Yasur-Lau Assaf. Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
262 avraham faust
53, 65, 88), or they could have grown grains or been engaged in some
other activity. It is also possible that members of some of the non-
olive-pressing households might have made their living as hired labor,
in which case the father could have worked as a day laborer. Notably,
it is possible that the livelihood of the residents of the houses in which
olive presses were found was supplemented by additional agricultural
or industrial activities or by working as hired labor.
ere is also ample evidence for large-scale economic activities in
towns. Large storage buildings,
3
for example, were unearthed at vari-
ous sites, e.g., at Hazor (a storehouse in Area A; Ben Tor 1999: 37),
Jerusalem (storage building in the Ophel; Mazar and Mazar 1989),
Lachish (Zimhoni 1990, 2004), and Tel ʿIra (storehouse near the gate;
Beit-Arieh 1999). Additional structures related to the economy have
also been found, for example, the large complex in Area G at Hazor
(e.g., Geva 1989). ese structures, however, are all related to the state
economy (see below). Unlike the situation in the rural sector (dis-
cussed below), at urban sites we do not have any evidence for an eco-
nomic system above the household and below the state (Faust 2005:
127–128; forthcoming b).
e evidence pertaining to the economy, therefore, indicates that
the families that dwelt in urban houses (both large and small) were
independent players in the economic arena. Some fared better than
others did, but the families (both nuclear and extended) operated
on their own, and were not, economically speaking, part of a larger,
organized group. ese urban families faced the state economy, or the
“market,” with no buering mechanism, i.e., they were not part of
larger kinship groups or communities that could mediate between the
separate households and the “market” or the state (see more below).
The Economy of Rural Households
Past studies that examined the size of residential structures and their
internal division have shown that family structure in the rural sector
was primarily an extended family: the biblical beit ʾav (e.g., Faust 1999a,
2000, forthcoming b, and additional references; see also Reviv 1993).
3
I am referring to structures in which storage vessels were unearthed and not to
the enigmatic pillared buildings (Faust 2005: 111–122; forthcoming b).
household economies 263
Rural houses are fairly large four-room structures (the ground oor
usually measures some 120–130 m
2
, and in most cases there was prob-
ably also a second story) that could house a large number of inhabit-
ants. e four main spaces were usually further subdivided into many
smaller rooms and cells, which allowed for the coexistence, within the
connes of a building, of many subunits, i.e., separate nuclear fami-
lies. Furthermore, the fact that internal divisions vary greatly, even
when the houses themselves are almost identical, reveals the complex
life cycle of the extended family, and the dierent life cycle stages of
dierent families when the various buildings were destroyed or aban-
doned (ibid.).
When we look for evidence of economic activity—especially agri-
cultural production—in those houses, we nd relatively little. e vast
majority of installations for the production of agricultural foodstus is
not found within the connes of houses, but is concentrated in what
seems like agricultural-industrial areas where large quantities of olive
oil were produced (see, for example, Fig. 4).
4
Beit Arye: A small village in western Samaria. An area with more than
twenty installations for olive oil production (and a few additional
installations) was discovered just outside the village boundary wall
(Eitam 1992; see also Riklin 1997).
Kh. Kla: A small village in western Samaria. Two industrial areas were
identied, each with a concentration of olive presses (Eitam 1980:
69–70; 1987: 24–25).
Kh. Jemein: A small village in Samaria. An area was discovered con-
taining a number of large (communal?) processing installations
(Fig. 4). Notable among the installations is a large oil press that the
excavator interpreted as communal (Dar 1986a, 1986b).
Deir el-Mir: A very large village in western Samaria. Several concen-
trations of installations, mainly for the production of olive oil, were
discovered at the site (Gophna and Porat 1972: 232; Eitam 1980).
4
It is quite clear that these villages produced large quantities of surplus olive oil.
is is evident not only through a comparison to the situation in contemporary towns,
but also by a number of detailed studies that calculated the quantity of oil that could
have been produced in some of the villages and compared it with the needs of the local
population (see, e.g., Eitam 1987, 1992).
264 avraham faust
Figure 4. Plan of Kh. Jemein, with the “industrial area” marked (courtesy of
Shimon Dar).
Kh. Banat Barr: A large village in western Samaria. A number of
industrial areas, each with a concentration of olive presses, were
identied (Eitam 1980, 1987: 24; Kochavi 1989b).
Kurnet Bir et-Tell: A village in Samaria. An area with at least ten instal-
lations was identied just to the south of the village’s boundary
wall (Finkelstein 1988: 166; Finkelstein, Bunimovitz, and Lederman
1997: 447).
Sheikh Issa: A village in southern Samaria. A large concentration of
Iron Age rock-cut olive presses was identied at the site (Iron Age
II is the major period of occupation at the site, see Finkelstein et al.
