Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel and Judah 3161623835, 9783161623837

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Table of Contents
Omer Sergi and Ido Koch — Introduction
Efrat Bocher — Organisation and Reorganisation of Extravagant Complexes in the Post-Destruction Southern Outskirts of Jerusalem
Karen Covello-Paran — Village People: The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age
Liora Freud — Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE
Sabine Kleiman — Interpreting Ancient Artefacts: The Case of the So-Called “Toilet Seats” from Iron Age Judah
Yitzhak Lee-Sak — Reassessment of the Benjaminite Settlements in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE: Archaeological and Textual Snapshots
Nadav Naʾaman — Saul’s Story-Cycle: A North Israelite or Judahite Composition?
Omer Sergi and Ido Koch — The Transformative Capacities of Destructions in the Lowlands of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah
Nitsan Shalom — Sensible Havoc? The Neo-Babylonian Campaigns to the Southern Levant and Ideological Aspects of Destruction
Abra Spiciarich — Animal Economy and Sacrifice in First Temple Jerusalem: An Inter-Site Analysis of Iron Age II Faunal Assemblages
Alexandra Wrathall — “Before the Earthquake” (Amos 1:1) : Evaluating New Archaeological Evidence for the “Amos Earthquake” in Judah
List of Contributors
Index of References
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Places

Citation preview

Archaeology and Bible Edited by

Israel Finkelstein (Tel Aviv) ∙ Deirdre Fulton (Waco, TX) Oded Lipschits (Tel Aviv) ∙ Christophe Nihan (Lausanne) Thomas Römer (Lausanne) ∙ Konrad Schmid (Zürich)

7

Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel and Judah Edited by

Ido Koch and Omer Sergi

Mohr Siebeck

Ido Koch is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University. orcid.org/0000-0002-4329-7655 Omer Sergi is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University. orcid.org/0000-0002-1613-691X

ISBN 978-3-16-162383-7 / eISBN 978-3-16-162429-2 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-162429-2 ISSN 2698-4520 / eISSN 2698-4539 (Archaeology and Bible) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at https://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Minion typeface, printed on nonaging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents Omer Sergi and Ido Koch Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Efrat Bocher Organisation and Reorganisation of Extravagant Complexes in the Post-Destruction Southern Outskirts of Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Karen Covello-Paran Village People: The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age . . . . 25 Liora Freud Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Sabine Kleiman Interpreting Ancient Artefacts: The Case of the So-Called “Toilet Seats” from Iron Age Judah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Yitzhak Lee-Sak Reassessment of the Benjaminite Settlements in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE: Archaeological and Textual Snapshots . . . . . . . . 95 Nadav Naʾaman Saul’s Story-Cycle: A North Israelite or Judahite Composition? . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Omer Sergi and Ido Koch The Transformative Capacities of Destructions in the Lowlands of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Nitsan Shalom Sensible Havoc? The Neo-Babylonian Campaigns to the Southern Levant and Ideological Aspects of Destruction . . . . . . . . . . . 167

VI

Table of Contents

Abra Spiciarich Animal Economy and Sacrifice in First Temple Jerusalem: An Inter-Site Analysis of Iron Age II Faunal Assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Alexandra Wrathall “Before the Earthquake” (Amos 1:1): Evaluating New Archaeological Evidence for the “Amos Earthquake” in Judah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Index of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Index of Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Introduction Omer Sergi and Ido Koch The archaeological and historical study of the Southern Levant during the first millennium BCE – the Iron Age kingdoms and their societies, as well as their successors in the Persian and Hellenistic periods – has dramatically developed in recent decades. This is the result of two common and overlapping trends: one is the vast archaeological exploration of the Southern Levant and the other is the shift that has taken place in the studies of biblical literature. The archaeological exploration of the Southern Levant is as vibrant as ever and is constantly evolving. A brief look at the number of monographs, reports and articles published in recent years, the multitude of conferences and workshops held (mostly in Israeli institutes) and the proliferation of journals dedicated to the archaeology of the Southern Levant – would tell the story of the most explored region across the globe. Two significant components form the base of the current flourishing. One is the vast body of material data that has emerged as the result of the intensive development of infrastructure in the State of Israel, which triggers major salvage excavation projects. Fine examples of the former come from Jerusalem, which is studied year-round by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) in collaboration with university-based projects in numerous salvage excavations. The other component is the changing research focus of university-based projects in specific regions. A prime example of this is the intense exploration of the Shephelah (an area spanning 100 square kilometres) by no less than ten projects focusing on the Bronze and Iron Ages between 2010 and 2020.1 These and other projects across the Southern Levant provide accumulative data, develop innovative methods and trigger discussions on the interpretation of the material remains and their interaction with written sources that stimulate the ongoing archaeological and historical study of Judah, the Central Highlands and beyond. 1 These include Tel Gezer (Israel Nature and Parks Authority and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; IAA and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) Tel Beth-Shemesh (Tel Aviv University), Tell eṣ-Ṣafi (Bar-Ilan University), Kh. Qeiyafa (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Tel Azekah (Tel Aviv University), Tel Burna (Ariel University), Tel Zayit (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary), Tel Lachish (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Southern Adventist University; The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Austrian Academy of Science), Kh. ar-Rai (HUJI and the Southern Adventist University), Tel Eton (Bar-Ilan University) and Tel Ḥalif (Emory University).

2

Omer Sergi and Ido Koch

At the same time, recent decades have witnessed a dramatic shift in the treatment of textual sources – first and foremost, the Hebrew Bible. Longstanding paradigms regarding the formation of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets have been dismissed in the face of new and bold models, provoking new reconstructions of biblical history. In a nutshell, the Documentary Hypothesis, which governed the study of the Pentateuch from the late nineteenth century, has been almost completely abandoned over the past five decades. Gone are the old assumptions about the relatively consistent narrative works encompassing the entire mythic history in Genesis–Deuteronomy, many of which were dated to the monarchic period, in some cases even to the reign of Solomon. Instead, many scholars now agree that the narrative blocks of the Pentateuch (i. e., the Patriarchs’ stories and the Exodus) were composed at different times in different places and were not compiled and redacted into the relatively coherent story in Genesis–Deuteronomy before the Persian period. Such developments in biblical studies have provoked new historical reconstructions regarding the Iron Age and the Persian period in the Southern Levant. The ten contributions in this volume demonstrate the range of questions, methods and theoretical frameworks employed in the current study of Judah and neighbouring regions during the first millennium BCE and beyond. They were all written by Oded Lipschits’ close circle of colleagues – his former teacher and ten of his students, who have dedicated their contributions to honour his scholarship. Oded Lipschits’ innovative research on Judah and the Southern Levant in the Iron Age and the Persian and Hellenistic periods reflects the vibrant and multifaceted research of this region in the past decades. From archaeology to biblical studies, from his ground-breaking study of 600 years of administration in Judah to his extensive excavation projects in Ramat Raḥel, Tel Azekah and Tel Moza – all have brought to light new and intriguing material remains, provoking new reconstructions and new historical models. The research carried out and initiated by Oded has undoubtedly impacted scholarship in a profound manner and has shaped new ways through which we see the history of the Southern Levant, primarily Judah, during and after the monarchic period. In his capacity as the Director of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, Oded dedicated over twelve years to making the institute one of the leading research establishments worldwide. He founded a successful international program that brings young scholars from around the world to Tel Aviv; he built research laboratories and integrated the natural sciences within the research profile of the institute; and he established fruitful collaborations with scholars and institutions throughout the world. By doing do, Oded has turned Tel Aviv University’s Institute of Archaeology into a vibrant, interdisciplinary establishment  – and all this without neglecting his various research and teaching activities.

Introduction

3

Beyond his vast array of research endeavours and managerial skills, Oded was always, first and foremost, the “father” of many students. With over one hundred students who conducted research for their MA thesis and almost seventy PhD students under his supervision, Oded made an even greater impact not only on scholarly discourse but on its academic landscape too. Oded’s many students are engaged in various research fields ranging from archaeological sciences to biblical exegesis, in some cases developing new methodologies and tools to be used regularly thereafter. Even more important, however, is that despite the large number of students whom he supervises, despite the fact that he directs three major archaeological projects and despite his busy life as the Director of the Institute, he never compromises on the personal father-like care that he shows for his students. Always attentive, always accessible and always smiling, Oded takes care not only of the academic levels of his students but also of their well-being and not only during their studies but much after – assisting them in the pursuit of their careers. If there is something that we all – as his former students – have learned from Oded, it is that our own students must come first and that the measure of a scholar is judged not only by the quality and quantity of his research products but also – and perhaps especially – by his ability to nurture and raise an ever-growing generation of young scholars. It is, therefore, our great pleasure to dedicate this book to our beloved and appreciated teacher, colleague and friend, Professor Oded Lipschits, upon the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. The contributions among the pages of this volume present new views on the history and archaeology of the Southern Levant on the basis of diverse methodologies and research tools  – thus reflecting Oded’s own research interests. It is our fervent hope that Oded will enjoy another 60 years of productive and ground-breaking research and will encourage even more students and young scholars to take their first steps in the academic world. One of the most challenging conundrums in the study of the period is the projection of biblical texts onto material remains (and vice versa) and the creation of scholarly paradigms. Nadav Naʾaman, in a contribution titled “Saul’s StoryCycle: A North Israelite or Judahite Composition?”, presents a critical analysis of one of these scholarly constructs that gained much popularity in recent years: the assumption that Saul’s story-cycle was composed in the Northern Kingdom. In contrast to the over-reliance by scholars on the assumed northern geography of the narrative, Naʾaman highlights Saul’s ambiguous presentation in stories conventionally attributed to the assumed northern scribal circles. He concludes that the stories were written in Jerusalem, during the high days of the Judahite monarchy in the late Iron Age, by scribes who could not reject the importance of Saul as the first king and therefore portrayed him in a hostile tone. New perspectives on destructions and their impact on the local society are presented in three contributions. In “The Transformative Capacities of

4

Omer Sergi and Ido Koch

Destructions in the Lowlands of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah”, Omer Sergi and Ido Koch explore the reactions of the courts at Samaria and Jerusalem to the waves of destruction that wreaked havoc upon the adjacent lowlands: the Jezreel Valley to the north of Samaria and the Shephelah to the west of Jerusalem. They reconstruct how the annihilations of local social structures in the lowlands were followed by a more centralised structure of both kingdoms, whose courts shifted economic activities, population movement and cultic patterns in a way that increased their direct control of resources. Alexandra Wrathall further discusses reactions to destructions and societal resilience in “‘Before the Earthquake’ (Amos 1:1): Evaluating New Archaeological Evidence for the ‘Amos Earthquake’ in Judah”. Wrathall reassesses the much-debated earthquake of the mid-eighth century BCE on the basis of data sets from Jerusalem and the Shephelah, old and new alike. She revisits archaeological data, scrutinises the history of scholarship and, relying on evidence of seismic activity, discusses the complexity of natural disasters in the archaeological record and modes of human reactions to such events. Wrathall argues that the people in the Kingdom of Judah had a greater ability to restore the earthquake damage than their neighbours to the north, and she offers a destruction/restoration framework for the archaeological study of earthquakes. “Sensible Havoc? The Neo-Babylonian Campaigns to the Southern Levant and Ideological Aspects of Destruction” by Nitsan Shalom presents another aspect of the study of destruction: the visual and textual representations of conquests and destructions in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources, compared to the material evidence for destructions created by these empires. Shalom discusses the differences between the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian portrayals of the events, their ideological motivations and the evidence on the ground for these events. She concludes that a combination of pragmatic and strategic considerations alongside ideological frameworks and religious perceptions all shaped the acts of the armed forces. Four contributions were infused by the immense exploration of Jerusalem and its surroundings. The days of Jerusalem’s greatness are at the heart of Abra Spiciarich’s “Animal Economy and Sacrifice in First Temple Jerusalem: An InterSite Analysis of Iron Age II Faunal Assemblages”. Spiciarich analyses a faunal assemblage from a small dwelling on the eastern slope of the South-eastern Hill of Jerusalem, and compares it to other assemblages from domestic and public contexts across the city. By doing so, she discusses the role played by inhabitants of the various parts of Jerusalem and identifies economic variation between them. Recently published data from Jerusalem and the Shephelah features in the contribution by Sabine Kleiman, “Interpreting Ancient Artefacts: The Case of the So-Called ‘Toilet Seats’ from Iron Age Judah”. Kleiman scrutinises these cube-shaped objects with round openings and their common scholarly interpretation as ancient latrines. She argues that the archaeological evidence speaks

Introduction

5

against the use of such installations as lavatories and proposes that they served cultic purposes. Further on Jerusalem and its exploration is the contribution by Efrat Bocher, “Organisation and Reorganisation of Extravagant Complexes in the Post-Destruction Southern Outskirts of Jerusalem”. Bocher synthesises data from the late Iron Age and Persian period in the hills south of the ancient city. She deals with the three sites of Ramat Raḥel, Mordot Arnona and Armon ha-Natziv, which are considered royal administrative centres or estates. Bocher discusses the relations between the three sites and Jerusalem during the late Iron Age and the changes that occurred following the destruction of the capital in the early sixth century BCE. In “Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE,” Liora Freud presents a comprehensive pottery typology of the late Iron Age and post-destruction Jerusalem and its environs. Freud has based her studies on data from unpublished excavations in Jerusalem and neighbouring sites, most notably Ramat Raḥel, allowing her to provide a fine-tuned typology of the late Iron Age, the Babylonian period and the Persian period. In doing so, Freud contributes to a scholarly understanding of the continuity in the region, specifically in the rural hinterland, that carried on local knowledge and traditions. The importance of the study of rural societies is further highlighted by Karen Covello-Paran in her contribution “Village People – The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age”. Although dealing with the Jezreel Valley during the latter part of the third millennium BCE, Covello-Paran contributes to the growing scholarly interest in the archaeology of rural societies that will benefit the study of later periods as well. Covello-Paran studies these communities and reconstructs the social, economic and cultural networks connecting them, thus illustrating the household’s economic and social role as the basic social unit. The rural hinterland is prominent in Yitzhak Lee-Sak’s “Reassessment of Benjaminite Settlements in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE: Archaeological and Textual Snapshots”. Lee-Sak tries to legitimise the results of Lipschits’ studies about the settlement dynamics of the Benjamin district during the entire Persian period and to understand the primary political and economic status of Benjamin within Persian Yehud in light of the two lists of the Benjaminite towns in Ezra and Nehemiah. Lee-Sak’s critical review confirms that since the Babylonian destruction, the district of Benjamin played a pivotal role in Yehud’s administrative system. The data also helps explain the gradual movement and resettlement of Benjamin from the north to the south and even to the west, which continued into the Early Hellenistic period. According to Lee-Sak, the texts echo the gradual movement of the Benjaminite population from the north to the south in the early–mid-fifth century BCE, the revival of sites in along the coasts and the desert fringe and the continuous settlement in the area of Benjamin in the transition between the Persian and Hellenistic eras.

6

Omer Sergi and Ido Koch

Many people assisted us in the production of this book, and we wish to extend our heartfelt gratitude to them. Special thanks to Ms. Tsipi Kuper-Blau, Director of Publications of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, for her editorial work and language supervision. We would also like to thank Elena Müller and Markus Kirchner from Mohr Siebeck for supporting this project from its early stages as written manuscripts and all the way till the final publication of the book. We wish to likewise thank the editors of the Archaeology and Bible series, Israel Finkelstein, Deirdre Fulton, Christophe Nihan, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid for supporting this project. We hope that the contributions gathered here will reflect on the multi-faceted nature of the current archaeological research in the Southern Levant, and by doing so will make a humble tribute to Oded Lipschits, in honour of his multifaceted scholarship and his profound contribution to the study of the region.

Organisation and Reorganisation of Extravagant Complexes in the Post-Destruction Southern Outskirts of Jerusalem Efrat Bocher In the 1950s and 1960s, Yohanan Aharoni excavated the ancient site of Ramat Raḥel. The excavation yielded a monumental building, marking it as a significant and even royal site south of Jerusalem. Several decades later, a new generation of archaeologists decided it was time to revisit the ruins of Ramat Raḥel. With Oded Lipschits at the helm, in collaboration with Yuval Gadot of the Tel Aviv University and Manfred Oeming of the University of Heidelberg, a five-season expedition brought to light new finds and, with them, new insights into the archaeology and history of Judah from the end of the Iron Age and up to the Persian period. During this long span, Ramat Raḥel functioned as an administrative centre that had endured the destruction of the First Temple. It peaked in the Persian period, a three-century era in Judah that archaeological research has had great difficulty identifying and comprehending.1 The excavation of Ramat Raḥel has resulted in several important studies that have greatly influenced the understanding of the Kingdom of Judah in many areas. Among these are the study of the stamped storage-jar handles and the conclusion that this was a system that operated, in several phases, from the Iron Age to the Hasmonean period,2 the study of gardens and luxurious plants,3 the study of late Iron Age and the Babylonian period pottery4 and the study of volute capitals.5 Another study developed during the same period focused on the landscape around Jerusalem at the end of the Iron Age and the Persian period, mainly the region to the immediate south of the city. This area experienced a sharp increase in human activity at the end of the Iron Age, during which many small rural sites and agricultural installations mushroomed.6 1

Lipschits 2021: 1–5. See an extensive summary in Lipschits 2018; 2021. 3 Langgut et al. 2013; Gross, Gadot and Lipschits 2020: 459–468. 4 Freud 2018; 2021. 5 Lipschits 2011. 6 Gadot 2015; 2022. 2

8

Efrat Bocher

Figure 1. Site location map (Alina Yoffe-Pikovsky).

In this paper, I deal with this region as understood following the recent recovery of two additional sites alongside Ramat Raḥel: Mordot Arnona7 and Armon ha-Natziv8 – all three located on the same ridge. These sites have shed new light on the reorganisation of rural areas in the hinterlands of Jerusalem at the end of the Iron Age period and after the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah. At first, I review the archaeological finds at the sites and then discuss the regional change and follow this with a new understanding of the area south of Jerusalem (Figure 1).9

7

Sapir et al. 2022. Billig, Freud and Bocher 2022. 9 It was my honor and privilege to work alongside professor Lipschits during my years as a graduate student at Tel Aviv University. I dedicate this contribution to him on his 60th birthday. 8

Organisation and Reorganisation of Extravagant Complexes

9

1. Ramat Raḥel As stated above, Ramat Raḥel has been considered the most prominent site on the southern outskirts of Jerusalem. The site is located west of the namesake Kibbutz, at the top of a prominent hill halfway between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. At the foot of the hill, a road that connects Jerusalem with Hebron (and farther south with Beersheba) intersects a road that ascends from Beth Shemesh and the Repha’im Valley. By the Iron age IIC, the latter functioned as an agricultural breadbasket that was unparalleled in the region of Jerusalem and was, therefore, of great economic importance.10 Aharoni and his team unveiled a square fortress, surrounded by casemate rooms with inner and outer courtyards, which he at first attributed to Stratum V.11 South of the northern casemate wall, another structure revealed an ancient wall beneath its floor, indicating an older phase of the citadel, which caused him to split the Stratum in two – Va and Vb.12 North of the citadel, Aharoni confirmed the existence of additional structures.13 A small remnant of the walls of the Stratum Vb buildings was uncovered under the casemate wall of Stratum Va,14 as well as remains of another retaining wall south of the citadel. In the eastern area of the site, Aharoni discovered a gate with numerous burn marks on it, which he suggested were a result of the 586 BCE destruction.15 A courtyard was uncovered outside the gate which, like the central courtyard of the citadel, was paved with white chalk. Aharoni dated the citadel and the casemate wall to the end of the seventh century BCE and the beginning of the sixth century BCE.16 In addition to the architecture, Aharoni unearthed many important Iron Age finds, such as hundreds of stamps imprinted on jar handles, dozens of figurines, three complete and several fragments of volute capitals, and many architectural fragments of window balustrades and pyramid-shaped stones. The renewed expedition took upon itself to produce a full publication of the results of Aharoni’s excavations in Ramat Raḥel. The fragmentary and, in many ways, sketchy documentation of Aharoni’s findings was processed and transformed into a final report.17 Several issues were clarified and several conclusions reached by Aharoni were refuted. In the following report, the excavators divided the Iron Age and the Persian period into three phases (Table 1).18 10

Gadot 2015: 16–20; Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020a: 3–7. Aharoni 1962: 10–11. 12 Aharoni 1964: 28. 13 Ibid.: 27. 14 Ibid.: 53. 15 Aharoni 1962: 25–27. 16 Aharoni 1964: 120. 17 Lipschits, Gadot and Freud 2016. 18 Gadot et al. 2020: 28. 11

10

Efrat Bocher

Table 1. Ramat Raḥel building phases. Building Phase

Aharoni’s Stratum Period

Date ( BCE)

Building Phase I: Royal administrative centre under imperial hegemony

Vb

Iron II

End of the eighth or beginning of the seventh century

Building Phase II: Royal administrative centre under imperial hegemony, casemated by garden

Va

Iron II–Persian The second half of the seventh century

Building Phase III: Extended construction

IVb

Persian

End of the sixth or beginning of the fifth century until the end of the fourth century

As seen in the table, the excavators identified a fortress surrounded by a garden, which developed under the hegemony of the ruling empires and was used for administrative purposes (Figure 2). They found that it originated in the Roman period and that there was no layer of destruction at the end of the Iron Age.19 The complex of buildings was deliberately built high-up, to stand out from the surrounding landscape. 1.1 Phase I The buildings constructed during this phase included a number of structures on the eastern slopes of the site, with the tower, discovered located at the summit.20 1.2 Phase II “Building Phase II provided the site with its current monumental outline and added a magnificence unknown at other locations in Judah. It was an expression of grand vision and broad architectural concept of planning required for this complex enclave, including its uniform contours, the relationship between elements, high quality of construction and broad scale of infrastructure”.21 To these structures, the excavators attributed an inner courtyard surrounded by buildings to the north, west and south. Another building with another courtyard, was built to the east. Towards the west of the courtyard stood the Phase I tower that was surrounded by a royal garden with water facilities, pools and canals. The renewed excavation referred to the buildings from this stage as a palace complex that served as the nerve centre of the imperial rule in Judea.22 19

Gadot, Tal and Taxel 2016: 184–188. Lipschits, Gedot and Oeming 2020b: 476–477. 21 Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020b: 478. 22 Ibid.: 478–481. 20

Organisation and Reorganisation of Extravagant Complexes

11

Building Phase 1 Building Phase 2 – The inner courtyard Building Phase 2 – The outer courtyard Building Phase 2 – The garden Building Phase 3

Figure 2. Ramat Raḥel building phases I–III (Alina Yoff e-Pikovsky).

Figure 3. 3D reconstruction of Ramat Raḥel Phase 3 (Roi Albag).

1.3 Phase III At this stage, the construction extended to the Persian period. The palace complex from Phase II continued to exist, but another large, monumental structure was added from the northeast, as well as an additional water pool. As a result, the structure of the royal garden changed (Figure 3).23 23

Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020b: 481–483.

12

Efrat Bocher

2. Mordot Arnona The site of Mordot Arnona is located on a hill about 750 m northeast of Ramat Raḥel and 3 km south of ancient Jerusalem. It was excavated by the Israel Antiquities Authority.24 In Area A of the excavation a flat rock step is located two-thirds of the way up the hill. The most prominent physical feature of the area is a massive stone heap, a large pile of stones heaped together to form a mound. The excavators identified four different Iron Age and Persian period phases at the site (Table 2; Figure 4):25 Table 2. Mordot Arnona building phases. Stratum Phase Construction description

Period

Date ( BCE)

6

5

24 25

D

Pottery in a water reservoir

Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB

The late ninth–early eighth centuries BCE

C

A monumental structure that has not been preserved

Iron Age IIB

The eighth century until the beginning of the seventh century BCE

B

Construction of the massive Iron Age IIB– The first half of the seventh century BCE stone heap in three technical Iron IIC stages: Construction of boundary walls and first filling of stones. Construction of a wall and additional filling of stones in the northern part of the massive stone heap. Construction of a public structure on the massive stone heap

A

Two longitudinal structures on the western fringe of the massive stone heap

Iron Age IIC

A compound excavated into the massive stone heap and on the eastern end of the public building, including several living surfaces

Persian period

2017–2021; Ben-Ari et al. 2021; Sapir et al. 2022: 30. Ben-Ari et al. 2021: 57; Sapir et al. 2022: 32.

The first half of the seventh century to end of the sixth century BCE

Organisation and Reorganisation of Extravagant Complexes

13

Phase 6d – 9th century BCE Phase 6c – Late 8th century BCE Phase 6b – Stone Heap Phase 6b – Early 7th century BCE Phase 6a – Mid-7th century BCE Wine Presses

Figure 4. Mordot Arnona building phases (Or Zakaim and Alina Yoff e-Pikovsky).

2.1 Stratum 6 Phase 6d: Rock-hewn pit, found under the public building of Phase 6b. The pottery sherd found within the pit dates to the Late Iron IIA–IIB (ninth and eighth centuries BCE). This is the earliest remains excavated at the site.26 Phase 6c: Fragmented remains of walls, probably the result of later damage, predate the foundation of the massive stone. The walls were built of monolithic stones that were re-used in later structures. The size and nature of the stones that were used for the building, the extent of the wall fragments and the large number of stamp impressions on the jar handles found – a group of 80 private and lmlk 26

Sapir et al. 2022: 35.

