Yasur-Lau Assaf. Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
382 michael d. press
Figure 1. Plan of Tel Miqne Field INE East Slope, Phases 9B2 (le) and 9B1
(right), Room 16 and adjacent rooms (aer Meehl et al. 2006: Plans Stratum
VIIA 9B2 and 9B1).
a problem of definition 383
Figure 1. Plan of Tel Miqne Field INE East Slope, Phases 9B2 (le) and 9B1
(right), Room 16 and adjacent rooms (aer Meehl et al. 2006: Plans Stratum
VIIA 9B2 and 9B1).
384 michael d. press
Figure 2. Plan of Ashdod Stratum XIB Building 5044 (aer Dothan and
Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2.8).
a problem of definition 385
several rooms); the Panagia “special houses” at Mycenae; the “Citadel
Cult Centers” at Mycenae and Tiryns; and “Bâtiment 18” and Sanctu-
ary of the Ingot God at Enkomi (Dothan 2003).
While the combination of these analogies strongly suggests connec-
tions between the Philistines and the Aegean and Cyprus, the proof
of the cultic nature of the Philistine contexts is more questionable.
Ultimately, the analogies proposed are imperfect, and they are selec-
tively chosen. For instance, the central hearths of the Mycenaean pal-
ace megara are monumental and elaborately decorated (e.g., Darcque
2005: 174)—two characteristics unknown in Philistine hearths. At
the same time, smaller, undecorated hearths are a common feature
of other Mycenaean buildings, especially houses, which oen have a
megaron-like plan and the hearth centrally located in the main room
(see, e.g., Shear 1968; Darcque 2005). (Note also that the cultic func-
tion of the palace megaron is far from clear, as discussed above.) While
the “Citadel Cult Centers” at Mycenae (Moore and Taylour 1999) and
Tiryns
10
share features such as hearths, platforms, and bathtubs with
the Philistine contexts, the latter are lacking the key indicator of cultic
activity of the Mycenaean structures: large, hollow terracotta gures,
several of which—including multiple complete or largely complete
examples—have been found at each site. Nothing like them is known
from Ekron, and in fact the only possible parallel in Philistia is the
large anthropomorphic vessel from Qasile (discussed above). Similarly,
the Sanctuary of the Ingot God is distinguishable as a cultic context by
the presumed bronze cult image, the large terracotta animal gures,
and the hundreds of (votive?) gurines (Courtois 1971). In these cases,
it is not simply specic types of artifacts that are missing from the
Philistine contexts, such as Room 16 at Miqne, but indicators of cultic
behavior: worship of a large, centrally located image; oering of large
numbers of votive objects; etc.
11
10
For the term “Citadel Cult Center,” see Wright 1994: 61–63. e cultic area at
Tiryns is not fully published; for preliminary reports see, e.g., Kilian 1978a, 1979,
1981. For summaries of these and other Mycenaean cult sites, see Wright 1994: 61–71;
Shelmerdine 1997: 570–577.
11
Note that I would emphasize less the individual objects than their location and
arrangement within the spaces as indicators of cultic behavior (an approach shared
with Renfrew’s framework; see also Mazow 2005: esp. 296–298). As with many of
the supposedly cultic artifacts from the southern Levant, described above, few if any
of the objects or features isolated by Dothan had a uniquely cultic function, if they
are provably cultic at all. For discussion of the function of hearths, see above (with
references); for bathtubs, see Shear 1968: 452–453; Karageorghis 1998; Darcque 2005:
386 michael d. press
I would tentatively oer an alternative interpretation of Room 16.