1997: 389).
Kh. Tibna: A village in Samaria. A large concentration of Iron Age rock-
cut olive presses was identied at the site (Finkelstein et al. 1997: 367).
Kh. Malta: A small village in lower Galilee. ough there is no direct
evidence for the production of olive oil, the excavator identied
household economies 265
“various rock-cut installations, attesting to the presence of an indus-
trial zone here” (Covello-Paran 1997: 40; see now also Covello-Paran
2008), and I therefore include this site in the present discussion.
is, then, is evidence for economic organization in the villages that is
on a higher level than that of the family, or even that of the extended
family. I suggest that each lineage had its own industrial area, and
the lineage elders were responsible for the organization of produc-
tion (Faust 2000, forthcoming b). In some villages, there was only one
lineage, and, hence, only one industrial area. In other villages there
were two lineages, hence, two industrial areas. Some of the larger vil-
lages, like Deir el-Mir and Kh. Banat Barr, had four or ve lineages,
and therefore an equal number of industrial areas. When examined
in relation to the larger social matrix, it is quite clear that the rural
households were operating within the traditional lineage economic
system of ancient Israel, the biblical mishpaḥah. at is to say, as part
of a larger organizational body that operated in this sector and incor-
porated within it many families (ibid.; see more below).
Evidence for this organizational framework can be seen not only in
the processing of foodstus, but also in their storage. Clearly, some of
the surpluses that were produced in the industrial areas—those that
belonged to the individual beit ʾav—were stored in individual houses,
but some of them (the produce that belonged to the mishpaḥah or
possibly intended as taxes) were stored together in communal storage
structures, which have been identied in most of these villages:
Beit Arye: A very large building divided lengthwise by pillars was dis-
covered in the western part of the village. Based on its plan, the
excavator suggested that it might have been used as a storehouse
(Riklin 1997: 12; cf., Herzog 1992).
Kh. Kla: A long building divided into several longitudinal rooms was
discovered. e surveyor suggested that it might have been used for
storage (Eitam 1980: 70; 1987: 25).
Kh. Jemein: Structure 450 uncovered in the northern part of the village
was interpreted by the excavator as a storehouse. Also discovered
were a large wine cellar and an installation for the storage of olive
oil (Dar 1986a, 1986b; Fig. 4).
Sheikh Issa: A large complex of wine cellars was observed at the site
(Frumkin 2005).
266 avraham faust
Kh. Deir Daqla: A small village in western Samaria. A wine cellar with
ve entrances was surveyed (Eitam 1980: 49).
5
Kh. Hamad: A village in Samaria. e surveyor identied a building
that he interpreted as a storehouse (Dar 1993: 1314).
All of these storage facilities, located within the dierent villages,
clearly functioned as part of a local economic structure. ey are small
compared with the large, royal storage facilities unearthed in the cit-
ies; they are all located in a rural residential setting, and there is no
evidence of royal activity. Royal storehouses would never have been
built in these remote locations—unless they were part of a larger royal
compound—and would never have been le unguarded and without
protection from the very population from which the products were
taken. None of these facilities can therefore be attributed to the state/
crown. ey were clearly part of the lineage economy, like the indus-
trial areas mentioned above.
What is important for our purposes, however, is that both the exis-
tence of the large industrial areas and the relatively centralized storage
facilities show that the rural families, despite the fact that they were
relatively large (usually extended families, see above), did not interact
with the outside world on their own. ese families were part of a
larger kinship group—the lineage—which was responsible for most
of the economic activities in which the family participated. e lin-
eage, then, served as a buer zone, which mediated between individual
families and the state or “market.”
Discussion: The Households within the Economies of Israel and Judah
It must be remembered that both the urban and rural households were
part of a larger economic system. Whether directly or indirectly (i.e.,
through lineage mediation), the household’s economy was integrated
into the state economy of the Iron Age.
5
Wine cellars were also observed in other villages, of which those mentioned here
are only a sample.
household economies 267
State Economy in Israel and Judah
is is not the place for an extended discussion of the Iron Age econ-
omy, and the following is only a brief summary (see also Faust 2007
and references therein). e state economy can be divided into the sys-
tem of royal production, the system of royal produce collection (taxa-
tion), the system of royal storage (of the collected produce), and the
royal system that regulated trade, especially international trade:
6
1. Royal system of production. Large centers for the production of
agricultural products were unearthed in various Iron Age locations.
