Yasur-Lau Assaf. Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
252 aaron j. brody
Room 513 and two slingstones and an iron arrowhead were found in
the courtyard Room 607. Remaining slingstones and iron arrowheads
are found individually in Rooms 608, 588, 578, 577, and 581.
Cultic items are found clustered only in Room 513. Otherwise they
are found individually in Rooms 610, 608 sublevel, 588, 584, 578, and
576, in each of the three three-room houses. Room 513’s ceramics sug-
gest its use for storage; its two pillar gurine bases, one pillar gurine
torso, animal gurine leg, horse and rider fragment, and sculpted face
from a ceramic vessel are interpreted as nds from a shrine. e Phoe-
nician trefoil-mouth jug in Room 513—the only one from Naṣbeh and
the only imported ceramic in the compound—was likely used together
with these cultic nds (Brody forthcoming). e bead found in the
room may have been an oering, and the two boar tusks may have
had a sacred function as well.
Discussion
Ethnoarchaeology in Middle Eastern villages has shown that room
functions can change over time (Watson 1979; Kramer 1979: 157;
1982b: 96–97; Horne 1994: 177–183; Kamp 2000: 91). Architectural
“recycling” takes place as the household grows and changes, and its
needs shi (for historic and archaeological correlates, see Stone 1981).
ese studies also demonstrate that rooms are typically multifunc-
tional, and their functions may vary by season.
ese factors make the archaeological reconstruction of room func-
tions that much more dicult. is diculty is compounded by vari-
ous factors: the length of time a structure is occupied, the season in
which it is destroyed or abandoned, and possible eects from later
settlement at the site, erosion, animal activity, modern plowing, and
stone robbing. ese issues may be mitigated through careful excava-
tion and sampling, especially with the utilization of microarchaeology
(Hardin 2001: 125–127; 2004: 74–79). For older excavations we must
use a much broader macroarchaeological approach dictated by the
original excavation methods, collection strategies, and records.
can be viewed as defensive weaponry; however, one might expect a more distinct clus-
tering if these were objects stored in the compound for use against an enemy.
the archaeology of the extended family 253
Fortunately, the nds from the excavations at Tell en-Naṣbeh were
recorded separately by room and feature, and even by level. ese data,
combined with Zorn’s architectural phasing, allow for interpretation
of room use and function based on contextual analysis of ceramics
and small nds.
One compound of ve connected structures was chosen to test the
viability of household archaeology at Naṣbeh. e ceramics suggest
that cooking took place primarily in Rooms 581 and 608, which were
interpreted as summer and winter kitchens, respectively. Room 584
may have been used as a kitchen, or it was a seasonal kitchen that was
reused as a storeroom.
Living rooms, interpreted as such based on their high percentage of
ceramics used for consumption and serving, are found in Rooms 610
and 612, the broad rooms of two of the three-room houses. Presum-
ably, broad Room 579 was also a living room; unfortunately, it was
only partially excavated and its ceramics were too few to code.
Storage rooms are concentrated in the two buildings that ank
the three three-room houses. ese include broad Room 609 and its
accompanying courtyard, Room 607. e use of courtyards for stor-
age is quite common in modern villages, as is their use for stabling
animals. A large stone basin found in courtyard Room 607 suggests
its use as a stable, as this basin may have served as a watering trough
(Fig. 1). Long Room 580 may have served as a stable, as its pottery
is not weighted heavily to any of the three functional groups (Stager
1985a: 12–15; Holladay 1992: 310–312). Rooms 575 and 513 in the
southernmost building are storerooms; the concentration of cultic nds
in Room 513 demonstrates that it also contained a household shrine.
Long Rooms 584 and 578 from two of the three-room houses were
also used for storage. It is probable that Room 577 and Bin 355 were
used for storage, as their small size would make them too cramped for
other types of activities.
e concentration of tools in long Room 576 suggests a workshop.
Room 588 contains one of the only two olive-pressing vats found in
Stratum 3 at the site. Due to this scarcity, it is likely that olive oil pro-
cessed in the room served not only the needs of the household, but
also neighboring kinsfolk and a larger section of the town (A’amiry
1987: 127–128). A bone spatula and a bronze needle found in Room
588 suggest that the space was used in cloth production, likely outside
the olive season.