14

Efrat Bocher

imprints of the early types – suggest that the site was an important administrative structure dated to the Iron IIB, the late eighth century.27 Phase 6b: Extensive construction and alteration of the landscape characterise the next phase, Phase 6b, which included the assembly of the massive stone heap and a foundation built above it for a monumental structure. The area of the massive stone heap was estimated at ca. 0.4 hectares. Three long boundary walls, all similar in construction style, were exposed in this layer. The massive stone heap abutted one of the boundary walls while the others were built above it. The excavators identified the retaining walls around the massive stone heap and retaining walls inside the massive stone heap as well-planned constructions in which a great deal of resources had been invested. The excavators also unearthed a monumental structure from the same stage of construction, with the foundations dug into the massive stone heap. A wide foundation survived from the building, including double walls on the north and south sides; the eastern part was built of three walls. The entire foundation was sealed with a layer of white limestone. Pottery dating to the Iron age IIC was found in the fill between the walls of the foundation. Among the sherds unearthed was a large accumulation of lmlk stamp impressions, mainly of the later types and handles bearing concentric-circle incisions, which suggest a dating during the first half of the seventh century BCE for the entire fill.28 Phase 6a: For this phase, the excavators uncovered two longitudinal structures that were exposed at the western edge of the massive stone heap. One of them was built above the western boundary wall of Phase 6 and the eastern and southern walls were dug into the stone heap. In the fill of the foundation of one of the buildings were sherds from the later part of the Iron age IIC (late seventh and early sixth centuries BCE), figurines and stamp impressions. The fills of the other building also dated to this period. The foundations of the other building from this phase are dated by the pottery sherd to the earlier part of the Iron Age IIC (first half of the seventh century BCE).29 2.2 Stratum 5 This stratum dates to the Persian period and contains a compound built over the eastern end of the broad foundation, constructed over the massive stone heap from the Iron Age. In addition, a number of sherds of crushed chalk floor and tabuns are associated with this layer. Additional finds include three yhwd stamp impressions, rhyton and sherds of imported pottery.30

27

Ben-Ari et al. 2021: 59–60; Sapir et al. 2022: 36–37. Ben-Ari et al. 2021: 60–63; Sapir et al. 2022: 38–41. 29 Ben-Ari et al. 2021: 64; Sapir et al. 2022: 41–42. 30 Ben-Ari et al. 2021: 64–65; Sapir et al. 2022: 43–44. 28

Organisation and Reorganisation of Extravagant Complexes

15

3. Armon ha-Natziv A luxurious royal estate is located just beneath the spur of the Armon ha-Natziv ridge, between the Haas Promenade and the grove of pine trees surrounding the British Governor’s House (now the UN Headquarters in the Middle East). To the north, the site overlooks ancient biblical Jerusalem: The City of David and Temple Mount, located ca. 2 km away. At the same distance and in the opposite direction are the royal palace and fortress of Ramat Raḥel.31 Only a small portion of the site has been excavated; the unexcavated part extends southwards, beneath the streets that are beyond the boundaries of the excavation. Along the western side of the site, there are remains of what is most likely the outer wall of the estate, preserved to the height of one course (Figure 5). In the northern part of the site there is a large water cistern which was scaled. West of the cistern, two segments of what seem to be trenches were found oriented east to west with an 0.8 m path between them. The excavators believe that they served as a foundation trench for the northern wall of the ancient estate.32 However, no evidence was found in them of building stones or signs of stones that were inserted into the trench. Above the trenches, to the south, a segment of a rock quarry in the local chalk bedrock was revealed and above it are several rock-cut installations. A rock-hewn installation, mostly interpreted as a toilet seat, was discovered west of the area of the hewn installations. From the ground beneath this installation, there is evidence of pollen, indicating the existence of an ornamental garden at the site.33 Four major architectural elements have been discovered at Armon ha-Natziv: 1. The first is three complete medium sized volute capitals. They are outstandingly beautiful and surpass all other volute capitals found thus far in the region. Their workmanship is of the highest quality and are in a rare state of excellent preservation. They are identical in design and craftsmanship and almost identical in size. They are less than half the size of other capitals found to date (Figure 6). The capitals are identical on both of their long sides and on their short sides, indicating that they were free-standing above a square pillar. It is assumed that the larger capitals recovered from Judah and Israel served as either decorative doorposts or lintels set into or above the doorways of monumental structures, such as palaces. Almost all are ornamented on one side only – the side that was visible to those who entered through the gateway. The Armon ha-Natziv capitals and one of the capitals from Ramat Raḥel obviously had a different architectural function – free-standing capitals set on square pillars, supporting the roof of a porch, patio or courtyard.34 31

Billig, Freud and Bocher 2021: 77–78; 2022: 6. Billig, Freud and Bocher 2021: 79; 2022: 8. 33 Billig, Freud and Bocher 2021: 84; 2022: 12–11. 34 Billig, Freud and Bocher 2021: 88–90; 2022: 14–24. 32

16

Efrat Bocher

Figure 5. Plan of Armon ha-Naẓiv (Or Zakaim).

Organisation and Reorganisation of Extravagant Complexes

17

Figure 6. Armon ha-Naẓiv: Stone capital found during the excavations (Shai Halevi).

2. The second major find are window balustrades, balusters and miniature capitals. The balusters are of extremely fine and delicate workmanship, decorated with grooves and an outer ring of vertical leaves or petals manufactured on a lathe. The balusters from Ramat Raḥel are similar but have no evidence of lathe-work. They have the same general design and features, but they have a stockier appearance. Miniature Proto-Aeolic capitals were placed on the balusters (Figure 7).35 3. Third on the list of important finds are the window frames, which were composed of three receding strips. Two of the frames were from corners of the building where there were protrusions on the upper face of the stones, possibly for placing a horizontal stone or wooden lintel above the frame, which would have had depressions matching the protrusions. This design was necessary because the window space was a vulnerable point in the stability of the wall.36 4. Finally, there are several painted architectural items. Numerous fragments of ashlars painted red, brown, black and blue were found in the trenches. Many of the painted fragments had corners and may have been fragments of columns, mezuzot or painted lintels. This phenomenon of painted items is uncommon in this period.37 35

Billig, Freud and Bocher 2021: 91–94. Billig, Freud and Bocher 2021: 94; 2022: 23–25. 37 Billig, Freud and Bocher 2021: 94; 2022: 26. 36

18

Efrat Bocher

Figure 7. Balusters and miniature capitals (Shai Halevi).

The architectural finds at the site indicate a unique and rich architectural design, as well as outstanding and high-quality workmanship. This evidence supports the excavator’s claim that this was a royal estate. The site is dated by the ceramics to the Iron Age IIC (middle of the seventh century to early sixth century BCE). The earlier pottery found in a limited quantity typical of the end of the first half of the seventh century BCE. Since almost no earlier ceramics were found, it is clear that the building was erected sometime during this period and probably did not endure for more than a few decades.38 There appears to be no evidence of destruction at the site, suggesting it was abandoned and dismantled in an organised manner. The architectural items left there were grouped together in canals while the three capitals were buried in a manner that preserved them. Evidence exists for a limited settlement at the site during the Persian period. Pottery and three stamp impressions were found in loci above the layers when dismantling the Iron Age structure.39

38 39

Billig, Freud and Bocher 2021: 85–87. Billig, Freud and Bocher 2022: 12, Fig. 8.

Organisation and Reorganisation of Extravagant Complexes

19

4. Discussion During the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, Jerusalem underwent unprecedented growth in population and settlements. From the beginning of the eighth century, the area of Jerusalem, too, increased significantly and it became a large political, administrative and local centre.40 The impact of the presence of the Assyrian Empire was significant, especially after Sennacherib’s military expedition into the Kingdom of Judah. It was an influence felt in the material culture and affected Judea’s society, administration and economy.41 Several attempts have been made to demonstrate the restoration of the administration and settlement that developed around biblical Jerusalem and to divide the areas into centres.42 Gadot has shown the differences between the various spaces and how much the area south of Jerusalem is economic and political in nature.43 The variance in the nature of the space is seen in its magnificent construction, using architectural items, water systems and gardens. In this paper, I introduced three neighbouring Iron Age IIB–IIC royal administrative sites south of Jerusalem: Ramat Raḥel, Mordot Arnona and Armon ha-Natziv. These sites administered a large area of royal lands that included the rich farms and installations of the Repha’im Valley.44 Gadot demonstrated that at least 65 rural sites were established in the area during this period.45 In addition, a royal, rock-cut water system in ʽEin Juweiza was identified as part of this complex, thanks to the volute capital curving in the rock and the magnificent construction that were found at the entrance to the system.46 A fragment of another volute capital was found at a site near Ein Haniya, which is located 8 km from Ramat Raḥel, proving that the royal administrative area was larger to its west. The first construction phase at Ramat Raḥel remains an enigma. It is not clear whether it was initially built as an administrative post or perhaps as a tower, similar to the one excavated nearby, at Tzur Baher.47 The analysis of the pottery found at as a result of a ceramic found at Mordot Arnona, analysis has shown that Mordot Arnona was the first of the three sites founded. The main phase at Mordot Arnona (6B) precedes the main phase at Ramat Raḥel (Building Phase II) and Armon ha-Natziv, which were erected in the mid-seventh century BCE. It seems that during this period a change took place in the area. Two sites underwent

40

Geva 2014. Lipschits 2018; 2021: 13–15. 42 Moyal and Faust 2015. 43 Gadot 2022: 146–147. 44 Gadot 2015; Lipschits 2021: 155–157. 45 Gadot 2022: 146–149. 46 Ein Mor and Ron 2016. 47 Eisenberg and De-Groot 2006. 41

20

Efrat Bocher

bouts of massive growth (Ramat Raḥel and Mordot Arnona) while one (Armon ha-Natziv) was just being established. As mentioned above, since only a small portion of the margins of the entire site have been excavated, it cannot be stated with certainty whether Armon ha-Natziv was a royal villa, as the excavator thinks, or had some other function. However, it must be emphasised that if the building itself at Armon ha-Natziv had been more fully excavated, the functionality of the site might have been interpreted differently. The significant phases at Armon ha-Natziv and Ramat Raḥel were both from the mid-seventh century BCE and the area under their administration also underwent significant changes and development. In addition, following the clear dating of the volute capitals at Armon ha-Natziv, it is possible to date the use of the capitals in Ramat Raḥel to this stage and perhaps even date the site at ʽEin Juweiza. Finkelstein argued, through examination of sites in southern Judah, that the peak period of the kingdom should be attributed to the days of King Manasseh.48 Gadot continued this thread by demonstrating that the great burgeoning around Jerusalem began in the early seventh century in the days of Manasseh.49 The sites south of Jerusalem as analysed above strengthen this theory: the middle of the seventh century was the time when major sites expanded and new sites were founded. Another significant factor is the period of change and the abandonment of the complexes at Mordot Arnona and Armon ha-Natziv towards the end of the Iron Age. Only Ramat Raḥel continued to exist and even flourish. At the other two sites, there is evidence of a small-scale re-occupation during the Persian period. According to Gadot,50 during the transition from the end of the Iron Age to the Persian period, the decrease in the number of settlements is less drastic than previously assumed and when compared to earlier periods. Mordot Arnona and Armon ha-Natziv are now added to a number of sites that existed during the Persian period in the region,51 contributing to the understanding that settlement in the region continued to exist during the Persian period – even if in a more limited capacity. The compelling question is, what brought about the increased development of the area, particularly in the mid-seventh century BCE? Why was Ramat Raḥel the only site that continued to function and flourish in the area? Lipschits, following the excavations at Ramat Raḥel and the comprehensive research on the administrative system in Judah, claims that it was a result of the subjugation of the Kingdom of Judah by the Assyrian Empire in the final third of 48

Finkelstein 1994. Gadot 2022. 50 Gadot 2015: 16–22. 51 Bocher and Freud 2017: 154–156. 49

Organisation and Reorganisation of Extravagant Complexes

21

the eighth century BCE.52 According to him, Lachish was chosen to serve as a tax collection centre in the Shephelah and Ramat Raḥel was chosen for the southern outskirts of Jerusalem, thus the whole kingdom was developed economically. In light of the findings reviewed here, it may be assumed that Mordot Arnona was first established to serve as a centre for collecting taxes in this area and subsequently, Ramat Raḥel was added. The excavators of the sites in Ramat Raḥel and Mordot Arnona believe that these two sites served together as administrative centres for tax collection, with each site controlling its own area.53 As they are very close in distance, the question arises why both were needed and whether they were really used for the same function. In my opinion, because there are elements of splendour in Ramat Raḥel, which were not found in the Mordot Arnona site, this indicates that Ramat Raḥel was used also by the elite and possibly the royalty of Jerusalem for more personal uses. It makes one wonder what would have been revealed if a more extensive excavation had been possible at Armon Ha-Natziv. Towards the end of the Iron Age, the site at Mordot Arnona changed completely and the site at Armon ha-Natziv was abandoned and demolished in a deliberate and orderly manner. Was this intentional? Was this an indication of a dispute between centres of power in the southern Jerusalem area? Perhaps what we are witnessing here is a reorganisation of Judah’s economic system – or conversely, that after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the exile that followed, there was no longer a need or the ability to support three or even two extravagant complexes that had developed in this area.

Bibliography Aharoni, Y. 1956. Excavations at Ramat Rahel, 1954  – Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal 6: 157–137. Aharoni, Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat Rahel  – Seasons 1959 and 1960 (Università di Rome, Centro di studi semitici, Serie archeologica 2). Rome. Aharoni, Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Rahel  – Seasons 1961 and 1962. (Università di Rome, Centro di studi semitici, Serie archeologica 6). Rome. Ben-Ari, N., Sapir, N., Freud, L. and Lipschits, O. 2021. The Mordot Arnona Rujum: Preliminary Archaeological and Historical Thoughts. In: Zelinger, Y., Peleg-Barkat, O., Uziel, J. and Gadot, Y., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, vol. 14. Jerusalem: 55–76 (Hebrew). Billig, Y., Freud, L. and Bocher, E. 2021. A Royal Mansion from the First Temple Period at Armon Ha-Naẓiv. In: Zelinger, Y., Peleg-Barkat, O., Uziel, J. and Gadot, Y., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, vol. 14. Jerusalem: 77–100 (Hebrew). 52 53

Lipschits 2022: 154–172. Ben-Ari et al. 2021: 48.

22

Efrat Bocher

Billig, Y., Freud, L. and Bocher, E. 2022. A Luxurious Royal Estate from the First Temple Period in Armon ha-Natziv, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv 49: 8–31. Bocher, E. and Freud, L. 2017. Persian Period Settlement in the Rural Jerusalem Hinterland. In: Baruch, E., and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem, vol. 22. Ramat Gan: 129–133 (Hebrew), 14*–15* (English summary). Ein Mor, D. and Ron, Z. 2016. ʽAin Joweizeh: An Iron Age Royal Rock-Cut Spring System in the Naḥal Refa’im Valley, near Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 43: 141–150. Eisenberg, E. and De Groot, A. 2006. An Iron Age Tower near Ramat Raḥel. In: Baruch, E., Greenhut, Z. and Faust, A. eds. New Studies on Jerusalem, vol. 11. Ramat Gan: 147–158 (Hebrew) 37* (English summary). Finkelstein, I. 1994. The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh. In: Coogan, M. D., Exum, J. C. and Stager, L. E. eds. Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville, KY: 169–187. Freud, L. 2018. Judahite Pottery in the Transitional Phase between the Iron Age and the Persian Period: Jerusalem and its Environs (PhD Dissertation, Tel-Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew with an English abstract). Freud, L. 2021. The Pottery Assemblage. In: Lipschits, O., Freud, L., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel VI: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010); The Babylonian-Persian Pit (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 28–72. Gadot, Y. 2015. In the Valley of the King: Jerusalem’s Rural Hinterland in the 8th–4th Centuries BCE. Tel Aviv 42: 3–26. Gadot, Y. 2022. Jerusalem, the Reign of Manasseh and the Assyrian World Order. In: Hagemeyer, F., ed. Jerusalem and the Coastal Plain in the Iron Age and Persian Periods. New Studies on Jerusalem’s Relations with the Southern Coastal Plain of Israel/Palestine (Research on Israel and Aram in Biblical Times 4). Tübingen: 145–161. Gadot, Y., Oeming, M. and Lipschits, O., 2020. The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv-Heidelberg Expedition. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 22–34. Geva, H. 2014. Jerusalem’s Population in Antiquity: A Minimalist View. Tel Aviv 41: 131–160. Gross, B., Gadot, Y. and Lipschits, O. 2020. The Ancient Garden and Its Water Installations. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010); Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 459–468. Langgut, D., Gadot, Y., Porat, N. and Lipschits, O. 2013. Fossil Pollen Reveals the Secrets of Royal Persian Garden at Ramat Raḥel, Jerusalem. Palynology 37: 115–129. Lipschits, O. 2011. The Origin and Date of the Volute Capitals from the Levant. In: Finkelstein, I. and Naʾaman, N. eds. The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Persian Period, in Honor of David Ussishkin. Winona Lake, IN: 203–225. Lipschits, O. 2018, The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule. In: Gianto, A. and Dubovsky, P. eds. Changing Faces of Kingship in Syria-Palestine 1500– 500 BCE (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 459). Münster: 115–138.

Organisation and Reorganisation of Extravagant Complexes

23

Lipschits, O. 2021. Age of Empires: The History and Administration in Judah in the 8th–2nd Centuries BCE in Light of the Stamped Jar Handles (Mosaics: Studies on Ancient Israel 2). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA. Lipschits, O. 2021. The “Riddle of Ramat Raḥel” and the Problem of Identifying the Material Culture of the Babylonian and Early Persian Periods. In: Lipschits, O., Freud, L., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel VI: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010); The Babylonian-Persian Pit (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 1–5. Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L. 2016. Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Tel Aviv and Winona Lake, IN. Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. 2020a. Strategic Location and Natural Surroundings. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 3–7. Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. 2020b. Deconstructions and Reconstruction. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 476–491. Moyal, Y., and Faust, A., 2015, Jerusalem’s Hinterland in the Eighth-Seventh Centuries BCE: Towns, Villages, Farmsteads, and Royal Estates. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147: 283–298. Sapir, N., Ben-Ari, N., Freud, L. and Lipschits, O. 2022. History, Economy and Administration in Late Iron Age Judah in Light of the Excavations at Mordot Mordot Arnona, Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 49: 30–52.

Village People: The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age Karen Covello-Paran Recent radiometric-based research results have extended the temporal framework of the Intermediate Bronze Age (henceforth IBA) to encompass the entire second half of the third millennium BCE.1 Furthermore, it has led current research toward an intraregional reassessment within the Levant, allowing for re-evaluation under this new ‘high chronology’.2 Synchronisation and connection between the Northern and Southern Levant are particularly significant considering the contrast between the urban continuum in the Northern Levant3 and the non-urban rural period in the contemporary Southern Levant.4 The rural transformation that characterises northern Israel throughout the IBA became apparent after the reassessment of settlement patterns and social, economic and cultural networks.5 Richard’s evaluation of the Southern Levant during this period under the theoretical framework of ‘rural complexity’6 provides a model by which it is possible to illuminate issues focusing on economic organisation and cultural interconnectivity while analysing, concomitantly, social complexity. The extensive database of excavated and surveyed Intermediate Bronze Age settlements and cemeteries in the Jezreel Valley defines this region as one of the most significant regions in the Southern Levant for investigating and re-evaluating this period. Thus, this contribution focuses on the accumulated evidence from the Jezreel Valley, which, after its methodological intra-regional study, illustrates the multifaceted IBA society from both domestic and mortuary contexts. The resultant investigation of settlement patterns and site organisation, the household and burial traditions enables shedding new light on the sedentary population’s social, economic and cultural networks, thus promoting the study of ancient lifeways in the later the third millennium BCE. It will be shown that 1

Höflmayer et al. 2014; Regev et al. 2012; 2014. E. g., D’Andrea 2020a; 2020b; Kennedy 2020; Lev, Bechar and Boaretto 2021; Lev et al. 2021; Richard 2020a; Sala 2020. 3 D’Andrea and Vacca 2015. 4 Richard 2020b. 5 Covello-Paran 2015, 2020; Greenberg 2019. 6 Richard 2020b. 2

26

Karen Covello-Paran

the IBA Jezreel Valley landscape was populated by sedentary rural communities that were economically more diversified, potentially independent and socially more complex than previously predicted.7

1. The Jezreel Valley The Jezreel Valley is the largest in Israel (Figure 1) and encompasses six micro landscapes, each with diverse environmental constraints: the northwest, southwest, central, ‘En Gannim, Ḥarod and Kesulot valleys.8 The valley is bordered by the lower Galilee Hills on the north, the Carmel Mountains on the west, the Samarian Hills on the southeast and the lower Galilee highlands on the northeast. The lack of clear geographic boundaries resulted in alternating cognitive boundaries of the valley at different periods. The Jezreel Valley region has abundant natural resources, sufficient precipitation, arable soil and diverse topography. These physical features were advantageous for agriculture, horticulture, pasturage and building materials, facilitating intra- and interregional communication via the established roads. The multitude of seasonal springs and perennial streams ensured the fertility of this region; thus, even in times of a short periodic drier climate within the span of the IBA,9 its effects were most likely less radical in the Jezreel Valley than in the more arid areas of the country. Moreover, according to palynological analyses, there is evidence for increased olive cultivation in the valley in the latter part of the period,10 reinforcing the role of horticulture in the valley during the IBA. Lastly, the main transport routes that traversed the entire country passed through the Jezreel Valley; the significant ones for the IBA are those leading north to Syria, east to Transjordan, west to the coastal area and south toward the Central Hills. Most routes passed along the valley’s margins, but the most important route, connecting Megiddo to the Beqa‘a Valley, passed through the central part of the Jezreel Valley, near ‘Afula.11

 7 This contribution summarizes some parts of my unpublished doctoral research (CovelloParan 2015) on the Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age carried out at Tel Aviv University under the supervision of Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Prof. Oded Lipschits. I have chosen to write on the Jezreel Valley since it relates to Prof. Oded Lipschits’ continued interest in investigating his childhood backyard landscape from archaeological and historical perspectives. I greatly appreciate Oded’s scholarship, professional guidance and support, including supervision of my Ph.D. dissertation. This modest tribute for Oded is a reminder of almost four decades of friendship.  8 Ben Artzi 1993.  9 Langutt, Finkelstein and Litt 2013. 10 Langgut, Adams and Finkelstein 2016. 11 Dorsey 1991; Gadot 2006.

Village People

27

Figure 1. Map of the Jezreel Valley with division into subregions.

2. Settlement Patterns and Oscillations in the IBA Jezreel Valley The raw empirical data from IBA cemeteries and settlement sites in the Jezreel Valley is sourced from archaeological surveys and excavations. Among the surface reconnaissance projects of the Jezreel Valley are map surveys carried out under the Archaeological Survey of Israel12 and additional survey projects.13 The extensive salvage excavations at the settlement site of ‘Ein el-Ḥilu14 provide the primary data, together with limited excavations at additional settlement sites such as ‘En Ha-More, Murḥan, Naḥal Rimmonim.15 In addition, excavations at 12

Gal 1998; Raban 1982, 1999; Raban and Shemesh 2016a, 2016b. E. g., Dagan and Hanna 2011; Gophna and Porat 1972; Finkelstein et al. 2006; Meyerhof 1973; Portugali 1982; Tepper 2003; 2013; 2014; Zertal and Mirkam 2016; Zori 1962; 1971; 1977. 14 Covello-Paran 2009; forthcoming. 15 Covello-Paran 2008; 2011; 2017; Covello-Paran and Tepper 2014. 13

28

Karen Covello-Paran

cemeteries such as Megiddo and HaZore‘a16 and further salvage excavations at burial sites such as Jalame, Tel Risim and Maz’arib17 furnish the data from extramural mortuary sites. The evidence from excavations and surveys reveals spatial patterns between settlement and burial sites, as well as site density, intra-site organisation and settlement trajectories. A total of 58 sites dating from the Intermediate Bronze Age were detected in the Jezreel Valley, of which 40 (68 %) are settlements and 18 (31 %) cemeteries (Figure 2). The numerous settlement sites in the Jezreel Valley suggest that this region was probably the most densely settled area in the Southern Levant during the IBA. The settlement pattern is linear and composed predominantly (73 %) of hamlets or moderately sized villages (up to 1 ha) adjacent to water sources and aligned with the valley borders in conjunction with communication routes. This settlement pattern reflects a rural network of contemporaneous sites with no evidence for site clustering in connection with a central site, characteristic of multi-component urban periods, exemplifying the absence of a central place with demonstrative control over the satellite settlements. However, it is questionable whether the dearth of such central sites translates into a lack of evidence for multi-component networks in the IBA. The settlement in the valley was thus an interlinked network of permanent settlements, with an apparent absence of archaeologically detectable ephemeral sites. Furthermore, the IBA remains in the Jezreel Valley do not reflect an ephemeral settlement pattern since the settlement system is non-transitory and not entirely short-lived. Although many of the settlements have only a single stratum occupation, the material culture and economic strategies reflect permanent well-established settlements. There is a clear-cut pattern of preferred site location; in all the subregions, the selected location for the settlement sites is along the valley margins, close to the water sources and the road network.18 This location offered diverse economic possibilities (agriculture, horticulture, pasturage, exchange). All the IBA Jezreel Valley burial sites are spatially segregated and located on the upper slopes of the surrounding foothills (or an elevated mound), overlooking the settlement sites. This pattern is seen in all subregions and not a single cemetery deviates from this pattern; all burials are in extramural cemeteries. The cognitive implications of cemetery location topographically higher than the settlements are conceivably intertwined with collective memory and territorial marking. Most tombs were rock-hewn during the IBA, with only limited reuse of Early Bronze Age tombs during this period. 16

Guy 1938; Meyerhof 1989. Covello-Paran and Porat 2011; Atrash 2010; Raban pers. comm. 18 Covello-Paran 2015: 76. 17

Village People

29

Figure 2. Intermediate Bronze Age Settlements and Cemeteries.

The abandonment of the Early Bronze Age tells is conclusive. There is essentially no evidence to date for IBA occupation or domestic settlement on the tells of the Jezreel Valley. At Tel Megiddo, for example, no settlement remains were found on the mound’s summit despite being undoubtedly the most significant and extensively excavated site in the Jezreel Valley.19 The IBA set19

Ibid.: 142–149. The dating of Temple 4040 to the Intermediate Bronze Age has been the focus of debate between the field directors of the TAU expedition to the site. Finkelstein attributes the construction and usage of the temple to the EB III (2013), whereas Ussishkin and Adams claim this temple was constructed during the Intermediate Bronze Age (Ussishkin 2013; Adams 2017). Ussishkin’s suggestion that the temple’s erection during the IBA reflects continuity from the EBA to the IBA is refuted by the results of the present research that uphold a clear break

30

Karen Covello-Paran

tlement was adjacent to the ‘En Megiddo spring (Ein el-Qubbi),20 thus fitting the intraregional pattern of settlements at the foot of the tells and not on the topographically higher areas of the mounds. The majority of the IBA settlements are very small (30 %; 2 ha, Figure 3.D) and were positioned in the valley floor at natural topographic ‘gateways’ into the Jezreel Valley, for example, Shimron West,21 Naḥal Rimmonim22and probably also at Jenin.23 Examination of the data discloses the discontinuation of the previous EBA settlement system through the IBA. A review of all the sites occupied during the IBA occupation revealed two trajectories in the settlement pattern relating to the transitions from the Early Bronze Age and to the Middle Bronze Age. A high percentage of sites were occupied during the EB I, subsequently abandoned throughout the urban phase of the EBA and resettled during the IBA.24 Ten sites scattered throughout the valley, located near multiperiod tells/mounds, yielded limited evidence of continuous occupational sequences from urban EBA to urban MBA25 For example, at Tel ‘Afula and ‘En Jezreel (next to Tel Jezreel), there is a definite occupation during the later phase of the EB III, characterised by Khirbet Kerak Ware,26 followed by an IBA occupation. The other sites each have questionable intra-site settlement patterns; in most, not enough data was found to prove continuous occupation. In ‘Afula, the IBA remains unearthed by numerous salvage excavations overlay sterile soil or earlier EB I settlement remains, establishing that the IBA and EB III settlements do not overlap.27 In summary, despite the limited data regarding the number of sites with possible between the EBA and IBA. After a reassessment of all pottery vessels from the OIC excavations attributed to the IBA, most can be redated to the EB III (Covello-Paran 2015: 144–146). The remaining sparse vessels, undoubtedly belonging to the IBA, are of types predominantly associated with mortuary assemblages; considering the proximity to the eastern cemetery, it is plausible they originated in a funerary context. 20 Raban 1999; Finkelstein et al. 2006; Tepper 2013. 21 Alexandre 2015. 22 Covello-Paran and Tepper forthcoming. 23 Jenin was settled during the EBA and MBA, yet although the studied material (Salem 2006) does not clearly identify an IBA settlement, it is conceivable that this settlement was close to En Jenin and not at the location of the higher mound. 24 Covello-Paran 2015: 80–82, Chart 3.2. Viewed by subregions, these constitute 33 % of the northwestern Valley sites, 50 % of the southwestern Valley, 17 % of the Harod Valley and 50 % of the ‘En Gannim Valley IBA sites. 25 By subregions, these include one site in the northwestern Valley (Tel Shimron), two sites in the southwestern Valley (Tel Jokneam, Tel Qashish), one site in the central Valley (Tel ‘Afula), two sites in the Harod Valley (‘En Jezreel, Tel Yosef ) and two sites in the Kesulot Valley (Tel Qishyon, Horbat Zafzafot) (see Covello-Paran 2015 for references). 26 Smithline 2017; Covello-Paran 2015: 157–168. 27 See Gal and Covello-Paran 1996.

