Yasur-Lau Assaf. Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
EARLY IRON AGE DOMESTIC MATERIAL CULTURE IN
PHILISTIA AND AN EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN KOINÉ
1
David Ben-Shlomo
Introduction
e debate concerning the Sea Peoples and the transformations that
occurred in the eastern Mediterranean during the late thirteenth and
twelh centuries bce has attracted the attention of researchers for sev-
eral decades, and several seminal works and numerous articles focusing
on this subject have appeared (see Barako 2000; Yasur-Landau 2003a,
2003b; Ben-Shlomo 2006a; Uziel 2007, for references and discussion).
e past decades have also yielded an increasing amount of archaeo-
logical evidence from the twelh century bce in the eastern Mediterra-
nean (Fig. 1) where Aegean, Aegeanizing
2
or “Western-style” elements
appear in various localities. is material probably represents various
movements of peoples and/or ideas from the Aegean region to the
southern Levant and to other regions as well. While a number of sites
in the southern Levant, Syria, Cyprus, southern Italy, and other areas
have yielded various components of the archaeological record that
indicate a new and foreign material culture, the most notable case
of this phenomenon is probably the Iron Age I material culture on
the southern coast of Israel (Philistia). It is still commonly believed
that this phenomenon represents an emigration event of some sort,
a movement of peoples from the west (Barako 2000); yet the more
1
Much of the work on this article was done during my stay at the University of
Heidelberg in 2006–2007, which was funded by an Alexander von Humboldt Foun-
dation Postdoctoral Fellowship. Many thanks go to Prof. J. Maran of the Institut für
Ur- und Frühgeschichte in Heidelberg for his remarks and assistance. I wish to thank
P. Stockhammer, M. Vetters, and A. Zukerman for their helpful remarks. Need-
less to say, I alone bear responsibility for all statements made in this article. I thank
T. Dothan and S. Gitin for permitting me to publish artifacts from Tel Miqne-Ekron.
e photographs from Tel Miqne-Ekron are by G. Laron and Z. Radovan; the draw-
ings are by H. Bitan and M. Zeltser. Illustrations of objects from Ashdod are courtesy
of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
2
e term “Aegeanizing,” as used here, relates to material culture elements that are
not identical to Aegean elements, but rather show distinct similarities to them.
184 david ben-shlomo
Figure 1. Map of the eastern Mediterranean with main regions and sites mentioned in the text.
early iron age domestic material culture 185
specic nature of this event, such as its magnitude, time frame, pace
of inux, social and political structure, and the geographic and ethnic
origin of these immigrants, as well as their relationship with the local
host population, is not yet clear and very much debatable. is event
has oen been described as very dramatic, sudden, and even violent,
occurring against the backdrop of the collapse of the Aegean palatial
system, either as the cause, eect, or both, as implied by the contem-
porary textual evidence on the Sea Peoples and the damage reported
to have been caused by them (Dothan 1982: 295–296; Stager 1991: 35;
Drews 1993: 220; Bunimovitz 1998: 107–109; Barako 2000: 521; Yasur-
Landau 2003a: 47–50). ese descriptions sometimes allude to refu-
gees from the palatial society and/or groups of violent Sea Peoples or
sea raiders (Stager 1995: 345). Some researchers propose a strong con-
nection with Cyprus, suggesting that the immigrants and their mate-
rial culture originated from there and not from the Aegean mainland
(e.g., Killebrew 2000: 243; 2005: 197–245; Cross and Stager 2006: 150),
or that the process should be related to a strengthening of economic
relations with Cyprus and to mercantile activities (Artzy 1997;
Bauer
1998;
Sherratt 1998: 302).
e close relationship between household archaeology and migra-
tion archaeology has been readily acknowledged in the past few years
(Burmeister 2000; Yasur-Landau 2002). Immigrants tend to manifest
their otherness through material culture more intensively within their
private household than in public or other domains. According to these
studies, the analysis of material culture from immigrant households
can be employed to illuminate the nature of the migrant society in
three ways: it can resolve the question of whether or not the house-
holds were occupied by immigrants; it can be used to investigate the
background of the immigrants, including their geographic origins,
ethnic anities, and socioeconomic status; and it may illuminate the
relationships and interactions between the immigrants and members
of the local population (Burmeister 2000). In order to address the ques-
tion, then, of Philistine migration, it seems more benecial to examine
material culture elements appearing in Philistine houses than those
represented in public or religious structures.
