Yasur-Lau Assaf. Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
102 nava panitz-cohen
Household composition is aected by the existence of nuclear fam-
ily units that could have coexisted within extended households, both
on a temporal and spatial basis. Schloen (2001: 135–136) contended
that while the basic unit occupying the houses in the Late Bronze and
Iron Ages in the ancient Near East was indeed the extended family or
the “patriarchal joint household,” this unit was not monolithic and was
aected by numerous factors in the “household life cycle” (i.e., mortal-
ity and fertility rates, marriage patterns, servants, industry, etc.), that
in turn aected the space requirements and size of the household as
well as its pottery repertoire. As noted above, it is possible that during
the course of its existence, the Stratum VIII household was that of an
extended family comprising a number of nuclear family units, while
the Stratum VII household, which contained only one large space,
did not have such units.
16
e possibility of multiple nuclear families
living together in the Stratum VIII building might also explain the
larger number of vessels in Stratum VIII, wherein each smaller family
unit might have required a “set” of its own and communal eating was
somewhat less common. Could the relatively larger number of kraters
and large-sized bowls in Stratum VII be related to an increase in com-
munal dining by the inhabitants?
Another possible explanation for the dierences between the ceramic
assemblages of the two houses is a change in the social role or political
status of the inhabitants. Mills (1999) points out that wealth and status
are not automatically interrelated in some societies and it is possible
that the status or socioeconomic role of the Stratum VII household
head diered from that of his predecessor, regardless of wealth. Along
these lines, the disappearance of very large cooking pots in Stratum
VII that might have been used for feasting in Stratum VIII should be
noted (Panitz-Cohen 2006a: 191–192). Ethnographic data show that
landowners and/or political or religious functionaries have a series of
social, political, and economic obligations that go with this status (i.e.,
Graves 1991; Deal 1998; Potter 2000; Turkon 2004: 226); such obliga-
tions oen include the hosting of feasts (Mills 1999). Sometimes, these
obligations can be co-opted from local elites in order to invest more
16
However, since we do not know if the assumed upper story in Building 315 con-
tained individual living rooms, we cannot denitely suggest a change from extended
to nuclear family between the two houses.
a tale of two houses 103
power in centralized authority (Earle 2002: 244). Could this lack imply
that hosting feasts (intra- or suprahousehold) was no longer a part of
the Stratum VII household’s social requirements?
17
Possibly, the dif-
ference in vessel amount and storage jar capacity reects this change
in social position or status, which might have been the result of mac-
roeconomic conditions possibly related to changes in land appropria-
tions and/or tax obligations. ese changes might have been related,
as noted above, to the nature of the Egyptian reign during the Amarna
period, our Stratum VII.
us, while the same family or kinship group most likely occupied
both houses in Strata VIII and VII, changing internal (familial) and
external (social, political, and economic) conditions impacted the
house plan and size, as well as the nature and size of the household
ceramic inventory. is proposed continuity is most likely the result
of a kinship relationship that remained among the houses’ occupants,
as well as the cultural continuity that characterized the LB Canaanite
material culture in general. e changes that did take place could have
been the result of external conditions, such as new technology (alter-
nate storage practices, changes in cra production, etc.), economy,
and politics (shi in status or role of the household in the larger com-
munity, change in administrative control by external factors such as
Egyptian governors, easier access to consumer goods such as imports,
change in taxes, and land conscation policies leading to alternative
subsistence strategies, etc.), or stylistic inuence (regional or foreign
architectural styles). e smaller outer dimensions of the house in
Stratum VII might be related to increased occupational density in the
town on the whole that required the demolishing of the western wing
and turning it from private property into a public street; such altera-
tions are a concern in towns located on space-limited tells (Steadman
2000: 165; Ilan 2001: 323).
17
An example from the time of the Inca takeover of the Mantaro Valley shows that
decorated storage jars and serving bowls were considered evidence of the importance
of ceremonial feasting in expressing and maintaining elite status in the Wanka II
occupation, but following the takeover of the Inca in Wanka III, these vessels disap-
peared from elite houses. At this time, all surplus was commandeered by the Inca
rulers and while the local elite did not entirely lose their status as feast givers, their
position now depended on the economic and ideological support of the Inca rulers.
is was expressed through new high status vessels made in the Inca imperial style
that were doled out to the local elites (Sinopoli 1991: 158; Costin 1996).
