Yasur-Lau Assaf. Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
162 yuval gadot
by cyclical shis between periods of strong and integrated social power
and periods during which the area became a frontier zone and a home
for pastoral groups and other marginal elements of society (Gadot
2006, 2008, forthcoming). An example of the latter came at the end of
the thirteenth century bce, following a long period of Egyptian domi-
nance, when the region became a frontier zone. It was during this time
that the Philistines took advantage of the absence of a central govern-
ing power and the ensuing social fragmentation within the region, and
exploited this area for their economic needs. is is reected mainly
by a shi in the settlement pattern in the region and by the appear-
ance of Philistine-related Bichrome pottery at all sites dated to this
time. Based on material culture studies, we know that the Philistines
initially immigrated only to the southern Coastal Plain, to places like
Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Ekron, and only later, aer a few decades, did
they turn their attention to areas surrounding their new homeland,
like the Yarkon region (Singer 1985; Mazar 1985a; Stager 1995; Gadot
2006). It should be noted, in light of the above discussion of ethnic-
ity in “encounter” zones, that the political and economic dominance
of the Philistines over the region does not necessarily mean that the
population was ethnically “Philistine.” In order to determine the pop-
ulation’s ethnic identity, many components constituting the material
culture of the region must be considered, among them houses and the
way they were used.
The Sites
is analysis focuses on four excavated sites dating to the timeframe of
the present inquiry and situated along the Yarkon River:
Tell Qasile: Located two kilometers east of the seashore, Tell Qasile
was rst excavated by B. Mazar (Mazar [Maisler] 1951; Dothan and
Dunayevsky 1993), who excavated Areas A and B located on the
southern and western slopes of the mound. A second expedition to
the site was headed by A. Mazar (Mazar 1980, 1985b, 1986; Mazar
and Harpazi-Ofer 1994), who excavated Area C located on the top of
the tell. Most of the known domestic structures come from Area A,
where an east–west street was unearthed that was anked by houses on
both sides. Stratigraphically, the houses belong to Stratum X (Fig. 2;
Dothan and Dunayesvky 1993: 1205; Mazar 2009: Figs. 1, 3), although
some houses were rst built in Stratum XI. Unfortunately, Area A has
society, economy, and identity 163
Figure 2. Plan of Tel Qasile stratum X (aer Mazar 2009: Figure 1).
164 yuval gadot
Figure 3. Aphek Stratum X11: the northwestern quarter.
only been published in a preliminary fashion that deals mainly with
the architecture; the material culture was never published in a man-
ner that allows for a spatial analysis of human behavior. Additional
domestic structures were found in Area C, where they were dated to
Strata XII, XI, and X (Mazar 2009: 320, Fig. 6). In all, seven complete
houses from Tell Qasile were analyzed in the present study.
Tel Gerisa: is site is located on a projecting kurkar hill, near the
point where the Ayalon and Yarkon Rivers merge a few kilometers to
the east of Tell Qasile. e tell has two summits with a relatively low
saddle between them. Substantial architecture dating to the Iron Age
I was found on the southern summit (Area B) by Z. Herzog, the exca-
vator of the site (Herzog 1993, 1997; Herzog and Tsuk 1995). ese
remains have been published only in a preliminary fashion (Herzog
1993: 483). Hence, the two houses reported from Tel Gerisa are men-
tioned below but are not analyzed in detail.
Tel Aphek: e site of Aphek is located near the rich springs of
Aphek, the main source of water for the Yarkon River (Kochavi
1989a). Remains dating to the Late Bronze Age–Iron Age transition
society, economy, and identity 165
Figure 4. Plan of ‘Izbet Ṣartah stratum III (aer Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 26).
(Stratum X11) and to the Iron Age I (Strata X10–X9) were found only
in Area X, located on the upper tell (Gadot 2006, 2009b). e earlier
stratum includes two domestic quarters (Gadot 2009b: Figs. 6.1, 6.2).
