatened at the end of chapter 1until the last two verses of the

only at the end does the reader learn the ultimate target of divine wrath. Although Nahum does eventually name all of its characters, the piece meal style in which it does so requires a process of reading and rereading, the continual searching book;

for clues. Such a style itselfprecludes any definitive one read with any confidence reading. How can and comfort a text that withholds the answers to

somany questions: Is the enemy singular or plural? or feminine? "Us" or "them"? Masculine The destabilizing function of Yahwehs admis sion that "I afflicted you" (1:12) scarcely can be its overestimated. Nahum attempts to persuade

reader to see theworld as divided into two camps: = Gods = one who (1)Nineveh enemy plots against = those who take Yahweh; and (2) you refuge in = him the one about to be rescued. But the news that 1:12 delivers alters the equation thatNahums so hard to formulate: "I afflicted

rhetoric works

you" suggests that, at least for a time, "you" were God s enemy. Was Assyria, then, God's friend? Faced with this tension, the reader might retreat to Nahums Isaiah intertexts, since Isaiah affirms that Assyria

Yahweh

can be both used

and punished by inways that do not compromise his justice.

And yet, readingNahum in lightof Isaiah high

is lacking. Unlike Isaiah, Na lights what Nahum hum never names Judah's crimes or the censure she might justly face. IfNahum agrees with Isaiah that

has been punishedbyGod throughthe guiltyJudah

means

of Assyrian

oppression, where isNahum's judgment against Judah (cf. Isaiah 1-2)? Or if,as in Isaiah, God is now ready to punish the instrument

he once used

to humble

Judah, to what

changed is he responding? Judah's repentance (cf. Isaiah 37)? Her destruction (cf. Isa 10:12)?

conditions

O'Brien

every Bad Woman...

Behind

As noted above, Nahums uses of z?na to castigate literature. in the prophetic is unique the not follow does Nahum prophetic marriage to which the (in peoples unfaithfulness metaphor Yahweh is compared to a woman's unfaithfulness

Nineveh

to her husband), since Nineveh is not imagined to be accused of violating an exclusive relationship with Yahweh. the zona charge in this new way Employing wields great rhetorical weight inNahum, immedi as theworst kind ofwoman, ately casting Nineveh but italso raises new questions for the reader (some for Nahums of which prove problematic argu ment). For example, fundamental to the concept of z?na is the absence ofmale to female legitimate sexual activity. According to Phyllis Bird, is not used for incest or other prohib ited relationships, such as homosexual rela

z?na

tions or bestiality. It focuses on the absence of a marriage bond between otherwise ac n. 13). ceptable partners (Bird 1989: 90, That is, the defining mark of a husband.

of z?na

is the absence

use of z?na, even if inadvertently, raises the issue ofmarriage and of legitimate partnership. Nahums

by Nineveh's in the prophetic marriage promiscuity? metaphor Yahwehs own honor is at stake, what is Yahweh's interest in Nineveh's promiscuity?

Which

have been dishonored

males

While

Or, perhaps,

is another male's

honor being chal

lenged?

Other clues in the book suggest that, despite the explicit attention to feminine characteriza tion in Nahum, the implicit and more pressing concern of the book iswith male honor. Nahum 1 ends with threats to an unnamed male character, and the lions den allegory of Nahum 2 focuses on themale's failure to provide for his female and his cubs. Nahum

character, who

3 also ends with a threat to a male in an appositive is identified as the

kingofAssyria, implyingthathe is thepreviously

to Nahum, it male. As the conclusion not is the also and that he, Nineveh, may suggest book's ultimate concern (For a fuller discussion unnamed

The

Problem

of the Other(ed)

of the gendered dynamics of reading Nahum, see O'Brien 2002). In this reading, the sexual assault on Nineveh represents the public humiliation of her male pro tector. Brownmiller s classic study of the patriarchi

cal ideology of rape insists that, especially inwar, is the ultimate means by which the rape ofwomen to humiliate

themen who perceive

themselves as

protectors: Defense

has long been a hallmark women pride, as possession of

ofwomen

ofmasculine

has been a hallmark ofmasculine

success...

The body of a raped woman becomes a cer emonial battlefield, a parade ground for the victor's trooping of the colors. The act that

is played out upon her is a message passed between men ?vivid proof of victory for one

and

loss and defeat

for the others.

(Brownmiller1975:31) The rape of women as it is about women

inwar

about men

themselves.

In classic

rape of patriarchal terms, Yahwehs not in is Nineveh Nahum 3 punishment for her unfaithfulness to him (as in the prophetic marriage

but a means by which the Assyrian metaphor), is in front of others. In a battle about shamed king

honor between males, transacted on the bodies of theirwomen, Assyria's king is, indeed, the lion who cannot protect his den. Yahwehs ability to vanquish

and to protect Judah, in turn, demon strates his own power and potence. (In light of the book's concern with male honor, the supposedly

Nineveh

parenthetical comment in 2:3 takes on new mean ing: the good news proclaimed by themessenger is less about the comfort of Judah herself than the restoration of the honor of Jacob and Israel). Also

in classic

fashion, Nahums patriarchal honor pits women against one another. Judah iswarned not to follow the example ofNineveh (and Thebes), but to rely solely on Yah concern with male

wehs protection. The logic ofNah 3:8-11, however, runs in a counter direction. Nineveh is expected

to imagine herself as like Thebes: "Are you better than Thebes...? Even she [went] into exile.... Also, you will become drunk...." Nahum invitesNineveh (and Judah) to experience Thebes' pain, to care

115

about her exile. By introducing the case of Thebes, Nahum invites identification among women. In the service of Nahums rhetoric, the mutual identification of the females helps reinforce their (all women need male protection), dependence and it also feeds female fear. Just as Nineveh is re thatwhat happened to Thebes can happen

minded

to her too, so, as Brownmiller describes, stories of others' rape lead real-life women to control them

to reign in their own independence. in rhetoric, the yet, challenge to Nahums identification among women also challenges the woman good woman/bad dichotomy on which selves and

And

patriarchy depends. Any sympathy/empathy that the "good woman" feels for the "bad woman" erodes the distinction

between

them. Once

Nineveh

can

empathizewithThebes, thereis littletokeep Judah from empathizing with Nineveh.

Nineveh's is as much

in Nahum

Woman

Face

as a whore serves as an casting of Nineveh example of how language's "surplus of meaning" destabilizes ideological intent.On the one hand, by

The

a whore, Nahum effects a calling Nineveh powerful not is She but Bad Woman, Woman, Othering. only she receives, deserving of whatever punishment

with no one to sympathize with her plight. And yet, on the other hand, by giving the enemy the face of a woman, who is further described as beautiful, opens itself to the diverse responses that readers have to women, and to women punished

Nahum

for their sexual activities. Feminist

for example, deem commentators, not the just punishment the assault of Nineveh of a foreign nations transgression, but rather as

the threat that rape poses to all women. Judith in The Women's Sanderson's treatment of Nahum

Bible Commentary asserts the dangers of Nahums rhetoric to all women and girls: itmean to worship a God isportrayed as raping women when an .. .To involve God in an gry? image of sexual violence is, in a profound way, somehow to ...What would

who

justify it and thereby to sanction it for hu man males who are for any reason angry with a woman (Sanderson 1992: 221).

116

Sanderson

Julia M.

further argues that in order to resist the

contemporary mind-set thatperpetuates rape, read ersmust refuse to perpetuate Nahums language: No

aspect of Gods relationship with hu can mankind be represented in the mod

ern world an image that depends on a by destructive view of women's bodied selves (Sanderson

1992: 220). Nahum

has chosen

that feminists such

as Sanderson

are able to identify with the book's intended foe and resist its rhetoric. Nahums femi

nizing ofNineveh allows feminist readers to see in the face ofNineveh their own faces, as well as those of rape victims around the world. No longer the abject Other, the foe becomes Victim Like Me.

CONCLUSION I have suggested multiple fissures in Nahum's construction of the oppositional differences on which the identities ofNineveh and Judah depend. between

"us" and "them" do not

hold

steady throughout the book; antecedentless pronouns render difficult an easy identification of

God's friend and God's enemy, and Nineveh's invita tion to compare herself with Thebes spawns aweb of identification among the feminine characters of the book that destabilize the abjection ofNineveh. in Psychoanalytic theory joins deconstruction as a project, a positing that, Othering is slippery business. The work of Jacques Lacan and Luce Irigaray suggests that the construal of the Other is an attempt to shape one's own identity; as Beai

in his application of Irigaray to the book of Esther, the problem of theOther is always a prob

discusses

lem of the self (Beai 1997: 60). The Other becomes ? is abjected in the self thatwhich

the site ofwhat

the self cannot/will not own.

Such theory poses a troublesome question to the book of Nahum: What anxiety of Judah's identity construction of Nineveh? Does, drives Nahum's for example, the designation of Nineveh as whore belie a question of Judah's own fidelity? Is that same

Ironically, it is only because a feminine face for Nineveh

The distinctions

O'Brien

anxiety raised when God briefly comments, "I have oppressed you," without explaining why? as innocent Does Nahum really portray Judah

(as commentators have suggested)? The concern ? his ability with the king of Assyria's manliness ? to protect his female likewise may suggest an underlying question of Yahwehs ability to protect in the light of Lacan, the sheer en ergy the book devotes to contrasting theweakness of Assyria with the overwhelming might of Yah

his own. Read

suggests the paradoxical power of Assyria ? or not to ? confirm Yahwehs might. confirm

weh

to

The recognition ofNahums ultimate inability to cast Nineveh as Other has several consequences. First, ithelps explain why contemporary readings of the book differ so greatly, how it is that feminist scholars recognize Nineveh not as "them" but as "us." Second, and perhaps more importantly, such one an ethi recognition also offers grounding for

cal response to the book's violence. If, as L?vinas "the epiphany of the face is ethical" maintains, (L?vinas 1961:199), then conjuring the faces not

only of oppressed Judeans but also of vanquished Ninevehites calls the reader tomove beyond simple or easy embrace ofNahum to a recog denigration

nition of how blurry the distinction between "us" ? and "them" really is not only in this little book, but also in a polarized world.

The

Problem

of the Other(ed)

in Nahum

Woman

REFERENCES

Beai,

1997

T.

Bird, R 1989 "To Play the Harlot:" An Inquiry Into an Old Testament Metaphor. Pp. 75-94 inGender and Difference inAncient Israel, ed. P. L. Day. Min neapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress. S.

Brownmiller,

1975

Erlandsson,

NY:

Bantam.

S.

The Burden ofBabylon: A Study of Isaiah 13.2 14.23.Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 4. Lund: Gleerup.

Floyd,M. 2000 Minor Prophets, Part 2, vol. 22. Forms of Old Testament Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd mans.

1961

Totality and Infinity:An Essay in Exteriority, trans.A. Lingis. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne Uni versity.

Nogalski, J. 1993 Redactional Processes in theBook of theTwelve. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift f?rdie Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 218. Berlin: de Gruyter. J.M.

O'Brien,

Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. New York,

1970

E.

L?vinas,

The Book ofHiding: Gender, Ethnicity,Annihila tion and Esther. New York, NY: Routledge.

2002

Nahum. Readings. Sheffield:SheffieldAcademic.

Sanderson,

1992

J.

Nahum. Pp. 217-21 in TheWomen s Bible Com mentary,

eds.

C.

A.

Newsom

Louisville, KY: Westminster

and

S. H.

JohnKnox.