104 nava panitz-cohen
Inuence from contemporary architectural styles cannot be ruled
out as an explanation for the change in plan, such as the Herrenhaus
at Beth-Shemesh, the pillared house at Tel Harassim, and the houses at
Tell Beit Mirsim (Table 3). Do such similarities imply shared regional
kinship relations, or was there perhaps an itinerant builders’ guild
responsible for the erection of such houses for families of some means
in the Shephelah?
Chesson (2003) discusses the role that the physical house structure
(as well as its material contents) plays in establishing and maintaining
family status and authority within the town. e very link to ances-
tors and the ancestral household is a source of status and authority
and was a desirable asset to be upheld; this had economic implica-
tions for the family as well (ibid.: 83–84). us, the rebuilding of the
house on the same spot, although with changes in certain aspects of
the plan, might, on the one hand, reect maintenance and legitimiza-
tion of the family status and identity, while on the other hand, change
aspects and relationships within the family itself (ibid.: 91), as well as
its relationship to external social, economic, and political organization
and demands. Nielsen (1995: 55) emphasized the social and symbolic
message inherent in the choice of building material and the architec-
tural plan. Another factor to consider is that house ownership was
oen part of existing kinship relationships and it would have been
near impossible for an outsider seeking to live in the town to obtain
property or a house (Schloen 2001: 328; Kramer 1979; although, see
Heltzer 1976: 84). Taken together with the relative homogeneity of the
ceramic tradition during this period (the late eenth–fourteenth cen-
turies bce), it seems reasonable to assume that the houses remained
“all in the family” and that while the overall wealth of this family did
not change, there were shis in the social and political positions they
held, possibly relating to the changes in the nature of Egyptian rule at
this time.
Summary
Even when dealing with a well-preserved, comprehensive data set such
as the ceramic assemblages found in the Tel Batash houses, using pot-
tery to assess household wealth, status, and composition is a complex
matter and no direct or simple correlation can be assumed between
quantity and quality of vessels and social and economic conditions.
a tale of two houses 105
Because households may have a variety of economic pursuits and social
personnel, the concept of status, as oen applied, should consider that
status is not a set rank, but is susceptible to contextual variation. A more
realistic concept of wealth should distinguish social groups by the activi-
ties in which they are involved, rather than linking them by access to
wealth and prestige items. (Turkon 2004: 245)
Household pottery as a material correlate of these activities can thus
reect social and economic conditions when analyzed on the dynamic
level of the constant negotiation of status, both within the house and
without.
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN PUBLIC AND RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS: A CASE STUDY FROM LATE BRONZE AGE II
TELL EṢ-ṢAFI/GATH
Itzhaq Shai, Aren M. Maeir, Yuval Gadot and Joe Uziel
Introduction
e excavations at Tell eṣ-Ṣa/Gath, Israel (Maeir 2003; 2008; Fig. 1
herein) have uncovered, inter alia, assorted evidence dating to the Late
Bronze Age (ca. 1550–1200 bce) from various parts of the site. e
site, which is identied as Canaanite Gath, is one of the more impor-
tant Canaanite city-states during the Late Bronze Age as attested in
the Egyptian documents dating to the period (Uziel and Maeir 2005:
57–58 and further literature there). During the 2000–2006 seasons,
a large building (Building 66323) dating to the LBIIB was excavated
in Area E (Shai et al. forthcoming) on the eastern slopes of the tell
(Fig. 2). Approximately 240 m
2
of the eastern side of this building were
excavated; this is but a portion of the original structure, however, as
it clearly continues to the west (under the eastern side of Area A)
where it is buried below later accumulations that have not yet been
fully excavated (Fig. 3).
e size of the building and its ground plan raise many questions as
to its function: was it a private dwelling or a public building? If public,
what was its function (e.g., palace, storeroom, temple, etc.)? If it was
a residential structure, can its size and nds attest to the social and/
or economic status of its residents? Is such a dierentiation (between
public and private) even justied? Can the identication of the char-
acter and function of Building 66323 contribute to our understanding
of the urban nature of the city of Gath in particular and of the LB
urban centers in Canaan in general? is paper attempts to identify
the function of Building 66323, and, in turn, addresses the issue of the
identication of structures as public or private.