In the later stratum a small farmstead was excavated. e nds include
a domestic structure and a large open space next to it, probably used
as a threshing oor (Gadot 2006, 2009b: Fig. 6.6). Both strata were
abandoned and therefore very few nds were recovered in situ. For
the present study, two houses from Stratum. X11 were scrutinized. e
single domestic unit from Strata X10–X9 is mentioned only briey.
166 yuval gadot
Figure 5. Plan of ‘Izbet Ṣartah stratum II (aer Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 27).
ʿIzbet Ṣartah: e site of ʿIzbet Ṣartah is located along the fringes
of the Coastal Plain and the Samaria Highlands (Finkelstein 1986).
Traditionally, the site has been interpreted as an example of the Isra-
elite settlement in the hill country (Finkelstein 1988; Mazar 1990: 335).
However, the proximity of the site to the Coastal Plain, particularly
to Aphek, suggests that the inhabitants of ʿIzbet Ṣartah shared eco-
nomic and social traits with their western neighbors. I have therefore
included this site as part of this analysis, regardless of the presumed
cultural identity of its inhabitants.
society, economy, and identity 167
Two main phases of occupation were recognized at ʿIzbet Ṣartah. In
Stratum III a large central open courtyard was surrounded by small
domestic buildings (Fig. 4; Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 26). e second set-
tlement (Strata II and I) was composed of at least three “four-room
houses,” or “pillar houses,” as they were named recently (Mazar 2009:
324), with many silos between them. One of the houses was located at
the center of the site and is considerably larger than the other buildings,
numbering at least two clusters (Fig. 5; Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 27).
Discussion
A holistic archaeological approach demands that both the architecture
and the artifacts located in primary contexts be considered together.
Unfortunately, from the four sites used in this investigation, only at
ʿIzbet Ṣartah Strata II–I is a holistic analysis possible. Aphek and Tel
Gerisa were abandoned in antiquity and no nds were recovered in
primary contexts, and most of the artifacts from Tel Gerisa and some
from Tell Qasile have not yet been published. erefore, the discussion
below will focus mainly on the architectural layout of the buildings
and their location within the settlement. My analysis of human behav-
ior will be drawn mostly by examining installations and the selected
artifacts that have been published to date.
e discussion is divided chronologically. I will rst discuss houses
and households dating to the LBIII/Iron I period (Table 1). is will
be followed by a discussion of living quarters in settlements dating to
the Iron Ib period (Tables 2 and 3).
3
Table 1 presents the available data concerning buildings identied
as houses found in strata dating to the transitional phase between the
Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. It includes two sites: e rst is
ʿIzbet Ṣartah Stratum III where a circumferential belt of houses encloses
a courtyard (Finkelstein 1986: 106–108, Fig. 4); Excavations at the site
exposed parts of at least ve houses that are all very similar in their
size and nature. House 2007 is the better-preserved example and it
was therefore chosen for analysis below as a representative example.
e second site is Aphek Stratum X11 where two living quarters were
3
e separation into two tables is merley technical, as the houses in Tell Qasile
(Table 3) are compared with other coexisting houses presented in Table 2.
168 yuval gadot
unearthed—the southeastern and northwestern—separated by a public
piazza. e preservation of the southeastern quarter is too fragmentary
to be analyzed and I shall therefore focus on the northwestern quarter
only. Here, two buildings were excavated with similar dimensions. e
plan of House 2942 is more complete between the two existing plans
and was therefore chosen for analysis.
e two sites compared are spatially proximate to each other and
probably coexisted in time, but there are marked dierences in the
settlement plan and the construction of domestic units. Single houses
at Aphek are more complex in plan, with three internal spaces, com-
pared to one in ʿIzbet Ṣartah; they have interior, private courtyards,
while at ʿIzbet Ṣartah there is only one, exterior, shared courtyard;
and they are well built with paved oors and relatively thick walls
4
Based on Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 3.
5
Based on Gadot 2009b: Fig. 6.1.