Ringe.

10

Chapter Linguistic

Variation

Linguistic

Emphasized, Variation Denied

by Raymond

eveloped

from a combination

of anthro

sociology, and linguistics, socio as a separate discipline linguistics emerged of study in the 1960s.1 Sociolinguistics concern the interaction of language and social status, including such topics as language variability according to mS

pology,

class, gender, and ethnicity and an individuals use of various registers in different social settings.2 The 1966 article "On Sociolinguistically Oriented Lan guage Surveys" by Charles Ferguson, the "principal

architect" for sociolinguistics (Tucker 1997: 321), was reprinted in the 1967 volume of Bible Translator (Ferguson 1967). In his article, Ferguson mentions

William favorablythework of the ethnolinguist

was the Translations Consultant Reyburn, who for theUnited Bible Societies inNigeria. This early and Bible relationship between sociolinguistics use of sociolin translation led to the widespread

numerous leaders in Bible translation, guistics by especially Eugene A. Nida and his colleagues in the United Bible Societies (e.g., Nida 1979; Stine 1986). informed studies Until recently, sociolinguistically

F. Person, Jr.

of the Bible were primarily limited to concerns of translation, and most of these studies concerned In the 1990s, sociolinguistics to influence other aspects of biblical inter began pretation more widely, including linguistic topics the New Testament.

(e.g., reported speech, dialect), social conflict, and discussions of gender and class.3 This essay joins these recent studies in using to interpret the Hebrew Bible. sociolinguistics I recent review studies that demonstrate how First, social differentiation is evident in ancient Hebrew.

Second, I turn my attention to the way in which biblical narrative portrays the relationship between social differentiation and language, specifically

between speakers of concerning communication different dialects or languages. Relatively few bibli cal narratives emphasize language as a marker of social differentiation (Gen 11; 2 Kgs 18:26-27; Jdgs 12:5-6); rather, as we will see in the Abraham nar rative (Gen 12:1-25:11), biblical narratives generally gloss over linguistic variations, thereby denying their importance.

119

120

Raymond

EVIDENCE OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION IN ANCIENT HEBREW Recent

studies of the Hebrew

Bible

and avail

able epigraphic evidence have demonstrated that behind classical biblical Hebrew were a variety dialects. Although one must be cau tious when using the Hebrew Bible to reconstruct ancient society, careful studies can reach well-nu

of Hebrew

anced conclusions

about the culture thatwrote and

first read theHebrew

Bible. Below, I discuss several recent studies that provide strong evidence for lin guistic variation according to social differentiation,

including spoken versus written dialects, regional dialects, and the influence of gender on language. In his 1980 New York University dissertation, Gary Rendsburg drew from the work of sociolin

guist Charles Ferguson and borrowed Fergusons term "diglossia" to refer to the existence of two varieties of ancient Hebrew, a spoken dialect and a written dialect (Rendsburg 1990). His observa tions were based primarily upon morphological evidence. Assuming thatMishnaic Hebrew was a and dialect Qumran Hebrew its contempo spoken raneous written dialect, he compared grammatical

features that are considered unusual

in relationship to the accepted norms of classical Hebrew toMish naic Hebrew. He also compared such grammatical features to the analogous diglossia in spoken and

written Arabic

and other living Semitic languages. cases, the uncommon grammatical fea tures in classical Hebrew were common features In many

inMishnaic Hebrew and paralleled characteris tics in spoken Arabic and other spoken Semitic that concluded languages. Therefore, Rendsburg classical Hebrew was the literary dialect of ancient Hebrew and that a popular, spoken Hebrew coex isted, sometimes influencing the language of the Hebrew Bible. This influence is evident in certain present in the Hebrew Bible. colloquialisms In a later work, Rendsburg concluded that regional varieties of ancient Hebrew also existed

in his dissertation 1992). Whereas (Rendsburg he explained some colloquialisms by referring to now some diglossia, he explained colloquialisms by referring to the differences between

regional

E Person,

Jr.

dialects, specifically southern JudahiteHebrew and northern Israelian Hebrew. As the literaryHebrew of the Judahite capital of Jerusalem, classical He brew was the written dialect of Judahite Hebrew.

Rendsburg noted that certain sections of the He brew Bible, which other scholars had concluded were a probably of northern provenance, contained a that he higher percentage of the colloquialisms identified as features of Israelian Hebrew.

Thus, had evidence that he Rendsburg argued provided that some of the uncommon grammatical features found in the Hebrew Bible were colloquialisms in literature from Israelian Hebrew, preserved that is predominantly Judahite Hebrew (= classi cal Hebrew).

conclusions concerning Israelian Rendsburgs Hebrew have been seriously challenged from a perspective by both Daniel Fred methodological

ericks and Ian Young (Fredericks 1996; Young 1993; basic argument for 1997). However, Rendsburgs in ancient Hebrew ?spoken linguistic diversity

versus written, standard versus non-standard ?is now widely accepted, even by his critics. That is, the evidence that Rendsburg and others have pre sented convincingly suggests linguistic variations of ancient Hebrew according to social status and region; the disagreements concern which specific linguistic communities may be associated with

For example, Fredericks and the colloquialisms. Young both argue that the evidence certainly points to the existence of a colloquial dialect of ancient that has left some traces in the language of the Hebrew Bible; however, they disagree with

Hebrew

conclusion that we can reasonably Rendsburgs locate this dialect in the north (Fredericks 1996; Young 1993; 1997). Thus, it is generally accepted that therewas significant diversity among different speakers of ancient Hebrew, and that this diversity betrays social differentiation. In his 1993 Vanderbilt University dissertation, Robert Johnson drew extensively from sociolin guistic studies of language variation to examine the dialogue in the book of Ruth, with special regard to the ways in which gender relates to language variation (Johnson 1993). Although he was careful not to draw conclusions concerning gender and language variation

in ancient Hebrew

in general,

Linguistic

Variation

Emphasized,

Johnson demonstrated extremely well the influ ence that gender had upon the way the biblical author represented male and female characters in

dialogue in the narrative. This is especially clear in his discussion of Boaz s conversational style in the narrative as compared to Ruths. Boaz speaks more than any other character in the book. He always issues more commands, fewer politeness strategies. In contrast, speaks less and, with one exception, only she is spoken to by another character who

initiates the conversation,

and uses Ruth when

initiates the conversation. She uses no declaratives, but does use various politeness strategies (Johnson 1993:196-98). Although the characters of Boaz and

Ruth speak the same Hebrew

dialect, the pragmatic

aspectsof theirdialogues differsignificantly along

the lines of gender. As Johnson demonstrates well, this is also the case for other characters

so

in

the book of Ruth.

LINGUISTIC VARIATION EMPHASIZED IN THE HEBREW BIBLE studies of Rendsburg, Johnson, and others of social dif demonstrate the influence clearly

The

ferentiation upon linguistic variation in ancient Hebrew. These studies concern linguistic features ? that that can be understood to occur "naturally" is, speakers generate such linguistically diverse features often without consciously reflecting on their speech patterns. For example, what might be considered

a

one

"colloquialism" by speaker may to be standard speech by simply be understood another. Furthermore, a woman can easily change

of speech from a context with a male a context with a to superior good mutual female friendwithout having to consciously and intention mean ally note the change. Of course, this does not

her mode

that speakers are always unconsciously generating such speech, but inmost contexts we simply speak what comes "naturally" according to social conven tions in that particular setting. some good Although we might be able tomake use of linguistic arguments for the intentional

as a literary device (e.g., Rendsburg 1995; 1999; Gianto 1996; Fredericks 1998), I suspect that some (if not most) of the "colloquialisms" identi

variation

Linguistic

Variation

Denied

121

fied by Rendsburg and others occurred "naturally." Likewise, I suspect that much of the influence of on gender language variation in the book of Ruth occurred "naturally," as the author simply wrote how men

and women

"naturally" speak. That is, in cases the biblical authors simply wrote what or as unconsciously, they perceived, consciously what "normal" people might "naturally" say in such

most

situations. Below, I examine three biblical narra tives (Gen 11; 2 Kgs 18:26-27; Jdgs 12:5-6) thatmay contain some of the "naturally" occurring evidence of linguistic variation as discussed by Rendsburg,

Johnson, and others. However, these biblical narra tives contain intentional and conscious reflections

upon linguistic variation that are much more obvi ous in that each of them explicitly refers to diverse or dialects. languages

The most obvious biblical narrative concerning the relationship between language and society is the story of the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9). In fact, the first explicit biblical references to diverse are in Gen 10-11, because the narrative languages asserts that from Adam and Eve to the tower of

Babel

earth had one language and the (Gen 11:1). The narrative assumes

"the whole

same words"'

that the existence of only one language allows hu manity to cooperate, so that nothing is impossible. "And the Lord said, 'Look, they are one people, and they have one language;

and this is only the

beginningofwhat theywill do; nothing thatthey to do will now be impossible for them'" (Gen 11:6). Note that here there is an explicit con nection between being "one people" and having ? "one language" that is, ethnicity and language are related. God's solution to this perceived closely

propose

problem is to confuse humanity by making them speak different languages: "Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that theywill

not understand one another's speech" (Gen 11:7). This confusing of language divides humanity into different peoples, whom the Lord scattered "over

the face of all the earth" (Gen 11:9). From the bibli cal narrative's perspective, the existence of different languages contributes to different ethnic identities

and often to misunderstandings between to that lead social conflict. groups

ethnic

122

From

Raymond

the tower of Babel

onwards, the biblical that linguistic diversity is a real is, the Lord determined ity in human history?that

narrative assumes

to confuse humanity at the tower of Babel and this confusion continues throughout the narrative. But humans were able to find some ways of overcom

ing such confusion, even if only imperfectly, and one such way was to learn multiple languages. su situated between the ancient Geographically

and Egypt, Israels elite perpowers ofMesopotamia learned other languages. This iswell represented in the account of Sennacherib

s

siege of Jerusalem

(2 Kgs 18:13-19:37). Both the Assyrian and Judean officials in the narrative speak at least two languages ? Hebrew ? and Aramaic that is, the political elite has de vised ways around the confusion of Babel. With also comes social power to control the Rab information for political means. When

this knowledge

threat in Hebrew, Hezekiah's officials say, "Please speak to your ser vants in theAramaic language, forwe understand shakeh delivers

the Assyrian

F. Person,

languages. However, the studies in the preceding section all concerned linguistic differences within the same language: ancient Hebrew. One biblical

narrative

is there to deliver for Sennacherib, but fail. The Rabshakeh's purpose is best served they by speaking loudly and clearly in Hebrew, so that

all the inhabitants of Jerusalem can hear and un "But the Rabshakeh said to them, 'Has me master sent to these words to your my speak derstand.

master

and to you, and not to the people sitting on thewall, who are doomed with you to eat their own urine?'" (2 Kgs own dung and to drink their 18:27). That is, the Rabshakeh also has the linguistic

so competence necessary to deliver his message, that his foreign enemies, including the common people, understand themessage directly from him

intervention on the part of any meddling the Judean bureaucracy. The Rabshakeh, therefore, continues with his threatening message "in a loud voice in the language of Judah" (2 Kgs 18:28). The narratives of the tower of Babel and Sen

without

nacherib's

siege of Jerusalem contain explicit refer ences to linguistic variation in the form of different

contains

to (Jdgs 11:1-12:7). Jephthah leads the Gileadites over their and then victory over the Ammonites fellow Israelites, the tribe of Ephraim. The Gile adites defeat the Ephraimites and the Ephraimites scatter.Whenever the Ephraimites cross the Jordan

River, they believe that they can easily deceive the Gileadites and then safely pass through enemy to return home. However, the Gileadites territory come up with a foolproof linguistic test for identi fying the Ephraimites,

based on different regional

pronunciations. one of the fugitives of Ephraim said, "Let me go over," the men of Gilead would say to him, "Are you an Ephraimite?"