254 aaron j. brody
Based on the data presented and ethnographic parallels, I suggest
that a nuclear family lived in each broad room of the three three-
room houses in the compound (A’amiry 1987: 145–146; Kamp 2000:
85). e communal aspect of room use is seen in the fact that the
pattern of domestic space function is not fully replicated in the ve
individual building units, let alone the three three-room houses. Each
three-room house has its living space in the rear broad room; how-
ever, the long rooms show a variety of patterns of use. e outermost
two-room and atypical three-room buildings were primarily courtyard
and storage spaces, while the one shrine in the compound is in a side
room, Room 513. e shared walls of these houses and communal
functions of attributed storage rooms, kitchens, workshops, and court-
yards, suggest that the compound was the residence of one extended
family. is extended family, a minimal beit ʾav, was made up of three
nuclear families and their dependants, linked both physically and by
the bonds of kinship.
is conclusion supports Stager’s and Schloen’s views that both rural
and urban household compounds were the abode of extended families
(Stager 1985a: 18–22; Schloen 2001: 167–168). e evidence contra-
dicts aspects of Faust’s view that Iron II pillared houses in urban settle-
ments, including Naṣbeh, were the abode of nuclear families (2000:
19–22). I have presented evidence that shows that nuclear families had
their own living space in the broad room of each three-room house,
but shared resources in the other rooms of the compound. e sharing
of resources is an important trait of the extended family.
HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIES IN THE KINGDOMS
OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH
Avraham Faust
Households have become a major topic of interest in the archaeologi-
cal literature. However, despite the large archaeological database avail-
able from ancient Israel, households have received relatively limited
attention in the archaeological research of this region (for exceptions,
see, for example, Singer-Avitz 1996; Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2006).
Scholarship has tended to concentrate on more “interesting” topics,
mainly those relevant for the study of political, biblical history; daily
life has received less attention. Households, however, are the backbone
of practically every society, and the ancient societies of the Near East
are no exceptions. Without proper attention to this basic level of social
analysis, no large-scale study of ancient societies is feasible.
e study of houses and households has many dimensions (e.g.,
Wilk and Rathje 1982; Deetz 1982; Blanton 1994; Hendon 1996; Nevett
1999; Souvatzi 2008). Many studies concentrate on the single struc-
ture, by either trying to identify the use of space within the building
through an analysis of the artifacts uncovered or by discerning various
architectural patterns (e.g., Hendon 1996; Singer-Avitz 1996; Hardin
2004; Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2006; see also various papers in Kent
1990c; Allison 1999b). ese can be seen as microlevel analyses. Other
studies concentrate on examining a number of structures within their
contexts, i.e., on the study of a settlement or a community, sometimes
as part of its natural and social environment (e.g., Bermann 1994;
Nowicki 1999). ese can be seen as meso-level studies. In many cases,
scholars then extrapolate from their ndings onto the society at large
(cf., Kramer 1982a: 664). A third type of analysis consists of studies
on the role and position of households within an entire society. is
is oen accomplished through an analysis of many households from
diverse locations (e.g., Blanton 1994; see also Nevett 1999). is latter
research can be seen as an example of macrolevel studies. In addition
to these levels of analysis outlined here, there are many more types
of research questions that can be asked, but of the wide range of pos-
sible topics, most studies of household economy have concentrated on
256 avraham faust
examining either the division of labor within the family or household
production (e.g., Hendon 1996; Souvatzi 2008: 14–15, and references;
see also various papers in Allison 1999b).
It should be noted that, although the large body of archaeological
data we possess from ancient Israel allows us to gain many insights
into the study of houses and households at all levels of analysis, the
present study, which is part of a larger study of Iron Age Israelite
society, concentrates on studying the household economy at the mac-
rolevel. is will be accomplished through an examination of data
from dozens of structures located in many settlements. erefore, no
attempt is made in this article to examine single structures or even
settlements, nor does this article try to study the production or con-
sumption of a particular household. e rst part of the article will
discuss the evidence from urban and rural settlements in the King-
doms of Israel and Judah during the Iron Age II, and will draw some
general conclusions regarding society in those settlement sectors and
the place of the households within those economies. is will be fol-
lowed by a broader discussion of the roles of the various types of
households within the larger Iron Age economic spheres of the King-
doms of Israel and Judah.
Households in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah
1
Many studies have discussed the ancient Israelite family, but these
have been primarily text oriented (e.g., Lemche 1985; Cowling 1988;
Wright 1990; 1992; Bendor 1996; Blenkinsopp 1997; Meyers 1997; see
also Pedersen 1926; Porter 1967; De Vaux 1965; Reviv 1993), and most
of the archaeologically oriented studies, albeit few in number, have
focused on the Iron Age I (e.g., Stager 1985a; for a summary of previ-
ous research, see Faust 2005, forthcoming b). e few studies that have
examined, from an archaeological perspective, the family structure in
the Iron Age II have usually referred to excavation results from urban
1
In the following, I discuss the entire ninth–seventh-century time span (the
“Divided Monarchy” in Israel and Judah) as one, and treat the available information
as representative of the entire period. In the future, it might be worthwhile to try to
dissect the data chronologically and geographically in order to focus on internal varia-
tion within this era and among the various regions.
household economies 257
sites and have not generally addressed data from the rural sector (e.g.,
Holladay 1992, 1995). In a number of studies (e.g., Faust 1999a, 2000,
2005, forthcoming b, and more below), I have attempted to show that
several types of households operated in Iron II Israel. Rural house-
holds were typically organized as extended families; the situation in
the towns, however, was more complex. In the urban sector most
families functioned as nuclear families, but the rich and upper classes
were able to maintain an extended family structure.