31

Village People D

A

C

B

Figure 3. Jezreel Valley Intermediate Bronze Age sites according to size rank (A 2 hectares).

settlement continuity from the EBA to the IBA, the settlement network is overall dissimilar to the previous urban system both in site location and site density. Among the surveyed settlement sites in the region, 22.5 % had been erected during the IBA. While the study revealed a discontinuity between the EB III and IBA settlement sites, IBA settlement sites show an apparent continuity into the successive Middle Bronze Age. Although surface reconnaissance data does not always supply evidence for subphases within the MBA required to determine an IBA– MB I continuum, a significant continuity pattern of the IBA settlements into the MBA was observed. The breakdown of the Jezreel Valley by subregions shows IBA–MBA continuous occupation for 83 % of the sites in the northwestern Valley, 89 % in the southwestern Valley, 75 % in the ‘En Gannim Valley, 83 % in the Harod Valley and a clear continuation of Tel ‘Afula in the central Valley through the MBA.28 Notwithstanding these numbers pertain solely to sites exhibiting IBA occupation with continued MBA settlement and exclude the percentage of IBA–MBA sites within the renewed urban MBA continuum, it is thought-provoking to consider the role of specific IBA sites that transformed into central sites during the succeeding urban Middle Bronze Age.

3. Domestic Landscapes The intra-site organisation of the excavated settlements reveals a lack of evidence for multi-component communities in the Jezreel Valley. There is no evidence of public or non-domestic structures within the settlements, and no facilities for

28

Gal and Covello-Paran 1996.

32

Karen Covello-Paran

collective storage of agricultural wealth were found; instead, there is clear-cut evidence of small-scale domestic storage at ‘Ein el-Ḥilu.29 The settlement pattern and intra-site analysis reveal that site topography is the prime factor for differentiating between two coexisting settlement types in the Jezreel Valle: hillside and valley sites. 1.1 Hillside Sites Hillside sites are characterised by an agglomeration of individual households erected on the lowest slopes of the valley’s surrounding hills. Thus, for instance, ‘Ein el-Ḥilu, located in northwestern Jezreel Valley, is characterised by a cluster of households flanked by open areas. No extensive open areas were found between the households, nor evidence of communal courtyards. In contrast, the site of Murḥan, located in Harod Valley, is characterised by dispersed households with open areas in between. This latter site type is not region-specific and is also present at the hillside site of Kfar Vradim in the western Upper Galilee hills.30 1.2 Valley Sites Valley sites were erected above the flat-level colluvial soil of the Jezreel Valley lower lands. These sites are larger than hillside sites (ranks C and D, above) and exhibit denser intra-site planning than the hillside sites. ‘Afula is the only excavated valley site with architectural units exposed for analysis, thus allowing for a limited perusal of the IBA occupation’s intra-site organisation.31 The excavations of the settlement outskirts at Naḥal Rimmonim32 and Shimron West33 emphasise an essential feature of the valley sites: the presence of small, hardpacked stone floors in their perimeter. These stone surfaces are also found at hillside sites such as ‘Ein el-Ḥilu, where they are, however, confined to the site’s perimeter overlying colluvial soil; valley sites with analogous floors include ‘En Jezreel,34 Tel Yosef 35 and at ‘En Ha-More.36 The intra-site organisation of the valley sites cannot be ascertained solely from the Jezreel Valley data and is defined through proxy evidence from adjoining regions. To the east, in the Jordan Valley, wide-scale excavations at the settlement

29

Covello-Paran forthcoming. Covello-Paran 2020. 31 See Covello-Paran 2015: 157–165. 32 Covello-Paran and Tepper forthcoming. 33 Alexandre 2015. 34 Smithline 2017. 35 Covello-Paran 2001. 36 Covello-Paran 2011. 30

Village People

33

sites Tel Itztaba37 and Sha‘ar Ha-Golan38 revealed large settlements with elements of intra-site planning such as blocks of domestic units separated by alleyways, a crowded settlement nucleus of dwellings adjacent to a spring and a scattering of additional units over a larger area beyond it.39 Immediately north of the Jezreel Valley, large scale excavations at Ḥorvat Qishron40 in the Lower Galilee also revealed a highly dense built-up settlement; some domestic units were separated by an alleyway and stone floors. It is put forward that the Jezreel Valley’s lower land sites had a similar intra-site organisation to that revealed at Tel Itztaba, Sha‘ar Ha-Golan and Qishron. 1.3 Households Domestic structures are the primary architectural feature of the IBA settlements. The typical IBA dwelling in the Jezreel Valley is a multi-room rectilinear structure whose size and set of architectural features advocate habitation by an extended family. These dwellings comprise several rooms of varying sizes, and many excavated units show evidence of a single large-sized broadroom, most likely functioning as a courtyard. The most well-preserved available plans are from the sites of ‘Ein el-Ḥilu, ‘Afula and Murḥan.41 The pottery assemblage retrieved from the domestic units is composed of functional and multi-purpose pottery vessels, groundstone implements and flint assemblages of ad hoc tools and Canaanean sickle blades. There is a high rate of intraregional similarity in the architectural traditions of the Jezreel Valley – the dwellings were all built in similar construction methods and had parallel architectural features. Walls constructed from a single row of larger stones are the most predominant and typical feature of this period, from the northern Western Galilee42 to the Jerusalem Hills.43 Based on preserved doorsocket stones, the doors of the buildings opened into the rooms. The floors of the IBA buildings were made of beaten earth, and only patches of stone pavement were laid in the rooms. The corner installations, rectilinear and curvilinear, were used for food preparation and storage. The varied cooking installations, including elevated platforms, point to diverse cooking methods (Figure 4).44 Additional 37

Yannai, personal communication. Eisenberg 2012. 39 Ibid. 40 Following initial excavations at the site (Smithline 2002), the author directed large-scale excavations at Qishron on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority in 2011 and 2018–2019. 41 The size of the units varies between the sites; for example, Murḥan Unit A is c. 80 m2 and contains six rooms, whereas ‘Ein el-Ḥilu Unit A has ten rooms and measures 195 m2. 42 Covello-Paran 2020. 43 Eisenberg 1993. 44 The extensive excavations at sites such as ‘Ein el-Ḥilu in the Jezreel Valley and Qishron in the Lower Galilee provide concrete evidence for the absence of the typical MBA circular 38

34

Karen Covello-Paran

Figure 4. Ein el-Hilu elevated corner cooking installation.

features include embedded large stones, stationary grinding or pounding installations, and stone slab work tables related to secondary processing. The excavated multi-room units, exposed at sites such as ‘Ein el-Ḥilu, ‘Afula and Murḥan, are significant toward characterizing the Intermediate Bronze Age ‘household.’ A question arises as to whether any identifiable archaeological activity-correlates within the household reflect the social systems of its inhabitants, for example, evidence of religious activities or rituals that took place within the household. From the evidence gathered so far, the household probably formed the basic social unit and was also the base of the domestic means of production. The parallel architectural features (cooking places, stone-built platforms, in situ ground stones) and mobile finds (pottery, flint, stone) indicate analogous domestic activities within each household (food processing, preparation and consumption, storage and processing of secondary products). In addition, there is an absence of large communal granaries at the widely excavated site of ‘Ein el-Ḥilu, indicating that storage of liquid and dry goods was organised by the separate individual households. There is no evidence for non-domestic buildings with storage facilities that would indicate a pattern for the collection tabun. This change in cooking methods between the IBA and the MBA is discussed elsewhere (Covello-Paran forthcoming).

Village People

35

Figure 5. Ein el-Hilu monolith altar.

and redistribution of agricultural surplus. The organisation of the domestic units and their associated features reflect a household economy level that did not store large surplus quantities. There is evidence in the Jezreel Valley of household-based cult; the cultic expression is characterised at ‘Ein el-Ḥilu by monolithic standing stones placed in two units and a monolithic altar in an additional unit (Figure 5). The monolithic standing stones within the domestic framework in the Jezreel Valley impart evidence for contemporary parallel belief systems throughout the Southern Levant,45 despite the regional character and division of the material culture. Note, however, that this household-based religious expression was not duplicated in most burial customs, suggesting that burial diversity mirrors the regional divides of material culture. 1.4 Non-Dwelling Communal Areas The recognition of communal structures or activity areas is significant toward defining social and economic organisation within the Jezreel Valley settlement sites. The principal evidence for interpreting communal activity lies in the 45 Monolithic cultic stelae were exposed in domestic units at Naḥal Rephaʿim in the Jerusalem Hills (Eisenberg 1993: 1279).

36

Karen Covello-Paran

analysis of the peripheral open areas. For example, at ‘Ein el-Ḥilu, no built structures could be indisputably assigned a ‘communal’ function, yet the evidence of stone floors (see above) with a concentration of mortar installations on the site’s western periphery represents communal areas for processing agricultural products, raising further questions regarding communal land ownership and cultivation. At other sites, such as Shimron West and Naḥal Rimmonim, it has been proposed that these stone floors represent the inhabitant’s attempts to control the wet conditions or episodic flooding of the colluvial ground on which they erected their settlements. Regardless of whether this reconstruction reflects ancient reality, the discovery of stone-paved floors at numerous sites mirrors the social interaction of the settlers in addressing aspects pertaining to the entire community and the access routes to the settlement sites. These shared areas were probably maintained by the community. Open-air cult sites provide additional confirmation for communal endeavours at sites such as Murḥan. Zori excavated an enigmatic circular ‘structure 9’ 46, reinterpreted in this research as an open-air communal cult altar.47 The large, round stone-built altar and cult installations at the site impart evidence for the additional communal construction works, communal belief systems and partaking in cultic rituals organised on a community level.

4. Economy and Subsistence The most distinctive aspect of the IBA economy in the Jezreel Valley is diversity and low-risk food procurement strategies. The location of the settlements, at the interface between the hills and the valley floor, was advantageous for a varied economic formula of an agriculturally based economy with village-based pastoralism. The evidence points to the household as the basic economic unit that was the organising foundation for food procurement and craft activity. Animal management strategies at ‘Ein el-Ḥilu48 and Naḥal Rimmonim exhibited a pattern of exploitation for secondary products (cattle, sheep, goat), supplemented by non-specialist dependence on immature pigs for meat noted from intrasite butchering.49 This domestic mode of production is augmented by communal village-based economic activities apparently based on kinship ties between the inhabitants, especially at smaller sites.

46

Zori 1971: 8. Covello-Paran 2015: 177–178. 48 Covello-Paran 2009; Cope forthcoming. 49 Turgeman-Yaffe forthcoming. 47

Village People

37

Specialised craft activity was perceived through the material culture, revealing two socio-economic models of craft specialization with varying degrees of artisanship. The evidence in the Jezreel Valley suggests that intraregional specialization was organised independently, with no signs of intraregional control of any of the crafts. Crafts produced within the household point to the independent specialization in animal products, items for adornment including cloth and jewellery, ad hoc flint tools and the hunting of animals. The pottery production of all vessels, including the red-band painted ware vessels and the Canaanean blade industry, noted higher levels of craft specialization. The acquisition of extra-regional specialized goods or crafts included prestige artifacts bearing social status within the Jezreel Valley inhabitants, such as copper-based weapons and items for personal adornment (jewellery) and specialized pottery wares (trickle-painted ware, black wheel made ware). There is no excavated evidence for central places to control craft specialists; however, future excavations of the valley sites might prove their position at key junctions to be connected to a redistribution trade network. The non-specialization of the intra-site mode of subsistence indicates flexibility and low risk, while the procurement of specialized goods emphasizes integration into the interregional exchange networks. The ceramic repertoire of the Jezreel Valley includes a dominance of locally made ware and smaller quantities of non-locally produced ware. The vessels are utilitarian and are functionally related to food preparation, serving, consumption and storage. The high percentages of groundstone tools exemplify, on a regional basis, the agricultural basis of the Jezreel Valley during this period. The pottery vessels exhibit apparent regional traits, and the interregional comparative study revealed a high degree of similarity in material culture – often reflecting lifeways – with the surrounding regions, primarily the Lower Galilee and the Jordan Valley, where parallel cooking, storing and consumption patterns are documented. Provenance study of storage jars indicated the movement of commodities on an east–west axis connecting the Jezreel Valley with the coastal region. The low quantities of weapons and objects for personal adornment in the domestic assemblages emphasize their symbolic value in the mortuary repertoire.

5. Burial Landscapes and Death Rituals The sole IBA burial type documented in the Jezreel Valley is a rock-hewn shaft tomb clustered into extra-site cemeteries on the upper slopes of the hills and slopes that encompass the valley and overlook the settlements. All the IBA cemeteries are located at a prominent place in the landscape, less than 2 kilometres from the related settlement. The location of IBA cemeteries alongside the

38

Karen Covello-Paran

settlements discredits any attempt to define these as regional. A total of sixty-three tombs from these cemeteries were studied (e. g., Megiddo, HaZore‘a and Jalame) and single tombs from additional burial sites. There is a notable high density of tombs at each burial site. The tombs are all multi-chambered and encompass six different types based on shaft type and floorplan. The larger cemeteries exhibited more than one tomb type, demonstrating diversity in burial architecture within a single cemetery. The tombs exhibit shared architectural features, such as shaft footholds, a blocking stone in front of the burial chamber, stone pavements and platforms. Less common are the rock-hewn channels, chimneys and benches (Hazore‘a). Among the pottery-vessel burial offerings, serving vessels – including cups, jugs and teapots – make up more than 90 %. Additional burial goods include weaponry, adornments and items associated with textile making (spindle whorls) and agriculture (grinding stones, flint sickle blades). The tombs were used for multiple sequential primary burials, and there is no evidence of single or secondary burials. The skeletal remains include children to adults, most probably kin-related. The absence of infants or children under 2 years of age signifies an age-based selection for burial.50 Gender-based spatial differentiation was not conclusive; however, a male interment accompanied by a large group of metal weapon offerings at Hazore‘a Tomb 3 (in a separate chamber) could embody this separation.51 The small number of fully articulated skeletons in the Jezreel Valley cemeteries precluded discerning the interments’ orientation patterns when these were placed in the tomb. The articulated skeleton in Megiddo T89152 was in a flexed position with the head in the east. The articulated skeletons in Maz’arib were placed in a flexed position on their right sides, facing west, with the head in the north.53 The findspots of these interments are instrumental for determining that the deceased were not grouped in a single chamber but instead were placed separately or in pairs in architecturally designated burial ‘niches.’ A distinct symbiosis between settlement and cemetery is apparent throughout the Jezreel Valley. When preserved or documented, the cemeteries are paired with settlement sites; furthermore, considering that the burial in all the cemeteries is primary, previous interpretations of the Jezreel Valley cemeteries

50 The youngest interment from a shaft tomb, a child aged 2–3, was documented at Jalame T.II (Covello-Paran and Porat 2011). 51 In addition to T3 at Hazore’a (Meyerhof 1989: 8–13, Figs. 7–8), in T1 at Maz’arib, the weapon placement on the interment in a spatially segregated chamber suggests gender differentiation in both the placement within the tomb and the burial offerings (Covello-Paran 2015: 280). 52 Guy 1938: 43–45. 53 In 1974, Raban directed a small-scale excavation of two burial caves at Maz’arib on behalf of the Israel Department of Antiquities (Israel Antiquities Authority Archives, Excavations Files: Jerusalem, Maz’arib, Avner Raban, Permit No. A–479/1974).

Village People

39

as collective secondary burials are erroneously based on post-IBA intra-tomb activity combined with preceding models upholding a nomadic period following the collapse of the EBA urbanism.

6. Discussion and Conclusions A clear discontinuity is apparent in settlement patterns and material culture in the Jezreel Valley between the EB III and the IBA. The linear pattern of the IBA settlements along the transportation routes facilitated the exchange of goods, ideas and technology. The larger valley sites, located at the entrances to the Jezreel Valley, conceivably had a distributive role related to the transfer of objects and goods and show continued occupation into the Middle Bronze Age (e. g., Naḥal Rimmonim, Shimron West). Site location within the IBA settlement network is dissimilar to the previous urban system; however, the data is not yet complete regarding the subphases of the EBA at sites with previous occupation. The end of the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Jezreel Valley remains enigmatic, denoted by abandonment patterns of domestic and mortuary landscapes. A significant pattern of continuation of the IBA settlements into the MBA is present in all the subregions. However, the high rate of reoccupation of IBA sites during the MBA raises many questions regarding the role of some IBA villages, such as the valley sites, as harbingers of the ensuing developing urbanism. Moreover, there are evident changes in the economy and social strategies of the small-scale IBA agricultural groups during the urban transition. The Jezreel Valley material culture is a key element in the current debate on the IBA extended timescale. No apparent phases are observable in the material culture, and there is very limited site stratigraphy data that can uphold an extended time frame of 500 years for this period. These observations generate questions regarding the end of the EB III and the transition to the IBA in the Jezreel Valley. A gap in human activity in the valley is not a considered hypothesis in light of the substantial natural resources in the region coupled with evidence of a favourable climate and the absence of destruction levels in the EB III sites. The question arises whether a terminal EB III phase has not yet been identified in the archaeological record for the Jezreel Valley. Regional periodization of the Jezreel Valley during the IBA is a major issue that directly influences the reconstruction of settlement patterns, economy and interregional connections. There are only a few multiphase sites from this period and almost all exhibit single stratum occupations during the IBA with only minimal evidence of phasing. Recent research on the absolute chronology of the IBA may contribute to the refinement of the settlement patterns by enabling intra-regional phasing during this period. The radiocarbon-based absolute dating of the Black Wheel Made Ware (BWMW) pottery vessels has recently been established and

40

Karen Covello-Paran

provides a chronological marker of the 23rd century BCE.54 This date falls into the seemingly second half of the period and raises the matter of whether it is possible to identify sub-phases in the Jezreel Valley during the IBA based on the absence or presence of BWMW. Moreover, considering the conspicuous consumption of this ware is intertwined with social display and cultural connectivity with the Northern Levant, its projection toward fine-tuning the dating or phases of the IBA should be reconsidered. There are no sites in the Jezreel Valley with extended occupation from any of the EB III phases through the Middle Bronze Age that can offer an intra-site sequenced radiocarbon analysis. The comparison of the proposed sub-phasing between different regions is problematic considering the alternate trajectories and the strong regional culture.55 One of the most substantial contributions of the intraregional study illuminated the economic and social role of the household during this period; the household-based economy and the lack of evidence for communal surplus storage mirror the political or apolitical organisation of this period. Finding evidence of communal organisation focused primarily on the revealed communal areas for processing agricultural produce. Cultic activity and religious belief were identified through household-based ritual objects (monolithic stones) and communal cultic elements (open-air altar). The extended family living in multiroom dwellings or households was found replicated in the tombs of the Jezreel Valley cemeteries: these were family tombs for the primary burial of multiple interments, often placed into separate chambers or a spatially defined position in the tomb, again with clear connections to the household. The inhabitants of the Jezreel Valley were agriculturalists engaged in limited pastoral activities and craft production of varying specialization. Thus, the social organisation of the economic activity indicates a domestic mode of production where the household represents the economic unit that engaged in diverse methods of food procurement and crafts.

Bibliography Adams, M. J. 2017. The Egyptianized Pottery Cache from Megiddo’s Area J: A Foundation Deposit for Temple 4040. Tel Aviv 44: 141–164. Alexandre, Y. 2015. Tel Shimron West: A Proto-Historic and Bronze Age Rural Site. Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 127. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=24891 (accessed: 30 April 23).

54 55

Lev et al. 2021. See D’Andrea 2020b.

Village People

41

Atrash, W. 2010. Tel Risim. Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 122. https://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1364&mag_id=117 (accessed: 30 April 23). Bechar, S. 2020. It’s in the Style: Black Wheelmade Ware and its Social Meaning. In: Richard, S. ed. New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant. University Park, PA: 365–375. Ben Artzi, Y. 1993. The Jezreel Valley – Boundaries and Geographic Characteristics. In: Naor, M. ed. The Jezreel Valley 1900–1967. Jerusalem: 3–13. Cohen, S. 2009. Continuities and Discontinuities: A Reexamination of the Intermediate Bronze Age–Middle Bronze Age Transition in Canaan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 354: 1–13. Covello-Paran, K. 2001. Middle Bronze Age IIA Burials at Tel Yosef. ʽAtiqot 42: 139–157. Covello-Paran, K. 2008. A Bronze Age Site at Naḥal Rimmonim in the Jezreel Valley. ʽAtiqot 60: 53–74. Covello-Paran K. 2009. Socio-Economic Aspects of an Intermediate Bronze Age Village in the Jezreel Valley. In: Parr, P. ed. The Levant in Transition (PEF Annual 9). Leeds: 9–21. Covello-Paran, K. 2011. Nein-‘En Ha-More (N). Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 123. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1645 (accessed: 30 April 23). Covello-Paran, K. 2015.The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes. (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. Covello-Paran, K. 2017. Murḥan: An Intermediate Bronze Site in the Harod Valley. ʽAtiqot 89: 13–28. Covello-Paran K. 2020. Excavations at Kfar Vradim and Intraregional Settlement Patterns of the Western Upper Galilee during the Intermediate Bronze Age. In: Richard, S. ed. New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant. University Park, PA: 376–394. Covello-Paran, K. ed. forthcoming. ‘Ein el Ḥilu. Excavations at a Bronze and Iron Age Site in the Jezreel Valley (Jezreel Valley Regional Project Studies). Columbus, GA. Covello-Paran, K. and Porat, L. 2011. Jalame. Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 123. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1708 &mag_id=118 (accessed: 30 April 23). Covello-Paran, K. and Tepper, Y. 2014. Naḥal Rimmonim. Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng. aspx?id=9562&mag_id=121 (accessed: 30 April 23). Covello-Paran, K. and Tepper, Y. forthcoming. Excavations at Naḥal Rimmonim, An Intermediate and Middle Bronze Age Village in the Jezreel Valley. ‘Atiqot. Dagan, Y. and Hanna, B. 2011. ‘Afula, Survey of the Bypass Road. Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 123 http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_ eng.aspx?id=1874&mag_id=118 (accessed: 30 April 23). D’Andrea, M. 2020a. A Matter of Style. Ceramic Evidence of Contacts Between the Orontes Valley and the Southern Levant during the Mid–Late 3rd Millennium BC. In: Kennedy, M. A. ed. A Land In Between: The Orontes Valley in the Early Urban Age (Adapa Monographs). Sydney: 103–148. D’Andrea, M. 2020b. About Stratigraphy, Pottery, and Relative Chronology: Some Considerations for a Refinement of the Archaeological Periodization of the Southern Levantine Early Bronze Age IV. In: Richard, S. ed. New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant. University Park, PA: 395–416.

42

Karen Covello-Paran

D’Andrea, M. and Vacca, A. 2015. The Northern and Southern Levant during the Late Early Bronze Age: A Reappraisal of the ‘Syrian Connection’. Studia Eblaitica 1: 43–74. Dever, W. 2003. The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period. In: Maeir, A. M., Dar, S. and Safrai, Z. eds. The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel (BAR International Series 1121). Oxford: 43–59. Dorsey, D. A. 1991. The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. Baltimore. Eisenberg, E. 1993. Naḥal  Rephaim.  In:  Stern, E. ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Vol. 3. Jerusalem: 1277–1281. Eisenberg, E. 2012. The Early Bronze Age IV site at Sha’ar Ha-Golan. ʽAtiqot 69: 1–73. Finkelstein, I. 2013. Archaeological and Historical Conclusions. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Cline, E. H., eds. Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 31). Tel Aviv: 1329–1340. Gadot, Y. 2006. Megiddo and the International Road: The Naḥal Iron (Wadi ‘Ara) Survey. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. eds. Megiddo IV: The 1998–2000 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 24). Tel Aviv: 777–818. Gal, Z. and Covello-Paran, K. 1996. Excavations at Afula, 1989. ʽAtiqot 30: 25–67. Gernez, G. 2011. The Exchange of Products and Concepts between the Near East and the Mediterranean: The Example of Weapons during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. In: K. Duistermaat and I. Regulski, eds. Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 202). Leuven: 327–341. Gophna. R. and Porat, Y. 1972. The Land of Ephraim and Manasseh. In: Kochavi, M. ed. Judea, Samaria and the Golan: Archaeological Survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem: 196–241 (Hebrew). Greenberg, R. 2019. The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant From Urban Origins to the Demise of City-States, 3700–1000 BCE. Cambridge. Guy, P. L. O. 1938. Megiddo Tombs (Oriental Institute Publications 33). Chicago. Höflmayer, F., Dee, M. W., Genz, H. and Riehl, S. 2014. Radiocarbon evidence for the Early Bronze Age Levant: the site of Tell Fadous Kfarabida (Lebanon) and the end of the Early Bronze III period. Radiocarbon 56 (2): 529–542. Horowitz, Z. 2016. An Intermediate Bronze Age Cemetery at Kanat-el Jahr near Kibbutz Ein-Hanaziv. ʽAtiqot 85: 57*–86* (Hebrew), 108 (English Summary). Kennedy, M. A. 2020. Horizons of Cultural Connectivity: North–South Interactions and Interconnections during the Early Bronze Age IV. In: Richard, S. ed. New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant. University Park, PA: 327–46. Langutt, D., Finkelstein, I. and Litt, T. 2013. Climate and the Late Bronze Collapse: New Evidence from the Southern Levant. Tel Aviv 40: 149–175. Langgut, D., Adams, M. J. and Finkelstein, I. 2016. Climate, Settlement Patterns and Olive Horticulture in the Southern Levant during the Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Ages (ca. 3600–1950 BCE). Levant 48: 117–134. Lev, R., Bechar, S., and Boaretto, E. 2021. Hazor EB III City Abandonment and IBA People Return: Radiocarbon Chronology and Its Implications. Radiocarbon 63/5: 1453–1469. Lev, R., Bechar, S., Covello-Paran, K. and Boaretto, E. 2021. Absolute Chronology of Black Wheel Made Ware in the Southern Levant and its Synchronization with the Northern Levant. Levant 53: 151–163. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39 (Oriental Institute Publications 62). Chicago.