Whenever

he said, "No," they said to him, "Then say Shibboleth," and he said, "Sibboleth," it right. Then for he could not pronounce

When

theyseized him at the fordsof the Jordan (Jdgs 12:5-6).

want

Rabshakeh

an excellent

example of this type of linguistic variation as a key element of the narrative itself, the story of Jephthah the judge

it; do not speak to us in the language of Judah within the hearing of the people who are on the wall" (2 Kgs 18:26). Here the Judean bureaucrats to use their linguistic skills towithhold from that the the common people the information

Jr.

ones clearly how can be a matter of life or death linguistic diversity in some circumstances.4 In this narrative, 42,000 Ephraimites were killed because they did not pro

This

narrative

demonstrates

manner one particular word in the same that theirmore powerful enemy did.

nounce

LINGUISTIC VARIATION DENIED IN THE HEBREW BIBLE Above, we have seen evidence of linguistic varia tions not only occurring "naturally" in biblical narratives but occurring even in some explicit

references to linguistic variation and its social con sequences in theHebrew Bible. In fact, the tower of Babel story suggests that the biblical narrative assumes

that the existence

of various

languages determines, to some degree at least, diverse eth between nic groups and that misunderstandings these groups often lead to social conflict. Although some biblical

narratives may

contain

some type

Linguistic

Variation

Emphasized,

for linguistic variation on the basis of dialect, gender, or social status, few biblical nar ratives contain any explicit reference to linguistic of evidence

variation.

Most

biblical

narratives

containing people who speak different languages simply ignore this dimension of the nar rative, denying that such linguistic variation could interactions between

create any kind of difficulty in communication. In fact,when one reads most biblical narratives, one

easily get the impression that everyone in the ancient Near East spoke Hebrew. Such a denial of linguistic variation is evident in

could

story,where itappears that everyone same the speaks language. The biblical narrative makes no speculations concerning the origin of theAbraham

As noted

above, ethnicity and language in biblical narrative, and connected generally this is certainly the case with Abram/Abraham.

Hebrew. are

14:13, he is referred to as "Abram the He brew," indicating his ethnicity and, indirectly, his language. However, nowhere in the dialogues of In Gen

is there an explicit reference to the and the other characters Abram/Abraham language Sarai flee the famine by When Abram and speak. the narrative

becoming "aliens" in Egypt (Gen 12:10-20), they seem to have no problem whatsoever communi tells with the Abram Sarai, "Say Egyptians. cating

you are my sister" (Gen 12:13), and Sarai presum ably does so. In fact, the Pharaohs question later

impliesthatAbram also tellstheEgyptiansupon

his arrival, "She is my sister" (Gen 12:19). This certainly leaves open the question of how these Hebrew-speaking Egyptians. Were

aliens communicated

Abram

with

and Sarai bilingual

the

and

Linguistic

Variation

Denied

123

also speak Hebrew? Or isMelchizedek bilingual? Abram and the king of Sodom then speak concern

ing the spoils Abram gained (Gen 14:20-24). Again, does the Canaanite king speak Hebrew or Abram the Semitic language of the Canaanites? Was an these questions,

interpreter present? Concerning the narrative remains silent.

Other places in the Abram/Abraham narrative raise similar questions, especially those in which

Abraham

interacts with King Abimelech of Gerar. since Again, ethnicity and language are generally assumed to be connected, one would think that would have some difficulty in Abram/Abraham communicating with the Egyptians, Canaanites, and other peoples in the narrative. However, there

is nothing in the narrative to suggest this. It is as if all of the characters speak the same language, the language of the Hebrew narrative itself. same kinds of questions can be asked in a variety of biblical narratives. How did to regard the Ninevites understand Jonahs terse Hebrew The

oracle? How did David

and Goliath

communicate?

How

did the Israelite spies and Rahab communi cate? Are we to assume that all of these characters

or multilingual? bilingual biblical narrative simply glosses

were

I think not.5 The over such details

as it selects what

to is important to communicate is crucial its readers. When linguistic variation

to the development of the plot or characteriza to the particular type of references tion, specific 2 occur linguistic variation (e.g., Gen 11:1-9; Kgs Jdgs 12:5-6). Since this is rarely the case, narrative simply ignores or denies such as with all narrative, linguistic variation because,

18:26-28; biblical

spoke inEgyptian?Did theEgyptiansunderstand

telling a good story requires selectivity and inmost biblical narratives linguistic variation simply does not count as something worthy of being selected for comment. As a result, it appears that all of the

raoh speak Hebrew? Was an interpreter present? The narrative provides absolutely no information upon which to answer these questions, completely

characters generally speak Hebrew, the language of the narrative itself and, inmany cases, the same

This question is even more obvious when Pharaoh is speaking with Abram (Gen 12:18-19). Pha Does Abram understand Egyptian? Does

Hebrew?

Hebrew

a language barrier ignoring what must have been between the characters of Abram and Pharaoh. When

Abram

defeats the alliance of kings who

the priest-king Melchizedek captured blesses him, apparently with a Hebrew blessing (Gen 14:19-20). Does this imply that theCanaanites

had

Lot,

dialect.

CONCLUSIONS that linguistic there is clear evidence a was the behind Hebrew Bible, reality diversity the biblical narrative generally avoids any explicit

Although

124

Raymond

F. Person,

references to such linguistic variations. Since so that ciolinguistics has repeatedly demonstrated

such linguistic variation is closely related to social differentiation and to issues of power and control

in society, this narrative tendency to selectively ignore a source of potential social conflict is yet another instance of the perspective of the "other"

being minimized studies concerning

in biblical

narrative.

Other

gender, ethnicity, and social class (including other essays in this volume) have

Jr.

analogous narrative tendencies of selec tivity.Fortunately, new methods of interpretation of archaeological and textual evidence are offering examined

new opportunities the

to recover some of the voices of

"other."

I am pleased to contribute this essay in honor of Eric M. Meyers, a teacher, scholar, and friend who has encouraged the exploration of new interpretive methods.

NOTES For an excellent discussion of thehistory of sociolin guistics, see Shuy 1997 and other essays in Paulston

and Tucker 1997. 2 For an excellent introductionto the principles,methods,

and observations of sociolinguistics, seeHolmes 1992. For 3 example, theSociolinguistics and Biblical Studies Consultation met at the 1994,1995, and 1996Annual Meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature. Some related publications by participants in this consulta tion include the following: Blount 1995;Meier 1992; Miller 1996; Nida 1993; H?rtgen 1993; Aageson 1996; Fredericks 1996; 1998; Porter 1997; Person 1996 and 1999. Some other studies explicitly drawing from sociolinguistics include the following: Rends

burg 1990;Wilt 1996; Gianto 1996; Young 1997. 4 There are various ways to explain the difficultyof the Ephraimites attempt to pronounce theword the same way as the Gileadites, but the point remains the same in each of the various explanations. For a discussion of some of the various explanations, see Young 1993:188.

5 Another possible explanation may be that some of these speakers understood the other s language be cause some of the dialects were closely related on a continuum of Semitic languages in Syria-Palestine. For example, W. Randall Garr argues that Jer27:3 suggests that JeremiahsHebrew was understood by others knowing Phoenician, Ammonite, Edomite, andMoabite (Garr 1985:231).Although thismay have been the case between speakers of some closely re

lated ancient languages, the linguisticdissimilarities between other languages (e.g.,Egyptian and Hebrew) would certainly limit theapplication of thisargument to the general narrative practice of simply gloss ing over such details when they do not contribute

directly to the development of plot or characteriza tion.Moreover, this general narrative tendency calls intoquestion theuse of biblical narrative to support such an argument; therefore,Garr's assumption of

historical accuracy here isprobably using Jer27:3 for purposes not imagined by the biblical author(s).

REFERENCES

Aageson,

1996

W. J.

"Control" in Pauline Language and Culture: A Study of Rom 6. New Testament Studies 42: 75-89.

Blount,

1995

.K.

Cultural Interpretation:ReorientingNew Testa ment Criticism.Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

C. A.

Ferguson,

1967

On Sociolinguistically Oriented Language Sur veys. Bible Translator 18: 128-32.

Fredericks,

1996

D.

C.

Israelite Dialect in the Hebrew Bible? Questions ofMethodology. Hebrew Studies 37:

North 7-20.

Linguistic

in Biblical Hebrew. Biblica 77: 493

Holmes, J. 1992 An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.

Jr.

in Their Mouths: A Linguistic and Literary Analysis of theDialogues in the Book of Ruth. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Van

1992

Nida,

1979

E. A.

TranslatingMeans Communicating: A Sociolin guistic Theory of Translation. Bible Translator 30:

1993

101-7,318-25.

Breakthroughs inBible Translating. Philadelphia,

PA: Trinity International. Paulston, C. B., and Tucker, G. R. (eds.) 1997 The Early Days of Sociolinguistics: Memories and Reflections. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Person,

1996

1999

R. R,

Jr.

In Conversation with Jonah:Conversation Analy sis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement 220. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic. A Reassessment ofWiederaufnahme from the Perspective ofConversation Analysis. Biblische Zeitschriftte: 241-48.

Society.

Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects inAncient Hebrew. Pp. 65-88 inLinguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed.W. R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

1995

Linguistic Variation and the "Foreign" Factor in theHebrew Bible. Israel Oriental Studies 15:

1999

Confused Language as a Deliberate Literary Device in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 2: article 6 (http://www.arts.

177-90.

S. A.

Miller, C. L. 1996 The Representation of Speech inBiblical Hebrew Narrative: A LinguisticAnalysis. Harvard Semitic Monographs 55. Atlanta: Scholars.

S. E.

Ancient Rhetorical Analysis and Discourse Analysis of thePauline Corpus. Pp. 249-74 inThe Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference, eds. S. Porter and T.

1992

The Words

Speaking of Speaking:Marking Direct Discourse in theHebrew Bible. Vetus Testamentum Supple ment 46. Leiden: Brill.

125

Rendsburg, G. A. 1990 Diglossia inAncient Israel. American Orientai Series 72. New Haven, CT: American Oriental

derbilt University.

Meier,

Denied

Academic.

Anti-Language in theApocalypse of John. Lew iston,NY: Mellen. R. M.,

Variation

Olbricht. Journal for the Study of theNew Tes tament, Supplement Series. Sheffield: Sheffield

J.E.

Johnson,

1993

1997

A.

Variations 508.

1993

Porter,

Dialect Geography ofSyria-Palestine,1000-586bce. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

Gianto,

H?rtgen,

Linguistic

R.

Garr, W.

1996

Emphasized,

Diglossia, Revelation, and Ezekiels Inaugural Rite. Journal of theEvangelical Theological Soci ety41: 189-99.

1998

1985

Variation

ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_12.htm). Shuy,R.W. 1997 A Brief History of American Sociolinguistics: 1949-1989. Pp. 11-32 inThe Early Days ofSocio

Memories and Reflections, eds. C. B. linguistics: Paulston and G. R. Tucker. Dallas, TX: Summer Instituteof Linguistics.