For this paper, I have thus chosen to examine certain aspects of the
material culture of Philistia, Cyprus, and the Aegean in relation to
the three aspects noted above. Some of these elements have received
less attention in previous research and will be discussed here in more
detail. I will suggest that, during the twelh century bce, multilateral
186 david ben-shlomo
contacts between populations in the Argolid and on Cyprus, the immi-
grants in the southern Levant, and possibly peoples in other regions in
the eastern Mediterranean created a “cultural koiné.” In this context, a
cultural koiné is dened as behaviors and material culture elements, as
reected in the archaeological record, that are shared by groups of peo-
ples in various locations. I will show that this koiné may be illustrated by
certain aspects of material culture in the domestic domain of excavated
Philistine households, and suggest that it may reect the movement of
both ideas and peoples within the eastern Mediterranean.
Domestic Aspects of the Early Iron Age Philistine Material Culture
e term “household” includes three aspects (Wilk and Rathje 1982:
618): (1) the social unit constituting the household;
3
(2) the mate-
rial expression of the household, i.e., the dwelling itself and its mate-
rial contents; and (3) the human behavior related to the household.
Archaeology can deal directly only with the second aspect, while the
other two aspects can only be inferred from an analysis of the dwelling
(the domestic domain). e types of recoverable archaeological data
can be subdivided into three categories: (1) the immobile elements of
the household, i.e., the house itself (its plan, construction technique,
size, etc.); (2) the mobile material culture, i.e., furniture, vessels, and
any other artifacts in the dwelling (a number of features or installa-
tions can be included in this category, such as benches, hearths, pits,
baths, ovens, etc.); and (3) patterns in the plan and organization of the
material culture that may provide evidence for human behavior within
the house (see Bunimovitz and Faust 2003a, 2003b, for an analysis of
the “four-room house”; see also Hardin 2004, for Tell Halif ).
is paper deals primarily with the second subdivision of material
culture, the category that includes mobile artifacts and installations
found in dwellings. Certain architectural elements, such as the “mega-
ron” hearths and tubs, which may indicate connections with Cyprus
or the Aegean (Karageorghis 2000: 266–273; Dothan 2003; Killebrew
2005: 209–217; Gitin et al. 2006: 54); metallurgical nds from this
period, which may show connections with Cyprus (see, e.g., Mazar
3
Note the dierence between the dwelling, which implies coresidence (this is the
structure that is actually examined by archaeological eldwork) and the “household,”
which implies socioeconomic cooperation. Conclusions regarding the household are
inferred from the material culture of the dwelling.
early iron age domestic material culture 187
1991: 101); and various burial customs, which may point to certain
Aegean connections,
4
notably the graves in Tell el-Farʿah (S) (Wald-
baum 1966; Dothan 1982: 29–33, 260–268; Brug 1985: 149–164; Gonen
1992: 124–131), will not be discussed in this paper, as these generally
fall outside the typical domestic assemblage, which is the focus of this
paper, seen here as the most reliable mirror of cultural identity.
Much attention has been given to the locally produced Philistine
Monochrome (or Mycenaean IIIC: 1b or Philistine 1) pottery (see,
e.g., Killebrew 1998, 2000, 2005: 226–231; Dothan and Zukerman
2004; Ben-Shlomo 2006a: 22–46). is issue will not be discussed
here, but one should note that the early Philistine Monochrome pot-
tery is represented mostly by open forms of tableware and appears
in large quantities in the earliest Iron I strata in the Philistine cities,
reaching up to 50% of the assemblage in certain contexts (Dothan and
Zukerman 2004: 31; see also Mazow 2005). It includes only selected
pottery forms compared to the contemporary LHIIIC Early assem-
blages (Mountjoy 1999: 36–47). Deep bowls (skyphoi) and rounded
bowls and kraters are common, as well as carinated conical bowls (see
Dothan and Zukerman 2004), yet other forms that are very common
in the Aegean, such as spouted bowls (FS 214, FS 253), high handled
cups (FS 236), and kylikes (as FS 259, FS 266) are very rare in Philistia.