Village People

43

Meyerhof, E. L. 1973. Archaeological Survey of Hazorea and Its Surroundings. In: Anati, E., Avnimelech, M., Haas, N. and Meyerhof, E. eds. Hazorea I (Archiv, 5). Brescia: 23–28. Meyerhof, E. L. 1989. The Bronze Age Necropolis at Kibbutz Hazorea, Israel (BAR International Series 534). Oxford. Portugali, Y. 1982. A Field Methodology for Regional Archaeology (The Jezreel Valley Survey, 1981). Tel Aviv 9: 170–188. Raban, A. 1982. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Nahalal (28). Jerusalem. Raban, A. 1999. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Mishmar Ha-‘Emeq (32). Jerusalem. Raban, A. and Shemesh, N. 2016a. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Nazareth (29). https://survey.antiquities.org.il/#/MapSurvey/2154 (accessed: 30 April 23). Raban, A. and Shemesh, N. 2016b. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of ‘Afula (33). https://survey.antiquities.org.il/#/MapSurvey/2155 (accessed: 30 April 23). Regev, J., de Miroschedji, P., Greenberg, R., Braun, E., Greenhut, Z. and Boaretto, E. 2012. Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology. Radiocarbon 54/3–4: 525–566. Regev, J., Finkelstein, I., Adams, M. J. and Boaretto, E. 2014. Wiggle-matched 14C Chronology of Early Bronze Megiddo and the Synchronization of Egyptian and Levantine Chronologies. Ägypten und Levante 24: 243–66. Richard, S., Long, J. C., Holdorf, P. S., and Peterman, G. 2010. Khirbet Iskander: Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C ‘Gateway’ and Cemeteries (American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports 14). Boston. Richard, S. 2020a. ed. New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant. University Park, PA: 376–394. Richard, S. 2020b. New Vistas on the EBIV of the Southern Levant: A Case for “Rural Complexity” in the Permanent Sedentary Sites. In: Richard, S. ed. New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant. University Park, PA: 417–453. Sala, M. 2020. The Early Bronze III to Early Bronze IV Transition in the Upper Wadi Zarqa: Continuity Versus Discontinuity. In: Richard, S. ed. New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant. University Park, PA: 300–311. Salem, H. 2006. Early Bronze Age Settlement System and Village Life in the Jenin Region/ Palestine: A Study of Tell Jenin Stratigraphy and Pottery Traditions (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden). Leiden. Smithline, H. 2002. An Intermediate Bronze Age Site at Horbat Qishron. In: Gal, Z. ed. Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem: *21–*46. Smithline, H. 2017. An Intermediate Bronze Age Presence at Tel Yizra‘’el. ʽAtiqot 88: 1–16. Tepper, Y. 2003. Survey of the Legio Region. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 115: *29–*31. Tepper, Y. 2013. Megiddo – Yoqne‘am–Megiddo Junctions, Survey (Road 66). Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/ Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=4371 (accessed: 30 April 23). Tepper, Y. 2014. Migdal Ha-‘Emeq (North), Survey. Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=9 561&mag_id=121 (accessed: 30 April 23). Turgemann-Yaffee, Z. forthcoming. The Faunal Assemblage from Naḥal Rimmonim, an Intermediate Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age in the Jezreel Valley. ‘Atiqot. Ussishkin, D. 2013. Summary and Conclusions: Comments Regarding the Early Bronze Cultic Compound, 1992–2010. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Cline, E. H., eds.

44

Karen Covello-Paran

Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 31). Tel Aviv: 1317–1328. Zertal, A. and Mirkam, N. 2016. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey. III: From Naḥal ʽIron to Naḥal Shechem (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 21.3). Leiden and Boston. Zori, N. 1962. An Archaeological Survey of the Beth-Shean Valley. In: The Beth Shean Valley: The 17th Archaeological Convention. Jerusalem: 135–198. (Hebrew). Zori (Tsori) N. 1971. The Tel Yosef Area in Antiquity. Tel Yosef (Hebrew). Zori (Tsori) N. 1977. The Land of Issachar Archaeological Survey. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE Liora Freud Little is known about the period in Judah from the 586 BCE Babylonian destruction until 534 BCE, the beginning of the Persian period, in pottery research. We have found very few Babylonian-period pottery types – which is not entirely surprising as no destruction levels have been found and finds from burial caves are of little help due to their long period of use. Over the years, researchers have noted a similarity in shape between some Iron Age pottery types and types of the Persian period. This similarity, however, is enigmatic, when one considers that it is accompanied by accelerated changes following the calamity that befell Judah at the beginning of the sixth century BCE with the Babylonian exile. In a period of only around fifty years (from 586 until 538 BCE), some types disappeared, and many exhibited major changes in clay. The goal of this contribution is to identify pottery types of the Babylonian period in Judah – the “missing link” between the Iron IIC and the Persian period.1 The likelihood of finding clean Babylonian assemblages, however, is low and the assumption is that they are likely to appear alongside types typical of the later part of the Iron IIC or with types characteristic of the Early Persian period. This study investigates data from new excavations in Jerusalem and its environs – most notably, at Ramat Raḥel. The abundance of data available from these excavations enables a meticulous investigation of the period, avoiding the influence of earlier preconceptions, which were influenced by the “Empty Land” narrative. This contribution takes the following track: First, I will show that there is a natural progression of pottery development over time, focusing on the changes that occur between the Iron IIB and the Iron IIC. Second, I will highlight the importance of Ramat Raḥel and the contribution of the many stamp-seal impressions uncovered there to the characterisation of the pottery of the Iron IIC and the subsequent Babylonian period. 1 This contribution is based on my Ph.D. dissertation, titled “Judahite Pottery in the Transitional Phase between the Iron Age and the Persian Period: Jerusalem and Environs,” submitted to Tel Aviv University in 2018 under the supervision of Prof. Oded Lipschits. My deep gratitude is extended to Oded for inspiring me to return to the academic world and pursue my M. A. and Ph.D. studies at a relatively late stage in my career.

46

Liora Freud

Third, I will characterise the pottery of the end of the Iron IIC and show how these types change in the transition to the Babylonian period. Fourth, all the above will enable a characterisation of pottery types specific to the Babylonian period. Finally, based on the types identified, I will discuss the distribution of sites displaying settlement continuity from the Iron IIC through the Babylonian period until the Persian period.

1. Changes in Pottery Types from the Iron IIB and during the Iron IIC The dramatic nature of the changes in pottery types during the Babylonian period becomes even more striking when one considers the gradual nature of the changes between the end of the Iron IIB and the end of the Iron IIC (see summary of types and their extent in Table 1). At Lachish, for example, some pottery types of Level III (the Iron IIB) can be seen in Level II (the Iron IIC) with only minor changes – to the point that it is not always possible to ascertain to which stratum the vessels belong. For example: − Bowls with outfolded rim (Figure 1: B7) are medium-sized, with a base ring and a generally rounded rim in Level III; in Level II, these vessels are generally smaller, with a disk base and a more elongated rim (B5). − A similar gradual change can be seen in closed cooking pots: in the Iron IIB they bear ridges on a straight neck, whereas in the Iron IIC they have a single ridge on an outturned neck (Figure 2: CP2). The open cooking pot (CP1) probably began in the middle of the Iron IIC and is the most common cooking pot in the sixth century BCE.2 − The decanter with square shape is more typical of the Iron IIB, while those with a more elongated shape (Figure 2: JG1 and JG2) are characteristic of the Iron IIC. − Lmlk storage jars are common in Lachish Level III–II and are dated mainly to the Iron IIB, while rosette jars (Figure 3: SJ1.2) are found in Level II and are dated to the Iron IIC.3 − Parallels between the various types of holemouth jars in well-dated assemblages also point to gradual changes over time.4 The two sub-types of holemouth jar HMJ4 (Figure 3) were common at the end of the eighth and the first half of the seventh century BCE. At the beginning of the seventh century, 2 An intermediate type (Figure 2: CP3.1) was found in the City of David, Stratum 11, dated to the early Iron IIC (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 4.3:8). 3 Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010, 2011, Koch and Lipschits 2013. 4 Freud 2019a.

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

47

both sub-types were found at Jerusalem (City of David Stratum 12) and rural sites such as Khirbet er-Ras5 and Ramot Alon.6 Gradually, sub-type HMJ4.2, with short rim and triangular section, was replaced by sub-type HMJ4.1, with a rim oblong in section. Holemouth jar HMJ1 replaced HMJ4 toward the end of the seventh century BCE. Holemouth jar HMJ4 may be found in 586 BCE destruction levels, but generally in small quantities, alongside many holemouth jars of types HMJ1 and HMJ5, for example at Khirbet er-Ras7 and Ras el-ʽAmud.8 These examples highlight the gradual nature of pottery development, despite events such as the 701 BCE destruction at Lachish. With regard to Jerusalem and its environs, it is even more difficult to define changes in the period, since it did not undergo a contemporaneous destruction.

2. The Importance of Ramat Raḥel and the Stamp-seal Impressions uncovered There Excavations at Ramat Raḥel have unearthed a palatial complex that was established during the Iron IIC and was not destroyed in 586 BCE, but continued to exist at least until the end of the Persian period.9 Three building phases were dated to this timeframe (Figure 4): First and second phases were dated to the Iron IIC and the third to the Persian period. The pottery assemblages from the three phases make Ramat Raḥel the most important site for the differentiation of types within the Iron IIC, and provides important contribution in the study of the types that developed during the Babylonian period. Vessels from first phase of the complex (Building Phase I), found under the floor of the palatial building, were dated to the early–mid-seventh century BCE.10 In addition, two-winged lmlk stamp-seal handles (mainly of the later types) and handles bearing incised concentric circles were found.11 The later types of lmlk stamp-seal handles were dated to the first half of the seventh century BCE and the concentric incisions to the middle of that century.12 Building Phase II includes the casemate wall and courtyard floor 380.13 The assemblages belonging to this phase are a pit located beneath the central  5

Feig 2016. Gadot et al. 2019.  7 Gadot 2015.  8 Nagorski and Greenhut 2015.  9 Lipschits, Oeming and Gadot 2020: 476–483. 10 Freud 2018: 214–216; forthcoming. 11 Koch 2020: 246–247. 12 Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010; Lipschits 2021: 31–48. 13 Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020: 478–481.  6

48

Liora Freud

courtyard (Pit 14109)14 and a concentration of holemouth jars in a room south of the courtyard (L14052).15 Both assemblages were dated to the end of the seventh and the beginning of the sixth century BCE. They are contemporaneous with rosette stamp-seal impressions, found at Ramat Raḥel only above the courtyard floor and not in the fills below it.16 On the same floor, pottery vessels from the end of the Iron IIC were found alongside Persian pottery. In these mixed contexts, rosette stamp-seal impressions were found together with lion and yhwd stamp-seal impressions, testifying to a long and uninterrupted period of use of the palatial building. Because of this continuity, it is difficult to pinpoint the changes between the second (Iron Age) phase and the following phase, but at some point during the Persian period, a large wing was added in the north-western side of the palace, surrounded by deep foundation trenches and plaster water channels inside them.17 and A garden was installed in the western side.18 Belonging to this phase are additional two important clusters of finds. First is a refuse pit (L.13174) cut into earlier features in the southern part of the site. It was filled and then sealed by a floor and its makeup that contain mostly Persian, Late Hellenistic and Early Roman sherds. Storage jars bearing lion and yhwd stamp-seal impressions and other ceramic vessels found with them in the pit were dated to Building Phase III.19 Among these finds, the Yhwd stamp-seal impressions found on complete four-handled jars are of early types in this series that belong to the fifth century BCE.20 Further to the west, vessels found on the floor of a structure were dated to the later part of the Persian period. No stamp-seal impressions were found at this location, but it seems reasonable that this date accords with that of the middle and late yhwd stamp-seal impressions. The whole site was eventually covered by thick layer of fills that yielded Early Hellenistic pottery and Yršlm stamp-seal impressions.21 Results of the renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel provided a stratigraphic division between the early part of the Iron IIC (below the courtyard floor of the palatial building) and the later part of this period (Pit 14109 and the concentration of holemouth jars). Another group of Late Iron IIC pottery was also found alongside hitherto unknown types in a foundation trench of the Building Phase III added northwestern wing (Foundation Trench 4)22 and within the 14

Fulton et al. 2015. Freud 2018: 216–218; see also Freud 2016: 263 with similar conclusions from Aharoni’s excavations. 16 Aharoni 1964: 35. 17 Gross 2020: 74–94. 18 Ibid.: 74–78; Shalom and Gross 2020: 111–116. 19 Lipschits et al. 2021. 20 Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011: 251–252; 2021. 21 Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020: 483; Lipschits 2021: 143–153; 177–185. 22 Gross 2020: 86, Fig. 6.25 15

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

49

garden soil; the same new types were uncovered along with Early Persian pottery in Pit 13174.23 Since these new types have not been found in 586 BCE destruction levels in any other site, they should, in my opinion, be considered Babylonianperiod pottery types that are discussed below.

3. Changes in Pottery Production during the Iron IIC and until the Persian period At the end of the seventh century BCE, the pottery industry displayed specialisation and mass production. The integration into the Assyrian colonial network brought into Judah new pottery-making techniques, including the introduction of a faster wheel that enabling potters to work with different clay more suited to the new technique and to produce new vessel shapes.24 Consequently, the ceramic assemblages feature a limited range of types, and there was great uniformity in the size and shape of each type: Bowl B5 and the bowls with shining burnish  – B3, B6 and B8 (Figure 1)  – appear to have been produced by the same technique. They were all produced from local clay made of terra rosa or rendzina soils.25 The few bowls of B1, B10 and B26 are exceptional: their fine quality suggests a different ceramic tradition and production technique, although they too are uniform and B10 and B26 are mass-produced. B14 was probably not produced in the Jerusalem environs until the Persian period, and the few items uncovered were probably brought in from elsewhere. No changes in the shape of the bodies of cooking pots were evident from the end of the Iron Age until the beginning of the Hellenistic period.26 Only the neck and rim underwent change. Due to their fragility, cooking pots are the best markers of chronology. From the end of the seventh century and throughout the sixth, the ratio between the two most common types of the seventh century (Figure 2: CP1 and CP2) changes, with the neckless cooking pot (CP1) becoming more common. In the fills under courtyard floor 380 at Ramat Raḥel, type CP2, with ridged neck, was more common than CP1.27 In pit 14109, only type CP1 was found,28 and in another assemblage (Aharoni’s Locus 477), this is the only type published.29 CP1 is also the most common type in Bet ha-Kerem and in Stratum

23

Freud 2021: 28–72. Franken 2005: 70; Anastasio 2010; Daviau and Graham 2009. 25 Boness and Goren forthcoming. 26 London 2016: 14–15. 27 See Freud 2018: Appendix 3.2. 28 See Fulton et al. 2015. 29 Aharoni 1964: Fig. 18:7–12. 24

50

Liora Freud

9/10 at the Summit of the City of David.30 In Pit 13174 at Ramat Raḥel it is the most common type, found along with a few cooking pots type CP4 (Figure 8), attributed to the Persian period.31 It also seems that along with the cessation in the production of CP2, there was also a decline in the incised potter’s marks found on cooking-pot handles. While CP1 continued to be produced, no potter’s mark was found on cooking-pot handles in assemblages dated to the Babylonian and the beginning of the Persian period. The change in decanter shape from Type JG1 to JG7 (Figures 2, 6) can be seen as early as the very end of the Iron IIC: in Stratum V at En-Gedi JG1 vessels were found with a few JG7 decanters32, and in Tel ʽIra Stratum VI, an unburnished decanter made of grey clay was uncovered.33 The small degenerated JT1 – common in destruction levels such as Lachish Level II and City of David Stratum 10 – is a new type that imitates the Judean decanter but in a different type of clay, with a thick wall and without slip. The thick wall goes on to become the hallmark of juglets during the Persian period, such as the carrot shaped juglet and the elongated body juglet(JT7, JT9; Figure 8, Table 1). The pithoi and holemouth jars manifest great uniformity in production, and a unified series may be detected. The pithoi of the seventh century BCE, such as those found at the Ophel (Table 1: P1.2)34 are harbingers of the crisis of the pottery industry in this period; they have thinner walls, exhibit air bubbles, and are less symmetrical and unified in form than the pithoi of the eighth century BCE (P1.1). Holemouth HMJ1 (Figure 3) vessels were found mainly in assemblages dating to the 586 BCE destruction or slightly later, as Jerusalem, on the Summit of the City of David Strata 10–1 and 9/1035 and in the Givʽati Parking Lot Building 10036 and rural sites such as at Ramot Alon37 and Bet ha-Kerem.38 This is the latest type of holemouth jar. It appeared in many sites containing Iron IIC pottery types, alongside additional types produced in the tradition of the Iron Age, but differing from them slightly in clay type and decoration. In these sites there is continuity of settlement from the end of the Iron Age to the Babylonian period. Holemouth jar HMJ6 (Figure 6, Table 1), very similar to HMJ1 but with slightly wavy rim, appeared in assemblages of the end of the Iron Age and the sixth century BCE.

30 31

Freud 2018: Figs. 57–71. Freud 2021: Fig. 3.4. See Freud 2018: 195–203 on the diversity in clay type of these cooking

pots. 32 Yezerski 2007: Pl. 7; Nos. 9 and 16 differ in that they are degenerated and unburnished types. 33 Freud 1999: Fig. 6:62:11. 34 Mazar and Mazar 1989: Pl. 12:8–10. 35 Yezerski and Mazar 2015: Tables 5.1–5.5; Freud 2018: Appendix 4. 36 Shalev et al. 2019; 2020. 37 Gadot et al. 2019: Fig. 3.8. 38 Freud 2018: 232–248; 2019a: Fig. 5.1.

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

51

Two issues emerge from the study of the holemouth jars. First, the temporary growth in the number of holemouth jars is accompanied by a decline in other jar types, and perhaps stemmed from other historical processes that occurred in the region. The holemouth jar is known as early as the Iron I, but was never so mass produced. The increase in production may be linked to the tremendous population growth that took place at the time around Jerusalem and the need to provide agricultural products for marketing or tax purposes.39 This, however, would not explain why this small heavy vessel became preferred over the bag-shaped or rosette-stamped storage jars. Nor would it explain why the phenomenon was restricted mainly to the Jerusalem area and did not occur in the Negev, for example – a region that witnessed a similar large concurrent population growth. The second issue concerning the Iron IIC holemouth jars is their reduced production quality. Type HMJ1 holemouth jars from Ramat Raḥel, made of Moza clay (see below), are clumsily produced with air bubbles in the clay, causing cracks on the vessel surface. Such low quality, characterised by air bubbles and cracks, is typical of the first part of the Persian period. At that time, the common holemouth jar of the Iron IIC is no longer produced, and instead, holemouth kraters are most common (Figure 7 and see below). Another change is visible in the location of workshops and in the clay they used. The storage jars associated with the administrative system, such as the lmlkand the rosette-stamped jars were produced in the Shephelah, rendering them exceptional in the Iron IIC assemblage of the Jerusalem area. All other pottery types were manufactured in local clay.40 Most of the holemouth jars were manufactured in the Judean Hills from clay originating from terra rosa soil or Moza clay (the later types of holemouth jars, in particular, were increasingly made from Moza clay, rather than terra rosa soil). This suggests that specific workshops in various places each specialised in a certain type of vessel. Moreover, the production centres manufacturing the small vessels made of terra rosa or rendzina soil (“the red pottery of Jerusalem”) gradually replaced the raw material or ceased to exist toward the end of the period. Other workshops began manufacturing in clay originating in Moẓa clay, perhaps the same workshops that produced the pithoi and holemouth jars.41 The process was completed with almost all production – with the exception of cooking pots – employing Moza clay, as demonstrated by the Persian-period bowls and jugs and especially by the four-handled, oval, lion- and yhwd-stamped jars made of Moza clay.42 These examples show that changes in pottery were dynamic and began already at the end of Iron IIC. 39

Freud 2019a: n. 107; and see recently Lipschits 2021: 15. Ben-Shlomo 2019: 170–207. 41 E. g., large kraters imitating K1 (Figure 1), made of clay identical to that of the pithoi and holemouth jar, were found at Ḥorvat ʽUza (Freud 2007: Figs. 3.16:2, 3.45:5). 42 Gorzalczany 2012; Ben-Shlomo 2019: 228; Boness and Goren, forthcoming. 40

52

Liora Freud

The gradual process of change in clay type took place not only between the Shephelah and the Judean Hills, but within the environs of Jerusalem. During the Iron IIC, holemouth jars, stands and oil lamps, for example, were produced mainly out of two types of clay (one originating from terra rosa and rendzina soils, and the other from the Moza Formation). Moza clay gradually became the preferred type for pottery production.43 This change reached a peak close to the destruction at the end of the Iron IIC when production of the small vessels (the “red pottery”) stopped and a large variety of vessels of the same type appeared, with different raw materials and in small quantities. The number of holemouth jars, which increased significantly at the end of the Iron Age, declined, and their serial production appears to have ceased during the first half of the sixth century BCE.

4. Pottery Types of the Babylonian Period The types defined here as “Babylonian-period types”44 were determined through a comparison of secure assemblages from Ramat Raḥel and the Summit of the City of David with assemblages with secure chronological anchors (e. g., City of David Stratum 10, Lachish Level II, En-Gedi Strata V–IV ). To date, these vessels have not been found in an assemblage containing only sixth-century types. On the one hand, these sixth-century types appear together with types characteristic of the Iron IIC,45 while on the other hand, they were found in assemblages together with types typical of the beginning of the Persian period.46 The evolution of the main types during this timeframe is presented in Figure 10. As it is reasonable to assume that not all pottery types changed at the same time and at the same rate, consequently, not all Babylonian-period types will be on the same sequence in the fifty years that elapsed between the 586 BCE destruction and the Persian period. For this reason, most pottery types of the 43 We lack data on the common bag-shaped jar SJ2 (Figure 3, Table 1) which was less common at Ramat Raḥel and other sites included in my research, but probably underwent a similar process since it continued to be produced from Moza clay, with only small changes in shape until the Hellenistic period (SJ6 and SJ7 Figures 6 and 9, Table 1). 44 E. g., flat bowl B22, bowl with outfolded rim B25, carinated bowl B29, deep krater K8, cooking pot CP1, wide body degenerated decanter JG7, outturned wide neck jug JG8, alabastron JT3, pyxis JT5, small bottle JT6, lamp L3, four handled jar with straight neck SJ5.1, bag shaped jar SJ6, (see Figures 5, 6, and 10, Table 1). 45 E. g., flat bowls B1, B2.2 and B3, bowls with outfolded rim B5, B6 and B26, carinated bowls B8 and B9.2, rounded bowls B10, krater K3, cooking pot CP1, jugs JG1, JG2, JG3, JG4, JG5, JG6, juglets JT1, JT2 and JT3, lamps L1 and L2, storage jars SJ1.2, SJ2, HMJ1 and HMJ5 and pithos P1.2 (see Figures 1–3 and 10, Table 1). 46 E. g., carinated bowls B14.3, medium-sized and large bowls B16, B27, B31 and B32, krater K2 with ring base, K7 and K9, cooking pots CP4 and CP5, jugs JG3, JG7, JG9, juglets JT7, JT8, JT9, storage jars ST5.2 and bag shaped jar SJ7 (see Figures 7–10).

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

53

Babylonian period are those common at the end of the Iron IIC and only a few of them are new types, as is evident in the assemblages of Stratum 9/10 at the Summit of the City of David, at Bet ha-Kerem, Givʽat Ḥoma and Ramat Raḥel (in Foundation Trench 4, the garden soil and the floors of the second and third building phases in Area D1).47 The more one progresses toward the fifth century BCE, the more Babylonian-period pottery types will be found with pottery types of the beginning of the Persian period, as is evident, for example, at Ramat Raḥel L.13174.48 Interestingly, pottery vessels that one would expect to be more replaceable as they break more easily – such as cooking pots (CP1) and jugs (JG3; Figures 2 and 6) used for water49– are the ones that continued from the seventh to the sixth century BCE, with hardly any change. It is particularly difficult to distinguish between these two types at the end of the Iron Age along the sixth century and the beginning of the Persian period. There is no indication of mass production of pottery in the sixth century and at the beginning of the Persian period. The specialised mass-produced potterymaking of the Iron IIC (evident in the “reddish pottery of Jerusalem;” bowl types B2, B3, B5, B7, B8 and B9; Figure 1) came to a halt around the 586 BCE destruction, and consequently there was a decline in the number of vessels, but a greater variety in shapes, making a typological classification difficult. This is evident in the great diversity of bowl types, such as B16, B17, B18, B22, B27 and B28 (Figures 5 and 7), compared to the uniformity in bowl types at the end of the Iron Age. The only bowl that was probably mass produced during the sixth century BCE is bowl B25 (Figure 5), which was made with the same technique as the small bowl of the end of the Iron Age (e. g., B5) but with a different type of clay.50 At some point toward the Persian period, its production ceased and it was not as common as bowl B5 toward the end of the Iron Age. Another aspect of the continuity in pottery production is the use of burnish. Potters continued to use this technique into the Persian period (mainly on bowls B25, B29; Figures 5 and 7), deep kraters (K8; Figure 5) and some of the jugs (JG7; Figure 6) although the external appearance of the vessel was different. Burnish on Moza clay has a transparent or yellowish colour, whereas burnish on clay from terra rosa or rendzina soils emphasises the reddish colour of the clay. This 47

See Freud 2018: 214–251. Freud 2021. 49 Wood 1990: 86–94; London 2016: 14–16; Arnold 1988: 370–372; David 1972: 141–142; Rice 2015: 200–202. 50 An examination of the chaine opératoire of bowls found in Foundation Trench 4 Area B, at Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2018: Appendix 2; forthcoming) reveals that bowls of Type B25 which did not appear in the destruction layers of 586 BCE, was made in the same technique as bowls of Types B2, B5 and B8. This testifies to continuity in pottery production, despite the crisis that led potters to move from use of terra rosa and rendzina clay to Moza clay. 48

54

Liora Freud

“transparent” burnish is generally a marker of the Babylonian period or the early Persian period (although other considerations should be taken into account, such as the shape of the vessel and its resemblance to the Iron Age type from which it developed). Such vessels – mainly bowls – remain in use during the Persian period but are found in much smaller quantities. Other bowls were produced in the sixth century using different techniques.51 In bowl B28 (Figure 5), a coil was added outside the rim, creating a thickened rim similar to the outfolded rim common in the Iron II. This was another form of imitation of the traditional Iron Age shape. Some of the bowls found at the Summit of the City of David Stratum 9/10 were brought from the Shephelah or the Samaria region.52 Vessels under Assyrian influence, probably not produced locally, continued to arrive in small quantities to Jerusalem in the sixth century (e. g., Figure 5: B14.2 and B15). The importing of vessels for daily use from nearby regions, the variety in pottery types and shapes and the lack of mass production – in contrast to the uniformity that characterised seventh-century pottery – are all factors that point to a crisis in pottery production in Jerusalem and its environs at the early sixth century. The return to small and less specialised workshops points to a low level of social organisation.53 In the region of Amman, which did not suffer a similar crisis as Judah, pottery production continued, and a few pottery types (e. g., Figure 6: JT3) probably arrived from there. Assyrian-influenced pottery types became more common in Jerusalem’s environs at the beginning of the Persian period (e. g., Figure 7: B29, B14.3 and K9), when they began to be produced by the local potters in local clay that originated from the Moza Formation. The process of change in pottery production in the course of the sixth century BCE is also clear with the four-handled jars. Lion stamp-seal impressions were stamped on storage jars produced either in the Shephelah or the Judean hills while the yhwd stamp-seal impressions are known only on storage jars produced in the Judean hills54 The place of production shifted either because of the potters’ preference or due to a shift in policy (or perhaps due to the Babylonian destruction of the cities in the Shephelah).55 Jars of these types (SJ5; Figures 6 and 9) found in Pit 13174 at Ramat Raḥel56 constitute the connecting link in the pottery production of the sixth century BCE. Yhwd stamp-seal impressions found 51

See Freud 2018: Appendix 2 for a bowl of Type B18 (here Figure 5, Table 1) produced by coiling technique. 52 Freud 2018: Chapter 5; Ben-Shlomo 2019: 156, 265. 53 Rice 2015: 365–367; Wood 1990: 49. 54 Gross and Goren 2010; Freud 2018: 195–212. 55 In this period workshops in the Shephelah no longer manufactured the four-handled jars. In the Late Persian period, four-handled jars in the Shephelah were made of Moza clay, as in Tel Azekah, for example (Shatil 2016: 80, SJ2). Those were probably also produced in the Judean Hills and from there they were brought (either empty or filled with commodities) to the Shephelah. 56 Lipschits et al. 2021.