Stine, P. C. (ed.) 1986 Sociolinguisticsand Communication. UBS Mono graph 1.New York, NY: United Bible Societies. Tucker,

1997

G.

R.

The Development of Sociolinguistics as a Field of Study. Pp. 317-24 in The Early Days of Socio Memories and Reflections, eds. C. B. linguistics: Paulston and G. R. Tucker. Dallas, TX: Summer

Institute of Linguistics. T. Wilt, 1996 A Sociolinguistic Analysis of n?\ Vetus Testa mentum Young,

1993

1997

46:

237-55.

I.

Diversity inPre-Exilic Hebrew. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 5. T?bingen: Mohr. Evidence of Diversity in Pre-Exilic Judahite Hebrew. Hebrew Studies 38: 7-20.

11

Chapter

the Cushite Other: Representing in The Use of Cushite Phenotypes 12 and Jeremiah 13:23 Numbers byRodney S. Sadler, Jr.

It

are discernible in the to phenotypes of the Hebrew Bible. To the uninformed,

is remarkable that phenotypic differences re ceive scant attention in theHebrew Bible, even when those differences were as stark as we pre

references

pages the reference to rwsn nyxn, "the Cushite woman 12:1 offers little more than the (wife)" in Num

sume theywere between the ancient Judeans and Cushites.1 Cushites2 were known through Egyptian3

of a woman Moses married. ethnic background the skin," in Further, phrase iniyWis, "a Cushites Jer 13:23 provides limited information about what

and Assyrian epigraphy(Snowden 1983:pi. 13) to

be a dark-skinned

people with features consistent notions of "negroes." The Cushites, often deemed "Ethiopians" or "Nubians" inmod

the reader should glean from this cursory refer ence. It is only when exegetes begin to understand value the term "wa, "Cushite," the commonplace had in ancient Israel/Judah that references to this

with modern

ern translations, have been commonly perceived as "black" or "African" by contemporary scholars (Hays

ethnic

term become

significant for interpreting texts these biblical (Num 12:1 and Jer 13:23), and can symbolically associate Cushites with the they

instances do the Judean authors discuss Cushite

notion

"dark skin."

1986). Yet, 1996a: 399; 1996b; cf. Adamo are employed more terms4 Cush-related though than fifty times in the Hebrew Bible, in only three

phenotypes (Num 12; Isa 18;and Jer13). Two

texts appear to address skin (Num 12 and Jer 13). in both of these instances, skin color

Such an association as racial were

ation is not explicitlydescribed,only implied. It

is only because exegetes) knew coloration

(and subsequent Judean people about the distinctive something

of Cushite

skin that these

implicit

to another

issue:

would perceive in Judean society. Though of distinctive human skin color alone

how differences

of these biblical

the color of a Cushites However,

pertains that moderns

viewed

recognition does not characterize

racial thought, phenotypic differences between Cushites and Judeans can be characterized as constituent elements5 of racialist6 was an established thought. It is unlikely that there

127

128

Rodney

S. Sadler,

system of racial othering in Judah during the Iron 12 and Jer 13:23 II or exilic periods, but Numbers provide valuable information about how constitu ent elements like phenotypic differences were per ceived and the ideological significance ascribed to these differences.

12? MOSES' CUSHITE WIFE

NUMBERS Numbers because

tially, the reader notes that the cause of the conflict in this chapter is not apparent. According to verse 1, the reason Miriam7 and Aaron complain against seems to pertain to their brother s Moses marriage to a Cushite woman. Evidence

from Jewish literature composed dur ing the latter centuries b.ce. and the first century ce. illustrates how much of a problem thiswoman's

to identity caused early interpreters.8 According Exod 2:15-22, Moses married Zipporah, identi fied as a daughter of theMidianite Reuel,9 priest while Jud 1:16 and 4:11 imply thatMoses married a Kenite woman, daughter of Hobab. Though the question about whether Zipporah was aMidianite or a Kenite was seldom the cause ofmuch conten tion,10whether Moses married a Cushite woman was a matter of significant interest. Did thismean

thatMoses had married a second wife? Or was this label ? Cushite ? consistent with thiswife's identity as a Midianite? These two questions Zipporah, point to the two principle solutions early Jewish authors offered to this dilemma.

the Chronographer

Tragedian, determined

both

be deemed

Cushite

and Ezekiel

the

favoring the second solution, thatMoses had only one wife and of fered explanations of how Zipporah could properly

1985; Hanson (cf. Robertson and Josephus chose the first solu tion, introducing legends of a military campaign into Ethiopia to theMoses narratives (cf. Collins 1985; Feldman 1993). Though Artapanus makes no 1985). Artapanus

12, the explicit reference to the wife of Numbers seems a to context for Ethiopian campaign provide a resolution of the dilemma raised this passage, by as is expressed explicitly in Josephus' use of the campaign

this Cushite woman

into theMoses

narratives was

concern. apparently a reason for However, suggesting that the cause of contention was the Cushite wife raises another equally potent

question: What was itabout thiswife that provoked Miriam (and Aaron), causing her (them) to com are a number of compelling In plain? theory, there

for the complaint, not the least among these the issue of race. Cain Felder, in his 1989 text

motivations

12 is a chapter requiring careful attention, it is enigmatic for a variety of reasons. Ini

Demetrius

Jr.

legend (Ant 2.252). The introduction of

Troubling Biblical Waters, concludes that despite the4 extraordinarily progressive racial values of the Bible," the complaint was based upon Miriams as

wife s racial identity.Hence, in this paradigm, we should contrast Miriams visceral sessment ofMoses

reaction against thisCushite woman s punishment the nature of YHWH

inverse 1with ofMiriam

in

verse 12 (Felder 1989:42; cf.Waters 1991:204).11We will saymore about this conclusion below. Felder, however, uncomfortable with the im plication that "race" could cause such contention

in Israelite/Judahite society, was later pleased to recant this initial assessment in his 1991 article, "Race, Racism 1991:127-45).

and the Biblical Narratives" In this article, persuaded

(Felder

by Randall

he revisedhis Baileyshypothesis(Bailey1991:179),

earlier conclusions, suggesting that the complaint was not based upon the perceived racial inferiority of the Cushite wife, but upon her perceived social valuation. Hence, forBailey and Felder what seemed to be a conflict stemming from amatter of racialist denigration of theCushite Other is actually amatter of conflict over the elite social status associated with the Cushite Other

(Felder 1991:135-36). Alice Bellis notes that theremay be reasons for

the objection beyond the racial and social status issues. Following Drorah Setel, she suggests that the issue of the Cushite wife may have been cultic.

If thiswife is, indeed, Zipporah, as Bellis contends (Bellis 1994:103), the conflict may have to do with her status as a priestess (cf. Exod 4:24-26). Moses

a priestess then may have bestowed a him upon particular prophetic authority over that ofMiriam (and Aaron), hence producing the union with

tensionbetweenMoses and his sibling(s) (Bellis

1994:104-5). Bellis has also hypothesized that the reason the author introduced the conflict over the Cushite

Representing

the Cushite

Other

129

wife into the context of the Pentateuch may stem Were he included, then he probably would have first as the most recognizable from an issue of contemporary relevance for the been mentioned character (Davies 1995:117). author. The purpose of the narrative may be to

to a foreign marriage was a wife, when this issue problem in becoming Israelite society (Bellis 1994: 104).12 It is beyond contention thatMoses married a foreign woman from the south,13 and the redactor of Numbers resolve the issue ofMoses

to his or her specificends employed this fact to the purpose of the present passage (Bellis . 2i). 1994: 255 Presumably, each of the designa tions14 could overlap in the minds of Judahites.

achieve

The actual reason for the objection to the Cushite wife occurring in 12:1may continue to be a matter of contention for exegetes; however, the lack of was raised in the clarity regarding why the issue first place

should not distract from the fact that

itwas. This discussion

will primarily address the existence of the complaint and only secondarily propose a reason for it. Some initial comments about the composition of

12 are in order. Exegetes have not always as a single coherent textual perceived this chapter unit. In fact,Martin Noth sees two distinct liter ary strands interwoven in this complex, which can

Numbers

no longerbe "disentangled"(Noth 1968:93). Eryl

Davies,

who

champions He does

attempts to sort the two narratives, a modified version ofNoth s position. so as follows:

(1) Cushite Wife

controversy?verses

1, 9a, ?oab,

13-16.

(2) Authority

controversy?verses

2-5a, 6-8, 9b,

?oaa.

His hypothesisposits thatMiriam alonewas the

and in the first story, while Miriam antagonist in the second (Davies Aaron act cooperatively 1995:114). In regard to the odd construction of the feminine singular verb ascribed to both Miriam

in verse 1, the anomaly is explained: it was never intended to have Aaron as its subject. Davies' interpretation runs contrary to that of and Aaron

Noth, who sees the unusual construction simply as another example of the predicate in first position

the form of the initial subject in a series (Noth 1968:93). Davies takes the feminine singular predicate and the plural subjects as evidence that assuming

Aaron was

not a character

in the first narrative.

"two narratives" explanation clarifies in this chapter, since of the problems it provides a clear cycle of problem, confronta tion, and resolution for both narratives. Further, Davies'

a number

the though his solution perhaps oversimplifies complex redactional process that gave rise to this narrative, it facilitates a discussion about themat ter of the Cushite wife on its own grounds: it is a specific complaint raised byMiriam, then resolved

byYHWH sdisciplinaryhand. The inclusionof the

from a subsequent intervening Aaron and Miriam story only serves to complicate matters. cautions, there However, as Gordon Wenham are structural reasons to read the entire chapter material

as a coherent narrative unit. Wenham

finds in the

extant passage evidence of a pattern also repeated inNumbers 11,14,16 (twice), 17 and 21, which is as follows:

(a) thepeople complain;(b) theLord appears /hears;(c) theLord is angryand punishes; (d) thepeople appeal toMoses; (e)Moses prays forpeople; (f) the judgmentceases (Wenham

1997: 51-52).

In this regard, the two narratives identified by in chapter 12 fulfill the pattern found in the

Davies

larger literary context only in their present inter twined state, suggesting that the redactor forfeited

the unique themes of the independent units. Thus, while employing Davies' notion that two distinct for analytical complaints have been combined

purposes, we should be careful not to disregard the symmetry of the complete extant passage. These structural insights help to clarify the con fusion most

scholars encounter when confronting this passage. There may be two distinct concerns reflected in two distinct traditions, but they are conflated into one composite narrative. Though

elements have been

lost from the story of Aaron's complaint about Moses' authority, the Cushite wife was evidently a concern only for

and Miriams

Miriam, which was resolved when YHWH pun ished her with a temporary case of skin disease and a period of banishment from the community.