Closed forms include stirrup jars, spouted “feeding bottles,” globular
high-necked jugs, and strainer-spouted jugs, but other common closed
forms do not appear. Stylistically, the Philistine assemblage is similar
to locally produced, Aegeanizing pottery on LCIIIA Cyprus, especially
at Enkomi (Dothan and Zukerman 2004: 44), yet many parallels come
from the Argolid, the Cyclades, the Dodecanese, and Crete (Dothan
and Zukerman 2004: 43–45); this is especially true concerning the dec-
orative motifs, which show a blend of regional styles. us, essentially
the Philistine Monochrome may be perceived as a regional variant of
the general LHIIIC Early/Middle style, which in itself is an amalgama-
tion of many local styles (e.g., Mountjoy 1999: 47–51).
A growing number of other aspects of early Philistine culture
are now seen as reecting Aegean or Aegeanizing properties. ese
include cooking vessels, gurines, clay spools, metals, ivories, and diet,
which is reected in faunal and oral material (see also Yasur-Landau
2002, 2003a, for an overview). Several of these elements, reecting
4
is idea, however, is still problematic, as no cemeteries belonging to the primary
Philistine cities have yet been excavated.
188 david ben-shlomo
domestic and household aspects of daily life, will be discussed here in
an attempt to describe the social and ethnic nature of the Philistine
immigrant population and this population’s possible relationship with
contemporary populations in the eastern Mediterranean. In this study
I will focus on the evidence related to household production, such
as foodways and spools, and on evidence for domestic cult activities
(gurines).
1. Cooking Vessels, Cooking Facilities, and Diet
Foodways, cooking traditions, and the vessels related to cooking can
convey important information about the ethnic or social identity of
the people who used them, as well as aspects of their daily-life activi-
ties. e ethnic or social identity of ancient people may be conveyed
through food consumption in several ways, such as the types of foods
consumed and the manner in which foods are cooked and subse-
quently consumed. e relationships between food, diet, and cook-
ing traditions and ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic phenomena
has been extensively discussed in numerous anthropological studies,
which demonstrate that food and its preparation and consumption
are fundamental aspects of a culture’s self-denition (e.g., Kuhnlein
and Receveur 1996; Mintz and du Bois 2002). Much of the evidence
relating to this subject in Early Iron Age Philistia has already been
discussed (Yasur-Landau 2002, 2005; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008), and is
summarized below.
A new type of cooking vessel, the cooking jug or cooking amphora,
appears in the Philistine cities during the Early Iron Age (Killebrew
1999: 93–94; Dothan and Zukerman 2004: 28–31, Figs. 36–37, Type P,
and references therein; Yasur-Landau 2005; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008:
Type 2). Both one-handled jugs of various sizes and larger, two-handled
amphorae appear in Philistia (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008: Fig. 3: a–c, Fig. 3:
d, respectively). is form is completely dierent from the traditional
Canaanite carinated cooking pot of Late Bronze II and Iron I that is
common in the southern Levant, including Philistia (Killebrew 1999:
84–93). ese cooking jugs clearly indicate a dierent cooking tradi-
tion, as these vessels are closed, small, and freestanding in contrast to
the large, open Canaanite cooking pots. It is possible that they were
used for cooking or heating near or on rounded or square hearths; this
cooking technique is slower and the capacity of these cooking jugs is
early iron age domestic material culture 189
lower than that of the open cooking pots. e cooking jugs have been
compared with examples from Cyprus and the Aegean (see Dothan
and Zukerman 2004: 29–31 and references therein); on Cyprus this
cooking-vessel type appears to be a new feature of the period (Pilides
2005: 174–177). Similar vessels come from LHIIIC Tiryns (Stockham-
mer 2006: 144), Leandi (Popham et al. 2006: 148, Figs. 2.2: 7, 2.5: 1,
2.33, 2.33: 3, 5), Chios (Hood 1982: 619, Fig. 280: 2947–2949) and
other sites. It is worth mentioning, however, that Aegean-style tripod
cooking pots, which are probably the most popular LHIIIB cooking
vessel (Borgna 2004), do not appear in Philistia. In addition, these
cooking jugs seem to be rare to nonexistent at Syrian sites such as Tell
As, Tell Taʿyinat and Tell Kazel, sites which yielded other types of
locally produced Aegean-style pottery (Badre et al. 2005: Fig. 4: 1; as
well as at Tarsus: Goldman 1956: Pl. 324: 1220–1221; Capet 2007; Du
Piêd 2007; Janeway 2007).