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

55

on complete four-handled jars in the pit are of early types belonging to the fifth century BCE.57 It has been shown that these storage jars are of the four-handled jar type that continued the tradition of the four-handled jars of the Iron IIB and the IIC stamped with lmlk and rosette impressions.58

5. The Distribution of Babylonian Pottery in Jerusalem and Its Environs The identification of the types dating to the Babylonian period opens the path for an assessment of the distribution of sites displaying settlement continuity from the Iron IIC through the Babylonian period until the Persian period. First – Jerusalem. Pottery attributed to the Babylonian period was found in a poorly constructed building uncovered in the Givʽati Parking Lot excavations (Strata X– IX) that was erroneously dated to the Iron IIC.59 Additional Babylonian-period pottery was found among the meagre remains of a Persian settlement found by the ongoing excavations at the Givʽati Parking Lot, within the debris of Building 100.60 Findings from the stratified fills on the Summit of the City of David also suggest that the city was not devoid of settlement in the sixth century BCE.61 There is no doubt that the size and population of Jerusalem declined in the course of the sixth century and in the Persian period, compared to the Iron IIC. Despite many years of research, only meagre remains have been uncovered from the Babylonian and the Persian periods. Nevertheless, ceramic finds indicate that the city had not been totally abandoned.62 Further evidence of this can be found in the cemeteries of Ketef Hinnom63 and Mamila,64 west of the city. The administrative centre at Ramat Raḥel continued to function without interruption, as evident in the Babylonian pottery found in Foundation Trench 4, the garden soil, the Babylonian-Persian Pit and the Building Phase IV fills that cover the site.65 At Moza too, recent excavations have demonstrated a Persianperiod presence,66 even though past excavations did not show continuity from 57 The stamped storage jars also constitute evidence of the status and rule of Ramat Raḥel as an administrative centre not only during the Iron IIC but even after the fall of Jerusalem, throughout the sixth century and the Persian period (Lipschits 2021: 145–153, 172–186; Lipschits et al. 2021: 149–150). 58 Freud 2021: Figs. 4.13:1–2, 4.15. 59 Ben-Ami 2013: 8–18; see Freud 2019a: 135–136 on the date of these strata. 60 Shalev et al. 2019; 2020. 61 Mazar 2015: 41–45; Freud 2018: 232–235. 62 Freud and Shalev 2023. 63 Barkay 1985; 1994: 101–102. 64 Reich 2000. 65 Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020; Lipschits, Freud and Gadot 2021. 66 Shua Kisilevitz, personal communication.

56

Liora Freud

the Iron Age into the Persian period. To these one should add the recently excavated sites of Armon ha-Natziv67 and Mordot Arnona,68 where Iron IIC and Early Persian period pottery were found, suggesting continuity through the Babylonian period. Excavations at rural sites such as Givʽat Ḥoma, Khirbet er-Ras, Manaḥat,69 Bet ha-Kerem (assuming that the buildings excavated by Billig70and Davidovich71 belong to the same village with scattered structures), Alona,72 Highway 973 and Qiryat Moriyya74 all point to continuity, albeit partial: in a few of the structures at each site the pottery suggests continuity, although the settlement declined significantly in size. At Ras el-Amud, sherds found in a pit not associated with any building suggest a small settlement on the Mount of Olives in the Babylonian period.75 In an as yet unpublished cave at Mount Scopus,76 Iron IIC pottery types were found along with Babylonian and Persian types. Past excavations of large sites in the region of Benjamin, such as Tell enNaṣbeh, Tell el-Ful and Gibeon, have revealed pottery types similar to those of the region of Jerusalem. Finds uncovered at Tell en-Naṣbeh, such as a metal band inscribed in cuneiform and a clay coffin,77 can be attributed directly to the Babylonian rule. Other finds, such as lion and mwṣh stamp-seal impressions, are associated with the Babylonian and Early Persian period. The same Babylonian pottery types uncovered in the Jerusalem environs were uncovered at the settlement in Khirbet el-Burj,78 which probably moved at the end of the Iron IIC or during Babylonian rule to the nearby Nebi Samwil.79 Babylonian pottery was also found at ʽAlmit,80 ʽAnata81 and other, more recently excavated, sites. In sum, the ceramic evidence suggests that from the seventh century BCE onward – from the Iron IIC through the Babylonian period until the early Persian period, at the very least – there is continuity in settlement in the Benjamin region. More isolated settlements feature evidence of continuity as well. At En-Gedi the continuity between the Iron IIC to the Persian period is reasonable when

67

Billig, Freud and Bocher 2022. Sapir et al. 2022. 69 Freud 2018: 232–252, 272–273, Figs. 109–116. 70 Billig 2011. 71 Davidovich et al. 2006. 72 De Groot 2020. 73 Avner and Eirikh-Rose 2007. 74 Levi 2010. 75 Freud 2019b. 76 Freud 2018: 275. 77 Zorn 2003: 433–435. 78 Weinberger-Stern 2015. 79 Magen and Har-Even 2007. 80 Dinur and Lipovitz 1988. 81 Taha 2014. 68

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

57

results of the excavation are carefully studied.82 To the south, in the region of Hebron, Khirbet Nimra yielded sixth-century BCE finds.83 All the sites that show any degree of continuity were dated on the basis of pottery types to the very end of the Iron IIC; furthermore, most sites displaying continuity from the Iron IIC to the sixth century also continue, at the very least, to the Early Persian period.84 This continuity was found in Jerusalem and its hinterland in all sizes of settlements – from small farmhouses to administrative centres. With regard to the nature of the settlement in the Jerusalem environs, a pattern of sparse settlement all around it is evident in the sixth century BCE. Gadot has shown that the number and size of settlements declined in the Early Persian period, after their extraordinary growth in the Iron IIC.85 The ceramic evidence now suggests that this decline characterises the sixth century BCE too.

6. Summary The Iron Age tradition is noticeable in the pottery vessels of the Babylonian and Early Persian periods in Judah, demonstrating that pottery consumption and manufacture continued in Jerusalem, in the rural areas around it and at Ramat Raḥel. This continuity notwithstanding, it is clear that the pottery industry suffered a severe crisis at the end of the Iron IIC. Franken suggested that like other sectors of the population, the potters were exiled to Babylon, and when the city was resettled it attracted potter families from other regions.86 Contra Franken, I suggest that the work in some of the pottery workshops – such as those producing small vessels (the ‘red pottery’) – did indeed come to a halt, but others continued to exist and to produce their ware. Workshops that utilised the readily accessible Moza clay continued to operate, as is evident in the finding of holemouth jars and other vessels. Perhaps there was a deliberate decision not to exile these potters, so that they could supply the vessels necessary for agricultural products for daily use or payment of taxes. Lack of uniformity is conspicuous in all these types that were not typical of the Iron IIC. This lack of uniformity was the hallmark of the Persian period, but was especially attributable to the Babylonian period (sixth century BCE) and the first part of the Persian period (fifth century BCE). The lack of uniformity is also expressed in the many shapes

82 I wish to thank Uri Davidovich for showing me material from his excavations at Tel Goren area, which corroborate these results. 83 Hizmi and Shabtai 1994. 84 Bocher and Freud 2017; for a detailed list with pottery types and additional sites, see Freud 2018: 252–280. 85 Gadot 2015. 86 Franken 2005: 198.

58

Liora Freud

of the lion stamp-seal impressions stamped on jars and the early yhwd stamp-seal impressions of the beginning of the Persian period. New pottery types (such as the deep kraters with wedge decoration and the carrot-shaped juglet), differing from Iron Age types, start to appear only at the beginning of the Persian period, toward the end of the sixth and the beginning of the fifth century BCE. By this time, the gradual transition to Moza clay had been completed, and it became almost the only raw material for pottery production in the Jerusalem area. In the later part of the Persian period – in the fourth century BCE – pottery production become more unified and standard. It is only toward the end of this period that there is greater uniformity in vessel shape, mass production, better treatment of clay and the air bubbles disappear. It seems that manufacture shifted from small workshops to larger industrial production centres, such as those excavated near Binyanei ha-ʾuma dating from the Hellenistic (Hasmonean) to the Roman period.87 These changes in material culture are gradual ones, certainly connected to the political and economic events that shook the region. It should be borne in mind, however, that the Babylonian regime was present in the region as early as the end of the seventh century BCE. It is reasonable to assume that all the procedures related to governmental and daily life were determined during the transformation of Judah into a vassal of Babylon and continued to exist in conjunction with the transfer of the capital and the destruction of parts of the city. The year 586 BCE is a historical turning point. The Babylonians had already been present in the area by this time, and they remained there until the Persians took control. The area was not destroyed in its entirety, and settlements continued to exist, although on a smaller scale. In this contribution I have shown that the lifespan of pottery types within the Iron IIC can be further narrowed down. In contrast to past studies, which either ignored the sixth century BCE or included sixth-century vessels within the Persian period – perhaps due to the lack of good post-destruction contexts or because of the short time span of this period and coupled with the influence of the “myth of the empty land” – I have isolated pottery types belonging to the Babylonian period and pointed to assemblages of the sixth century BCE. Using results of new and as yet unpublished excavations, drawing a distinction between pottery types of the sixth century BCE and of the beginning of the Persian period helps us to pinpoint dates of sites and strata within the sixth and the fourth centuries BCE. The publication of additional new excavations and the meticulous study of the pottery they yield will further contribute to our knowledge of this important, albeit short, time period.

87

Cohen-Weinberger, Levi and Beʾeri 2020.

59

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

Table 1. Duration of Pottery Types Period / Type

Iron IIB

Iron IIC

8th century BCE

First half of the 7th century BCE

Flat bowls B1

Second half of 7th – early 6th century BCE

Babylonian

Persian

6th century BCE

5th century BCE

-----------------------

B2.1

------------------------------------------------------------

B2.2

------------------------------------------

B3

------------------------------------

B22 Outfolded rim bowls

B5 B6 B7

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B25 B26 Carinated bowls

B8 B9.2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B14.1– B14.2

-----------------------------------

B14.3

------------------------------

B15.1 B15.2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B29 Rounded bowls

--------------------------------

B10

---------------------

B18

--------------------------------

Medium B16 and large B17 sized bowls B27

--------------------------------------------------------------------

B28

--------------------------------

B31

--------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------

B32 Kraters

K1

------------------------------------------------------------------------

K2

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

K3

------------------------------------------------

K7

------------------------

K8

----------------------------

K9

Cooking pots

CP1 CP2 CP3.1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60

Liora Freud

Period / Type

CP3

Iron IIB

Iron IIC

8th century BCE

First half of the 7th century BCE

Second half of 7th – early 6th century BCE

Babylonian

Persian

6th century BCE

5th century BCE

------------------------------

CP4

---------------------

CP5

Jugs

JG1 JG2 JG3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------

JG4

--------------------------------

JG5

---------------

JG6

-------------------------------------------------------

JG7

----------------------------------------

JG8

-----------------------

JG9

Juglets

JT1 JT2 JT3 JT4

Lamps

-------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JT5

-------------------

JT6

----------------------

JT7

---------------------

JT8

---------------------

JT9

---------------------

L1

-------------------------------------------------

L2

-----------------------------------------------------

L3

-----------------

L4

Jars

SJ1.1 SJ1.2 SJ2

------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SJ5

------------------------------

SJ6

------------------------------

SJ7

HoleHMJ1 mouth jars HMJ4

---------------

-------------------------------------------------------

HMJ5

---------------------

HMJ6

------------------

61

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE Period / Type

Pithoi

P1.1 P1.2

Iron IIB

Iron IIC

8th century BCE

First half of the 7th century BCE

Second half of 7th – early 6th century BCE

-----------------------------------------------

Babylonian

Persian

6th century BCE

5th century BCE

62

Liora Freud

Figure 1. Iron Age Bowls and Kraters.

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

Figure 2. Iron Age Cooking Pots, Jugs and Juglets.

63

64

Liora Freud

Figure 3. Iron Age Storage Jars, Holemouth Jars, Stands and Lamps.

Figure 4. Ramat Raḥel Building Phases I–III.

Bulding Phase I Bulding Phase II – The inner courtyard Bulding Phase II – The outer courtyard Bulding Phase II – The garden soil Bulding Phase III

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

65

66

Liora Freud

Figure 5. Babylonian Period Bowls and Kraters.

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

Figure 6. Babylonian Period Cooking Pots, Jugs and Juglets.

67

68

Liora Freud

Figure 7. Persian Period Bowls and Kraters.

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

Figure 8. Persian Period Cooking Pots, Jugs and Juglets.

69

70

Liora Freud

Figure 9. Persian Period Storage Jars and Babylonian-Persian Period Stands and Lamps.

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

Figure 10. Evolution of the Main Ceramic Types.

71

72

Liora Freud

Bibliography Aharoni, Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel II: Seasons 1961 and 1962 (Universita di Roma – Centro di Studi Semitici, Serie Archaeologica 6). Rome. Anastasio, S. 2010. Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age (Subartu XXIV ). Turnhout. Arnold, P. J. III. 1988. Household Ceramic Assemblage Attributes in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Research 44: 357–383. Avner, R. and Eirikh-Rose, A. 2007. Jerusalem, Highway 9. Hadashot Arkeologiot 119. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=496&mag_id=112 (accessed: 30 April 23). Barkay, G. 1985. Northern and Western Jerusalem in the End of the Iron Age (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Barkay, G. 1994. Excavations at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem. In: Geva, H., ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: 85–106. Ben-Ami, D. 2013. Jerusalem Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givʽati Parking Lot) (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2019. The Iron Age Pottery of Jerusalem: A Typological and Technological Study (Ariel University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 2). Ariel. Billig, Y. 2011. Jerusalem, Bet Ha-Kerem. Hadashot Arkheologiot 123 http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1829&mag_id=118 (accessed: 30 April 23). Billig, Y., Freud, L. and Bocher, E. 2022. A Luxurious Royal Estate from the First Temple Period in Armon ha-Natziv, Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 49: 6–29. Bocher, E. and Freud, L. 2017. Persian Period Settlement in the Rural Jerusalem Hinterland. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem vol. 22. Ramat Gan: 147–158 (Hebrew), *14–*15 (English summary). Boness, D. and Goren, Y., forthcoming. Petrographic Study of the Iron Age and Persian Period Pottery at Ramat Raḥel. In: Lipschits, O., Freud, L., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y. Ramat Raḥel V: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): The Finds (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA. Cohen-Weinberger, A., Levi, D. and Beʾeri, R. 2020. On the Raw Materials in the Ceramic Workshops of Jerusalem, Before and After 70 C.E. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 383: 33–59. Daviau, M. P. M. and Graham, J. A. 2009. Black-Slipped and Burnished Pottery: A Special 7th Century Technology in Jordan and Syria. Levant 41: 41–58. David, N. 1972. On the Life Span of Pottery, Type Frequencies, and Archaeological Inference. American Antiquity 37: 141–142. Davidovich, U., Farhi, Y., Kol-Yaʽakov, S., Har-Peled, M., Weinblatt-Krauz, D. and ʽAlon, Y. 2006. Salvage Excavation at Ramot Forest and Ramat Bet-Hakerem: New Data Regarding Jerusalem’s Periphery during the First and Second Temple Periods. In: Baruch, E. Greenhut, Z. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem vol. 11. Ramat Gan: 35–111 (Hebrew), 34* (English summary). De Groot, A. 2020. The pottery of the Persian Period. In: Weksler-Bdolah, S. Remains of Rural Settlements from the Middle Bronze Age, the Late Iron Age and the Persian Period, and Terrace Walls from the Late Byzantine and Islamic Periods at Ḥorbat ʽAlona (Khirbat el-Alawina). ʽAtiqot 101: 1–70 (Hebrew), *127–*136 (English summary). De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. VIIB Area E: The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem.

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

73

Dinur, U. and Lipovitz, G. 1988. A Burial cave from the 6th Century at Khirbet ʽAlmit. Nikrot Zurim 14: 44–51 (Hebrew). Feig, N. 2016. Khirbat er-Ras, Jerusalem: Iron Age and Ottoman-Period Remains. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot 128. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/images//er-Ras.pdf (accessed: 30 April 23). Franken, H. J. 2005. A History of Pottery and Potters in Ancient Jerusalem. Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967. London. Freud, L. 1999. Pottery: The Iron Age. In Beit-Arieh, I., ed. Tel ʽIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 15). Tel Aviv: 189–289. Freud, L. 2007. Iron Age Pottery. In: Beit-Arieh, I. Ḥorvat ʽUza and Ḥorvat Radum: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 25). Tel Aviv: 77–121. Freud, L. 2016. Pottery of the Iron Age: Typology and Summary. In: Lipschits, Gadot and Freud 2016: Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Winona Lake, IN: 254–265. Freud, L. 2018. Judahite Pottery in the Transitional Phase between the Iron Age and the Persian Period: Jerusalem and Its Environs (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew with English abstract). Freud, L. 2019a. The Widespread Production and Use of Holemouth Vessels in Jerusalem and its Environs in the Iron Age II: Typology, Chronology and Distribution. In: Čapek, F. and Lipschitz, O., eds. The Last Century in the History of Judah. The Seventh Century BCE in Archaeological, Historical, and Biblical Perspectives (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 37). Atlanta: 119–150. Freud, L. 2019b. Jerusalem, Ras el-ʽAmud: Pottery. In: ʽAdawi, Z. Jerusalem, Ras el-ʽAmud. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot 131 (Hebrew with English summary). https://www.hadashotesi.org.il/images//Ras_el-Amud-Pottery.pdf (accessed: 30 April 23). Freud, L. 2021. The Pottery Assemblage: Typology and Chronology. In: Lipschits, O., Freud, L., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y. Ramat Raḥel VI. The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010). The Babylonian-Persian Pit (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 40). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 28–72. Freud, L., Forthcoming. The Pottery of the Iron Age and the Persian Period. In: Lipschits, O., Freud, L., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y. Ramat Raḥel V: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): The Finds (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA. Freud. L. and Shalev, Y. 2023. Continuity and Change in 6th to 4th Centuries BCE Jerusalem. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 12: 108–132. Fulton, D. N., Gadot, Y., Kleiman, A., Freud, L., Lernau, O. and Lipschits, O. 2015. Feasting in Paradise: Feast Remains from the Iron Age Palace of Ramat Raḥel and Their Implications. Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 374: 1–20. Gadot, Y. 2015. In the Valley of the King: Jerusalem’s Rural Hinterland in the 8th–4th Centuries BCE. Tel Aviv 42: 3–26. Gadot, Y., Mizrahi, S., Freud, L. and Gellman, D. 2019. What Kind of Village Is This? Building and Agroeconomic Activities Northwest of Jerusalem during the Iron Age IIB–C Period. In: Čapek, F. and Lipschitz, O., eds. The Last Century in the History of

74

Liora Freud

Judah. The Seventh Century BCE in Archaeological, Historical, and Biblical Perspectives (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 37). Atlanta: 89–118. Gorzalczany, A. 2012. Appendix: Petrographic Analysis of Persian-Period Vessels. In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. VIIB. Area E: The Finds (Qedem 54), Jerusalem: 51–56. Gross, B. 2020. Area B2. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV. The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 69–103. Gross, B. and Goren, Y. 2010. A Technological Research of the Lion Stamp Impressions: Preliminary Results. In: Lipschits, O. and Koch, I., eds. New Studies on the Lion Stamp Impressions from Judah (Abstracts of a Symposium held 14 January 2010, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv: 11–12 (Hebrew). Hizmi, H. and Shabtai, Z. 1994. A Public Building from the Persian Period at Jabel Nimra. In: Erlich, Z. H. and Eshel, Y., eds. Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting, 1993. Ariel: 65–86 (Hebrew). Koch, I. 2020. Chapter 11: Area D3: Courtyard 380, The Inner Gate and Building 468. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y. Ramat Raḥel IV. The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 241–268. Koch. I. and Lipschits, O. 2013. The Rosette Stamped Jar Handle System and the Kingdom of Judah at the End of the First Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalӓstinaVereins 129: 55–78. Levi, D. 2010. Jerusalem, Qiryat Moriyya. Hadashot Arkeologiot 122. http://www.hadas hot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1565&mag_id=117 (accessed: 30 April 23). Lipschits, O. 2021. Age of Empires. The History and Administration of Judah in the 8th– 2nd Centuries BCE in Light of the Storage-Jar Stamp Impressions (Mosaics: Studies on Ancient Israel 2). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA. Lipschits, O., Freud, L., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y. 2021. Ramat Rahel VI: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): The Babylonian-Persian Pit. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 40). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA. Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. 2020. Chapter 20: Deconstruction and Reconstruction: Reevaluating the Five Expeditions to Ramat Raḥel. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y. Ramat Raḥel IV. The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 476–491. Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., 2020. Ramat Raḥel IV. The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA. Lipschits, O., Sergi, O. and Koch, I. 2010. Royal Judah Jar Handles: Reconsidering the Chronology of the lmlk Stamp Impressions. Tel Aviv 37: 3–32. Lipschits, O., Sergi, O. and Koch, I. 2011. Judahite Stamped and Incised Jar Handles: A Tool for the Study of the History of Late Monarchic Judah. Tel Aviv 38: 5–41.

Judahite Pottery during the Sixth Century BCE

75

Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D. S. 2011. Yehud Stamp Impressions: A Corpus of Inscribed Stamp Impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic Period in Judah. Winona Lake. Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D. S. 2021. YHWD Stamp Impressions. In: Lipschits, O., Freud, L., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y. 2021. Ramat Rahel VI: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): The Babylonian-Persian Pit (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 40). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 96–116. London, G. 2016. Ancient Cookware from the Levant: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. Sheffield. Magen, Y. and Har-Even, B. 2007. Persian Period Stamp Impressions from Nebi Samwil. Tel Aviv 32: 38–59. Mazar, E. 2015. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008. Final Reports Vol. I Area G. Jerusalem. Mazar, E. and Mazar, B. 1989. Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem (Qedem 29). Jerusalem. Nagorsky, A. and Greenhut, Z. 2015. Iron Age and Second Temple-Period Remains at Ras El-ʽAmud, Jerusalem. ʽAtiqot 80: 1–21 (Hebrew). Rice, P. M. 2015. Pottery Analysis. Chicago. Reich, R. 2000. The Ancient Burial in the Mamilla Neighborhood, Jerusalem. In: Geva, H. ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (reprinted and expanded edition). Jerusalem: 111–118. Sapir, N., Ben-Ari, N., Freud, L. and Lipschits, O. 2022. History, Economy and Administration in Late Iron Age Judah in Light of the Excavations at Mordot Arnona, Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 49: 32–53. Shalev, Y., Gellman, D., Bocher, E., Freud, L., Porat, N. and Gadot, Y. 2019. The Fortifications along the Western Slope of the City of David: A New Perspective. In: PelegBarkat, O., Zelinger, Y., Uziel, J. and Gadot, Y., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region. Collected Papers, vol. 12. Jerusalem: 51–70 (Hebrew). Shalev, Y., Shalom, N., Bocher, E. and Gadot, Y. 2020. New Evidence on the Location and Nature of Iron Age, Persian and Early Hellenistic Period Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 47: 149–172. Shalom, N. and Gross, B. 2020. Area C1. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y. Ramat Raḥel IV. The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 104–157. Shatil, N. 2016. The Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods Pottery from the Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Tel Azekah: Typology, Chronology and Identity (M. A. thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Taha, H. 2014. An Iron Age II Tomb at ʽAnata. In: Spencer, J. R., Mullins, R. A. and Brody, A. J., eds. Material Culture Matters. Essays on the Archaeology of the Southern Levant in Honor of Seymour Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: 281–294. Weinberger-Stern, M. 2015. Khirbet el-Burj (Ramot 06) and Its Place among the Rural Areas of Benjamin Region (M. A. thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Wood, B. G. 1990. The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine. The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 103; American Schools of Oriental Research Monographs 4). Worcester. Yezerski, I. 2007. Pottery of Stratum V. In: Stern, E. En-Gedi Excavations I. Jerusalem: 86–129.

76

Liora Freud

Yezerski, I. and Mazar, E. 2015. Iron Age III Pottery. In: Mazar, E. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008. Final Reports Vol. I Area G. Jerusalem: 243–298. Zorn, J. R. 2003. Tell en-Naṣbeh and the Problem of the Material Culture of the Sixth Century. In: Lipschits, O. and Blenkinsopp, J., eds. Judah and Judeans in the NeoBabylonian Period. Winona Lake, IN: 413–450.

Interpreting Ancient Artefacts: The Case of the So-Called “Toilet Seats” from Iron Age Judah Sabine Kleiman The reflection of past human behaviour in the material record is the most fundamental concept of archaeological research. In the ideal case, the location of an artefact reveals its place of use and thus makes it possible to deduce actual human actions directly from the findings. Yet, how scholars reconstruct relationships between material remains and past behaviour is not always clear and many times open to interpretation.1 In what follows, I would like to revisit the interpretation of one piece of ancient material culture that has recently increased in popularity: the “toilet seats” from Iron Age Judah. Those installations were identified and discussed in the publications of four different sites (see Table 1): the City of David, Tsur Baher, Armon ha-Natziv and Lachish. The objects are carved from stone and share similar features (see Figure 1). They are most prominently cubical in shape, with common dimensions and a round opening at the top. This contribution reviews the published items in their morphology and archaeological context. In addition, it provides a close look at the parallels from which scholars usually draw analogies when relating the objects to what is probably the most basic and universal type of human behaviour. In the discussion, I challenge the prevailing identification of these installations as “toilets” and propose an alternative interpretation.

