Yasur-Lau Assaf. Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
32 ruth shahack-gross
Shahack-Gross et al. (2005) impact archaeological reconstructions of
activities that occurred on oors, as in this case the true oor could
not have been identied based solely on compaction; what was initially
identied through compaction as the oor was actually the accumula-
tion of activity remains on the oor.
e example given above emphasizes that
1. oors must be identied unequivocally using microscopic tech-
niques;
2. the artifacts used for activity area research must be correlated with
the true oor surface.
Example 2: Household Activities Inferred from Midden Deposits at
Iron Age Tel Megiddo
A further challenge in activity-area research at tell sites is to dene
activities that were contemporary both inside and outside the house.
Even assuming that a true house oor has been identied, it is still not
easy to determine the level exterior to the house to which this inte-
rior oor corresponds, i.e., to determine an isochrone across space. A
common assumption is that the topographic level of the interior house
oor is similar to the topographic level outside the house; thus, in such
cases the isochrone would indicate that activities were conducted on
a horizontal at area. Of course, digging and piling activities are also
considered.
Studies of activities inside and outside a courtyard house were
recently carried out at Iron Age Megiddo (Area K, Level K-4; Gadot
and Yasur-Landau 2006; Gadot et al. 2006; Gersht 2006). is house
had been destroyed by re, and the fact that whole vessels and human
skeletons were found in association with a thick layer of charred mate-
rial was used by the excavators to identify the location of the house
oor. A detailed study of indicative sherds and other artifacts was con-
ducted in the various rooms and courtyard of the house by Gadot and
Yasur-Landau (2006) in which they identied areas where food prepa-
ration and consumption, storage, cras, and ritual had been carried
out, and from which they further inferred various social and cultural
aspects. Assuming that outdoor activities were conducted on the same
topographic level, Gersht (2006) identied a concentration of chipped
stones and cores dominated by int blades that he interpreted as an
household archaeology in israel 33
area of int-knapping activity, while Gadot et al. (2006) identied a
feature characterized by a series of laminated white and black sedi-
ments that they interpreted as the remains of threshing oors. Overall,
the reconstructed scenario that emerged from these analyses was that
cooking, storage, cras, and ritual were conducted inside the house
while int knapping and threshing were conducted outside the house.
Recently, however, the suggestion of Gadot et al. (2006) regarding the
threshing oor remains was tested using geoarchaeological methods
(Shahack-Gross et al. 2009). e rationale for testing this suggestion
stemmed from a survey of ethnographic literature on traditional Near
Eastern threshing oors that suggested that threshing oors are usually
kept clean at all stages of use, i.e., before, during, and aer threshing
(e.g., Hillman 1984; Whittaker 2000). erefore, no remains should
be expected to accumulate on threshing oors. Moreover, almost all
traditional threshing oors are located outside settlements rather than
within them (e.g., Avitsur 1985; Whittaker 2000).
e geoarchaeological analyses carried out by Shahack-Gross et al.
(2009) showed that the layered archaeological feature identied by
Gadot et al. (2006) as threshing oors was composed of both micro-
scopic and macroscopic remains. e sediments making up this fea-
ture included large amounts of wood ash, phytoliths (mostly of wild
grasses but also some domestic cereal phytoliths), dung spherulites,
phosphate nodules, clay, and quartz. e macroscopic objects included
ceramics, stones, bones, and charcoal. According to the ethnographic
studies cited above, such material is unlikely to be found on a thresh-
ing oor. Clearly, then, the layered feature does not represent accumu-
lated threshing oor remains.
Other hypotheses were tested using micromorphological methods.
e possibility that the layered feature reects livestock enclosure
remains was rejected. Although livestock dung remains are present in
the feature, the absence in these sediments of the typical microlami-
nated structure that develops in active enclosures suggests that this
feature does not reect an accumulation of livestock remains. It was
therefore concluded that the laminated feature represents a trash heap.
Supporting evidence for this conclusion comes from the feature’s own
stratigraphy: the lowest level of the heap is similar to that of the house
oor, while the upper level is approximately 1 meter higher and cov-
ered by the collapse of the house’s building material. e heap rests
against the northern wall of the house and therefore implies that it is
the trash accumulation from the house itself (i.e., a single-household
34 ruth shahack-gross
midden); the fact that it is nely laminated testies to recurrent dis-
posal activity during this household’s lifecycle (Shahack-Gross et al.
2009).
e main contributions of the study by Shahack-Gross et al. (2009)
are as follows:
1. Trash disposal in the study area was conducted on the single-
household level.
2. Trash disposal in the study area took place next to the house.
3. Trash included all types of domestic debris: macroscopic sherds
of vessels, building stones and mudbricks, bones from meals, and
charcoal from fuel, as well as microscopic remains from wood used
as fuel, dung used as fuel, and unburned dung.
4. New inferences on household activities in the study area can be
drawn, including the types of fuels used for cooking/warmth (wood
and dung), and the foddering habits of livestock (open grazing on
wild grasses supplemented by agricultural by-products such as
cereal straw).