130 Rodney

S. Sadler,

We will return to the implications of this reading below. As regards the Cushite wife, it is important to realize as we approach this text that it contains the

in the only explicit reference to a Cushite woman Hebrew Bible.15 That fact alone makes Numbers 12 wife significant, for the portrayal of Moses' we the limited have information about provides how Cushite women

were viewed by Hebrew au the text does not provide adequate

thors. Because

detail, we cannot be sure what itwas about this woman's identity that offended Miriam, provok her the objection was due ing objection. Whether to aesthetics or cultural otherness

is unclear. One

argue that the principle objection was to the union of this prominent Levite with a non

could

Hebrew, hence othered, woman.16 This would be true whether the Cushite woman was Zipporah or a subsequent bride (though if she is presumed to be Zipporah,

she can then be associated

with

a

the priestly lineage, hence perhaps assuaging problem). Had Moses married any non-Hebrew itmight have produced this reaction woman, by the prophetic matriarch, Miriam. Still, the repetition inverse of theMT, confirm ing the Cushite identity ofMoses' wife, emphasizes

Jr.

marriageable, demonstrating that this union could be seen as unacceptable by certain members of the

s community, and it affirms by YHWH silence in response toMiriams complaint that such unions could not be categorically proscribed. This smaller narrative is further complicated

Hebrew

by theway YHWH punished Miriam. The phrase r?rtsap, meaning "leprous as snow" in verse 10 adds to the text another layer of complexity. Ac cording to the narrative, after the cloud containing the presence of an angry YHWH departed from

as leprous, as white the additional aspect of

the tent "Miriam had become

snow" (v. io NRSV). Note color present in theNRSV translation. Whether not the notion of color is germane to ate

or

is

a matter of significance for this study, but the text is by no means unequivocal on this point. Itmust be stated that no explicit color terms (i.e., ]?>) are used in this chapter. However, i?f? nsnx? cannot be deemed

void of all color content. Atha

laya Brenner, in her 1982 study of color terms in Hebrew, classified the root of the latter term in this as a secondary color term or a construction, jfrt?, term that functions in certain contexts "as specifi

cations of pV'

(Brenner 1982: 42). In thismanner, nsnxa has often been understood as a simile

she is Other, signifi Reading the complete chapter as a the contextual clues indicate the single story, with which the difference is valued. ambiguity is clear is thatMiriam What implies the Cushite

12:10, as well as in Exod 4:6 2 as is apparent in theNRSV. and Kgs 5:27, This being said, some scholars have argued

Moses

12:10 should not be understood

that because

she is Cushite,

cantly unlike Moses.

woman was Other and that the difference mattered;

has somehow by this marriage elevated himself above his siblings. Hence, it is not likely that the Cushite wife was denigrated because of

herCushite identity; perhaps justtheopposite: she stood as a symbol ofMoses' status and authority, as Bailey suggests.17 two-narrative hy However, following Davies'

pothesis, the Cushite wife narrative remains para doxical. Even though it cannot be said to prohibit

Moses'

union with this Cushite woman, the fact that itposits the partnering as a matter of conten tion implies that it raised a red flag forMiriam. In this regard, the passage is a double-edged sword. It both indicates byMiriam's complaint that themar riage challenged normative

assumptions

ofwho

is

for "whiteness" inNum

against connoting color in these three aforemen tioned verses. Most notably, Brenner herself has as it is suggested that the term employed inNum

as a simile for

"whiteness," but for flakiness, reflecting the texture of snow.18 Though considering the term a refer a psoriasis-like ence to the flaking associated with condition is entirely plausible, itwould be arbitrary

to preclude its connotation as a color term19 in Num 12:10, Exod 4:6, and 2 Kgs 5:27,which each address similar stories of a skin disorder brought on

s activity. As stated above, Brenner by YHWH as a simile herself recognizes the clear use of

in Isa 1:18, Ps 51:9, and Dan 7:9, directly she states "that white can be

for "whiteness"

and more

a signified by comparison to snow" (Brenner 1982: a psoriasis-like condition can be In addition, 82). described as "shiny-silvery scales" (Brenner 1982:

Representing

the Cushite

9o) or "raised, red patches or lesions covered with a no means makes silverywhite build up,"20which by the simile "white as snow"

implausible. Further, s conclusion that can have Brenner following a connotation of "dark-skinned person," particu

larly in reference to Jer 13:23, it seems likely that 12 the author of Numbers intentionally employed two secondary color terms, n^tf5 in 12:1 and in

12:10, knowing that the irony of the consequence ofMiriams complaint against Moses' marriage to woman a sickness thatmade her the Cushite being "as snow" would

not be lost on his or her audience

180). (Felder 1989:42; Bailey 1991*.

Bellis has also offered a challenge tations of this passage that presume

to interpre the author's

in this narrative. Bellis sug Isk orna that the of ?2 -?tf na, or gests image the "stillborn infant" in 12:12, should govern our color consciousness

Other

131

formed, as a result of YHWH

s punishment,

to

be void of color (cf.Ashley 1993:227; Felder 1989: 42; Waters

the 1991: 204). The author emphasized to obvious the exploit heritage

Cushite woman's

contrast between

her skin and Miriams

leprous

skin.But insteadof explicitlystatingthatYHWH

for her prejudice punished Miriam against this female Other by "whitening" her skin, she or he em

terms rrtf5 ployed the power of the commonplace and rtttte,knowing that the audience would recog nize the ironic contrast between these terms. Despite her inactive role, the Cushite wife re mains a significant character in this narrative be

cause the cursory reference to her clarifies a num ber of issues. First, her presence in this narrative implies that the author presumed that there was a

Cushite element in the initialmigration from Egypt to Israel. Second, the lack of a negative response

toMiriams interpretation of this passage. In her estimation, it from YHWH complaint about Moses' is not color that is being emphasized in this simile, marriage precludes the existence of a prohibition as unions. but the leprosy-like condition of the corpse where such the narrative affirms Third, against its skin has been eaten away. She further argues (w. 2-3), a Cushite woman's connection with so a character in the that the color of the corpse would not be "white" significant unfolding historical but "gray and mottled" (Bellis 2000). Though this perspective does emphasize the debilitating effect of the leprous condition, it does not change the "color" aspect of this verse. If anything, it strength ens the notion of the contrast between the "pale" complexion of the infant and the "dark" complex ion of the Cushite woman.

Further, since the con

trast is not between the distinct spectral opposites, "black" and "white", but between generally tanned to dark brown Mediterranean complexions, "dark"

and "pale," the potency of Miriam's punishment remains intact. She has forfeitedwhatever natural

she had, and became like a corpse, not "white" as we think of itwith its constituent skin coloration

ideological baggage, but a blotchy, perhaps even as the absence vitiligo-like21 "whiteness" perceived of color.

The introduction of a color-laden

concept into at the end of this punishment pericope suggests another reason for the repetitive reference toMoses' union with a Cushite woman. There is a

Miriam's

strange irony to the story of a woman who com plains against a woman twice identified as Cushite, implicitly dark-skinned, whose

skin is then trans

in no way diminished his stature and in subsequent generations. Fourth, fol standing lowing Bailey and reading the extant combined

narrative

association with this passage, it seems thatMoses' Cushite woman elevated his social standing, since the affirmation ofMoses' humility in verse 3would be irrelevant if the redactor of the text perceived themarriage as demeaning. So what is the conclusion

of the matter

of the

Cushite wife? Though far from any permanent so lution to the issues raised by this chapter, itappears that Cushite phenotypic darkness was employed 12. But as to whether to ironic ends in Numbers

the Israelites/Judahites viewed a racialist lens certain qualified

order. Accepting

the contention

Cushites conclusions

through are in

that the author in

tended to contrast the color of the Cushite woman's s skinwith Miriam's afterYHWH punishment, then it follows that the color of a Cushites skin was a

In prevalent feature in the mind of the audience. this regard, to say "Cushite" could invoke images of dark skin (cf. Jer 13:23) in a manner similar to theway saying "snow" conjured ness"

or

"paleness."

images of "white

132 Rodney

S. Sadler,

Though the association of an ethnic group with a prominent trait is a constituent phenotypical element of racialist thought, it does not necessar a racialist mindset. ily follow that the author had

As determined

above, the Tendenz of the author definitively opposed Miriams disdain for the union and his Cushite wife. It is even plausible ofMoses that the chapter is anti-racialist in its orientation, were seeking to combat the notion that Cushites

ontologically different fromHebrews, symbolically transcending perceived otherness by tacitly placing s seal of on Moses union with a YHWH approval Cushite woman. Hence, this narrative may contain an early biblical author s strategy for addressing an

emergingethnicor colorprejudicebyhighlighting

YHWH

s ironic response

toMiriams

complaint.

? JEREMIAH 13:23 CAN A CUSHITE CHANGE HIS SKIN? in Jer 13:23 occurs in a riddle comprised of a rhetorical question soliciting a negative response from its audience.22 The ques

The reference to a Cushite

ibrrn "Is a Cushite able to change his skin or a leopard his spots?" Of course they cannot. The answer to the question tion posed

is vrhannn narinis?

s response to the in verse 22.Why had an

then forms the basis of YHWH

of Judahs query answer: They unpleasant fate befallen Judah? The were incapable of change! Jeremiahs response is people

nm'm "then eloquent: ?nn na1? ywrh i^rnn you too will be able to do good, you who are taught evil." In a circuitous manner, Jeremiah declares that

more

the people of Judah were unable to change their ways and were consequently destined to suffer a horrendous fate.23 Consider the phrase iniyr?to ?srrn "Can a Cushite change his skin?"24What is it about the skin of the Cushite that is under consideration in this rhetori Isaiah 18 provides

cal question? phy forCushites

in theHebrew

the best ethnogra Bible. It refers to a

a phenotype related to distinctive quality of Cushite skin. The land of Cush is described as the home of (NRSV). Thus, because of this recognized quality of Cushite phenotype, Jeremiahs question could be restated: "Can a Cush ite change [the smoothness of] his skin?" "a nation

tall and smooth"

Jr.

However, the purpose of these rhetorical ques tions is to present a scenario where change would

be impossible. Though itwould not be easy for a man with a hairless face to grow a beard, Cushites with facial hair were known in antiquity (e.g., 1970: pis. 43, 54~55> 7h 73> 93 and 95). Judean people probably knew of such Cushites, hence lack of hair is unlikely to satisfy the require Snowden

ments

of this riddle.

The other significant aspect of a Cushites skin that had commonplace value in the ancient world

was

its color. Again, Brenner has classified the term "Cushite" as one of a series ofHebrew terms,

like those for "snow" and "wine," that had idiom atic value and could replace specific color terms,

The verb particularly in poetry (Brenner 1982:47). or is used turn "to overturn," Ibrr, frequently in in to relation to skin reference color, particularly in Lev 13:3-4,13,20, and 55. In each of these instances, the root l?n is associated with turning "white;" hence, it is not beyond the realm of pos s skin sibility that the transformation of theCushite to a "white" complexion is the paradox raised by

disease

Jeremiah. If thiswere the image Jeremiah intended the startling contrast to evoke in his audience, between "whiteness" (or paleness) and a Cushites dark complexion would impress upon his audience

the implausibility of Judahs repentance. However, the riddle, though this contrast would strengthen is by no means "white" skin the Cushites turning the certain implication.25

Besides Isaiah 18, Jer 13:23 is themost obvious reference to a Cushite phenotypical trait in theHe brew Bible, making itone of the only opportunities we have to examine how Judean authors viewed

phenotypic skin coloration.26 Because of nature of the riddle, the only thing that was the skinwas emphasized about the color of theCushite

Cushite

its inabilityto change (Drake 1990: 5).We finda

similar proverb inEgyptian wisdom "Instructions of Onchsheshonqy"

literature in the

(Gemser i960: These instructions, 105-6). thought to have been a in fifth the century b.c.e., contain series composed

of lessons an imprisoned member of a failed assassi nation plot against an unknown pharaoh composed

for his son. The proverb provides a fitting answer to the rhetorical question asked in Jeremiah 13:23.