Table 1. Houses dating to the Late Bronze Age–Iron Age transition
ʿIzbet Ṣartah III
4
Aphek X11: northwestern quarter
5
Building techniques
and materials
One row of eldstone foundations
and mudbricks; the bedrock serves
as the oor
Two rows of eldstone foundations; oors
either paved or of packed earth
Building size Building 2007: exterior
dimensions: 7 m × 5 m; net oor
area: 25–30 m
2
Building 2942: exterior dimensions: 9.5 m ×
7.5 m; net oor area: 48 m
2
; front courtyard
area: 30 m
2
Orientation e opening faces the courtyard
with no special orientation
e openings face north and east
Courtyard location One central shared courtyard:
1450 m
2
Inner courtyard located in the front part
of the house; large exterior public piazza of
unknown dimensions
Complexity,
internal division,
and syntax
Single space and shared courtyard Interior division into three spaces; back
rooms accessible from the courtyard
Location in the
settlement
Located on the perimeter of a hill Built on top of a hill
Relations with
other buildings
Houses share party walls Houses do not share party walls, but are
built next to each other
Uniformity in
architectural layout
e houses are uniform in plan,
but dier in size
e outer plan of the houses is uniform, but
the interior divisions dier from house to
house
society, economy, and identity 169
Table 2. Houses dating to the Iron Age I
ʿIzbet Ṣartah II–I
6
Aphek X10–X9
7
Tel Gerisa
8
Building techniques
and materials
Most houses have wall
foundations built of one row
of unworked eldstones. e
bedrock serves as oor.
Building 109 stands out in its
overall size and the width of its
walls
Wall foundations are made
of one row of unworked
eldstones; packed-earth
oors
Wall foundations are
made of unworked
eldstones
Building size Building 109: exterior
dimensions: ca. 11.5 m × 16 m;
net oor area: 120 m
2
;
Building 301: net oor area:
37.5 m
2
;
Building 916: net oor area:
51 m
2
Too fragmentary for
reconstruction
Too fragmentary for
reconstruction
Orientation Unclear Unclear Unclear
Courtyard location All three have an inner
courtyard; a paved outer
courtyard was found next to
Building 109
Inner courtyard Inner courtyards
located at the front part
of the house
Complexity, internal
division, and syntax
Buildings divided into at least
four rooms, accessed via a
courtyard
Divided into at least three
spaces; entrances cannot
be reconstructed
Division into subspaces;
entrance cannot be
reconstructed
Location in the
settlement
One building is at the center of
the site; the other two are built
on the mound’s perimeter
Built on a hill, next to open
grounds
Built on the top of the
southern hill
Relations with other
buildings
Most buildings are freestanding Only one freestanding
building found
Buildings are
freestanding
Uniformity in
architectural layout
Buildings share similar plan,
but are not identical
Cannot be determined Buildings are built
according to dierent
blueprints
that are not shared with neighboring buildings, as opposed to ʿIzbet
Ṣartah’s domestic units. At the same time, the living space inside the
buildings is relatively similar at the two settlements (25–30 m
2
at ʿIzbet
Ṣartah and 30 m
2
at Aphek). More dierences can be noticed in the
settlement’s layout. While both sites have a public piazza/courtyard,
6
Based on Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 4.
7
Based on Gadot 2009b: Fig. 6.6.
8
Based on Herzog 1993.
170 yuval gadot
the buildings surrounding the unpaved courtyard at ʿIzbet Ṣartah are
arranged in a standardized, almost rigid, plan; the Aphek piazza is
stone paved, but the arrangement of the houses built close to it exhib-
its no apparent preplanning.