5. e layered appearance of the sediments and their ne-grained
(“dusty”) nature probably testies to routine sweeping of house
oors.
Future researchers may nd it important to conduct detailed excava-
tion of household middens as by studying the ceramic, faunal, and
botanical assemblages of single-household trash heaps, following the
various sublayers, a temporal dierentiation of socioeconomic activi-
ties may be inferred.
In addition to the above example, Shahack-Gross (in press) con-
ducted another study of a layered sediment pile associated with a LB
courtyard at the same excavation area at Tel Megiddo (Area K, Level
K-8). is layered feature was also intimately associated with a court-
yard house wall and probably reects a single-household trash heap.
However, in this case, no macroscopic remains were identied. e
ne-grained sediments were dominated by wood ash, while no dung
or its ash has been identied. Charred grass bers were present, as
well as lime plaster fragments. e contrast between the Iron Age and
Bronze Age household activities, as reected in their trash heaps in
area K at Tel Megiddo, is clear and needs more detailed study. Appar-
ently, the Bronze Age inhabitants at Megiddo did not use dung as
household archaeology in israel 35
fuel, although some grass (straw?) was probably burnt. In addition,
Bronze Age house sweepings included lime plaster, a material that is
absent in Iron Age trash at the same study area. is might indicate
either dierences in the socioeconomic status of the Bronze and Iron
Age households or a dierent ideology related to building materials. I
tentatively suggest that Bronze Age inhabitants in Tel Megiddo han-
dled their household trash dierently than Iron Age inhabitants at the
same locality, with the former taking care to separate ash from larger
pieces of trash. Such a practice has been observed ethnographically
and reects storage of ash for eld fertilizer (e.g., Watson 1979; Kamp
1991).
Conclusion
Identication of activities on archaeological oors is extremely di-
cult and more methodological research is needed. I suggest the follow-
ing methodological considerations:
1. As a rst step, identify activity areas in relatively simple case stud-
ies, i.e., single-component sites with no evidence for later post-
abandonment activities.
2. Focus on studying contexts of clear catastrophic abandonment.
However, keep in mind that some destroyed structures may have
been abandoned prior to their destruction.
3. Use micromorphology to identify the exact location of dirt oors,
remains of materials that were trampled into the oors, and remains
that accumulated above the oors.
4. In cases where a destroyed house with remains on its oor have
been identied associated with its midden, by comparing the assem-
blages from both contexts (oor vs. midden), information on the
life in the house at the moment of destruction (from the remains
on the oor), and information on the life in the house over the time
of its existence (from the trash accumulated over time outside the
house) can be gleaned.
APPLYING ON-SITE ANALYSIS OF FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGES
FROM DOMESTIC CONTEXTS: A CASE STUDY FROM THE
LOWER CITY OF HAZOR
Nimrod Marom and Sharon Zuckerman
House, n. A hollow edice erected for the habitation of man, rat, mouse,
beetle, cockroach, y, mosquito, ea, bacillus and microbe.
Ambrose Bierce, e Devil’s Dictionary (1996)
Introduction
e investigation of ancient households is a common archaeologi-
cal theme in recent decades (e.g., Stevenson 1982; Wilk and Rathje
1982; Wilk 1983; Stager 1985a; Smith 1987; Blanton 1994; Coupland
and Banning 1996; Allison 1999b). e various aspects of daily life
are explored under the broad aegis of what is oen dubbed “house-
hold archaeology” (Wilk and Rathje 1982), which includes the study
of material assemblages from domestic contexts. Finds’ composition,
variability, and spatial patterning are seen as means to reconstruct
household activities, and the socioeconomic and ethnic composition
of the population that inhabited the house (for examples relevant to
faunal remains, see Hesse and Wapnish 1985, 1997; Crabtree 1990;
Finkelstein 1996; O’Day et al. 2004; Twiss 2006). e investigation of
cultural formation processes (Schier 1976, 1987) can also yield rel-
evant information on past human garbage management behavior and
disposal practices (Meadow 1978; Hayden and Cannon 1983; Kroll
and Price 1991; Falconer 1995; Martin and Russel 2000).
e study of faunal remains presents household archaeologists with
an important toolkit. Animal bones, which are usually deposited as
food refuse, are abundant in many ancient habitation sites and can be
used to investigate society and economy—both of which manifest in
foodways (Hesse and Wapnish 1985; Smith 1987; Ijzereef 1989; Zeder
1988, 1991; O’Connor 1989, 2003; Veen 2003; Rossel 2004; van Neer
et al. 2004; Twiss 2006)—as well as to reconstruct the use of space
(Schier 1987; Gregg et al. 1991; O’Connell et al. 1991; Horwitz et al.
2007).