Representing

the Cushite

As Onchsheshonqy declares, ct(t)here is no Negro who lays offhis skin" (Gemser i960:126). From this, we may conclude that the color of Cushite skin had commonplace value to the Judeans,27 the Egyptians, and likely other peoples in the ancient Near East.

Other

133

Hos

1986: 415; Jones 1992: 203; 5:3ya

* Ka?

DK T?3?

Where does it say that ifone [of these water sources] is impure, it can be purified? Tintomm "pyaimpa V'n Scripture says, a miqweh gether] will be pure.

and a spring [to

xbx

mpan man m mn

?

mpa ysa mpan m mn

mpa mpan

naatf?

Tirrn ?rx nsi? npurcnons?pm pmn mntf?i

?

-

towk?ti

The niss?q, the qdtapr?s [water on a slope],7 and dripping water are not connectives

for either impurity or purity, whereas the esb?ren is a connective for both impurity

and purity.

states that the niss?q and the other forms of interposing streams mentioned do not

This mishnah

form a connection

that transmits either purity or ? the ? esb?ren do. impurity, but standing pools in the rabbinic view, connecting Consequently, two immersion pools is possible, not because of

the stream flowing through a conduit or on the the status of ground between them, but because at least one of the pools is pure; and this forms a

connection with an impure pool to render itpure as well.8 M. Toharot 8:9 implies rejection of the ap to issue of the the of purifying a niss?q plication

184 Carol

Selkin

miqweh. Instead, the principle used by the rabbis to defend their practice was not the niss?q, itwas the esb?ren, a pool of standing water. The status of an impure pool was defined on the basis of its associa tion with a pure pool (esb?ren) and not primarily in relation to the intermediary stream. I propose

that the Qumran community would not have accepted this rationale and viewed the

Wise

a person. Schwartz

the Qumran

sion were precisely those of their antecedents. The inMMT may represent protest against m?s?q?t an array of incipient disputes involving different types ofwater streams thatwere subsumed under this single, biblically dependent term or thatwere

sect vs. the "nominalist"

outlook

of

the rabbis (Schwartz 1992a). The nominalist legal perspective is one inwhich legal categories possess

life and validity and need no further This is how Sifra explains the need for a reality. minimum 40 sfa of pure water: their own

connecting pipes between dual pools as m?s?q?t, or at least as some form of unacceptable stream, water in the of the im the drawn carrying impurity

pure pool to the legitimate pool (osaror esb?ren) and rendering the entire facility invalid. Let us be perfectly clear about this: I do not sug gest that the rabbinic categories or terms of discus

In fact, this is a good example of what calls the "realistic" legal perspective of

'And he shall wash

inwater

(Lev 15:16), even 'His whole body',

in thewater of a miqweh. [i.e.] water sufficient for his whole

body.

And howmuch is that?One cubitby one cubitby threecubits in height?you find that the volume

of a miqweh

is forty s?'?.16

That this represents a nominalist outlook is in dicated by the fact that 40 s?'? is a theoretical

amount, rather than the volume actually required for a person to immerse, which would in reality change with body weight and dimension. That the

stillwaiting to emerge as separate issues. It cannot 40 sea is a theoretical amount ismade clear inM. be said how developed such theories were at the Miqwa?t 6:3, where we find the curious case of time MMT was composed. One expects of tan three side-by-side miqwa?t, each containing only naitic literature more abstract conceptualization twenty s?'? ofwater. The first two hold pure water, and classification, along with further refinement in one finds it in this mishnah. terminology,9 and The best description of the ritual requirements Sea community comes from thewell in CD, recently corrected and passage

of the Dead known

confirmed by the 4Q fragments10

11 own V^na

>7aawi?i

?wx

to

vr& >toto an ino* *?x

in jzh ivx Vsna

/a to? ;w im ^DH '?'&DTO'?? Kft?l E

Concerning purification inwater. No per son shall wash in foul12water or too little to cover a person. No one shall purify a vessel in it,and any rock pool inwhich there isnot an impure person enough to cover,13which ? itswater is touched impure as14 thewater of a vessel (CD 10:10-13).15 In this passage one does not find mention of the rabbinic 40 s?'?, but rather the more realistic requirement that there be enough water to cover

but the third in the row holds drawn water. Accord

ing to thismishnah, ifthree people immersed in the pools, one person per pool, and thereby caused the

water of the three pools to overflow and mingle, each persons immersion would be valid. The im

plicit reason is that the two pools of twenty s? '? of valid water apiece would be the first tomerge and

create a single valid pool of forty s?'?. This then join with the invalid water of

would

amount would

thethirdpool and, in turn,purifyit.The difficulty

in this example rests in its assumption that a person would physically be able to immerse in twenty s? '? of water! The mishnah exposes Sifra's fiction that to forty s?'? is the amount minimally necessary cover

a

person.

to CD, the phrasing "its water is Returning impure as the water of a vessel" reinforces how

tenuous was the boundary between the pool that could purify and the vessel that could contaminate, between purifying water and contaminating water. A stone pool with sufficientwater did not guarantee the purity of the facility, in the Qumran perspec did not have the tive. Indeed, stone at Qumran

Miqw?'ot

and

Second

same status as in rabbinic halakhah, and it is partly this that the Pharisees are mocking inM. Yadayim. The Temple Scroll (col. 49) included stone vessels

among the types that had to be purified from corpse itself impurity.17Even the stones of the deathhouse

had to be purified of all moisture.18 Tannaitic law, by contrast, deemed stone vessels and materials af

fixed to the earth to be impervious.19 This difference might well have added impetus to the debate about miqwa?t, which were, after all, carved in stone. If everything in the house of a decedent became

impure, including the stones of the house,20 what was the status of the family miqweh* CD 12:15-17 reads: "And all wood, stones, or are dust which sullied by human impurity, having

stains of oil on them, according to their impurity shall he who touches them become impure." Here, even unfinished stone can be defiled by the stains that adhere to it.21

the way in which Baumgarten were to the Qumran com physical stains defiling munity.22 Such stains were, in Baumgartehs words, "agents of contamination," capable of transmitting has detailed

impurity derived from some other source. They included oil,23 blood,24 and, most tellingly for our purposes, mud.25 The judgment that mud was

Temple

Sectarianism

185

in the view of theQumran covenant community, even ifa purification pool was of stone and contained enough water to cover a person, if itwas dirty, itwas not ritually fit.29 By contrast, in themishnaic view dirtywater was

Consequently,

acceptable for purifying hands when ed to theground, but not when itwas

itwas connect

in a vessel (M. It should also be remembered that Yadayim 1:3). the water in a miqweh was not considered by the rabbis to be the same as " ?ti, the "living water" required for the red heifer rite (Num 19:17), purifi cation from skin disease (Lev 14:5), or purification

from abnormal discharge (Lev 15:13).Whereas Sifra tells us that livingwater had to be clear (amm) and

not brackish to allow mud

(?^nta),30 M. Miqw??t goes as far as to be calculated into the total volume

of a miqweh (2:6,10; 7:1, 7; 9:2). Ehud Netzer suggested that the considerable

depth of some miqw??t helped preserve the cleanli

ness of themiqweh by allowing silt to sink to the

especially have been an issue when water came from aqueducts,32 as was the case bottom.31 Silt would

atQumran and theHasmonaean palace at Jericho. M. Miqw??t documents the reality of this silt layer it leniently allows such when, as just mentioned, mud to be calculated into the total volume of the

defiling was based on lQS 3:2-3, which states "For he plows in themud ofwickedness (ytznyixon) and

miqweh. Even where the rabbis are concerned, however, there is some concern about the specific types ofmud.33 Rabbinic interest lay inwhether the

usage emerges as only partly metaphoric. As far as the defiling capacity ofmud in an immersion pool ? is concerned this is metaphor given concrete

immersing. Interposition of any object invalidates ones immersion in the rabbinic view.34 According

his conversion

isbesmirched (o^xm) with stains."26 Since the text continues by telling us that no form mud was thick enough to constitute an obstruc tion between the water and the skin of the person of ablution will purify such a person, this particular

reality.27 Dan 12:10, cited in the rather exclusivist docu ment

2:3~4a, states that the righteous 4QFlor would be purified and made white. Such symbols were apparently taken quite seriously. According

to Josephus, the Essenes avoided oil as defiling and always dressed inwhite (/W2.123).28 It is especially these two interesting that Josephus mentioned

it is true that dressing nor details together.While amore trenchant mally followed grooming with oil, reason for Josephus organization of information

is that oil and other types of dirty stains on their white garb were considered defiling by the Essenes.

to Josephus, the Essenes immersed while garbed (JW 2.129). Their being clothed may have been due tomodesty about reciting the associated benedic tions while

still in the water,35 but it also indicates

that interposition was not a concern for them.36 atQumran the problem ofmud pertained Whereas to the actual purity status of stains, in theMishnah the subject has been entirely reframed and involves the rabbinic concept of interposition.37

186

Carol

Selkin

INTERPRETING RITUAL What

can such abstruse

information tell us about

the ancient people who were concerned with and enacted these halakhic rules? First and foremost, it should be remembered that halakhic require

for the miqweh are ritual requirements and should be understood within the framework of

ments

ritual theory. Unfortunately, Pauline perspectives on ritual halakhah have some unduly influenced

Wise

or simply a of routine, habit, or 'thedead weight solely matter " of tradition (1992:92). It seems that arguments to Bell

theorizes

that "ritual is never

the contrary rest on the sentiment that Christian rites really are efficacious, while Jewish ones are not. Religious bias is overt in statements like this

one byDriver (1965:497),who wrote thatJewish

water rites by the first century had "developed into an elaborate system of casuistry which had already lost itself in endless detail. These were the burden

some previous inquiries, and our attendant grasp of the information has been impeded. While social location of an investigator naturally dictates the presuppositions of any inquiry and The

impacts its outcome. Typically, scholarly inquiry into ancient Jewish ablution practices has been tied

interest in baptism.38 The core ques tion usually brought to thematerial was whether a distinct, Judaism possessed non-purificatory form of proselyte "baptism" prior to the advent to Christian

of the Christian

rite. Apologetics supporting the of Christian "uniqueness" baptism and the (puta dubious value of Jewish purity concepts were tively) seldom far removed from the discussion.