It seems that the dierences in the layout of the two settlements and
in the ground plan of the buildings derive from the signicance given
to the individual family in society and, consequently, to the individual
building. At ʿIzbet Ṣartah Stratum III the single house has very little
signicance in itself, and is only a component of the overall plan. Fin-
kelstein has noted that the ratio between the public and private spaces
at ʿIzbet Ṣartah is 65: 35 (Finkelstein 1986: 106). is means that a
Table 3. Houses at Tell Qasile
9
Pillar houses: (Area A) Pillar houses:
(Area C)
Courtyard House O
Building techniques
and materials
Fieldstones and mudbricks Fieldstones and
mudbricks; thick walls
Fieldstones and
mudbricks
Building size K: 9.1 m × 9.1 m; 51 m
2
;
J: 8.8 m × 10.1 m; 60 m
2
;
W: 9.1 m × 10.1 m; 77 m
2
;
R: 10.4 m × 9.9 m; 64 m
2
225: 8.5 m × 13.5 m; 77 m
2
;
495: 10.7 m × 13.4 m;
92 m
2
12.5 m × 12.9 m;
139 m
2
Orientation Entrance facing street Entrance facing street Entrance facing street
Courtyard location Inner courtyard located in the
front part of the house
Inner courtyard located in
the front part of house
Inner courtyard located
in the central part of
house
Complexity, internal
division, and syntax
Four spaces, all accessed via
the courtyard
Four spaces, some not
accessible from the
courtyard
At least ve spaces
arranged around a
courtyard
Location in the
settlement
Built along a street on the
southwestern slope of the hill
Built on top of the hill,
close to the temple
Inside the settlement,
between the temple and
the pillar houses
Relations with other
buildings
Buildings share party walls Building 495 is separate
from other buildings;
Building 225 shares a party
wall with the temple
Shares no walls with
building W; shares one
wall with building J
Uniformity in
architectural layout
Buildings share a similar plan,
but vary in sizes
Plans are similar in idea,
but each building has some
unique additions
Only one building
9
e information here is based on Mazar 2009: Tables 2, 3.
society, economy, and identity 171
majority of the everyday activities were preformed out in the pub-
lic realm, while considerably less space was allotted to the individual
family. e preplanned settlement and the uniformity of its houses in
size, plan, and construction quality show that the occupants of ʿIzbet
Ṣartah formed a closely integrated social group, which suppressed the
place of the individual family. Scholars studying the emergence of
village society during the time of the Neolithic Revolution stress the
move to autonomous households as one that bettered productivity,
and lead to the creation of social stratication (e.g. Byrd 1994, 2000).
e buildings at Aphek are organized as autonomous households. e
architectural layout at ʿIzbet Ṣartah reects an entirely dierent pref-
erence that emphasizes the public arena. According to the excavator
(Finkelstein 1986: 106–109), the need for a large public courtyard was
explained as reecting economic or functional considerations. Accord-
ing to Finkelstein, the plan of the settlement proves that the site was
occupied by pastoralists who had shied to a sedentary lifestyle. e
tent camp was replaced by stone-built houses that retained the former
dwellings’ tent-like shape (Finkelstein 1986: 116–121). e courtyard
was used for penning the herds—sheep and goats or camels—at night.
Finkelstein (1986: 118) notes that some pastoralists’ camps were built
along a linear axis, while others, like at ʿIzbet Ṣartah, enclosed a court-
yard. e particular arrangement was explained by security needs,
by the nature of the animals herded, or according to topographical
considerations.
Apart from the courtyard’s role in the survival strategy of the site’s
inhabitants, its public nature and the fact that most of the everyday
activities were preformed there communally by members of the group
point to the fact that the courtyard also played a signicant role in
regulating and maintaining social order and in the control of the
individual by the larger group. e importance of public space for
integrating and strengthening social bonds in villages that are based
on autonomous households was mentioned by Byrd (Byrd 1994; see
also Rosenberg and Redding 2000: 47–49). e layout of ʿIzbet Ṣartah,
however, is a combination of a large public courtyard and a consi-
derably small overall area of autonomous spaces. is meant that
everyday activities, such as food preparation and consumption, were
preformed in an open area. ere was no escape from public scrutiny. e
power of social surveillance of the ruling elite or of lower-ranking
members of society is known as a key for regulating social order and