As mentioned above, the central hearth was a common feature of
the main room of a Mycenaean house. Shear (1968) suggested that
this arrangement was typical of Mycenaean houses, reconstructing
a central hearth in several main rooms of houses where they were
not preserved. While Darcque (2005: 174–175, Fig. 42) notes that the
arrangement may not have been as ubiquitous as suggested by Shear,
based on both lack of evidence and numerous examples of domestic
hearths elsewhere in the house, he still observes that the hearth oen
occurs in the center of the main room. Room 16 was much larger than
the adjacent rooms, just as the main room of the Mycenaean house
was much larger than the others (Shear 1968). Benches and bathtubs
are also common features of Mycenaean houses (Shear 1968; Darcque
2005). For Cyprus, Karageorghis observes that hearths and bathtubs
were oen found in a variety of contexts, including domestic ones; he
suggests that built central hearths, oen unusually large, were found
at the center of large communal halls or wealthy residences (1998). I
would suggest, then, that it is more likely that Room 16 is the main
room of a house (the excavated portion of which would consist of
Rooms 12–18), or else a communal hall.
12
is interpretation does not
preclude secondary cultic activity within the room; such a suggestion,
however, would be entirely speculative, as such cultic rituals have le
no extant remains.
2. Ashdod Room 5032 (Fig. 2)
Room 5032 is one of at least ve rooms (plus a courtyard) excavated in
Building 5044, the large building south of the major east–west street in
Area H, Stratum XI (see Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2.8). e
building continued in use through both phases of the stratum (XIb and
XIa) with largely the same plan, but Room 5032 appears to have gone
out of use at the end of Stratum XIb (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 31).
While the function of this building is not explicitly discussed in either
183–185. For the appearance of many of these features together in noncultic settings,
especially domestic ones, see Shear 1968, 1987; Darcque 2005.
12
At Ashkelon, many of the same features noted by Dothan—hearths, bathtubs,
column bases, platforms—as well as artifacts such as gurines, bronzes, ivories, and
iron objects, have been found in a series of Iron I rooms from Grid 38; these have been
universally regarded as primarily domestic (and secondarily industrial) in character.
For a recent presentation of the material, see Stager et al. 2008: 257–273.
a problem of definition 387
of the excavation reports, other publications suggest that the excava-
tors determined Area H in general to have been a residential district
throughout the Iron I (Dothan and Dothan 1992: 152–153; Dothan
1982: 42), and this interpretation has been accepted by scholars writ-
ing on domestic cult (e.g., Yasur-Landau 2001; Schmitt 2008).
e main nd in Building 5044, and the only one from Room 5032,
which has been taken as an indicator of domestic cult, is the (nearly)
complete “Ashdoda” gurine (Dothan 1971: Fig. 91.1). e nd of this
gurine is particularly signicant given its state of preservation, as all
of the other “Ashdoda” gurines—and most other Philistine gurines
generally—found so far have been fragmentary. us, the gurine
plays an important role in Schmitt’s (2008: 167) and Yasur-Landau’s
(2001: 335) discussions of domestic cult; combining this data with the
evidence of other gurines from Iron I Ashdod and Tell Qasile, they
conclude that gurines, and particularly the “Ashdoda,” were used in
domestic cult rituals. It is therefore worth surveying the arguments
both for and against this conclusion.
Elsewhere I have argued (Press 2007: 206–214; cf. Yasur-Landau
2001: 332–335) that it is likely that at least the primary referent of
the “Ashdoda” is a divine gure. ere is a close relationship between
Mycenaean female gurines (of which the “Ashdoda” is a deriva-
tive) and the larger Mycenaean terracotta gures (as noted, e.g., by
French 1981b: 173; Moore and Taylour 1999: 87), universally inter-
preted as cult images (e.g., Kilian 1981; French 1985: 215; Renfrew
1985: 415; Moore and Taylour 1999: 90–92). It is clear, therefore, that
at least some of the Mycenaean gurines represented goddesses (or
that Mycenaean gurines represented goddesses in at least some con-
texts). Meanwhile, the seated position of the “Ashdoda”—its essential
identifying characteristic—is an indicator of authority (either divine or
royal) throughout the Near East and Aegean (for a discussion of the
prominence of enthroned gures in Mycenaean art, see Rehak 1995:
esp. 97, 104–108; see also Yasur-Landau 2001: 333–334). Moreover, for
the Mycenaean gurines there is contextual evidence concerning their
use: some of these gurines clearly had a cultic or other ritual function.
