Yasur-Lau Assaf. Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
272 avraham faust
century bce. At that time, the semiautonomous Kingdoms of Judah
and Philistia seem to have formed a single economic (not political of
course) unit (Faust and Weiss 2005, forthcoming). e coastal area,
where the ports that connected the terrestrial economic system with
the Phoenician maritime trade network were located, served mainly
for growing vines and producing wine (e.g., at Ashkelon; Stager 1996).
e inner Coastal Plain and the Shephelah were used mainly for grow-
ing olives and producing olive oil (e.g., at Ekron; Eitam 1987; Gitin
1997; see also Brand 1998). Large parts of Judah were used to grow
grains and the surpluses were sold to the coastal region (Weiss and
Kislev 2004), while other parts of Judah (e.g., the area around Jeru-
salem) were used mainly for growing vines and producing wine (e.g.,
Faust 1997 and references therein; see also Amit 1998; Feig 2003). In
a detailed study, Weiss and I (Faust and Weiss 2005, forthcoming)
suggest that this system of agricultural production and the accom-
panying trade ts well with geographical and economic models, and
that the entire region (the Judean Highlands, the Shephelah, and the
Coastal Plain) functioned as a single economic unit, whose primary
center was on the coast, but which also had secondary centers. Judah,
which was part of this system, exported its agricultural surpluses and,
in return, received various commodities, like cedars (cf., Lipschits and
Biger 1991).
It is likely that in many parts of Judah there were royal estates
(above) whose surpluses formed an important part of Judah’s export
in this complex web of exchange. It is quite clear, however, that
some of Judah’s surpluses were also produced by the population of
the towns, villages, and farmsteads that existed at the time. Out of
these surpluses, tax was collected from both the traditional lineage
economy in the rural sector and the private economy of the urban
households. Some of these taxes were consumed by the king and by
the state apparatus, but others were exported and helped incorporate
Judah into the period’s international network. e surplus products
that were retained by the producers themselves (apart from what they
consumed, of course) were probably exchanged/sold in the local mar-
kets, but due to the existence of a developed trade system, it is possible
that some of these products also reached other parts of the region, i.e.,
were eventually also exported. is discussion shows the complexity of
the relations between the various systems, and how the lineage and the
private economies were well integrated within the state economy, and,
at least indirectly, even in the international trade network.
household economies 273
Summary
e archaeological and historical evidence indicates that, during the
Iron Age II, there were several levels of socioeconomic systems in
Israel and Judah.
In the rural sector, most households were part of a communal, line-
age system that paid taxes to the monarchy and was pressed by it, but,
generally speaking, maintained their autonomy throughout the period
(for the relations between the various components, see Faust 2005,
forthcoming b). e lineage economy mediated between the house-
holds and the royal economy. In the urban sector there was a private
system that was operated by the many nuclear (the majority of urban
households) and extended families. It is likely that most families were
pressed by the royal system, while some of them (mainly those that
maintained the form of the extended family) were part of it. However,
whether part of it or not, the urban families interacted directly with
the royal system that collected part of their surpluses as tax, and, at
least during part of the time, also took charge of (some of) the produc-
tion (e.g., at Gibeon, Hazor, and Ekron). In the end, however, it must
be stressed that these systems—the private family, the lineage, and the
royal—coexisted, sometimes in the very same settlements.
HOUSEHOLD ACTIVITIES AT TEL BEERSHEBA
Lily Singer-Avitz
Introduction
Archaeological research of ancient tells is based largely on data derived
from public structures, such as fortication walls, city gates, palaces,
and temples. ese structures, however, reect the way of life of only
a small and powerful, high-ranking socioeconomic elite; only limited
information is therefore available concerning the way of life of the vast
majority of the population. In order to investigate the subject of house-
hold activities, we must focus on private dwelling quarters, which, at
least in the present analysis, generally can be equated with individual
households. A “household” is dened as “the most common social
component of subsistence, the smallest and most abundant activity
group” (Wilk and Rathije 1982: 618). Because dwelling units are fre-
quently found in the archaeological record and are small enough to
allow for complete or almost complete exposure, the investigation of
households can facilitate an eective and independent analysis of the
relationship between socioeconomic activities and their manifestation
in the material record.
It should be noted, however, that in archaeological excavations
“households” can never be exposed in their entirety; the material
remains of a dwelling are unearthed, but not the social unit that
inhabited the building, as this is oen dicult to dene. Certain social
aspects are not clearly reected in the material culture, such as the size
of the family, which is not necessarily apparent from the size of the
building, or the family’s wealth and status, since it is usually impossible
to extract from the archaeological data details of land or herd owner-
ship, although these were obviously part of the household’s property
(Watson 1979: 229).