eir interpretation as part of a royal production system relates
to their size, production capacity, location, and sometimes qual-
ity, especially when compared with other production facilities (see
more extensive discussion in Faust 2007). A royal center for wine
making was identied south of Jerusalem, near Beth Safafa. Accord-
ing to the excavator, some 150,000–200,000 liters of wine were pro-
duced there every season; she associated this center with the nearby
palatial compound at Ramat Raḥel (Feig 1996, 2003). Additional
evidence for royal production can be seen in a series of buildings
that were located at sites in the periphery of the Judean Highlands
in the Late Iron Age (e.g., Kh. abu et-Twein). While those sites
have usually been interpreted as forts, it seems more likely that they
served as royal estates and as centers of production for the crown
(Faust 2005: 199–207; forthcoming b). While other interpretations
are possible, it seems that the large center for the production of
wine at Gibeon (e.g., Pritchard 1964) was also a royal enterprise. A
clear example of a royal center of production, although in another
region (Philistia), was unearthed at Ekron, where more than a
hundred olive presses were uncovered (Eitam 1987; Gitin 1997). A
few installations that were uncovered at Hazor were interpreted as
part of a royal system (Geva 1989: 96–97; in addition to the private
installations mentioned above). e letter of the reaper from Mezad
Hashavyahu also seems to hint at the existence of a royal system
6
Most studies of the ancient economy using archaeological data have dealt with the
third and fourth categories, while studies based on epigraphic data have also examined
the second. e rst type has received less attention, but a large body of data reect-
ing the existence of a royal production system has accumulated over the years (for an
extensive discussion, see Faust 2007).
268 avraham faust
of production (Naveh 1960; Ahituv 1993; regardless of the political
identity of this system).
2. Royal system of produce collection. Evidence for the royal collection
of produce is seen mainly through epigraphic nds. e Samaria
ostraca indicate that, along with the existence of the traditional
socioeconomic system, there was a royal system of produce collec-
tion (e.g., Rainey 1988; more below). e Arad Letters also seem to
indicate the existence of such a system.
7
Additional epigraphic evi-
dence for the collection of produce (and its storage) might include
the lmlk seal impressions; although there is no clear evidence of
their function, it is generally agreed that lmlk seals were part of a
royal system (e.g., Garnkel 1984; Naaman 1986). e existence of a
system that collected produce is also reected in the existence of
organized storage facilities, which will be discussed presently.
3. Royal system of storage. Clear evidence for an economic system
that collected produce can be seen in the various storage structures
identied at many settlements. I am not referring to the enigmatic
pillared buildings, whose function is debated although they are
clearly connected with the royal system (see, recently, Faust 2005:
111–122, and references therein), nor, of course, to the rural stor-
age facilities that were part of the lineage economy (see above).
e relevant structures are those that clearly served as royal stor-
age, e.g., at Tel ʿIra (Beit-Arieh 1999), Jerusalem (Mazar and Mazar
1999), Lachish (Zimhoni 1990, 2004), Hazor (Ben-Tor 1999: 37),
etc. (see also above). A royal center for the storage of grains was
recently uncovered in Moza (De Groot and Greenhut 2003). It is
possible that grain growing there was also a royal responsibility, but
this is not certain. Furthermore, if the system at Gibeon was indeed
a royal enterprise, then the wine cellars excavated there (Pritchard
1964) were most likely also part of the royal storage facilities.
4. Royal system of trade regulation. Evidence for a royal system for
facilitating trade can be seen in the inscription reading “jar of the
gate,” which points to the existence of something like an agorano-
mos; i.e., someone who facilitated trade (Eph‘al and Naveh 1993). It
is likely that the many uniform weights uncovered in Late Iron Age
7
As taxation, see, e.g., Aharoni 1981: 51, 143–144.
household economies 269
strata at sites in Judah were also part of a similar system (Barkay
1992: 360–361; Kletter 1998).
e international trade system is also worthy of a brief discussion.
Many studies have already dealt with this issue, basing their analyses
on the various texts or on the discovery of imported artifacts (e.g., Elat
1977; Geva 1982; Bikai 1985; Singer-Avitz 1999, 2004; Master 2003).
For example, a number of texts (both biblical and others) testify to the
typical export items of the region. ese included agricultural surpluses
(mentioned mainly in the Bible, e.g., Ezek. 27: 17; Hos. 12: 3) and
luxury items that were not manufactured locally (mentioned mainly
in Assyrian texts, see, e.g., Elat 1977; Cogan 2003). Archaeological evi-
dence also testies to imported items. Cedars, for example, were found
in central sites like Jerusalem and Lachish, and even in more remote
sites in the Beersheba and Arad Valleys (Lipschits
and Biger 1991).