1 This awareness was imparted upon me by a person whom I first met in a small kibbutz south of Jerusalem more than 15 years ago: Oded Lipschits. Since that day, he has not only continuously changed my entire life; he also taught me not to take anything for granted, especially not statements and interpretations in archaeological scholarship (even his own). Therefore, I am extremely happy to dedicate this contribution to Oded for his 60th birthday. In addition to our long collaboration at the Lautenschläger Azekah Expedition, Oded also integrated me into the interinstitutional research project “The History of the Pentateuch: Combining Literary and Archaeological Approaches”. The work for this project initiated my interest in the cult of Iron Age Judah and thus ultimately led to the research for this contribution.

78

Sabine Kleiman

Figure 1. Schematic reconstruction of the two main types of stone installations (prepared by A. Kleiman).2

1. The Archaeological Evidence from Judah 1.1 The City of David In the City of David, two stone objects identified as “toilet seats” were uncovered in Areas E and G that were excavated in the late 1970s and the 1980s under the direction of Yigal Shiloh. One was found in the northern part of Area E, in Stratum 12 and dated to the Iron IIB.3 The object is cubical and measures 45 × 50 × 50 cm.4 At its top, there is an opening ca. 15 cm wide connected to a shallow channel  – an arrangement described as “keyhole-shaped”.5 The stone object was found inside a pit and above a layer of small stones, charcoal and bones that covered a concentration of complete bowls.6 To the west was a low wall in which a 2-m-high standing stone was incorporated directly facing the area of the object.7 The small unit to the west of the standing stone was filled with dozens

2

Type A after Cahill et al. 1991; Type B, after Ganor and Kreimerman 2019. Shiloh 1984: 10−11; Pl. 16: 2; De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 99; 2012b: 351; Fig. 10.3: 2. 4 These measurements follow the numbers provide in De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 99. They differ in a few centimetres from the ones provided in De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012b: 351; Fig. 10.3: 2. 5 Cahill et al. 1991: 65; De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 99; see also Figure 1: Type B. 6 De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: Fig. 4.56: 15−21. 7 De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 100 and Photo 111. The presence of a monolith at this place was explained by De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg (ibid.) as having functioned as a door jamb. 3

Interpreting Ancient Artefacts

79

of complete vessels.8 Several broken parts of zoomorphic figurines were found below the stone object, on the floor in front of it and in the small area to the west.9 The second example originated from Stratum 10 and dates to the Iron IIC. It was identified as “a stone installation which may have served as a toilet”.10 The object was of similar dimensions to the stone from Stratum 12 but did not feature the keyhole-shaped opening at the top. Instead, it had two separate openings11: one round opening about 15 cm in diameter cutting into the stone straight to the bottom, and right next to it a second opening rather irregularly shaped (ca. 5–7 cm in diameter) that passes through the stone at the front side. The object was found in situ, sunken into a thick plaster floor on top of a large pit, abutting a standing stone. It was found in a small cell that belonged to a series of units, north of the “House of Aḥiel”. From the area in front of the units originated 51 clay bullae, in addition to several small bowls and juglets, a ceramic stand and four limestone stands (the “House of the Bullae”).12 Four additional items with similar features were found out of context in excavations conducted in Jerusalem. One stone was uncovered during Kenyon’s excavation in Area A.13 It measures 47 × 47 × 29 cm and has an oval hole (16 × 23 cm) that is open to one side of the object.14 The stone was part of a thick layer of debris in Building VII, dating to the Iron Age II. Another item was uncovered by Macalister and Duncan in the first quarter of the 20th century at the Ophel, which was not published in their excavation report.15 While investigating the unpublished drafts written by Duncan, Chapman uncovered the mention and depiction of “a seat of a lavatory” that was found at the foundations of the “Maccabean Tower”.16 This stone object is cubical and features an opening 15 cm wide. In addition, Chapman refers to another draft by Duncan,17 in which he describes the same stone as a damaged object, with “one third broken off ” that once had been part of a press.18 The latter identification seems more likely when considering the record of several complete items with similar measurements

 8

De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: Figs. 4.57−59. Gilbert-Peretz 1996. 10 Shiloh 1984: 18; Pl. 31: 1. 11 Cahill et al. 1991: 65−66; see also Figure 1: Type A. 12 The “House of the Bullae”; see Shiloh 1984: 19; Pl. 34: 2. 13 Kenyon 1967: Pl. XIIIB; Shiloh 1984: n. 74; Steiner 2001: 94−96; Figs. 6.50−51. 14 Unfortunately, due to the angle of the pictures and the broken status of the object, it is not possible to describe the opening in more detail. 15 Macalister and Duncan 1926. 16 Chapman 1992: 5−6; Fig. 1. 17 Ibid.: 5. 18 The identification of a second hole only ~2 cm wide pierced through one of the raised sides of the stone object (Chapman 1992: 5) also points to identifying the item as some kind of agricultural installation. The object was omitted from the final report, likely because it was broken (see Macalister and Duncan 1926: 55).  9

80

Sabine Kleiman

and features that Macalister and Duncan labelled “trough” or “sink”.19 The third object is a cubical stone with an opening and a shallow channel at the top that was reportedly found out of context in a room of the “Ashlar House” in Stratum 9 at the City of David, which is dated to the Persian period.20 With a size of 35 × 30 × 15 cm, this object is much smaller than the previous installations and thus seems too little for use as a latrine.21 Hence, as with the former example, this item can also likely be ruled out as having served as a lavatory. The fourth object was just recently uncovered during excavations in Area U, on the eastern slopes of the City of David.22 It measures 50 × 50 × 40 cm, has a round opening at the top and was found serving as a building block in the fortification of the late Iron Age. Another stone object is sometimes mentioned in the discussion. Unfortunately, the item was uncovered in the Parker Expedition at the beginning of the 20th century, has never been published and was only briefly mentioned by Vincent.23 According to his notes, the expedition workers directly associated the object with a throne of a king. The locals did not identify the object as a lavatory seat, most likely because they were more familiar with squat toilets than sitting toilets.24 1.2 Tsur Baher In an excavation directed by Emanuel Eisenberg, the remains of two “toilet seats” were uncovered at Tsur Baher, a small site about 8 km south of the City of David.25 Both objects (one complete and the other half-preserved) are square in shape and feature a hole at the top ca. 16 cm wide. No second opening or channel was described or can be seen in the published picture.26 The two stones were found in the same room of a massive building that was dated to the Iron IIC and filled with many crushed pottery sherds. No additional details were given for the location of this find.

19

Macalister and Duncan 1926: 154; Fig. 143. De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 22, 172. 21 This should be further stressed when considering that the upper part of this object was not flat but curved inward, which would create an even more limited sitting surface. Note the discrepancy in scale between the description in the text and the drawing, which shows the object twice its reported size (see De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 22; 2012b: 352; in contrast to ibid.: Fig. 10.3: 1). 22 Vukosavović, Chalaf and Uziel 2021: 10*−11*. 23 Vincent 1911: 29. 24 In the ancient Near East, squat toilets were the most common form of lavatory (Fink 2008: 169−170) and are still the most prevalent in the eastern world (Antoniou et al. 2016: 3). This is probably due to the position being better fitted anatomically for the human body, but it may also be due to Islamic hygiene regulations. 25 Eisenberg and De Groot 2006. 26 Ibid.: Fig. 2. 20

Interpreting Ancient Artefacts

81

1.3 Armon ha-Natziv Another stone installation was uncovered at Armon ha-Natziv; an estate about 2 km south of the City of David dating to the mid-seventh century.27 This cubical stone measures 53 × 49 × 35 cm and has a round opening at the top (see Figure 1: Type A).28 Another hole right next to the opening is smaller and irregularly shaped, but it is unclear if it is just a deep depression or carved entirely through the stone. The item was found in a developed outdoor area identified as a garden.29 To the west of a paved court, a narrow corridor led up to a space that was confined by carved bedrock and organised in two niches. The proposed reconstruction of the space30 unfortunately does not portray this special architectural layout. The stone object was uncovered in a pit in one of the niches, together with a large number of bowls and other ceramics as well as animal bones.31 It is likely that the installation, as well as the stone slabs found with it, once covered the pit. However, it is also possible that the object originated from a different location at the site, as suggested for the two stone capitals found just 1 m east of the pit.32 1.4 Lachish Two more examples originated from the Iron IIB gate area at Lachish.33 To date, they are the only two cases from Iron Age Judah that were not found at or in the direct vicinity of Jerusalem. One of these cubical objects is 56 × 50 × 39 cm in size and has a hole 18 cm wide connected to a channel 8 cm deep featuring a “keyhole-shaped opening” (see also Figure 1: Type B).34 The second object also has a hole at the top and very similar proportions (55 × 55 × 35 cm)35 but is unfortunately too damaged for a more detailed description. Both installations were found at the bottom end of the two innermost chambers of the city gate.36 Like the items from Stratum 12 in the City of David and from Armon ha-Natziv, the whole object was discovered inside a pit.37 The excavators suggest that it was originally located above a plastered floor that covered the pit,38 but it is also 27

Billig, Freud and Bocher 2021. Langgut 2022: 2. 29 Billig, Freud and Bocher 2021: 77; Fig. 2. 30 Langgut 2022: 5; Fig. 1. 31 Billig, Freud and Bocher 2021: 84. 32 Ibid.: 94−98. 33 Ganor and Kreimerman 2019: 220−224; Kleiman 2020: Fig. 1; Ussishkin 2021: 155. 34 Ganor and Kreimerman 2019: 220; Fig. 16; see also Fig. 4.1: Type B. 35 Ussishkin 2021: 155. 36 Kleiman 2020: Fig. 1. 37 For a detailed description of the chamber, see Ganor and Kreimerman 2016 and Kleiman 2020. 38 Ganor and Kreimerman 2019: 221. 28

82

Sabine Kleiman

possible that it was initially from another unknown location.39 The second, damaged stone object was found in the opposite chamber on the floor of a “complex installation” that was constructed of two small cells with low plastered walls.40 The finds from both chambers point to a cultic function.41 Table 1. Stone objects identified as “toilets” in Judah Site

Date

Context

Features

Jerusalem (City of David, Area E, north)42

Iron IIB

Building; inside a pit

One hole with narrow groove

Jerusalem (City of David, Area G)43

Iron IIC

Building; inside floor, above a pit

One large and one small hole

Jerusalem (City of David, Area A)44

Iron II

Out of context

One hole open to the side

Jerusalem (City of David, Area U)45

Iron II

Out of context

One hole

Jerusalem (City of David, Area E, west)46

Persian

Out of context

One hole with narrow groove; too small to use

Jerusalem (Ophel)47

Hellenistic

Out of context

One hole; broken sink?

Tsur Baher

Iron IIC

Building; two items One hole in a plastered room

Armon ha-Natziv49

Iron IIC

Outdoor area; inside a pit

One large and one small hole

Lachish50

Iron IIB

Gate chambers; two items: one inside a pit, one on a floor

One hole with narrow groove

48

39

Ussishkin 2021: 165. Ibid.: 155; Fig. 10. 41 See Ganor and Kreimerman 2019 and Kleiman 2020; but see Ussishkin (2021), who suggests a non-ritual use of the stone objects connected with water. 42 Shiloh 1984: 10–11; Pl. 16: 2; De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 99; Fig. 10.3: 2; Cahill et al. 1991: 65. 43 Shiloh 1984: 18; Pl. 31: 1; Cahill et al. 1991: 65−66. 44 Kenyon 1967: Pl. XIIIB; Steiner 2001: 94–96; Figs. 6.50−51. 45 Vukosavović, Chalaf and Uziel 2021: 10*−11*; Fig. 6a 46 De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: 352; Fig. 10.3: 1. 47 Chapman 1992. 48 Eisenberg and De Groot 2006. 49 Billig, Freud and Bocher 2021: 84; Figs. 2, 6; Langgut 2022. 50 Ganor and Kreimerman 2019: 220−224; Kleiman 2020: Fig. 1; Ussishkin 2021: 155. 40

Interpreting Ancient Artefacts

83

2. Discussion 2.1 Characteristics of the Stone Installations All the installations described above were identified as “toilets” or “toilet seats” in their initial publications. Yet, none of the scholars specify the characteristics that led them to this classification. In fact, the different arrangements and the size of the openings do not support the idea of use as a lavatory (see Figure 1). This was also mentioned by Turner, who pointed out the small size of the main hole and argued against this identification for similar installations found in Neo-Assyrian palaces.51 Humbert and Zayadine observed in a similar manner: “La manière de l’utiliser reste problématique”.52 As a comparison, the openings in latrine facilities from the Hellenistic and Roman periods are about 30 cm in diameter,53 which is double the size of the objects in question from Iron Age Judah. Even when accepting the viability of the large opening, the function of the small hole (see Figure 1: Type A) and the shallow channel (see Figure 1: Type B) remains an open question. For one of the examples from the City of David, it was suggested that the hole just 5–7 cm wide “may have been designed for male urination”.54 The envisioned usage resulting from this proposal, however, is far from any familiar human behaviour. The arrangement involving the shallow channel is always connected with the designation “keyhole-shaped” (see above). This terminology is commonly used when describing lavatory installations from the Hellenistic and Roman periods.55 At such installations, this shape serves a functional purpose, most likely for self-cleaning with a sponge-stick.56 For this, the channel of the objects from the classical periods is usually wider and descends far down the face of the installation,57 which contrasts with the channel of the Iron Age installations as just 7 cm wide and no more than 8 cm deep (see Figure 1: Type B). Another feature speaking against the functionality of the objects as lavatories is their height. The only one found still installed in situ was almost completely sunken into the plastered floor.58 This positioning would have made it impossible to use it comfortably as a seat. In addition, it seems unlikely that this installation, which was only supported by surrounding plaster, was intended to

51

Turner 1970: 192−193. Humbert and Zayadine 1992: 253; see further below. 53 Koloski-Ostrow 2015: 27. 54 Cahill et al. 1991: 65. 55 E. g., Antoniou 2010: 78. 56 Koloski-Ostrow 2015: 85. 57 E. g., Antoniou 2010: Fig. 48. 58 Shiloh 1984: Pl. 31: 1. 52

84

Sabine Kleiman

sustain the weight of a human sitting above a hole that in some places was more than 2 m deep.59 2.2 The Find Spot and the Associated Material Culture Literature often emphasises the connection of stone lavatory seats with wealth and high status, which is mainly adduced by their location in private houses or palatial areas.60 In this context, Eisenberg and De Groot have also referred to Talmudic literature,61 which in one place defines a rich person as someone who owns a private toilet. Yet, this textual evidence is hundreds of years younger than the objects in question from Iron Age Judah. Moreover, the Talmud further specifies that these private stools were not permanent architectural features but portable devices, comparable to chamber pots used by lower and upper classes alike.62 Another problem with the idea of permanently installed lavatory seats for individual, private use is the evidence from Tsur Baher, where two objects were found in the same room of the building (see above). In addition, the stone objects from Judah were found not only inside buildings but also in an outdoor area and in a gate complex. Especially the latter context breaches the common line of argumentation and allows a completely new perspective on the usage of these objects.63 The two stones were not only positioned in the most publicly accessible location at the site but moreover in a cultic setting that probably included libation rites.64 On closer examination, the two objects from Areas E (north) and G in the City of David were also found in contexts with cultic features and material culture (see above). Above all, this includes the standing stones located directly related to the two installations,65 in addition 59 This might be supported by the three examples found inside the pits, where the construction seems to have not survived the abandonment of the structures. 60 E. g., Eisenberg and De Groot 2006: 132; Langgut 2022: 5. 61 Eisenberg and De Groot 2006: 132. 62 Dvorjetski 2016: 75. For a general summary of the locations and characteristics of toilets as displayed in the Talmudic literature, see Dvorjetski 2016: 70−81. 63 The idea of a symbolic instalment of the stone objects over the course of Hezekiah’s reform (Ganor and Kreimerman 2020: 223–224) cannot be supported, as already shown in detail by the author (Kleiman 2020; forthcoming) and Ussishkin (2021). Ganor and Kreimerman (2020: 223) identify the stone as a toilet seat since “no other parallel, aside from a toilet seat, could be found for the object.” 64 Kleiman 2020: 63. See also Ganor and Kreimerman (2019: 228), who suggest that “cult evolved around offerings, incense burning, and possibly libation”. Ussishkin (2021: 166−167) also stresses on the one hand that the objects had been associated with water but on the other hand holds to the secular nature of the chambers, not taking into consideration the many cultrelated ceramic items found there. 65 In addition, the two narrow walls to the south and west of the stone object in Area E (north) are of the same height as the ‘double altar’ of the Lachish gate shrine and might also have been used for ritual purposes (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: Plan 47b; Ganor and Kreimerman 2019: 218−219). For the interpretation of the ‘double altar’ as a spot where oil lamps could have been placed during the ritual, see Kleiman 2020: 59−60.

Interpreting Ancient Artefacts

85

to the associated material remains – particularly the figurine parts from Area E (north) and the many complete bowls uncovered at both places. In Area G, one vessel was located directly next to the installation and in Area E (north), several bowls filled the pit below the stone, as did animal bones. This was also reported from the pit at Armon ha-Natziv (see above). Of note is also the rich cult-related material culture unearthed just 7 m away from the installation in Area G in the City of David.66 2.3 Suggested Parallels for Stone “Toilet Seats” Thus far, the present analysis has indicated that the initial identification of the stone objects was likely based primarily on modern-day perceptions and ancient parallels.67 Alongside the items from Iron Age Judah themselves, the usual examples given are installations from Late Bronze Age sites, like Tell el-Ajjul and elAmarna, or contemporaneous objects from the Iron Age at Amman and Busayra in Jordan.68 Petrie was probably the first who referred to a “seat block” related to a possible “cesspit” in his publication of the finds from Tell el-Ajjul.69 In this context, the excavator connected the object and the pit further with a plaster floor and a drain-hole. However, there are two main problems with this report: First, Petrie did not detail why he identified these architectural features with a lavatory rather than a washing facility. This differentiation was discussed in detail by Turner, who concluded that, in the case of Neo-Assyrian palaces, the investigated facilities were “for the most part used only as bathrooms and not also as lavatories”.70 The second and most crucial issue concerns the “seat block” itself. The installation was actually found in a completely different context at the site, in both stratigraphy and location.71 In this regard, the example from Tell el-Ajjul cannot serve as a parallel for the stone objects from Iron Age Judah. 66 There has not yet been any detailed publication of the excavation at Tsur Baher that would allow a statement to the find context. 67 Langgut (2022: 5) mentions that the object found at Armon ha-Natziv “resembles its modern-day counterparts” and Ganor and Kreimerman (2019: 221) note “that the object looked like a toilet seat”, regarding their decision to sample the pit soil. Cahill et al. (1991: 66) state: “Though much has changed in the last 2,600 years, certain basics remain the same: excepting its lack of pluming, the toilet shown here unmistakably resembles its modern-day counterparts.” 68 Not mentioned here are the proposed parallels that have not been published and are referenced only by personal communication, like the objects from Khirbet Abu Tuweine (Eisenberg and De Groot 2006: 131−132), Hazor (Fink 2008: n. 9) and Tell es-Saʻidiyeh (Cahill et al. 1991: n. 5). 69 Petrie 1932: 4. 70 Turner 1970: 192−193. 71 Petrie 1932: 4; Pl. XLIII. Since Petrie did not provide a description, it is difficult to assess the measurements and shape of the object from the photograph (Petrie 1932: Pl. XLIII). However, its characteristics do not seem comparable to the examples from Iron Age Judah, being much more elongated with an opening located more towards the side of the item.

86

Sabine Kleiman

A stone object from el-Amarna is frequently referenced and best resembles the topside of the installations with the “keyhole-shaped” opening (Fig. 4.1: Type B). The object measures 55 × 45 cm but is flat and thus seems to have been only the cover of a bigger installation.72 It was found in the Central Western Quarter of the site, in a building that was reported to have been heavily damaged. Even though other sanitary installations from el-Amarna are described in detail (brick or wood construction, with a portable collecting vessel underneath),73 the find spot of this item was not recorded, and it is therefore possible that it was not found in its original context. Considering that the item is almost identical to examples from the classical periods, it cannot be ruled out that the stone originally stems from the Roman occupation at the site.74 The installation uncovered at Amman fortunately has a more detailed description and documentation of its archaeological context.75 The item is the same size and dimensions as the examples from Judah and is defined by a hole in its centre (cf. Figure 1: Type B). On the other hand, the narrow channel is barely a groove and just slightly carved into the object (Figure 2: c). The installation was found placed on the plastered floor of a small rectangular cell against a wall (Figure 2: a–b).76 The cell was part of a series of four units that were plastered as well. The unit to the west was furnished with benches, and in the easternmost unit, the excavators unearthed a square platform built from the same construction material (limestone) as the stone installation. In the same unit, there was another platform of similar dimensions and height built alongside a wall. There is no data available that suggests identifying this object as a lavatory seat, and only the reference to the findings from the City of David (Area G) has served as evidence.77

72

Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933: 47; Pl. XLII. For an overview, see Borchardt 1912: 19−22. 74 For the occupational layers from the Roman period, see Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933: 63−70. 75 Humbert and Zayadine 1992: 247−255; Fig. 12; Pls. XII and XIV. Unfortunately, the material culture from these excavations has not yet been published in a way allowing it to be connected to the different contexts of the building. For a general publication of the pottery from the excavations and other sites in the region, see Dornemann 1983. 76 The excavators specify that the possibility of an underlying pit was not investigated (Humbert and Zayadine 1992: 253). 77 Ibid.: n. 47. The elaborate drainage system found at the site was not connected to the area of the installation and served only the large courtyard of the building (Ibid: 247−255). 73

Interpreting Ancient Artefacts

87

Figure 2. The stone object from Amman in its context, showing the platforms and the plastered units, looking west (a); the unit of the stone object, looking north-west (b); and the object (c).78

A stone installation that differs somewhat in shape and size from the objects from Judah was found in Busayra.79 It is bigger, measures 83 × 49 × 25 cm, and has a large hole (25 × 18 cm) with a cut of similar proportions leading towards the front side of the stone. It was positioned above a pit directly in front of a large, plastered basin inside a large court. This court contained another plastered installation and a low wall in which a standing stone was integrated.80 In the fill below the court floor, the upper part of a fenestrated stand was uncovered,81 as well as a chalk cylinder with unclear function.82 This item is comparable to similar objects found in the context of the stone installations at the City of David (Hovers 1996: 179−180) and at Lachish (Sass 2004: Fig. 28.26: 12−18). Like the evidence from Tell el-Ajjul and Amman, there is nothing that would suggest identifying the

78

After Humbert and Zayadine 1992: Pls. XII and XIV. Bienkowski 2002: 166−167; Pls. 6.43−46. 80 Ibid.: Fig. 6.6; Pl. 6.32. 81 Ibid.: Fig. 6.12: 21. 82 Sedman 2002: Pl. 10.152. 79

88

Sabine Kleiman

stone installation as a lavatory.83 On the other hand, the plastered basins and general layout speak for a washing facility that was used for either practical and/ or ritual ablutions and required a bathing stool (Turner 1970: 193; Kletter and Zwickel 2006: 172).84 2.4 Human Parasites After the objects had been identified as lavatories, samples were taken on three occasions to test for the presence of faecal matter in the soil of the underlying pits at Lachish, the City of David (Area G) and Armon ha-Natziv. At Lachish, the samples were investigated using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), which, however, detected no phosphates characteristic of excrement.85 In the City of David and at Armon ha-Natziv, on the other hand, the researchers used tools of paleoparasitology and palynology.86 Both studies identified different types of human intestinal parasites and pollen grains from various plant species, thereby contributing immensely to the understanding of human health and disease patterns in seventh century BCE Judah.87 Leaving aside their contributions to scientific understandings and the knowledge of the period, one question should still be asked: can these results be understood only against the background of an ancient lavatory? The following demonstrates that there are three alternative interpretations given the context and the composition of the soils. In the case of Armon ha-Natziv, it is possible that the pit had initially been used for storing fertiliser. The practice of manuring plants using human faecal matter is well known in research and was also used in ancient communities.88 At Armon ha-Natziv this interpretation is supported by the find location inside a garden. This would mean, however, that the elaborately carved stone object was probably not found in its original location. On top of that, intestinal parasites were also detected inside the building complex in the City of David, where the stone object was found installed in its place of use and the storing of fertiliser is less probable. Therefore, this first interpretation seems rather unlikely. A second possibility is that the parasites found their way into the pits through contaminated water.89 This is supported not only by the archaeological contexts 83 Bienkowski (2002: 166) favours the interpretation as a toilet over the identification of the object as a press, due to a “possible duct leading down and out”. However, if there was indeed a duct at this place, it could be also related to a washing facility. 84 See also Turner (1970: 193) for these practices in the Neo-Assyrian empire as depicted in the large number of epigraphic materials. 85 Ganor and Kreimerman 2019: 221−223. 86 Cahill et al. 1991; Langgut 2022. 87 For the general importance of these studies and a summary of paleoparasitological results from Israel and the Middle East, see Anastasiou and Mitchell 2015. 88 Shiel 2012: 19; Langgut 2022: 4. For the ecological advantages of using human faecal matter as fertilizer, see Shiel 2012.  89 For the connection between the spread of parasitic diseases and contaminated water,

Interpreting Ancient Artefacts

89

of several of the objects, which indicate the usage of liquids (see above), but also by the absence of fibrous material that was reported in previous studies on cess deposits.90 The latter research from Late Bronze Megiddo also uncovered high frequencies of cereal pollen,91 not mentioned in the findings from Armon haNatziv. Likewise, the study from the City of David noted “the prominent absence of cultivated plants such as grains and legumes”,92 which would have been typical for the dietary habits of this time.93 If the carrying agent of the parasites was indeed water, one probably would need to assume that all the pollen grains found in the samples were airborne. This is likely in the case of the pine pollen from Armon ha-Natziv94 but needs to be questioned for the plants identified in the City of David, which included different vegetable species.95 The third and final proposal considers the usage of human and animal faeces in ancient societies that was not only restricted to increasing crop yields. For example, in medical literature from ancient Egypt, human excrement is commonly mentioned for its healing properties.96 The dried matter was in one case directly applied on wounds resulting from childbirth but could also be mixed with incense and then fumigated.97 Human faeces were further used in cultic contexts, where the matter was presented to a dung beetle for the purpose of an oracle.98 The practice of using excrement in connection with cultic offerings is also known from Iron Age Judah. In an analysis of the residue from the altars at Arad, the researchers uncovered not only traces of cannabis but also dung, which were probably mixed together for heating purposes.99 The use of human faeces in a similar manner at the City of David and Armon ha-Natziv may be indicated by two components found in the soils. The first are pollens from the carrot and mint family that mainly encompass different types of herbs100 as well as pine pollen,101 which could have been purposely mixed with the faeces for fumigation. This is supported by the biggest component identified in the pit soil from the City of David, which was ash.102 mainly through the use of human and animal excrement as fertilizer, see Anastasiou and Mitchell 2015: 141−142 for past Middle Eastern societies and Damen et al. 2007 for modern communities.  90 Langgut et al. 2016: 378−379.  91 Ibid.: 382.  92 Cahill et al. 1991: 68.  93 Frumin and Weiss 2018.  94 Langgut 2022: 5.  95 Cahill et al. 1991: 68.  96 von Lieven 2011: 291.  97 Strouhal, Vachala and Vymazalova 2014: 118.  98 von Lieven 2011: 300. 99 Arie, Rosen and Namdar 2020: 21. 100 Cahill et al. 1991: 68. 101 Langgut 2022: 5. 102 Cahill et al. 1991: 67−68. The researchers mention especially high amount of ash in the sample “that organic fecal residue comprised only 10 percent of the soil tested” (ibid.: 68).