Typologies derived from structural anthropology, which classify
households according to familial relationships (kinship) (Nimko
1965; Bender 1967; Yanagisako 1979), are not applicable to the archae-
ological record, and households as recovered in excavations must be
classied and discussed according to their functions and activities as
276 lily singer-avitz
reected in the nds. e study of “households” can be broken down
into three components (Wilk and Rathje 1982: 618):
1. Social: the demographic unit, which is oen based on kinship;
2. Material: the dwelling, and the installations and artifacts found
inside it;
3. Behavioral: the activities that take place inside the dwelling.
ese components are bound by a system of reciprocity: the house-
hold functions within the realm of a specic material culture that is,
in turn, inuenced by the demographic makeup of the household and
by the activities that are conducted within it. e social and material
makeup of the household, however, may be dierent in every society
in such things as demographics (e.g., nuclear family, extended fam-
ily, etc.) and resources (e.g., cave, tent, house, etc.), which tend to be
culturally sensitive.
e third component includes the types of activities that are con-
ducted by the household and within its dwelling space. In cross- cultural
studies of households, general similarities can be discerned in the types
of activities that take place, although the specic combination of activ-
ities may dier (Wilk and Rathje 1982: 621). ese activities include
production (food and cras), consumption, storage and accumulation
(food, objects, and raw materials), reproduction, and ritual. e basic
assumption underlying the present study is that patterns created by
the spatial distribution of material culture (e.g., architecture and other
nds) are not accidental, but are rather indicative of the “behavior” of
an assemblage in ancient times; that is, a spatial pattern of archaeolog-
ical remains represents activities that were conducted within a space.
erefore, the “behavior” of the assemblage can then be seen as reect-
ing economic, social, and/or ritual activities.
In this study, I wish to address the following questions: What activi-
ties were carried out in the ancient household? Can disparate work
areas be dened? Is it possible to dierentiate between the location
of male and female activities? What, if anything, can be concluded
concerning social stratication within the community and the social
organization of the household based on the archaeological remains?
In order to collect information on a large sample of households, an
area must be excavated that is large enough to expose complete indi-
vidual units. For this study, Stratum II at Tel Beersheba was seen as
an appropriate case study. In a previous article (Singer-Avitz 1996), I
household activities at tel beersheba 277
discussed households and the activities carried out within them based
on the nds from Stratum II at Tel Beersheba. In that study, I analyzed
only some of the excavated dwelling units. In the present study, I wish
to expand the discussion to include all the dwelling units uncovered
in this stratum and test if the model that was suggested previously ts
this larger data set.
e following is a summary of the Stratum II dwelling units, aer
which is an attempt to dene a “household assemblage” that would
comprise both the architectural remains and the nds discovered
within them. A spatial distribution of the nds in the buildings is inves-
tigated through several functional categories, including storage, food
preparation, cooking and serving, and cras. Drawing upon the spa-
tial analysis, I will then attempt to discern activity areas and integrate
them into a single social unit, a “household.” is should enable me to
identify specic activities conducted by the members of the household
and assign these activities to various activity areas. I will then compare
assemblages from dierent households, which should make it possible
to determine which activities were typical of all households and which
were restricted to a certain specialized group or family.
e results of the excavation of Tel Beersheba Stratum II will
comprise the basic data for this research, although this study is also
informed by ethnoarchaeological studies carried out in Iran (Watson
1966, 1978, 1979; Kramer 1981, 1982b, 1983; Horne 1994), Turkey
(Stirling 1965; Hall et al. 1973; Todd 1974), Syria (Sweet 1957; Kamp
1982, 1987, 2000), Jordan (Lutyya 1966), Egypt (Lynch 1984), and
Israel (Jäger 1912; Canaan 1932, 1933; Dalman 1942; Segal 1967; Rot
1984a, 1984b; Hirschfeld 1995). ese studies show that there is a large
degree of consistency in domestic architecture and spatial organization
across the ancient Near East. ese similarities are evident in technical
details, daily life patterns, and living conditions in the houses and in
their surroundings.
e Archaeological Data
Nine seasons of excavation were conducted at Tel Beersheba by the
Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Yohanan Aharoni
directed the excavations from 1969–1975; the 1976, 1993–1995 sea-
sons were conducted by Ze’ev Herzog. Nine Iron Age settlement
strata were uncovered on the tell. In Stratum II, which was extensively
278 lily singer-avitz
excavated, a nearly complete plan of the city was recovered, including
public buildings and dwelling quarters that contained rich and varied
assemblages of nds (Aharoni 1973; Herzog 1997: 244–248).