us, female gurines have been found in the “Citadel Cult Centers”
and other sanctuaries, although much less frequently than other types
of gurines (animal gurines, composite gurines), as both votive
oerings and even as recipients of oerings (Mycenae [Moore and
Taylour 1999: 50, 92–93]; Phylakopi [French 1985: 231, 276–277; Ren-
frew 1985: 417]; Tiryns [e.g., Kilian 1988b: 148]; Methana [Konsolaki
388 michael d. press
2002]); as apparent oerings of veneration to the dead, outside the
temenos walls of monumental tombs (Tzonou-Herbst 2002); and as
possible votive oerings at open air sanctuaries away from the major
palatial centers (e.g., Agia Triada [Klenies] in the Argolid [Hägg 1981:
39; Kilian 1990: 185–190]). Kilian has also pointed to the clustering
of gurines around doorways and hearths in houses at LHIIIB Tiryns
(1988b: 148, Fig. 16), which could plausibly (but only speculatively) be
linked to Wright’s suggestions (1994: 56–60; see above) about cult at
the Mycenaean household hearth.
At the same time, there are several problems with the conclusion
that the “Ashdoda” functioned in domestic cult rituals. First, Myce-
naean gurines (as noted above) have been found in a variety of con-
texts, and apparently had a variety of functions; not only were there
special types (such as the mourning gurine; see above) with dierent
functions, as well as dierent (nondivine) meanings, but the same type
could have had multiple functions and referents based on context (see
Press 2007: 197–201 for the case of the Tau gurines, in settlements
vs. in tombs). Second, according to the excavation report no oor was
found in Room 5032, which was heavily disturbed by pits; the “Ash-
doda” gurine was found in a pile of rubble in the room (Dothan
1971: 161). us, we do not have the actual use context of the gurine.
In fact, most “Ashdoda” gurines have been found not on oors but
in pits and constructional lls (as noted by Yasur-Landau 2001: 335;
Schmitt 2008: 166). Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, given
the fragmentary nature of the gurines and their problematic contexts,
no cultic assemblages can be reconstructed. e exact nature of the
relationship between the gurines and other artifacts or architectural
features is unknown.
13
As a result, it is impossible for us to reconstruct
any cultic behaviors in the use of the gurines. Even if we grant, as
argued above, that the “Ashdoda” was likely a divine representation,
i.e., an object with religious meaning, it may not have been necessarily
cultic in function; it could have had other religious symbolic function
(e.g., protection; a symbol/reminder of the deity).
14
13
Compare Kilian’s observation (1988b: 148, Fig. 16) on the distribution of gu-
rines at Tiryns: if such clustering around hearths, for example, was observed at Phi-
listine sites, we might suggest the function of gurines in some sort of cultic ritual at
the hearth as a plausible reconstruction.
14
In fact, Kilian (1988b: 148) suggests, on the basis of the gurine distribution
at Tiryns, that Mycenaean gurines had an apotropaic function. e arguments put
a problem of definition 389
At most, then, we can say that it is possible that the “Ashdoda”
functioned in domestic cult, but that this conclusion is ultimately
speculative. Nevertheless, there is more evidence for the cultic or at
least religious function of the gurine and contexts such as Room 5032
than there is for Room 16 and its assemblage of architectural features.
While most “Ashdoda” gurines have not been found complete or in
primary contexts, their common distribution in domestic zones, and
specically in or around houses (as, for example, in Areas H and G
at Ashdod), is signicant (as remarked by both Schmitt and Yasur-
Landau). We can reasonably conclude that they were oen used in
the house (or in the context of a household, in the space adjacent
to the house). e role, for the “Ashdoda” at least (if not other gu-
rines), appears to be one in domestic religious symbolism generally.
Ultimately, then, the problem may be one of denition: how we dene
cult, whether in narrow or broad terms.