Jesus denounced..."41 regulations which increased scholarly sensitivity has reduced the number of such flagrantly offensive remarks,

underlying

faith confessions

still can color even

aware studies.42 methodologically Was theQumran community the only group of Jews to have an abstract ("spiritual"), rather than a

frame of reference?43 Or rather,why is itonly to Pharisaic/rabbinic rituals that abstraction, whether conscious or unaware on the part of the

mechanical

practitioner, has been denied? The following data are meant to indicate that Johns atoning baptism should be scrutinized not in terms of a professed

background

"uniqueness" ?the agenda set by an earlier gen eration of scholars ? but with the understanding that Johns beliefs about atonement, immersion, and purification were broadly representative of the

In fact, itwas only with the 1957:39-40). of the documents that some Qumran discovery scholars began to entertain the notion of a possibly

In actuality, itwas commonplace for actions, in institutions the world to and Hellenistic entities, be understood symbolically. There was ample clas

Initially, inquiry took place against the back drop of rabbinic teachings, but eventually the

for Johns ostensibly "once and for all" "spiritual" baptism came to be sought within the Qumran community, which supposedly possessed a precursor to the Christian initiatory rite (e.g., Brownlee

less "legalistic" (a false hypothesis as it turned out), and supposedly more "spiritual" form of Palestinian Judaism. The "spiritual" baptism of Johnwas then routinely contrasted with the dry as dust "repeti tive" purification rites of a "formalistic" Judaism. latterwas sometimes identified with Essenic

The

or Qumranic

Judaism of his time.44More to the point, itwill at tempt to establish a framework for our subsequent interpretation of the miqweh.

sical precedent for this.Antigone, for example, was condemned not for actually burying her brother,

an act which had been forbidden, but for giving the symbolic appearance of having done so.45 In Eu ripides Iphigeneia inTauris, symbolic substitutions for human sacrifice occur twice: once, when a deity intervenes to substitute a fawn in place of Iphige

Judaism,39but more particularly with Pharisaic/rabbinic Judaism.40 The antipathy toward this type of argument is Judaism undergirding

Orestes

not universal strategy for producing ritualized acts" one After does not hear about the all, (Bell 1992:92). legalistic, repetitive monotony of the Eucharist.

only token drops of blood.46 Writhin the biblical world, Ps 24:4,73:13, and Isa 1:15-16 all indicate a symbolic import to washing

rendered transparent by Bells broadly theoretical observation that repetition ismerely a "frequent, but

neia, and again when

the incomplete sacrifice of results in the inauguration

by Iphigeneia of a cultic practice, wherein a sword is drawn over the throat of a human victim in order to produce

Miqw?'ot

and

Second

as a way of signifying moral purity of both intent and action, a theme later carried into one s hands

theGospel ofMatthew in Pil?tes purported (but

Jewish) declaration (Matt uncharacteristically 27:24; cf. Deut 21:1-9). The Letter ofAristeas and on this theme.47 Philo also provide variations

serves as a texts, hand-washing substitution for ritual symbolic bathing, and, in one instance, where it is viewed as a heterodox In later rabbinic

practice, as the symbolic building of an unaccept able altar.48 Symbolic explanations

of various facets of Juda

ism abound in Jewish writingsof theHellenistic

Period.

The biblical

for instance, is Tabernacle, as presented symbolic of the universe both by Philo, Judaism, and Josephus, representing diaspora in the Land of Israel.49 Real representing Judaism was in other words, space, consciously conceived in symbolic terms.

The difficulty with using eitherPhilo or Jose

phus as exemplars

for their time period is that in varying degrees they were writing apologies for external consumption. Judaism was presented to a in form non-Jews they could appreciate. Yet the was an object known as "the Sea" fact that there in Solomons temple gives us some indication that cosmic signification was hardly alien to ancient Israelite ritual.50Certainly the eating of unleavened bread on Passover was understood symbolically Schwartz has convinc (Exod 13:6-9). Moreover, ingly argued that at least some of Philos allegorical stemmed

from Judaean,

explanations probably priestly sources (Schwartz 1984). We are, in fact, not entirely lacking in Second Temple Period homiletical or instructional texts ca

pable of informing us of themotivational rationales for ancient practitioners of the Jewish immersion ritual. A number of the following texts have been rehearsed

of baptism, repeatedly in discussions a correct appreciation of their import for an aspect of common Jewish determining piety.

without

Some of these sources are so

routinely reported in studies, it is surprising that thismost obvious way of interpreting them is ignored. On the other hand, several recent works,

including the author s, have stressed the connection in ancient Judaism between ablutions and atonement, and the need to under

Temple

Sectarianism

187

standJohnsbaptism in thatlight,therebyreviving

an

early argument by Abrahams.51 Abrahams had launched an early protest against any distinction between moral and physical baptism, developing the theme of water as a symbol for repentance in Judaism. He observed that sin and impurity were in the Bible and thereafter,52 and often associated

offered Ps 51:4 as an example "Wash me thoroughly of my iniquity, and purify me of my sin...," on which Gen. Rab. 39:11 comments "Whoever com mits a transgression is as though he was defiled by contact with a dead body." The connection

ment

between

in the benedictions

immersion and atone

and instructions of the

purity rite in 4Q512 was

astutely pointed out by Better known and (1992: 200-201). Baumgarten is the statement in lQS 2:26 frequently repeated 3:12 indicating that without prior repentance and adherence to theways and teaching of the sectar ian community the rites were ineffective.53 This latter passage

is comparable to Acts 22:16, where water washes sins baptismal away, ifone calls on name. nor In neither Acts Jesus lQS is the exercise

automatically efficacious without the appropriate, attendant dogmatic affirmations.54 The association of ritual washing with repen a or was moral cleansing, not just to be found tance, in sectarian or proto-sectarian texts, however. It was pervasive in ancient Judaism. these Compare comments of Philo about entry to the Temple with lQS 2:26-3:12: For ifwe

cultivate

thanks and honour

the spirit of rendering toHim, we shall be pure and wash away the filthi

from wrongdoing ness which defiles our lives in thought and word and deed. For it is absurd that a man to enter the temples save after and his bathing cleansing body, and yet should attempt to pray and sacri fice with a heart still soiled and spotted.... He who is resolved not only to commit no should be forbidden

further sin, but also towash

away the past,

may approachwith gladness lethim who lacks this resolve keep far away, since hardly

shallhe bepurified [emphasisadded].55

188 Carol

For Philo, one Temple without with

correction

the Flood was

Selkin

cannot

the properly approach concert in of purification body

of soul. But already in Enoch, interpreted as purification from

sinfulness.56 In the Life ofAdam and Eve 11 (Apoca lypse ofMoses), Adams exaggerated expressions of penitence include standing up to his neck in a

river, a theme later repeated in the rabbinic Pirkei de R. Eliezer 20,57 despite scholarly arguments for rabbinic segregation of ritual and moral purity 1992: 200, 209; Klawans 1997). A (Baumgarten a to atonement ablution for prayer complete prior

figures inMt. Athos 2:3 / 4Q213, the Prayer of Levi: "Then I laundered my garments and having

purified them with pure water, I also washed my whole self in living water, and Imade all my paths as an analogue upright."58 Ben Sira used purity

after touching a for repentance: "If one washes it and what has been gained touches corpse, again, one fasts for his sins, and goes by washing? So if

to same things, who will listen again and does the his prayer?" (Ben Sira 34: 30-31). This latter idea recurs in an indisputable context of fasting and

repentance in Tosefta Taanit, where a critter in the hand is worth two sins in the bush: "If a person holds an impure creature in his hand, even ifhe immerses in thewater of the Siloam, yea in all the waters of Creation, he will never be purified. [But] ifhe casts the creature from his hand, immersion in 40 se a suffices" (T. Taanit 1:8;Urbach 1987: 464). Returning to Philo, purification of body and soul appear as necessary correlates, while time could not e ) some sins (De Specialibus "wash away" (a

Exod Legibus 1.257-61; 3.89). Utilizing the puzzling was laver that the Tabernacle Philo 38:8, explains as a serve so that itcould made ofwomen's mirrors, mirror to the soul (De Vita Mosis 2.139). His expla nation embraces the "reflective" introspectiveness of the ritual as an invitation to self-scrutiny.

The fourthbook of theSibyllineOracles isone

of themain "baptism

sources for a putatively proto-Christian of repentance,"59 but there is nothing

extraordinary in the lustration described there.60 The people are warned to wash their entire bod ies in rivers and pray by asking forgiveness and as a prelude offering words of praise. Repentance to prayerful praise is not unique to the Sibyl and

Wise

is found again in the liturgical document 4Q seems it Dib?r? Ha-me?r?t where 150 b.c.e.), (ca. that a day for the confession of sins preceded the as a day of praise.61 The lustration of the oracle is connected as much with prayer as with repentance, and both of these require the spiritual Sabbath

purityofwhich washing is a symbol (Abrahams 1917: 39-40). Scholarly

issue of the baptismal as to whether such questions

discussion raises

frequently or denoted specific references were metaphoric actual practice, and the significance of the tim ? whether before, during, ing of the immersion or after the actual atonement, and to what extent different, organized "movements" were attached to small variations in the textual evidence. The very "variation," however, suggests the existence of a common theme. Itmay be that some of these variations have had more significance for evidence

word

starved researchers than they did for practitioners (L?vi-Strauss 1995: 41-42). Some years ago, word circulated in the Jewish

a religious community in Jerusalem that particular Orthodox woman had, for an extended period of time, been immersing herself early everymorning, dunk regardless of the season, in the Siloam Pools, on each occasion ing a prodigious number of times to accord with themystical significance she attached to the event. No halakhah

told her to do this. Itwas

a

personal act of special, solitary devotion. The point is that purity, even more than other involves coming closer to divine prescriptions,

God, and thus intrinsically also involves a peniten ? the desire to be worthy of being in tial element the divine presence. Any statements of atonement associated

with

or other purity rites the possibility of genuine wrong

immersion

surely encompass basic feelings of doing, but they also represent the an awareness accrue of being to that unworthiness human

and finite.62

the stated Finally, it should be stressed that or a does not installation of ritual purpose activity or From functions. exhaust all possible meanings a structuralist standpoint, profound meaning can exist whether or not it is conscious. Or, to state in terms of ritual theory, "to analyze formulate the unexpressed as practice...is...to the matter

and

Miqw?'?t

sumptions

that constitute

Second

the actor's

strategic and trajec

of the place, purpose, understanding As explained by Bell, the actor s of the act."63 tory as includes unspoken strategic understanding

sumptions about the power relationships existing one should in a particular society. Consequently, not expect ritual participants to be aware of all

support, and are in turn supported by, their social world. The task for scholars of ancient Judaism is to recover those assumptions, whether expressed or unexpressed, the ways

in which

their actions

that support legal teaching and ritual practice.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF LEGAL POSITIONS TO SECTARIAN WORLD VIEWS The

individual

Sectarianism

189

bemistakenly joinedwith profanedays (Jub6:37; 11:4-8; 4QCalendrical); Jerusalem was the not to confused with be the area "outside "camp," the camp;"66 priests had to be especially wary in lQpHab

avoiding improper marital unions.67 ? ? Both concepts ap separation and mingling pear together in a single context inMMT, where the sect describes the reasons for its separation from

the practices of others: "We have separated our selves (latzns)from the majority of the peofple...] from intermingling (mynna) in these matters and "68 from participating with them in these [matters] The "matters" involved were, of course, purity matters ? MMT turns on the pivot of improper mixtures. Not

strands of legal teaching about of water conform to the par

streams and bodies

views

of the groups involved. M. Toharot 8:9 states that the niss?q a irx, is not a connective. It the of joining. language employs ticular world

Temple

states that By contrast, 4QMMT emphatically crx not nfrina ("do m?s?q?t separate") between the impure and the pure. It uses the language of separation. The extreme import of this concept of separation,64 especially in priestly circles and most

surprisingly, the idea of separation is also featured in the purification rite from Cave 4, where God isblessed for separating or distinguish ing between the impure and the pure.69 It is notable that the benediction this particular emphasizes reason for immersing. By comparison, the rabbinic

blessing for immersion (and most other activities) emphasizes that the reason for doing it is thatGod ? said so70 a nominalist justification. The concern with maintaining categories was

a priestly one, and not confined to the Qumran group alone. According to the Temple Scroll (11QT 45:1-7), the purity of priests arriving for their

1985: 15-19), (cf.Newton particularly at Qumran is to be underlined. One need hardly belabor the

course of service in the Temple was to be ensured a way as to avoid the other in their such entering by

Segregationist language was highly pronounced at Qumran, where it extended into diverse areas