90

Sabine Kleiman

3. Conclusion The investigation above demonstrates that researchers always should be aware of whether a particular analogical implication is appropriate to a particular archaeological setting. The review of the stone objects from Iron Age Judah has revealed that only four items were found at their original place of use, offering a context accessible for deeper analysis. A closer look at the characteristics of the objects shows that they are rather impractical for the use as lavatory seats. This is not only indicated by the small size of the central hole and the height of the objects but also by the unknown function of the small opening and the narrow channel. One could hypothesise that these features were used for holding an unknown object or to run off excess fluids from the topside of the stone. Additionally, the items’ find spots speak against the lavatory theory. The only architectural features possibly connectable to this function are the pits found in connection with the stones. However, this would require explaining their cleaning procedure without a proper sewage and drainage system, which are known from the ancient Near East from ca. 3000 BCE.103 Regarding ancient toilet behaviour, it is therefore more likely that the inhabitants of Judah, whether poor or wealthy, simply went outside or used portable chamber pots. The architectural layout and findings from the City of David and the gate area at Lachish in particular actually reveal a cultic environment of the stone objects. In both places, the use of bowls and other ceramics further indicates a connection between cult and libation. This proposal is also supported by the evidence from Busayra, and the presence of a standing stone at this location is especially striking. The relationship between this architectural feature and the use of liquids is also evident in a cult room (Room G) at Khirbet Qeiyafa.104 At this place, the standing stone was uncovered in a room that further included a sinkhole connected to a drainage system and a limestone basin. Altars featuring openings at their tops, on the other hand, are known from Late Bronze Lachish,105 Iron II central Jordan106 and Phoenicia107 and can be compared to the stone objects from Judah.108 The only evidence that undoubtably speaks for the involvement of human faeces in the use of at least two of the installations are the results from the paleoparasitological and palynological analyses. However, 103

El-Gohary 2014: 58−61. Garfinkel and Hasel 2018: 17−20. 105 Garfinkel et al. 2021: 448; Fig. 26 106 Daviau and Steiner 2000: 10. 107 Pritchard 1978: 137−138. 108 The object from the shrine of Tanit-Ashtart uncovered at the Phoenician site of Sarepta was found built into a high platform (Pritchard 1978: 131−148). On top and around the platform more than two hundred votive objects and twelve lamps were found, as well as a socket for a standing stone that had been placed right in front of it. I thank Shua Kisilevitz, who brought my awareness to this object. 104

Interpreting Ancient Artefacts

91

it was demonstrated that intestinal parasites are also conceivable in a cultic setting, either while using contaminated water in purification rites or dung in an offering. Considering all the above, it is evident that the interpretation of an ancient artefact and the reconstruction of associated behaviour cannot be based on parallels alone but requires a holistic approach using material remains and architectural features, studied through a comprehensive spatial and functional analysis.

Bibliography Anastasiou, E. and Mitchell, P. D. 2015. Human Intestinal Parasites and Dysentery in Africa and the Middle East Prior to 1500. In: Mitchell, P. D., ed. Sanitation, Latrines and Intestinal Parasites in Past Populations. Farnham: 121–147. Antoniou, G. P. 2010. Ancient Greek Lavatories: Operation with Reused Water. In: Mays, L. W., ed., Ancient Water Technologies. London: 67–86. Antoniou, G.P., De Feo, G., Fardin, F., Tamburrino, A., Khan, S., Tie, F., Reklaityte, I., Kanetaki, E., Zheng, X. Y., Mays, L. W. and Angelakis, A. N. 2016. Evolution of Toilets Worldwide through the Millennia. Sustainability 2016/8: 1–55. Arie, E., Rosen, B. and Namdar, D. 2020. Cannabis and Frankincense at the Judahite Shrine of Arad. Tel Aviv 47: 5–28. Bienkowski, P. 2002. Area C. In: Bienkowski, P. Busayra Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett, 1971–1980 (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 13). Oxford: 149–206. Billig, Y., Freud, L. and Bocher, E. 2021. A Royal Mansion from the First Temple Period at Armon ha-Naẓiv. In: Gadot, Y., Zelinger, Y., Peleg-Barkat, O. and Uziel, J. eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region XIV: 77–100 (Hebrew). Borchardt, L. 1912. Ausgrabungen in Tell el-Amarna 1911/12. Vorläufiger Bericht. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 50: 1–40. Cahill, J., Reinhard, K., Tarler, D. and Warnock, P. 1991. It Had to Happen. Scientists Examine Remains of Ancient Bathroom. Biblical Archaeology Review 17: 64–69. Chapman, R. 1992. A Stone Seat found in Jerusalem in 1925. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 124: 4–8. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012a. Stratigraphy. In: De Groot, A. and BernickGreenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985. Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Volume VIIA. Area E: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Qedem 53). Jerusalem: 9–138. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012b. The Pottery of Strata 12–10 (Iron Age IIB). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985. Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Volume VIIB. Area E: The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 57–198. Damen, J. G.D, Banwat, E. B., Egah, D. Z. and Allanana J. A. 2007. Parasitic Contamination of Vegetables in Jos, Nigeria. Annals of African Medicine 6/3: 115–118. www.annalsafrm ed.org/text.asp?2007/6/3/115/55723 (accessed: 6 January 2022). Daviau, P. M. M. and Steiner, M. L. 2000. A Moabite Sanctuary at Khirbat al-Mudayna. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 320: 1–21. Dornemann, R. H. 1983. The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Milwaukee, WI.

92

Sabine Kleiman

Dvorjetski, E. 2016. Public Health in Ancient Palestine. Historical and Archaeological Aspects of Lavatories. In: Killebrew A. E. and Faßbeck, G. eds. Viewing Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology: VeHinnei Rachel – Essays in Honor of Rachel Hachlili (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 172). Leiden: 48–100. Eisenberg, E. and De Groot, A. 2006. A Tower from the Iron Age near Ramat Rahel. In: Baruch, E., Greenhut, Z., and Faust, A. eds. New Studies on Jerusalem vol. 11. Ramat Gan: 129–133 (Hebrew), 37* (English abstract). El-Gohary, F. A. 2014. Evolution of Sanitation and Wastewater Technologies in Egypt through Centuries. In: Angelakis, A. N. and Rose, J. B., eds. Evolution of Sanitation and Wastewater Technologies through the Centuries. London: 55–68. Fink, S. A. 2008. Levantine Standardized Luxury in the Late Bronz Age: Waste Management at Tell Atchana (Alalakh). In: Fantalkin, A. and Yasur-Landau, A. eds. Bene Israel. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 31). Leiden: 165–195. Frankfort, H. and Pendlebury, J. D. S. 1933. The City of Akhenaten. Part II. The North Suburb and the Desert Altars. The Excavations at Tell el-Amarna during Seasons 1926–1932. London. Frumin, S. and Weiss, E. 2018. Plant Use in the Bronze and Iron Ages at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 81/1: 77–80. Ganor, S. and Kreimerman, I. 2019. An Eighth-Century B.C.E. Gate Shrine at Tel Lachish, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 381: 211–236. Garfinkel, Y. and Hasel, M. G. 2018. Chapter 2: The Sanctuary Buildings. In: Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. G. Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 4. Excavation Report 2009–2013. Art, Cult and Epigraphy. Jerusalem: 15–53. Garfinkel, Y., Hasel, M. G., Klingbeil, M. G., Kreimerman, I., Pytlik, M., Carroll, J. W., Waybright, J. W. B., Kang, H-G., Choi, G., Chang, S., Hong, S., David, A., Weissbein, I. and Silverberg, N. 2021. The Canaanite and Judean Cities of Lachish, Israel. Preliminary Report of the Fourth Expedition, 2013–2017. American Journal of Archaeology 125/3: 419–459. Gilbert-Peretz, D. 1996. Ceramic Figurines. Appendix A. In: Ariel, D. T. and De Groot A., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985. Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Volume IV: Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem: 42–84. Hovers, E. 1996. The Groundstone Industry. Appendix A. In: Ariel, D. T. and De Groot A., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985. Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Volume IV: Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem: 171–203. Humbert. J. B. and Zayadine, F. 1992. Trois Campagnes de fouilles à Amman (1988–1991). Troisième Terrasse de la Citadelle. Revue Biblique 99: 214–260. Kenyon, K. M. 1967. Jerusalem. Excavating 3000 Years of History. London. Kleiman, S. 2020. The Iron IIB Gate Shrine at Lachish: An Alternative Interpretation. Tel Aviv 47: 55–64. Kleiman, S. forthcoming. The End of Cult Places in 8th Century Judah. Cult Reform or de facto Centralization? In: Kamlah, J. and Witte, M., eds. Sacred Architecture in Ancient Palestine from the Bronze Age to Medieval Times (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 49). Wiesbaden: 257–274. Kletter, R. and Zwickel, W. 2006. The Assyrian Building of Ayyelet ha-Shahar. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palӓstina-Vereins 122: 151–186.

Interpreting Ancient Artefacts

93

Koloski-Ostrow, A. O. 2015. The Archaeology of Sanitation in Roman Italy Toilets, Sewers, and Water Systems. Chapel Hill, NC. Langgut, D. 2022. Mid-7th Century BC Human Parasite Remains from Jerusalem. International Journal of Paleopathology 36: 1–6. Langgut, D., Shahack-Gross, R., Arie, E., Namdar, D., Amrani, A., Le Bailly, M. and Finkelstein, I. 2016. Micro-Archaeological Indicators for Identifying Ancient Cess Deposits. An Example from Late Bronze Age Megiddo, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9: 375–385. Macalister, R. A. S. and Duncan, J. G. 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 1923–1925. Being the Joint Expedition of the Palestine Exploration Fund and the “Daily Telegraph” (Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 4). London. Petrie, W. M. F. 1932. Ancient Gaza I – Tell el Ajjul. London. Pritchard, J. 1978. Recovering Sarepta. A Phoenician City. Princeton, NJ. Sass, B. 2004. Vessels, Tools, Personal Objects, Figurative Art and Varia. In: Ussishkin, D. The Renewed Archaeological Excavation at Lachish (1973–1994). Volume IV (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 1983– 2057. Sedman, L. 2002. The Small Finds. In: Bienkowski, P. Busayra Excavations by CrystalM. Bennett, 1971–1980 (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 13). Oxford: 353– 428. Shiel, R. 2012. Science and Practice. The Ecology of Manure in Historical Retrospect. In: Jones, R. ed. Manure Matters. Historical, Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives. London: 13–24. Shiloh, Y. 1984. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1982. Interim Report of the First Five Seasons (Qedem 19). Jerusalem. Steiner, M. L. 2001. Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967. Volume III. The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Copenhagen International Series 9). London. Strouhal, E., Vachala, B., and Vymazalova, H. 2014. The Medicine of the Ancient Egyptians. 1: Surgery, Gynecology, Obstetrics, and Pediatrics. Cairo. Turner, G. 1970. The State Apartments of Late Assyrian Palaces. Iraq 32: 177–213. Ussishkin, D. 2021. Was a “Gate Shrine” Built at the Level III Inner City Gate of Lachish? A Response to Ganor and Kreimerman. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 385: 153–170. Vincent, L. H. 1911. Underground Jerusalem. Discoveries on the Hill of Ophel, 1909–1911. London. Von Lieven, A. 2011. “Where there is Dirt there is System”. Zur Ambiguität der Bewertung von Körperlichen Ausscheidungen in der Ägyptischen Kultur. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 40: 287–300. Vukosavović, F., Chalaf, O. and Uziel, J. 2021. “And You Counted the Houses of Jerusalem and Pulled Houses Down to Fortify the Wall” (Isaiah 22:10). The Fortifications of Iron Age II Jerusalem in Light of New Discoveries in the City of David. In: Gadot, Y., Zelinger, Y., Peleg-Barkat, O. and Uziel, J. eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region vol. 14. Jerusalem: 1*–16*.

Reassessment of the Benjaminite Settlements in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE: Archaeological and Textual Snapshots Yitzhak Lee-Sak In his 2020 article, Lipschits1 displays his masterful summaries of the archaeology of the Benjamin plateau from the Bronze Age through the Persian Period.2 Given that the area’s Babylonian and Persian provincial system has not been treated enough in scholarship,3 Lipschits’ studies have contributed a great deal to scholarly discourse. Regarding the exilic period in Benjamin, Lipschits4 argues that the prosperity of the main cities/towns, such as Gibeon, Moza, Kiriathjearim and Khirbet el-Burj with the provincial headquarter in Mizpah, brought about the relatively highly evaluated status of the southern area of Benjamin.5 At the same time, its northern and eastern regions became devoid of settlement and were almost abandoned.6 Only the district of Mizpah, Jerusalem’s environs toward Gibeon and Mizpah to its north continued to exist as a pivotal administrative district. Contrarily, the settlement of Gibeon and Khirbet el-Burj and their environs started to decline in the early fifth century.7 Yet, the rural farmsteads/hamlets and small villages/towns in Benjamin continued to maintain their routine function as Jerusalem’s agricultural hinterland.8 The Benjamin area’s notable, gradual demographic decline led to a new influx of population in the Modi’in area.9 To demonstrate this demographic phenomenon, Lipschits refers to 1 Chronicles 8:12–13; Ezra 9:1–2, 12–15; 10:2–3, 10–15; Nehemiah 6:2,

1

Lipschits 2020: 161–200. Also see his other works, Lipschits 1999: 155–190; 2004: 99–107; 2005; 2006: 19–52; 2011: 57–90; 2011: 187–212; 2012: 145–165; 2014: 43–66; 2015: 237–264. 3 E. g., Levin 2004: 223–241; Naʾaman 2009: 211–224; 2009: 335–349; Finkelstein 2011: 348– 367. 4 2020: 178–181; also see Zorn 2013: 185–192; contra Faust 2012. 5 This phenomenon is also evidenced by the mwzh stamp impressions. 6 Lipschits 2020: 182–184. 7 Ibid.: 182–183, 185. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid.: 182, 190. 2

96

Yitzhak Lee-Sak

10:31, 11:33 implying the Benjaminites’ resettlement in Persian Yehud’s northwestern region.10 Undoubtedly, Lipschits’ introduction of these biblical passages is significant for reconstructing the history of Benjamin in Persian Palestine in light of archaeological data. Yet, there are several crucial biblical texts, which Lipschits does not deal with in his essay: the list of returnees in Ezra 2:20–35/Nehemiah 7:25–38 and the list of small settlements with enclosures in Nehemiah 11:26–35.11 These two lists include valuable information, such as the Benjaminites’ migration and settlement and demographic factors. It is worth analysing these historical sources to make up for what Lispchits’ article lacks. By providing an overview of the current archaeological data about these issues from previous studies, I look into whether Lipschits’ historical reconstruction based on archaeological data is empirically and logically justified. With the limited nature of archaeological data  – not enough data for determining the types of sites as individual or public administrative cities or estates (farmsteads/ hamlets), military forts or communal land for tenure, or their connection to nearby small sites for settlers, farmers and labourers  – in mind,12 I pay more attention to changes in settlement and demography over time. Aside from that, I critically read Ezra 2:20–35/Nehemiah 7:25–38 and Nehemiah 11:26–35, which purport to recount what happened in Benjamin within the Persian Period. Even though these endeavours give snapshots that derive from fragmentary information, one can sketch out the overall picture about the settlement changes, the settlers’ movement, the demographic dynamics and the Benjamin district’s rise and fall in a larger frame.13

10

Ibid.: 183–184. Theoretically, Nehemiah 3 should be included in this study; yet, Lipschits already delved into Nehemiah 3 with a detailed analysis exploring the sources of the list of the builders of Jerusalem’s fortified walls, the district system of Persian Yehud, and its composition process within the “Nehemiah Memoir” in his 2012 study. Thus Nehemiah 3 is exempted in this essay. See Lipschits 2012: 73–99. 12 Edelman (2018: 411–451) indicates this problem too. Several scholars try to explain the functions of the Persian Period towns as farmsteads or hamlets/agricultural estates or provincial forts/isolated administrative buildings. Faust 2018: 34–59; Kletter and Silverman 2021: 42–61. Farmsteads or hamlets are a cluster of buildings that would include a main residence (for the farmsteads) or a collection of five to fifteen residential buildings (hamlets) and other additional facilities used for agricultural purposes. 13 It is with great pleasure and honour that I hereby dedicate this contribution to Prof. Oded Lipschits, my Doktorvater, to celebrate his 60th birthday. Following my completion of the MA Program in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, I had the privilege to learn under his supervision in the Ph.D. program of Tel Aviv University about archaeological data analysis, extrabiblical and biblical texts. The essence of this contribution comes from one of his ideas about the history of Benjamin, from which I gained some critical insights while taking his classes. However, it concludes with a slightly different assessment even though I generally endorse Oded’s opinion about the history of the Persian Period in the Benjamin area. I hope that even 11

Reassessment of Benjaminite Settlements in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE

97

1. Settlement and Demographic Changes in Benjamin within the Territory of Yehud In order to assess the nature of settlement and the demographic reality of Benjamin during the Persian Period, we should consider the following points, first, the extensive settlement database within a larger framework of long-term processes from the Iron Age to the Hellenistic Periods; second, the comparison between the entire territory of the kingdom of Judah and that of Persian-Hellenistic Periods Yehud, which offer insights in examining the significance of Benjamin within the whole area; third, the dynamics of settlement and demography of subareas of Benjamin within the entire timespan. If the archaeological data throughout the three periods of occupation are well gleaned, and if their profiles are well interpreted according to their temporal and spatial reciprocal relationship, we may be able to illustrate an appropriate image of the settlement of Benjamin during the Persian Period. 1.1 Settlement Pattern of Benjamin and Yehud What kind of result can we gain if we observed the settlement pattern throughout the entire territory of Persian era Yehud? To figure out the changes of the number of sites through time, from Iron Age II through Persian to Hellenistic Periods, I closely investigate the following noteworthy studies.14 They compare the Benjamin area with other Judahite/Judean regions and consider the fluctuation of the number of sites counted in each respective area over the three periods. Regarding the settlement in Judean society in the Babylonian and Persian periods, there are two opinions, continuity versus discontinuity. On the one hand, the continuity theory posits that Benjamin suffered less destruction and argues that such preservation remained through the Persian Period in that area.15 On the other hand, after comparing settlement pattern of Benjamin with that of other areas, Carter16 and Faust17 argue that the whole territory of the former kingdom of Judah in the urban centres and rural sectors during the sixth-fourth centuries is characterised by low demography with little material remains. In favour of the discontinuity school of thought, they argue that Benjamin was severely ruined by the Babylonians, having continued to be laid waste during the Persian Period. though I try to voice my views, he would enjoy the contents of this contribution as a small token of my gratitude for his instructions. 14 Carter 1999: 172–248; Lipschits 2003: 323–376; Lipschits and Tal 2007: 33–52; Faust 2007: 23–51; Finkelstein 2018: 51–70; Shalom and Lipschits 2020: 7–26; Shalom, et al. 2021: 63–80. 15 See Blenkinsopp 2002; Lipschits 2005: 42, 211–271, 366–367; Zorn 2013. 16 Carter 2005: 185–248. 17 Faust 2007: 23–51; 2012: 119–147.

98

Yitzhak Lee-Sak

However, Carter’s and Faust’s argumentations are problematic on several points. First, the territorial extent of Yehud they reconstructed is less than convincing. The Judean highlands – here Judah – defined by Carter do not include their southern region, south of Hebron. If the Hebron area was included in their calculation, they would have found more sites destroyed by the Babylonians in the traditional territory of Judah. In addition, Faust does not consider the border fluctuation between the kingdom of Judah and the Persian province from the Iron Age IIC through the Persian to the Hellenistic Period.18 Unlike the Iron Age IIC, the province of Yehud did not include the region between Beth-zur in the north and Hebron in the south, as well as the central and southern Shephelah in the west: most scholars have consented that the border between Persian Yehud and Idumea was roughly defined as stretching from Keilah (north) to Azekah (south) in the Eastern Shephelah for its the western border and Beth-Zur (west) to En-Gedi (east) for the southern border.19 Although still controversial, Persian Yehud’s western border probably lay on the line between Gibeon/Beth-horon to Azekah. Considering these borders of Persian Yehud, the political and economic role of the Benjamin plateau in view of the whole province should be re-examined, especially in light of the settlements. Furthermore, the size of the territory of the traditional Benjamin was relatively smaller than that of Judah (about a third). Thus, assuming that there would be a correspondingly small number of Benjaminite sites compared to other areas of Yehud should be contemplated with a great deal of caution. Considering the general impression of the province’s borders in scholarly discourse and the settlement continuity and discontinuity in the transition period between the Persian and Hellenistic Periods, Lipschits and Tal argue Benjamin’s political and economic prosperity compared to other provincial areas as for the settlement trends of Yehud.20 The data in Table 1 shows high ratios for the Benjamin area compared to others.21 18

Kletter and Silverman (2021: 46) also indicate the problem of Faust’s theory arguing that “Faust chose to study the ‘former area of the Kingdom of Judah’; but in the Persian Period, the time of the ‘structures’, the former area of Judah was divided between Yehud and Idumea.” Note that the area of Hebron was part of Idumea which thrived in the fourth-third centuries. 19 Avi-Yonah 1966: 13–18; Aharoni 1979: 416; Aharoni and Avi-Yonah 1993: 129; Grabbe 2004: 80, 87; Levin 2007: 239–252; 2015: 187–202; Lipchits 2005: 183; Rainey and Notley 2006: 295– 296; Stern 2007: 205–238; Fantalkin and Tal 2012: 147–148; Shalom and Lipschits 2020: 7–26. I cannot accept Carter’s view including Hebron within the border of Persian Yehud. Contra Carter 1999: 98–99. 20 Lipschits and Tal 2007: 33–52. 21 Edelman (2018: 411–451) also emphasizes the material culture continuity in the Benjamin area. According to Edelman, there were 52 Benjaminite sites out of 108 sites of the entire province of Yehud (48 %) which have both Iron IIC pottery and Persian Period pottery and thus likely reflect settlement with uninterrupted occupation from the Iron IIC through the Babylonian to the Persian Period. Her study, however, does not deal with Benjamin’s material culture continuity and discontinuity in the Persian-Hellenistic transition.

99

Reassessment of Benjaminite Settlements in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE

Table 1. Settlement pattern analysis of the province of Yehud according to Lipschits and Tal22 No. of Sites Iron Age IIC

Benjamin Jerusalem Judahite Hill Shephelah24 Northern Country23 Negev 146

143

59

545

Persian

59

15

13*

11*

7

105*

Persian period sites that were not inhabited in the Hellenistic period.

18

5

6

7

3

40*

Persian-Hellenistic

33

10

7*

4

4

58*

Hellenistic Hellenistic period sites that were not inhabited in the Persian period.

113

108

Total25

123

37*

45*

25*

7

237*

90

27

38*

21

3

179*

The ongoing studies of updated archaeological data from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods on the site distribution in each area of Yehud the site distribution in each area of Yehud (Table 2) also reassess the settlement discontinuity between the two periods.26 Archaeological data show that the settlement continuity of the sites of Benjamin throughout the late Iron II-Persian and Persian-Hellenistic Periods stand out, as well as its percentage out of the total number of Persian Period sites in the province (ca. 34 %).27 In the early Hellenistic Period, this picture is intensified, given the size and the territorial extent of the district of Mizpah. As such, the district of Benjamin with its large number of surviving sites in the three periods played a pivotal role in the administrative system of the post exilic period province.

22

Lipschits and Tal 2005: 270; 2007: 33–52. * means only the area north of Hebron comes under close scrutiny. 24 * means only the area northeast of the Shephelah. 25 * means only within the Persian Yehud territory. 26 Lipschits and Shalom 2020: 7–26; Shalom et al. 2021: 66–72. The elusive strata datable to the transition period between the two periods, unclear architectural building plans, and unclassified pottery for evaluating relevant occupation layers have perplexed scholars. Accordingly, until 20 years ago, scholars have paid relatively less attention to the early Hellenistic Period. 27 Since the Ono-Lod valley was outside the alleged border of the province during the Persian Period, the number of settled sites in that area is not considered when the percentage is calculated. Lipschits 2005: 167, 173. 23

100

Yitzhak Lee-Sak

Table 2. Settlement pattern analysis of the province of Yehud based on Shalom and Lipschits and Shalom et al.28 No. of Sites

Benjamin Mizpah District

Jerusalem & BethHakkerem District

Northern Shephelah Qe’ilah District

Southern Judahite Hills Beth-zur District

Ono-Lod Valley

Total

Persian

64

52

39

37

77

269

Iron IICPersian

38

39

31

26

56

190

New Persian Period sites

26

13

8

11

21

79

Hellenistic Period

171

86

77

49

100

483

PersianHellenistic

45

24

26

23

41

159

New Hellenistic 126

62

51

26

59

324

1.2 Settlement Area and Population of Benjamin, Settlement Pattern of Sub-Regions of the Entire Benjamin Territory What result can we gain by observing the total site sizes and demographic changes of Benjamin compared to other areas? Table 3 and Figure 1 show that although the Benjamin district constituted merely a quarter of the total Persian Yehud in size, it made up a higher percentage in terms of the number of sites, settlement area, and population compared to other areas. The ratio of all these elements of Benjamin in the Persian Period is higher than in the Iron Age IIC or the Hellenistic Period.

28 Shalom and Lipschits 2020: 7–26; Shalom et al. 2021: 68–73. For the detailed discussion about Persian Yehud’s five districts, see Lipschits 2015: 242–255.