Conclusion
is study is an attempt at identifying a problem (namely, how to
identify domestic cult), proposing steps toward a solution, and apply-
ing those proposals on two test cases. e methodological proposals
focus on the need for denitions, specically on dening the terms
and dening the analogies that we use, and recommend a multilevel
method of analogy, involving both general data to set the bounds
of interpretation and culture-specic data to suggest specic cultic
behaviors. ese suggestions and recommendations are only provi-
sional: they are meant not as a denitive approach, but as a rst step
in an ongoing process of developing eective methods. To this end,
my ultimate goal here is to initiate a dialogue, one that will synthesize
the dierent knowledge and experiences of a variety of archaeologists.
It is only through this process of discussion and critique that we may,
in the end, arrive at a more robust method.
forward by Schmitt (2008) and Yasur-Landau (2001) can essentially be reduced to the
assumption that gurines were exclusively cultic in function.
REFERENCES
‘Amr, A. J. 1980. A Study of the Clay Figurines and Zoomorphic Vessels of Trans-
Jordan during the Iron Age, with Special Reference to eir Symbolism and Function
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of London). London.
——. 1988. e Human Clay Figurines from Jerusalem. Levant 20: 185–196.
A’amiry, S. M. A. 1987. Space, Kinship and Gender: e Social Dimension of Peasant
Architecture in Palestine (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh). Edinburgh.
Ackerman, S. 1999. “And the Women Knead Dough”: e Worship of the Queen of
Heaven in Sixth-Century Judah. In: Bach, A., ed. Women in the Hebrew Bible: A
Reader. New York: 21–32.
——. 2003. At Home with the Goddess. In: Dever, W. G. and Gitin, S., eds. Symbiosis,
Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and eir Neighbors
from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Proceedings of the Centen-
nial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and Ameri-
can Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29–31, 2000. Winona Lake, IN:
455–468.
——. 2006. Women and the Worship of Yahweh in Ancient Israel. In: Gitin,
S., Wright, J. E., and Dessel, J. P., eds. Confronting the Past: Archaeological and
Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Winona Lake,
IN: 189–197.
——. 2008a. Asherah, the West Semitic Goddess of Spinning and Weaving? JNES 67:
1–29.
——. 2008b. Household Religion, Family Religion, and Women’s Religion in Ancient
Israel. In: Bodel, J. and Olyan, S. M., eds. Household and Family Religion in Antiq-
uity. Malden, MA: 127–158.
Adams, R. McC. 1965. Land behind Baghdad. Chicago, IL.
——. 1966. e Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and Pre-Hispanic
Mexico. Chicago, IL.
——. 1979. Common Concerns but Dierent Standpoints: A Commentary. In: Larsen,
M. T., ed. Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (Mesopotamia
Copenhagen Studies in Archaeology 7). Copenhagen: 393–404.
——. 1981. Heartland of Cities. Chicago, IL.
Adams, R. McC. and Nissen, H. J. 1972. e Uruk Countryside: e Natural Setting of
Urban Societies. Chicago, IL.
Adams, W. H. 1976. Silcott, Washington: Ethnoarchaeology of a Rural American Com-
munity (Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University). Pullman, WA.
Adams, W. H. and Boling, S. J. 2000. Status and Ceramics for Planters and Slaves on
ree Georgia Coastal Plantations. In: Braunner, D. R., ed. Approaches to Material
Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists. California: 111–138.
Agenbroad, L. D. 1978. Cultural Implications from the Distributional Analysis of a
Lithic Site, San Pedro Valley, Arizona. In: Grebinger, P., ed. Discovering Past Behav-
ior: Experiments in the Archaeology of the American Southwest. New York: 55–71.
——. 1982. Geology and Lithic Resources of the Grasshopper Area. In: Longacre,
W. A., Holbrook, S. J., and Graves, M. W., eds. Multidisciplinary Research at Grass-
hopper Pueblo, Arizona (Anthropological Papers 40). Tucson, AZ: 42–45.
Aharoni, Y. 1968. Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple. Biblical Archaeologist 31: 2–32.
——. 1972. Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba. Biblical Archaeologist 35: 111–127.
——. 1975. Investigations at Lachish: e Sanctuary and the Residency: Lachish 5 (Pub-
lications of the Institute of Archaeology 4). Tel Aviv.