At Ekron, Ashdod, Gath, and Ashkelon (Dothan 2003; Mazow
2005: 212–223; Stager 2006; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008) changes in cook-
ing facilities during the early Iron I are also evidenced by the appear-
ance of a new type of cooking/heating facility: the hearth, a feature
whose roots seem to be in the Aegean (Karageorghis 2000; Dothan
2003; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008: 236). Based on their shape and loca-
tion (oen indoors, in small rooms), these installations could have
been used for low-temperature or coal-burning res, rather than open,
high-temperature ones (Yasur-Landau 2005: 182). e cooking jugs/
amphorae may have been appropriate for use with these types of cook-
ing installations (Killebrew 1999: 106; Yasur-Landau 2005), and were
used similarly in the Aegean and on Cyprus in the Late Bronze and
Early Iron Ages (Karageorghis 2000; Yasur-Landau 2002: 173–174).
ere are several examples of cooking amphorae found in relation to
hearths or ovens at Tiryns and, in one case, a vessel contained the
remains of the pig bones cooked in it (Stockhammer 2006: 144, Pl.
7: 3). At Chania, a complete cooking amphora was found associated
with a rounded, stand-like portable oven (Hallager and Hallager 2000:
82, 162, Pl. 77: f ). e soot marks on the cooking jugs from Philistia,
Cyprus, and the Aegean are quite similar to each other, usually located
on the lower sides attesting to slow heating near a hearth (Ben-Shlomo
et al. 2008 and references therein).
Distinctive foodways linking the Philistines to the Aegean are
also evidenced in the faunal and botanical remains at Philistine
sites. e recent publication of a large sample from Field INE at Tel
190 david ben-shlomo
Miqne/Ekron shows a clear rise in pig and cattle bones in the Iron I
compared with both earlier and later periods (Lev-Tov 2006: 211–212).
is generally accords with earlier reports (Hesse 1986) and similar
results from Ashkelon (Hesse 1990; Stager 1991: 37), indicating that
cattle was as common as sheep/goat in the twelh century and pig was
second in importance. Several limited reports on faunal remains from
Ashdod are less reliable, as the animal bones were not systematically
collected in the eld. Yet, even in the small sample analyzed from Area
H, Strata XII–XI (Maher 2005: Tables 8.1–8.3), a signicant percent-
age of pig bones was present, which is dierent from other Levantine
sites during this period where pig bones are generally not represented
in the faunal assemblage (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008 and more
references therein). Pork consumption is, however, characteristic of
Bronze Age Aegean sites (see, e.g., Trantalidiou 1998: 395–397; Lipo-
vitch 2007), and the ratio of 2: 2: 1 between sheep/goat: cattle: pig is
also attested at LHIIIC Tiryns (von den Driesch and Boessneck 1990:
93, Table 5; this ratio is the same as at Ashkelon, see above). In addi-
tion, a special type of lentil (Lathyrus sativus/cicera) was identied at
Tell Qasile in an eleventh-century context (Kislev and Hopf 1985), at
Ekron in late thirteenth-/early twelh-century contexts (Strata VIII–
VII; Mahler-Slaskey 2004: 178–179), and in the 604 bce destruction
layer at Ashkelon (Mahler-Slasky 2004: 96, 180). is lentil requires
a special cooking method to remove toxins. It is primarily found in
the Aegean region (see Kroll 1982: 476, Tables 1–3 for LHIIIC Early
Tiryns), and was probably brought to Canaan by the Philistines and
grown, at least at Ashkelon, until the end of the Iron Age (Mahler-
Slasky 2004: 176–177, 182–185).
2. Aegean-Style Terracotta Figurines
Female anthropomorphic and bovine gurines similar to, or inspired
by, Aegean prototypes are known from sites in Philistia (Ben-Shlomo
and Press 2009). Understanding their presence is a broad and complex
issue that relates also to iconography and cult practices. I will only
briey discuss these gurines here with an emphasis on some unpub-
lished evidence. e Aegean-style gurines include three major types:
standing Psi and “Psi-related” female gurines, seated female gurines
(“Ashdoda”), and decorated bovine gurines.
early iron age domestic material culture 191
Figure 2. Aegean style female gurines from Tel Miqne-Ekron: (1) Object
No. 5080, Basket IVNE.23.338; (2) Object No. 2107, Basket IVNW.41.61;
(3) Object No. 4517, Basket IIINE.10.181; (9) Object No. 4895, Basket
INW.3.538; Ashdod: (4) Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 34:2; (5) Dothan
and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.36:3; (6) Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig.
3.36:2; (8) Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.62:1; and Maa-Palaeokastro
(7) Karageorghis and Demas 1988: Pl. CCXXI:19.