The Urban Household’s Economy
Past studies, which examined mainly the size of the residential struc-
tures and their internal divisions, showed that most families in the
urban sector were nuclear and only a minority of the families lived in
extended households (see, especially, Faust 1999a, 2000, 2005, forth-
coming b, and references; see also De Vaux 1965; Reviv 1993). Most
urban houses were fairly small, averaging some 40–70 m
2
. Many, but
not all houses, belong to the “four-room” type and most of these are
of the three-room subtype. Interestingly, the three basic spaces are not
usually further subdivided (or are divided only to a limited extent).
e limited size of the structures, especially when compared with rural
dwellings (see below), indicates that the number of inhabitants was
quite small. e small number of rooms, usually only three including
the main activity area, also reects that the space was not shared by
many social units or kinship groups. In addition to this large group of
small buildings, there also are a small number of larger urban houses,
usually covering some 110–160 m
2
. ese are nicely built four-room
houses, many of whose “spaces” are further subdivided. It appears that
the wealthy lived in these larger houses and that many of these build-
ings housed extended families during the Iron Age (see extended dis-
cussion in Faust 1999a, 2000, 2005, forthcoming b).
ere is ample evidence for economic activity in urban dwellings,
including many installations for the production of foodstus and agri-
cultural products. One type of installation that is fairly common in
urban houses is the olive press (Fig. 1). Below, I summarize the avail-
able information on olive presses found in urban houses (for the loca-
tion of the sites, see Fig. 2). is listing will serve as examples of the
economic activities carried out in urban households.
258 avraham faust
Figure 1. Reconstructed olive press at Tel Batash (courtesy of Amihai Mazar
and the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem).
household economies 259
Figure 2. Map showing the location of sites mentioned in the text.
260 avraham faust
Figure 3. Reconstructed olive press from House 2a at Hazor.
household economies 261
Hazor: A number of small olive presses were unearthed in a few dwell-
ings scattered through the residential areas of Hazor. During Yadin’s
excavations at the site in the 1950s, an olive press was unearthed in
the central room of a large four-room house known as House 2a
(Yadin, et al. 1961: Pl. XXVI; Gal and Frankel 1993: 136; see Fig. 3).
A few additional olive presses were discovered by the current expe-
dition (Ben Tor 1992: 254–256).
Shiqmona: An olive press was unearthed in the central room of a large
four-room house (Elgavish 1994: 59–61).
2
Shechem: An olive press was found within a small building (Campbell
1994: 41–43; 2002: 271–273).
Tell en-Naṣbeh (Mizpah): A few olive presses were unearthed within
a few of the dwellings scattered across the settlement (Eitan-Katz
1994: 21–22, 73, see also map on p. 17).
Tell Beit Mirsim: Approximately thirteen olive presses were unearthed
both inside and between dwellings (e.g., Eitan-Katz 1994: 30–33).
Tel Beth-Shemesh: Approximately twenty olive presses have been dis-
covered in and between dwellings, as well as scattered across the
settlement (e.g., Eitan-Katz 1994: 26–29; Bunimovitz and Lederman
2000: 255; 2008: 1648; see also Faust forthcoming a).
It should be noted that the small number of installations found at
some of these sites probably reects the limited exposure there; if
larger areas had been excavated, more olive presses might have been
unearthed. In any event, the abovementioned installations are rela-
tively small (compared to some of the installations discussed below),
and since they were found scattered across the urban landscape, each
was probably used by the family that dwelt in the building most closely
associated with a particular press. Some of the oil was probably used
by the building’s inhabitants, while surpluses were exchanged with
neighbors or in the local market (more below).
It should be stressed that similar installations were not found in all
urban houses, and it seems that the inhabitants of those houses where
olive presses were not found must have made their living from other
activities. ese people might have owned winepresses, which are usu-
ally located near the agricultural area outside a settlement (Faust 1995:
2
At a later stage, an industrial area for the production of olive oil was unearthed at
the site (Elgavish 1994: 64–67), but this is not relevant for the present discussion.