Imported pottery (e.g., Singer-Avitz 1999; Master 2003; but see Faust
2006: 49–64 for Israel and Judah), sh bones (e.g., Lernau and Lernau
1992), shells (Bar-Yosef Mayer 1999: 50–51), and small nds such as
ivories (Barnett 1982) also indicate trade. It is quite clear that Israel
and Judah were part of an international trade network. Agricultural
surpluses, and perhaps also taxes from convoys (Holladay 1995), were
used for the purchase/exchange of luxury items, some of which were
used by local elites and some of which were paid as tax to Assyria. It
should be stressed, however, that unlike in some other parts of the
ancient Near East, international trade in Israel and Judah was probably
a state endeavor, and the households and lineages were kept out of this
system and not directly integrated into it (for extended discussion, see
Faust 2006: 58–62, and references).
Relations among Private, Lineage, and State Economies
In the following discussion, the phrase “private economy” refers to the
economy of the various families, whether nuclear or extended, who
operated independently in the economic arena. “Lineage economy”
(see above) refers to the larger organizational body that operated in
the rural sector and incorporated within it many extended families.
e term “state economy” (or royal economy) refers to the economic
systems that were operated by the state(s), as mentioned above. It
should be stressed that despite the great dierences between the various
270 avraham faust
systems, and especially the tension between the royal economy and
the other types of economies, these dierent systems can all coexist.
Royal economy tends to gradually take over the other economical
components (i.e., to gain more and more lands and to monopolize
production, both within the state’s boundaries and through a pro-
cess of expansion; cf., Smith and Berdan 1992: 357; Hayden 1994;
Trigger 2003: 375–394 and references), but during most of the Iron
Age, the dierent systems coexisted (for more extensive discussion on
the social relations between the various components, see Faust 2005,
forthcoming b). In the following, I would like, rst of all, to discuss
the relations between the royal economy and the traditional, lineage
economy; later, I will try to reconstruct the way in which all three
systems operated together.
Royal Economy and Traditional, Lineage Economy
Interesting evidence for the coexistence of royal economy and tradi-
tional lineage economy, as well as to the tension between them, can
be seen in the Samaria ostraca. ese ostraca have received a great
deal of scholarly attention. is is not the place to address the various
problems involved in dating the ostraca and interpreting them, and I
will only note that, generally speaking, the ostraca can be divided into
two groups:
8
one from the eenth regnal year, and the other from
the ninth and tenth years. Usually, but not always, examples from the
rst group state the settlement from which the products were shipped
in addition to the year, the name of the clan to which this settlement
belonged, and the names of senders and recipients. e second group
includes, in addition to the year, the name of the settlement from
which the products were sent and, usually, the name of the recipients
and the type of shipment. ere are many debates as to the nature
of the ostraca, and even the identity of the king; hence, the dates of
the ostraca are not agreed upon. Regardless of the various debates, I
believe that Rainey’s (1988) suggestion solves most of the problems.
He has suggested that both groups are from the same year and both
were deposited at the same time, which would explain why they were
found together. It therefore follows that these two groups did not
8
In the following, I follow Aharoni 1979: 156–368; Rainey 1988; and others.
household economies 271
count the regnal years of the same king, but must instead have referred
to the regnal years of two coregents (a king and his son). Given their
approximate date in the ninth or eighth centuries, and ve or six years
between the older king and his coregent, the only kings to which the
ostraca could be assigned are Jehoash and Jeroboam II. is would
date the ostraca to the eenth year of Jehoash, and the ninth–tenth
year of his son, Jeroboam II. It appears, then, as if the king (Jehoash)
received taxes, and these came through the traditional taxation system,
i.e., from the various villages, lineages, and clans that produced most of
the agricultural produce in the Samaria region and paid some of it as
tax. is explains why the ostraca from this year typically include the
name of the sender (and the clan), since, without it, the royal account-
ing of who paid what could not have been done. Taxes were collected
from all settlements, especially from the local farmers who lived o
their land and were part of the traditional lineage economy; for these
farmers, the clan was an important component of their identity.
9
e
products mentioned in the ostraca from years nine and ten served to
keep the court of the coregent, and were apparently taken mainly from
a system of royal estates. Since the royal estates belonged to the king
(or coregent), who received all the surpluses and not just part as tax,
the name of the “sender” would not have been important, as there was
not necessarily any single “sender”—the products were probably sent
by ocials, and since the estates were not part of the clan system, the
clan name is also usually not mentioned in these ostraca.
e Samaria ostraca, therefore, describe the parallel existence of
the royal system and the traditional lineage system. e royal system
was located primarily in the city, with extensions into the countryside,
mainly in the form of estates, while the traditional lineage system oper-
ated in the countryside (though it was taxed by the royal system).
Relations between all ree Systems
During the Iron Age II, the private economy operated along with
the royal economy in various cities, although direct evidence for the
relations between them (like the Samaria ostraca) are lacking. A good
example for the integration of all systems can be seen in the seventh
9
Each clan was composed of many lineages, as discussed above (see also Faust
2000, 2005).