1,200 / 4,400 30,000 / 110,000

106/265

4,200 / 12,000

1,100/3700– 22,000/ 5,000 74,000–100,000

210 / 610

30

Carter 1999. Lipschits 2005; Lipschits and Tal 2007; Shalom and Lipschits 2020. 31 Broshi and Finkelstein 1992; Finkelstein 1993; 2018: 51–71. Finkelstein’s analysis tends to limit the territorial extent of Persian Yehud to the area enclosed by Ramat Raḥel as the southern border, Mizpah as the northern border, the Dead Sea as the eastern border and the watershed area east of Shephelah as its western border.

29

123 / 237

39/118

A /B = variables of Benjamin (A) in comparison with those of the kingdom of Judah and the Yehud province (B) TN = the total number As for the coefficients for population estimation, Carter and Lipschits evaluate 25 people per dunam, while Finkelstein does 20 people.

No data

12,500 / 30,125

Note

No data

500 / 1,205

163/261

6,000–9,000 / 59 /105 13,400–20,700

Hellenistic

Population

240–360 / 534–826

Dunams

1,100 / 5,000 22,500 / 110,000

41–59 / 86–132

100/265

Persian

1,150 / 4,320 28,750 / 108,000

Population TN of sites

TN of sites Dunams

1,050 / 5,200 22,500 / 110,000

146 / 545

TN of sites Dunams

Broshi and Finkelstein; Finkelstein31

Iron Age IIC 157 / 590

Population

Lipschits; Lipschits and Tal; Shalom and Lipschits30

Carter29

Table 3. Settlement area and population of Benjamin within Yehud Reassessment of Benjaminite Settlements in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE

101

102

Yitzhak Lee-Sak

Figure 1. The ratio of site number and settlement size/demography of Benjamin to Yehud.

If the demographic changes of the Benjamin district throughout the Iron Age IIC, Persian and the Hellenistic Periods are to be considered as such, how can one account for the transitional phases between the Iron Age IIC and the Persian Period and between the Persian and Hellenistic Periods? Faust’s analysis of the demographic trends of Persian Yehud32 tends to overestimate the settlement instability and the amount of decrease in population during the Persian Period (Figure 2); still, the decline in the sixth-fifth centuries was not so precipitous, as Lipschits and Zorn argue.33 To be sure, Faust, Lipschits and Zorn share a common opinion that in the early Hellenistic Period, a remarkable rise and renewal was detected along with the emergence of new sites. Nevertheless, a gradual recovery took place during the entire Persian Period as shown below by the graph on the right. As the entire Yehud province demonstrated a steady increase in population, the same was true for the Benjamin district.

Figure 2. Faust’s analysis of Persian Era demographic trends (left) and more relevant Persian Era ones (right).

32 33

Faust 2007: 40–43; 2012: 136–138. Lipschits 2003: 323–376; 2011: 187–211; Zorn 2013: 185–192.

103

Reassessment of Benjaminite Settlements in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE

What kind of results, then, will we get regarding the issues above if we focus solely on the district of Benjamin during the Persian Era? I re-examine archaeological data – about the fluctuations in site numbers, area of total settled sites, and sub-regions of the overall Benjamin territory throughout the three periods – and the results are laid out below (Table 4). Table 4. Analysis of settlement pattern of the sub-regions of Benjamin according to Lee-Sak34 Foothill

Western Slopes

Central

Desert Fringe

Iron Age IIC

7

Iron Age IIC-Persian

6

Persian Persian-Hellenistic

Desert

Total

28

38

9

17

108

5

186

14

0

46

12

13

19

14

1

59

11

12

17

7

1

48

Hellenistic

26

50

48

42

5

171

New Hellenistic

15

38

31

35

4

123

First, between the late Iron Age and the Hellenistic Period, the land of Benjamin during the Persian Period experienced a marked decline in habitation compared to its preceding and following periods. Since the early-mid fifth century, many urban sites of Benjamin that preserved the Iron Age material culture clearly began to be abandoned, except for three sites – Mizpah (Tell en-Nasbeh), Nebi Samwil and Jericho (Tell es-Sultan).35 Mizpah continued to be inhabited until the last stage of the fifth century and declined thereafter; Nebi-Samwil continued to be settled throughout the whole Persian Period; Jericho was destroyed by the Babylonians but revived in the Persian Period.36 Second, the ecological and agricultural system established in the western slopes and the central region of Benjamin presumably enabled the people to continue to settle in those areas during the entire Persian Period. Most of the identified traces of occupation were newly formulated in the western area toward 34

Regarding dividing the land of Benjamin into the sub-regional units, I follow Milevski’s methodology (1996–1997: 7–29). I re-calculate the number of sites settled in the Iron IIC and the Persian Period based on the results of Carter (1999: 118), Faust (2007), Lipschits (2003: 349), Lipschits and Tal (2007) and Shalom and Lipchits (2020) and a close investigation of sites marked in the survey maps, 83/1–2, 83/12–13, 101, 102, 109/4 and 109/5 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel (http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx#C; accessed: 20 June 2022). 35 See Chapters 3.6.2. and 3.7.2 in Lee-Sak 2021 See also early-type yhwd stamp impressions found at the sites in Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011: 11–22 and Lipschits 2021: 79–88. 36 Intriguingly, middle-type yhwd seal impressions are absent from Gibeon, Bethel, Kiriathjearim and Tell el-Ful, but are found in Tell en-Nasbeh and Nebi-Samwil. Lipschits 2021: 79–88.

104

Yitzhak Lee-Sak

the Aijalon Valley, and were concentrated around the ancient passageways leading to Jerusalem in the northwest. Third, the Judean desert fringe west of the watershed divide was still under continuous cultivation by the local inhabitants, whereas the Jordan Valley and the western littoral of the Dead Sea underwent a complete hiatus of settlement. Jericho, Tell es-Sultan, was an exception.37 Even in the Hellenistic Period, only few cases of settlement occurred in that area. Fourth, the scope of settlement in the northern area of Benjamin, nowadays’ Ramallah and its surroundings, shows a marked reduction during the Persian Period. To the contrary, the number of settlements and population increased significantly in this area during the Hellenistic Period. Fifth, a notable decline in the number of sites in the area did not take place in the Persian Period but during the sixth century. However, the absence of the destruction layer in many rural Benjaminite sites and Mizpah should be considered. Sixth, the typical and persistent features of the Persian Period within the Benjamin district of Mizpah, though controversial, were the general decrease in population and low population density in some urban, not rural sites. These features did not end until the early Hellenistic Period.38 Instead, small farms and hamlets were found to be scattered around the surviving, large or medium-sized sites. This indicates a phenomenon of regional settlements. In that framework, Benjamin’s administrative status was sustained throughout the Persian Period.39 Seventh, there was a considerable degree of restoration during the Hellenistic Period. Though slightly less in degree than the former level of the late Iron Age, the relatively poor material culture that afflicted the life quality of the Benjamin region during the Persian Period improved. Eighth, there was a definite, significant increase in the number of Benjaminite sites during the Hellenistic Period. The marked growth took place in its central and western areas as well as in the desert fringe. In the early Hellenistic Period, the province of Judea expanded in the west to the north-western Shephelah and in the north toward Bethel.40 Gibeon, Mizpah and Bethel began to be settled again in the early Hellenistic Period, while Nabi-Samwil and Ḥorvat Zimri continued to be settled 37

Nigro 2020: 175–214. A notable demographic decrease in Benjamin can be estimated in the Persian compared to the late Iron Age: approx. 60 % (Lipschits) to 80 (Faust). 39 The increase of the number of the middle type yhwd stamp impressions (18 pieces found at Tell en-Naṣbeh; 16 at Jericho; 13 at Nebi Samwil; 7 at En-Gedi; and 5 at Rogem Gannim except for Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel) might reflect this political circumstance. Lipschits 2021: 177– 185. See further discussions on various structures–fortresses and province officers’ and soldiers’ residences, installation of agricultural facilities – and their functions in the Persian Period sites, Faust 2018: 34–59; Kletter and Silverman 2021: 42–61. 40 Five late-type yhwd seal impressions found at Gezer testify to this statement. Lipschits 2021: 79–88. 38

Reassessment of Benjaminite Settlements in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE

105

throughout the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Additionally, the inhabitants of Jericho moved to a specific area nearby, Tullul Abu el-‘Alayiq, to resettle during the Hellenistic Period. Finally, a most remarkable increase in the number of rural sites occurred in the areas west of the line between Ramallah and Nebi-Samwil and west of the Judean desert. A critical analysis of previous research can support the studies by Lipschits and his colleagues which accentuate the political and economic significance of Benjamin during the Persian Era. Undoubtedly the material culture of the entire province of the time was relatively poor compared to that of the Iron Age IIC and the Hellenistic Period; the district of Benjamin held a prominent position in terms of high population proportion and the intensive concentration of sites and rural villages/towns in the administrative system of Yehud. Its northern and desert areas experienced a notable decline in settlement and demography, while other areas still continued to maintain their routine material culture. Thus, it can be concluded that what Lipschits claims in his articles is quite convincing.

2. The Post Exilic Period Lists of Settlement, Ezra 2:21–35/Nehemiah 7:25–38 and Nehemiah 11:31–35 The list of returnees in Ezra 2:1–67/Nehemiah 7:6–69 and the list of small settlements with enclosures (-':8%) in Nehemiah 11:25–35 are related to the settlement for the Judeans and the Benjaminites.41 In particular, Ezra 2:21–35/ Nehemiah 7:25–38 and Nehemiah 11:31–35 strikingly report the settlement for the Benjaminites according to their topographical origin. These lists include literary problems that require analysing their historical credibility, date of their composition, and the extent to which they were adapted within Ezra 2, Nehemiah 7 and Nehemiah 11. All these lists share common factors such as tribe, region and city/town. Especially, the cities/towns are spread over the five different regions, as categorised by landscape and topography: the land of Benjamin, the Jerusalem area and the Judean hill country, the Shephelah, the northern Negev and the Judean Desert. Comparing the two lists (Table 5) displays the relevant regions and towns and where they overlap (see italics). As for the sites of Benjamin, the list of the returnees in Ezra 2:21–35/Nehemiah 7:25–38 and the list of small settlements with enclosures (-':8%) in Nehemiah 11:25–35 share the crucial towns, Anathoth, Ramah, Geba, Michmash, Bethel, Ai (Aija) and Nebo (Nob). In addition, the two lists share Lod, Hadid and Ono. However, while Ezra 2:21–35/Nehemiah 41 -':8% means small settlements whose function were as satellites of a principal city within a specific territory.

106

Yitzhak Lee-Sak

Table 5. The listed towns in the province of Yehud according to Ezra/Nehemiah Benjamin

Jerusalem / Judah

Shephelah

List of Returnees Ezra2/Nehemiah7

Jerusalem Gibeon Bethlehem (Gibbar), Netophah Anathoth, Azmaveth, Kiriath-jearim, Chephirah, Beeroth, Ramah, Geba, Michmash, Bethel, Ai, Nebo(Nob)

Lod, Hadid, Ono

List of -':8% Nehemiah 11:25–35

Jerusalem Anathoth Ramah, Geba, Kiriath-arba Michmash, Bethel, Aija, Nob Anaiah, Hazor

Lod, Hadid, Ono Zeboim, Neballat, Gai-Harashim, Gittaim, Zanoah, Zorah, Jarmuth, Adullam, Lachish, Azekah

Northern Negev Desert Jericho Senaah

Dibon, Jekabzeel, Jeshua, Moladah, Beth-Pelet, Hazar-Shual, Beersheba, Ziklag, Meconah, En-Rimmon

7:25–38 do not refer to any Shephelah and northern Negev towns, Nehemiah 11:25–35 does mention them, the Judean Desert sites and Kiriath-arba. Notwithstanding several shared elements, the lists primarily display disparities of town distribution, by listing different sites in the same regions. These details are crucial to observe their literary dimension, the purpose of writing of these different lists, and the aim of their composition in their surrounding literary contexts. As for the nature of the sources and composition of these two Benjaminite lists and the theological intention of their composition in Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7 and Nehemiah 11, scholarship has provided three main views. The first and most common view consider these lists as a utopian presentation of Yehud province geography, not the historical reality.42 This perspective assumes that 42 About the composition of Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7, several opinions have been suggested. Kellermann (1967: 99) argues for a Hellenistic Period list origin, inserted by a later editor into the text. Williamson (1985: 29–32, 267–269) and Blenkinsopp (1988: 83) argue for a Nehemiah period settlement picture. Redditt (2012: 223–240) argues that “a late Persian date for the book fits well with the overall view of the census list.” Other archaeological demographic studies point to a series of returnees’ settlements continuing up to Nehemiah’s time (Carter 1999: 77–78; Edelman 2005: 175–176, 223–226; Lipschits 2005: 158–168). Regarding Nehemiah 11’s possibly

Reassessment of Benjaminite Settlements in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE

107

the towns listed were likely outside the alleged boundary of the province, and the lists were reflective of a manifestation of the Golah/Diaspora community’s strong aspiration about the hope for conquest of the idealised territory. While presented as the Judeans’ settlement lists, they would echo ideological concern, and have little true Persian Period historical setting. The second opinion allows for the lists’ theological purposes but opines that they are indeed indicative of an authentic settlement distribution picture at some point in the Persian Period.43 The central premise is that the entire region mentioned in the lists was mainly under the Persian province administrative system, and in reality the Judeans could indeed settle beyond the technical provincial limits since the borderline would not sanction the activity of settlement. A third opinion redates these settlements as indeed having a reality, but in the Hellenistic/Hasmonean Period; and that they are not datable to the Persian Period, despite their stated context.44 The main foundations for this argumentation are literary editorial features in the lists, archaeology of the demography and the settlement distribution not fitting with the per se Persian Period history as recorded, and thus they were formulated in the Hellenistic/Hasmonean Period setting. Summarising the premises of all the above studies helps scrutinise the later editors’ purpose of inserting the Benjaminite lists into Ezra /Nehemiah 7 and Nehemiah 11 and explaining their ideology of Judeans’ settlement history. 2.1 The Occupation Profile of Towns of Benjamin in Ezra 2:21–35/ Nehemiah 7:25–38 and Nehemiah 11:25–35 The cities listed in Ezra 2:21–35/Nehemiah 7:25–38 and Nehemiah 11:25–35, in tandem with solid archaeological settlement profiles, are reviewed in order of appearance. The sites which are not well-identified are excluded.45 Table 6 summarises the available data retrieved from both surveys and excavations, for the late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Eras.

fictional nature, scholars are troubled by the northern Negev towns lying outside Yehud’s southern border. Edelman (2005: 210–233) argues that all the lists, Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7, Nehemiah 3 and Nehemiah 11:25–36, cannot with surety decide mid-late fifth century Yehud’s boundaries. 43 Concerning the provenance and historical credibility of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, scholars have debated whether it offers an accurate repatriate list from 538 or 521 BCE. By Nehemiah 7’s literary priority to Ezra 2, they claim Nehemiah’s author already knew the list and placed it in Nehemiah’s memoirs (e. g., Rudolph 1949: xxiii, 11–15; Galling 1951: 149–158; Myers 1965: 14–17; Fensham 1982: 48; Zevit 2009: 124–137). As for regarding Nehemiah 11 as a historically reliable source, see Myers 1965: 191; Janzen 2002: 498–499; Fulton 2015: 179–188. 44 On Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7, see Finkelstein 2018: 29–50; on Nehemiah 3: ibid.: 3–27; Nehemiah 11: Rudolph 1949: 113; Gunneweg 1987: 148–150. 45 Netophah in Judah, Dibon, Jekahzeel, Jehsua, Moladah, Beth-Pelet, Hazar-Shual, Meconah and En-Rimmon in the Negev, Nob and Hazor in Benjamin, Zeboim, Gai-Harashim and Gittaim in the Ono-Lod Valley and Senaah in the Jordan Valley.

108

Yitzhak Lee-Sak

Table 6. The integrated summary of the occupation profile of the sites46 City Name/ Period

Iron IIC

Persian

Hellenistic

Bethlehem (Beit Saḥur)

V

Extremely rare (2 pieces)

Weak

Beth-Hakkerem47 (Ramat Raḥel)

V

V

V

Tekoa (Khibet et-Tuquʽ)

V

V

V

Beth-zur (Khirbet et-Tubeqeh)

V

Weak

V

Kiriath-arba (Hebron)

V

Weak

V

Zanoah

V

Strong

V

Keilah

V

V

V

Zorah

V

V

–

Jarmuth

V

V

V

Adullam

Strong

V

V

Lachish

Strong

Strong

Strong

Azekah

Strong

V

V

Beersheba

Strong

Mid-late Persian V Period: V

Gibeon

Strong

Early Persian: V V Mid-late Persian Period: –

Anathoth: (1). Anatha, (2). Khirbet Dei res-Sidd or (3). Ras el-Kharubeh

Strong

(1) – (2) Weak (3) Weak

(1) Weak (20 pieces) (2) Weak (3) Weak

Azmaveth

V

V

V

Kiriath-Jearim: (1). Deir elʽAzar, (2). Khiryat el-ʽEnab

Strong

(1) Weak (2) Weak

Medium (about 40 sherds)

Chephirah

Strong

Weak (5–10 pieces)

Weak (about 20 sherds)

Beeroth

Strong

Weak (10–15 pieces)

Weak (15–20 pieces)

Ramah

Strong

Weak (?)

Medium (25–35 pieces)

46 See the summarized data in Fulton 2015: 183–185; Finkelstein 2018: 29–50; Lee-Sak 2021: 38–79. 47 Lipschits, et al. 2020: 476–491.

Reassessment of Benjaminite Settlements in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE

109

City Name/ Period

Iron IIC

Persian

Hellenistic

Geba

Strong

Weak (10–20 pieces)

Strong (or Medium) (50–60 pieces)

Michmash

Strong

Strong Strong (or (about 125 pieces) Medium) (about 60 pieces)

Bethel

Strong

The early V Persian Period: Weak The mid-late Persian Period: –

Ai: (1). et-Tell, (2). Khirbet Haiyan, (3). Deir Dibwan, (4) Khirbet Nisya

(1) – (2) – (3) – (4) Strong

(1) – (2) – (3) – (4) Strong

(1) – (2) Weak (20 pieces) (3) Medium (35 sherds) (4) Strong

Anaiah

Strong

Strong

Strong

Mizpah

Strong

V

V

Lod

V

V

V

Hadid

V

V

V

Ono

Strong

Strong

Strong

Jericho (Tell es-Sultan – Tulul Abu el-Alayiq)

Strong

Strong

Strong

The table’s content informs the occupation profiles of each site over the Iron Age IIB, Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Except for Ai, every Iron II site was securely occupied. Even so, since the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were written after the reconstruction of the Temple in 515 BCE, the Iron IIC should be exempted from the scrutiny of this study. Such physical results of the Iron IIC can also apply to the Persian Period settlement of the towns in the three lists, and the outcome is clear. Level of Persian Period occupation appeared remarkably to be “weak.” Other places, e. g., Beth-Zur, Kiriath-arba, Anathoth, Kiriath-jearim, Chephirah, Beeroth, Ramah, Geba and Bethel, despite the scarcity of material culture, do represent the Persian Period finds. Compared with the Persian Period, the material culture of the Hellenistic Period seems more intensive. Nevertheless, several sites such as Bethlehem, Chephirah and Beeroth, similar to those of the Persian Period, have presented material culture in “relatively weak quality.” For this very reason Finkelstein sets the texts themselves in the Hellenistic/ Hasmonean Period, not Persian. Nevertheless, I respectfully argue that this interpretation falls into the mistake of “hasty generalisations.” Unlike Finkelstein’s explication, the “weak” level of settlement cannot be merely construed as

110

Yitzhak Lee-Sak

a negative answer for the occupation since the sign of “weak” level of settlement does not always mean the “absence of settlement.” The data results from the sherd count of a certain period. Note that the typical Persian and Hellenistic Periods pottery only represents mid-Persian Period material culture and midHellenistic Period.48 Choosing either “a pessimistic answer for the settlement activity” or “the demographic decrease of the early phase of the Persian Period” relies on archaeologists’ premise on how to interpret with the results.49 From the snapshots of the table’s data, one cannot discuss a Babylonian-to-Persian Period transition, nor a Persian-to-Hellenistic Period transition. If a specific site underwent its rise or decline, it is highly likely that the material culture gradually occurred or declined throughout the above transitional periods. Thus, if the typical Persian Period material culture in a specific site is signified as “weak,” but the Iron IIC and the Hellenistic Period ones are as “strong,” then the transitional periods, the early Persian Period and the late Persian/early Hellenistic Period must be considered. Now is the proper time to ask: if one can choose the latter between the two transitional periods, can such a proposal trace the relevant historical setting of each list in Ezra and Nehemiah? 2.2 Ezra 2:21–35/Nehemiah 7:25–38: The Early Persian Period Settlement of Benjamin Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 share almost the same information of three parts, Ezra 2:2b–19/ Nehemiah 7:8–24; Ezra 2:20–35/Nehemiah 7:25–38; and Ezra 2:36– 58, 61–63/Nehemiah 7:39–60, 63–65. There are three different criteria – ancestor or clan names, settlement names or locale toponyms, and families involved in the temple service  – that comprise the whole chapter. Scholars view these criteria as denoting independent creation of these three units, integrated by the composer(s) of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 into a single work:50 All the lists were likely compiled after the settlement process finished because they name where people settled.51 By placing the lists within the report of the first Judeans’ return, the later editor emphasised that a large scale of settlement process began prior to the temple’s reconstruction in 515 BCE. 48 See the introduction to the result of their surveys conducted in the Benjamin area and the maps, 83/1–2 and 83/12–13 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel (http://www.antiquities.org. il/survey/new/default_en.aspx#C; accessed: 20 June 2022). 49 Milevski 1996–1997: 7–29; Lipschits 2003: 323–376; 2006: 19–52; 2011: 187–211. 50 Recent scholars assume that the mixture of the various criteria indicates list redaction from independent registers of disparate types. Internal text evidence alone cannot discern either a long-time process of compositions or simultaneous recording within the process. Scholars consent seeing the introduction of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 (Ezra 2:1–2; Nehemiah 7:5–7) and their final sections (Ezra 2:64–67; Nehemiah 7:66–67) as later interpolations. For the summary of these discussions, see Lipschits 2005: 161–168 and the above notes. 51 Fensham 1982: 48; Williamson 1985: 29–32, 267–269; Blenkinsopp 1988: 83, 86; Dyck 2000: 129–145.

Reassessment of Benjaminite Settlements in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE

111

It is easily discernible that despite of its skilful embedment within Ezra 2/ Nehemiah 7, the references to the towns of Benjamin in Ezra 2:20–35 and Nehemiah 7:25–38 are initially distinct from the clan and family designations in Ezra 2:2b–19; 36–39, 61–63 and Nehemiah 7:8–24, 39–42, 63–65.52 Note that the town distribution covers the traditional land of Benjamin, the Ono-Lod Valley/northwestern Shephelah and the southern regions of Jerusalem. The question must be answered: why the Benjaminite sites are listed without the identity of each clan or the name of ancestors. The literary nature of Ezra 2:20–35 and Nehemiah 7:25–38 – toponymical mentions of the towns of Benjamin – likely evidences its original literary independence within the composition. In addition, the two texts only refer to “the people” who remained in the area north of Jerusalem after 586 BCE, with no mention of any connection to the exiles. To be sure, the whole list in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 was a later compilation designed for editorial commemoration of the first return in 538/521 BCE. Nonetheless, there is no evidence to disregard the independent list of the towns of Benjamin in Ezra 2:20–35 and Nehemiah 7:25–38 as fictional; nor part of the later composed literary work in the days of Nehemiah and even later.53 Even arguing Nehemiah 7 as an original list and Ezra 2 as later and secondary does not infringe on this claim.54 It is not problematic to assume that the author of Nehemiah 7 used this existing source since the introduction of the list in 7:6, by labelling as the contents about the exile returnees, distinguishes the list from the other chapters of Nehemiah. Historically, the Benjamin town inhabitants, according to the original context of Ezra 2:20–35 and Nehemiah 7:25–38, were those who survived destruction by the Babylonian campaigns since 586 BCE as found in 2 Kgs 25:22–26, Jeremiah 40:7–41:18 and Zachariah 7:1–3.55 This argumentation makes the inclusion of Ezra 2:20–35 and Nehemiah 7:25–38 into this returnee list striking. Accordingly, it can be argued that the original Benjaminite town lists have no reliable data about the people’s return to Zion; but instead, they likely display a raw portrayal of how the Benjaminites settled in a transition between the Babylonian and the Persian Periods. Presumably, Ezra 2:20–35 and Nehemiah 7:25–38 were likely a kind of “census” in the transition period social-milieu, as Galling and Lipschits argue.56 52

Rudolph 1949: 11–15; Myers 1965: 14–17; Kellermann 1967: 98–100; Fensham 1982: 48; Williamson 1985: 29–32, 267–269; Blenkinsopp 1988: 83, 86; Zevit 2009: 124–137. 53 Rudolph 1949: xxiii, 11–15; Myers 1965: 14–17; Fensham 1982: 48; Zevit 2009: 124–137. Contra Williamson 1985: 29–32, 267–269 and Blenkinsopp 1988: 83. 54 Rudolph 1949: 13–14; Williamson 1985: 29–30; Blenkinsopp 1988: 43–44, 86–87; Lipschits 2005: 158–159. 55 For the historical background of these three biblical texts, See Chapter 3.6.3 in Lee-Sak 2021. 56 Galling 1951: 149–158; Lipschits 2005: 160. Galling connects the list with Ezra 5:3–4 reporting Tattenai’s request of the census. Lipschits comments, “perhaps a list derived from a census of all residents of the province at various intervals.”

112

Yitzhak Lee-Sak

The later redactor likely put it into the context of the repatriates’ first return to propagandise the Benjaminites as part of the true Judeans redefined with the exiles, from the late sixth century onward.57 This later process of editing reflects an ideological belief about the past that Benjamin was part of the kingdom of Judah, and presents an ideological propaganda that now they should be part of Persian Yehud. The towns of Benjamin embedded at the heart of the whole list suggest that the compiler perhaps preserved the older tradition about Benjaminites’ preponderance in early Persian Period Judean society demography. He also rearranged it in the present place of text through the composition process. Since there is no archaeological evidence to attest to the returnees’ mass return along with their inordinate and uneven population/migration numbers of 42,360 + 7,337 + 240/245,58 one could disregard the overall composition of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 as a fictive portrayal of Persian Period settlements.59 Still, this does not disqualify the offered census information and town distribution of the early Persian Period.60 The catalogue of Ezra 2:20–35 and Nehemiah 7:25–38 demonstrates that there were the settlements of Benjamin in the early Persian Period as they already existed in the Babylonian Period. 2.3 Nehemiah 11:25–36: The Persian/Hellenistic Period Transition List of Small Settlement with Enclosures (-':8%) The “small settlements with enclosures (-':8%)” list in Nehemiah 11:25–36 describes Judahites, Benjaminites and Levites as taking possession of specific towns. This settlement catalog follows the list of settlers in Jerusalem in 11:4–24. This fact indicates that both lists should be considered together, but were originally separate.61 As 11:1, 18 use the term :'3 (city) referring to Jerusalem,