Temple Mount

existence atQumran of binary opposites of separa priests who had completed their tenure. Although or tion (V"n ;t2TiD ;Y'm) and mixing joining (n""is? the Temple Scroll is presumed to preserve a Utopian vision of Temple life, tunnels discovered under the ;V'rr ;8'" ).

join (irr1?)with the sect, one had to separate (^inn1?) from the community ofwayward outsiders (IQS 5:1-2). With full integration into

of life. To

the group came full integration of property (rraVi). Misbehavior resulted in distancing from the com

have been associated

by excavators

with passageways (m?s?bot) described in theMish

nah as providing a route by which an impure priest could retire to a miqweh without contaminating thor 1982: 147). Certain anyone else (Ben-Dov

in Jerusalem were known to be traveled by pilgrims and priests on their way to or from its and munity lifestyle. Separation 0rnl?,''T:r"0from their ablutions.71 Pixner and others have observed the pure food of the community was a penalty that this principle of separation extended into the sectaries (IQS 6:25). The property for wayward very structure of some miqwa?U which were built of the sectaries was not to mix (rrwnOwith the with partitions to prevent the impure who entered possessions

of those who

had not been

refined

through separation (^mn^from those wicked not having adopted the sectarian viewpoint, or who had rebelled against it.65Holy days were not to

oughfares

from contacting the pure who exited.72 Unlike those in Jerusalem, some pools at Qum ran had more than a single divider, creating three divisions. Wood that the third division posited

190 Carol

Selkin

served as a channel through which thewater flowed into the pool (Wood 1984:46-53,58; de Vaux 1973: Driver North 8-9; 1965:41; 1962:110-16). It should be remembered, however, thatwater seldom would actually have flowed from the aqueduct that fed the pools. A central channel could have acted as a

those entering and exiting, the impure and the pure. We are reminded of the complaint voiced in Ezek 43:7-8: further buffer between

The House

of Israel and their kings must

not again defileMy holy name by their

the corpses of their kings.... apostasy...by to When they placed their threshold next next to threshold and their doorposts My (NJPS)

the priestly structure at Qum ran that an intermediate status may have been interposed to insulate the pure from the impure.

So hierarchical was

Milgrom describes the existence of staged purifi cation rites with an interim hoi ("secular") status, out standing guard between the fully pure and the right impure.73 The gradations of holiness in litera

ture about the Temple and Temple City also attest to the need for insulating themost pure from the most common (Maier 1989:24,31). A water channel interposed the entire length between the pure and the impure would have been functional, but italso conformed to the general Qumran outlook.

to sect and the Sadducees The Qumran sought an and distinction between absolute priestly uphold secular realms. To do this, according to Knohl, it was necessary to prevent the common people from

sacra. The Pharisees, for their part, mixing with the was sacred, and they en emphasized that all Israel to undermine

the barriers that prevented Israelite from coming in contact with sacra.74 It is not that the Pharisees did away with

deavored

the common

they simply relocated them. toMaier, the Temple of the Temple According than the Herodian Scroll was more exclusive

boundaries,

areas that Temple. The Temple Scroll expanded the were restricted to particular groups of people. In areas contrast, the Herodian Temple limited the non areas with of high sancta, while expanding cultic purposes.

This allowed

greater access

non-priests, women, and (perhaps) gentiles.75 If Knohl and Maier are correct, we see priestly circles consistently protecting theirprerogatives by empha sizing absolute distinctions between boundaries.76 This attitude was in tension with a more inclusive

cat tendency, which sought not to eliminate the non so as to admit to but them redraw egories,77 more intimate contact with the core into priests of faith and the workings of power.78 Herod had

every reason to try to circumvent priestly authority, while currying favor with the populace. Although Pharisaic effortsmight, as Knohl intimates, have

had genuinely populist overtones,79 they too would have subtly served to undermine the priests in their

Me My doorpostswith onlya wall between and them...

Wise

for

own domain. My conclusions, however, do not rely upon a populist understanding of the Pharisees, since any concern for granting the common Isra elite greater access to the sacred might have been turned inward toward their own leadership ambi tions as a non-priestly, non-hereditary group.

The single-pool variety miqwa?t of theQumran sect, likemany of those found in Jerusalem, relied upon an entryway partition to prevent the impure of this cu making contact with the pure. In light

it seems that the double pool a the conjunction of pure pool system, involving a thin stream of next to an impure one, with only

mulative

evidence,

to unite or divide them, represented an un comfortable proximity for this group of separatists. The categories were too indistinct.Merging the two an unacceptable blending of the pools represented the with impure pure.80

water

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The categories of vessels and storage pools were so conceptually close, that clearly delimiting their boundaries became a focus of concern in the Sec ond Temple Period and thereafter. I have argued that,while tannaitic literature validates the use of the two-pool system by virtue of the ?sb?ren, their argumentation probably represents the end point

of a longer debate. Earlier Zadokite groups may have disputed the practice, owing to the connect ing stream between the pools. Certainly they did not accept the purity of water simply on the basis of quantity and attachment to the ground. Biblical

and

Miqwa?t

verses exist that could have promoted

a

Second

preference

forpurifyinga standingpool bymeans offlowing

Temple

Sectarianism

191

is a key to understanding

the broader problem. The respective interpretations of the twomain halakhic reflect their dif groups, Pharisaic and Zadokite, ferentworld views. Could a pure pool be merged

(Ezekiel 47; Zech 13:1, i4:8),81 such as from an aqueduct, and indeed M. Yadayim indicates that the Zadokites accepted use of an aqueduct, even if it with

water

flowed through a cemetery, but rejected the niss?q. in this mishnah condemned the The Pharisees for a perceived

inconsistency in accepting one form of ground stream, but not the other. The language of 4QMMT, in stating thatm?s?q?t do not separate between the pure and the impure,

Zadokites

an impure groups pool beside it? Zadokite enforced priestly hierarchical distinctions and said "no." Groups with Pharisaic leanings introduced a wider spectrum of the populace into the compass of elevated holiness,

they represented their through themerging of pure and

agenda symbolically and impure pools of water.

NOTES This article isbased upon the author s 1993Duke Uni versity doctoral dissertation "Exegesis and Identity: The Hermeneutics ofmiqwa?t in theGreco-Roman

Period," completed under the guidance of EricMey ers,whose rigorous training and supportivementor ingmade it possible. Thanks are also due to Prof. Martin Jaffee, whose clarity of thought improved mine.

2 Neusner, in his early work on ritual purity, had dated the existence of the double immersion pool principally to theUshan period, considerably later than the archaeological evidence would now indicate. The distinction made by Neusner was that in the Yavnean level of tannaitic textsan impurepool could be purified with thewater of a pure pool next to it or replacement of the impure only through removal water, while theUshan contribution was tomingle the two bodies ofwater, allowing the pure to domi nate the impure. Iwill argue that suchmingling was at issue well before theUshan period. See Neusner 1976-77:240-41,

pt. 22; but

cf. 173~74>

and

88-91,127,

pt. 14.My own understanding of single vs. double pools is indebted to thediscussion of Sanders (1990: 214-27).

3 The positive formof thisphrase appears in 11QTemple 49:15 mno

nan1?w

new, where

itmeans

that some

ves

sels by nature can be purified,whereas others cannot. The reason why m?s?q?t cannot be purified ismade clear in theway the verb yusaq isused in 11QT 49:7, where it replaces the biblical kit. The phrase in Lev * vbv kit im. This is 11:34is all the food,' replaced in

v^v psr nwx.The biblical rule states that 11QTwith water having been poured on food makes the food impure when it comes into contact with impurity.

Water under such circumstances has a heightened receptivityto impurityand is consequently described inMMT as inherently impure. Such unrestrained water in liQT appears as themeans bywhich corpse impurity spreads throughout a house. A stream of water connected to an ongoing source of impurity

would be analogous to the unrepentant person, who cannot be purified because he clings to the source of his impurity (i.e., sin). lQS 3:4-5, see also 4Q512, frgs.

29-32 (Garc?a-Mart?nez 1994:441). Ifm?s?q?t cannot receive purity, they certainly cannot transmit it. 4 In Lev 11:36,a distinction ismade between a spring of flowingwater (vwa) and other types of catchment areas (d'? mpa mm) where water has collected. The adversative "but" ("but a spring") used in the verse establishes amore significantcontrastbetween spring or catchment water, on the one hand, which does not become impure under the conditions specified in theverse, and water invessels, on the other hand, mentioned in the preceding verses and which does

become impure under otherwise similar circum stances. It is thisdistinction between water invessels and other types ofwater that forms thebasis for later rabbinic extrapolation (Sifra,P?rasat Semini P?rasak 6, on Lev

11:32).

5 For theuse ofm?s?q?t to indicate piping conducting fluid, see Zech 4:2. 6 Ci B.Gittini?dL. ,"down-turned". 7 Probably from theGreek a a 8 This might also have been the reason for so much tannaitic emphasis upon the size of the connecting conduit (M.Miqwaot 6:7). Ithad to be of a specified, minimal diameter, perhaps large enough to create the fiction of a single pool.

192 Carol

Selkin

9 That is, the creation of new terms that are not bibli cally dependent and which reflect some distancing from any supposed biblical basis for the traditions. 10 Underlined lettersindicate portions found in 4Q266 and 4Q270. The text is derived from Baumgarten 1996 and Qimron 1992; cf. Schechter 1970 and Ginz berg 1976: 51-54. 11 CD: ,1?d nan intr Emendation prior to publication of theQumran version of the texthad gone in two directions: (1) Ginzberg; Qimron: am or an, i.e., do not immerse a vessel in them; or (2) Schechter: ,i.e., do not

immerse

in the water

of a vessel.

Ortho

graphically itwas not hard to justify themedieval copyistmistaking ,l7nn^an in an ancient hand; how ever,Ginzberg (1976: 52-53) turns out to have been correct inpointing out that isused inpreference to fm, indicating thatvessels rather thanpeople were

the subject. This can now also be compared with is indeed used of vessels 11QT 49:14-17, where and other items,while rm is used of people. 12 The word signifies not just filth but ritual unsuit ability, see Zech 3:3;Meyers and Meyers 1987. 13Widely understood as "to cover,"due more to the as

sumption that this iswhat itshouldmean, than from any satisfactory etymology. Rejecting Schechter s (1970: xlviii) emendation of Vnea ("immerse"), Ginzberg (1976: 52-53, cf. 312) suggested reading ysnn,with the Talmudic sense of "ritual cleansing," which for the sect involved an "actualwashing clean" (Thiswould accord with my own interest in the im purity of stains). Rabin (1958: 51n. 11.6) offered the (hor?lu) inNah 2:4 as targumic rendering of "frsnn "wrapped (in colored garments)". Lieberman (1942: 135) proposed an association with ^rna, which he argued was a unit ofmeasure ("no man shall wash [inwater] that is less than a 'Mar eil'...") ultimately

equal to the rabbinic fortysea. Liebermaris proposal is compelling (Sokoloffand Qimron appear to accept it), but, even ifhe was correct in associating ^sna with a large basket, this stilldoes not mean that the

unit ofmeasurement was the equivalent of fortyse a, which I find implausible. The passage of Sifra cited by Lieberman (Semini 6 (7), ed.Weiss 53a) to show that largebaskets hold fortys?'? onlymeans that the baskets under consideration had tohold at least that amount. ^ma," 14 Emend

See

further

and Qimron wnn

Sokoloff

1990:331-32,

s.v.