e Stratum II city (Fig. 1) was surrounded by a casemate wall and
a peripheral street ran parallel to it. “Radial” streets running perpen-
dicular to the peripheral street connected the various parts of the city,
leading to the city square near the city gate. e streets were bordered
by buildings; those buildings adjoining the city wall made use of the
casemate rooms in the wall. Near the city gate stood public buildings,
including three units of storehouses. In addition, a water system and
various administrative buildings can be discerned in the architectural
plan, such as the “Governor’s Palace,” and the “Basement Building.”
ere is no doubt that the city was built according to a planned layout,
and it apparently functioned as an administrative center. Based on
typological similarities between the Tel Beersheba Stratum II ceramic
assemblage and Lachish Level III (Aharoni 1973: 5–6), the Stratum II
city is dated to the latter part of the eighth century bce and its destruc-
tion is assigned to the campaign of Sennacherib in 701 bce.
is study focuses on the common dwelling structures at the site,
the four- and three-room houses, and excludes most of the public
buildings near the city gate and in the center of the city. Only those
buildings with complete or nearly complete plans and well-dened
boundaries were chosen for this study, as it was not always possible to
determine where one building began and another ended. In an attempt
to obtain a complete picture of each structure, the following data have
been examined: area (based on the interior measurements of the build-
ing, excluding the exterior walls), interior division of space, and spa-
tial distribution of nds. e classication of the nds is presented
only according to assumed function, without reference to traditional
archaeological typologies, as these are not generally considered to be
applicable to understanding the “behavior” of a building.
All of the buildings on the tell were built using a similar technique:
a mudbrick superstructure superimposed on wall foundations com-
prising several stone courses. Adjacent buildings shared party walls.
e area of the buildings varied widely: some covered ca. 30 m2, while
others reached up to 100 m2.
Two main types of dwellings with similar plans can be discerned:
a four-room type and a three-room type, both of which have been
extensively discussed in the literature (e.g., Shiloh 1970, 1973; Stager
1985a: 11–17; Netzer 1992; Holladay 1997; London 2003). Scholarly
household activities at tel beersheba 279
Figure 1. Public buildings in Stratum II at Tel Beersheba.
280 lily singer-avitz
opinion is divided on such subjects as the location of the courtyard
and the main activity areas, and the existence of a second oor. In
addition to these types of houses, which are known from all excavated
sites of this period, a number of buildings were uncovered at Tel Beer-
sheba that do not belong to either of these two types.
Four-Room Houses (Fig. 2)
Eleven buildings of varying sizes (60–100 m2) were dened as four-
room houses. In most of the four-room houses at Tel Beersheba, the
central space was typically separated from the side units by a row of
pillars on one side and a wall on the other, although, in some of the
buildings, the central unit was anked by either two rows of pillars or
two walls. e buildings erected against the city wall made use of the
casemates as back rooms. ese eleven four-room houses were divided
into three subtypes.
1. Buildings of the rst subtype have small rooms or spaces in the
front. In the Western Quarter, three such buildings were exposed
that adjoin the casemate wall (Buildings 25, 75, 76) and were entered
from the peripheral street. ese buildings include two to three small
front rooms—one of which contains stairs—three long rooms, and
back rooms (the casemate rooms). e area of each building is ca.
60–70 m2. Beit-Arieh has discussed the architecture of these build-
ings in detail (1973a: 31–37). e plans of two additional buildings
in the Southern Quarter (Buildings 607, 630) resemble those of the
three buildings in the Western Quarter. Here, too, the entrance is
from the peripheral street, but there are no stairs in the front rooms
and the area of each of these buildings is ca. 100 m2.
2. Buildings of the second subtype resemble the rst group but lack
front rooms. In the Northwestern Quarter, two such buildings,
Buildings 770 and 812, stood on either side of the peripheral street
and measured ca. 80 m2 and 70 m2 respectively. In neither building
were stairs found. ree small buildings of this subtype were found
in the Central B Quarter. ese measured from 33 m2 to 48 m2
(Building 956: 48 m2; Building 1441: 33 m2; Building 468: 42 m2).
Two of them (Buildings 468, 956) had stairs in the front.
3. One building in the Central B Quarter represents a third subtype
(Building 855). is building, covering ca. 60 m2, was accessed from
household activities at tel beersheba 281
Figure 2. Domestic residential quarters in Stratum II at Tel Beersheba.