In order to undertake this dicult task we shall rst review briey
some of the literature relating to the denition of buildings as private
or public, in order to establish a list of features that might be expected
in a public structure. We will then analyze the ground plan of Building
66323 and the artifacts found in connection to it, and compare Build-
ing 66323 with other structures from LB Canaan.
108 itzhaq shai et al.
Figure 1. Location of Tell eṣ-Ṣa/Gath.
a case study from late bronze age ii 109
Figure 2. General plan of Tell eṣ-Ṣa/Gath and location of Area E.
Theoretical Background
Archaeologists are oen bewildered by the problem of dening the
nature of architectural units. It comes as no surprise that most of the
literature that deals with functional denitions of architecture focuses
on the more clear cut and extreme cases, such as palaces (Trigger
1990; Moore 1996) and temples on the one hand
1
and simple dwell-
ings (Wright 1985: 289–293; Daviau 1993; Foucault-Forest 1996; King
and Stager 2001: Chapter 2) on the other.
2
1
Although, note that even with monumental buildings, the identication is not
always clear cut—see, for example, the ongoing debate over the monumental LB struc-
ture at Hazor; see Ben-Tor and Zuckerman 2008: 1 and references there.
2
For methodological guidelines and a sophisticated attempt to utilize diverse
archaeological and historical sources to identify house function and type in the Roman
world, see Allison 1999a: 2–6; 2001; for a typological and functional analysis of houses
in Roman Palestine, see Richardson 2004.
110 itzhaq shai et al.
Figure 3. Aerial view, looking west, of Areas A and E at Tell eṣ-Ṣa/Gath. Note LB Building 66323 and
its continuation under the Iron Age strata in Area A.
a case study from late bronze age ii 111
Building types between these two extremes are harder to dene, and
are therefore many times avoided. Terms such as “Patrician houses”
or “Elite Houses” (Albright 1938; Wright 1985: 274; Oren 1992: 115;
Ben-Dov 1992) are oen used, but in most cases, these denitions,
even if correct, are made on intuitive grounds. Likewise, as has been
pointed out in the past, intuitive classications of “elite” versus “non-
elite” architecture are oen based on questionable criteria. us, for
example, studies of the scale, prominence and energy expenditure in
architectural elements usually assume that a direct correlation can be
made between large-scale/prominence/energy and elite parts of soci-
ety (e.g., Mazar 1990: 246–247; Oren 1992: 115; Bunimovitz 1995:
Fig. 4). Wason (1994: 136–145) and others have shown, that this is
not always the case (see as well, e.g., Kramer 1979; Horne 1994: 160;
Aurenche 1996; Verhoeven 1999: 24; Panitz-Cohen 2006a: 190–191).
Faust (1999a), for example, has suggested that the dierent sizes of
domestic houses in urban and rural contexts in the Iron Age Southern
Levant, where houses are smaller in towns and larger in rural settings,
is related to family size and not socioeconomic status. As a result, it is
not sucient to dene function according to size of the structure, but
the classication and evaluation of built environments should relate to
two complementary aspects: the architectural character (i.e., size, quality
of building, etc.) and layout of the building, and the human activities
that took place in the building and in its immediate surroundings.
e rst aspect that we will discuss is the architectural layout of
the building. In order to compare the archaeological evidence from
dierent sites and present general denitions that can include su-
ciently large sets of examples, we shall rst draw up a set of param-
eters. We shall address matters such as the size of the building, energy
expenditure in its construction, the syntax of the building oor plan,
and nally, the location of the building within the city. Although the
parameters presented here may have cross-cultural value, their use here
is in relation to other buildings in LB Canaan. For example, energy
expenditure is reected in the size of the building, but determining
whether a building is large or small can only be achieved by compar-
ing it to other contemporary buildings from the same cultural milieu,
taking into account more than just the relative size of the architectural
features, but other parameters of prosperity as well (for example, nds
within the building, architectural quality; see, e.g., David and Kramer
2001: 294–296).