38 nimrod marom and sharon zuckerman
e following paper presents the rationale and the procedures of a
faunal analysis meant to explore the foodways practiced in domestic
quarters in a complex stratigraphic setting, tuned to address questions
of household archaeology—including diachronic and spatial socio-
economic dierences between domestic units and dierential use of
space. e contribution addresses a general audience of eld archae-
ologists, and is meant to elucidate some of the considerations involved
in the faunal investigation of complex domestic sites. Details of the
eld sampling procedures, and the assumptions and research ques-
tions at their root are explained here at the conceptual level, setting
aside many technical details of the faunal analysis itself. e follow-
ing sections present a bone recovery and analysis protocol and how it
relates to various depositionary scenarios expected to have occurred
at a complex site. e various questions pertaining to economy and
taphonomy are presented in brief, along with the zooarchaeological
means to approach them. e focus is on general research questions
that touch the lives and livelihoods of household residents, and do
not include methodology for analyzing deposits from special contexts
(e.g., workshops, etc.). Description of the zooarchaeological eld pro-
tocol applied at the Lower City of Hazor follows as a case study, and
illustrates how samples relevant to detailed zooarchaeological work
may be collected and analyzed in a cost-ecient way. is protocol
was applied during the 2008 eld season in the Lower City of Hazor,
which was directed by S. Zuckerman, and resulted in the complete
analysis of all the faunal remains recovered that season in the eld,
including the complete sampling and analysis of 1,000 liters of sedi-
ments from wet sieving, as well as numerous bones collected by the
excavators. We hope that the application of a high-resolution faunal
investigation protocol that is feasible within the given nancial and
time constraints imposed on archaeological projects may prove useful
to other scholars interested in such analyses.
Site and Setting
Tell el-Waqas (Tell el-Qedah), the site of the ancient Canaanite and
Israelite city of Hazor, is one of the largest and most intensively inves-
tigated tells in the southern Levant. Since its rst identication in 1875
by Porter, the site was excavated by Garstang (1928), Yadin (1956–
1960, 1968), and Ben-Tor (1990 to the present). Garstang and Yadin
a case study from the lower city of hazor 39
explored both the upper tell and the Lower City, proving that both parts
of the site were inhabited during the Middle and the Late Bronze Ages,
thus making Hazor one of the largest sites in the southern Levant dur-
ing the second millennium bce. Yadin’s team excavation in the Lower
City uncovered the fortication system, temples and cultic precincts,
and other public structures, but only small segments of domestic quar-
ters and non-elite buildings. On the acropolis, Yadin’s team exposed
parts of monumental public structures, which served the Canaanite
ruling elite (Yadin et al. 1958, 1960, 1961; Ben-Tor 1989; Ben-Tor and
Bonl 1997). e results of Yadin’s large-scale excavations have set the
stage for the reconstruction of the history and internal development
of the Bronze Age city, and his proposed stratigraphic sequence is still
largely valid today (Yadin 1972). e renewed excavations at Hazor
concentrated on the acropolis, and the vast exposure of architectural
remains dating to the Late and (to a lesser degree) the Middle Bronze
Ages enable a reconstruction of the rise, decline, and fall of the city
(Ben-Tor 1998). e site of Hazor thus oers a rare opportunity to
excavate dierent sections of a Bronze Age city, of both administrative
and residential nature, that existed contemporaneously and developed
in parallel trajectories. e results of the excavations in the Lower City
and the upper tell will enable us to compare between the nature and
pace of processes of growth and decline as they are reected in the
life of the urban commoners, on the one hand, and those of the ruling
elites, on the other.
Hazor, founded as a metropolis in the Middle Bronze Age (Maier
2000; Ben-Tor 2005), went through several phases of wax and wane,
until its violent destruction in the Late Bronze Age. ese processes
were already observed by Yadin (1972) and recently described and
discussed by one of the present authors in relation to the temples and
palatial buildings in the Lower City and on the acropolis (Zucker-
man 2007a). e changing architectural features and related material
assemblages of the Bronze Age monumental buildings, both on the
acropolis and in the Lower City, form the basis for a renewed analysis
of the internal development of the city through the Bronze Age (Ben-
Tor 1998). However, their very nature as elite ceremonial, cultic, and
royal edices presents an inherent bias to this attempt of reconstruct-
ing the history of Canaanite Hazor.
In an attempt to amend this bias, a renewed excavation of a domes-
tic quarter in the Lower City of Hazor was recently initiated (Zucker-
man 2008). In 1957, during the third season of excavations directed by
40 nimrod marom and sharon zuckerman
Yigael Yadin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem at Hazor, a 5 m ×
5 m square, termed 210–A1 of the Hazor grid, was opened in the cen-
ter of the Lower City (Fig. 1). e goals of that excavation, directed by
E. Stern, were to assess the existence of domestic structures throughout
the area of the Lower City enclosure and to verify the stratigraphic and
chronological sequence of Bronze Age strata identied in other exca-
vation areas in the Lower City. e square presented a dense stratig-
raphy of all phases attested at the Lower City, from stratum 4 (MBII)
until stratum 1A (LBII) (Yadin 1972: 47–50; Ben-Tor 1989).
In summer 2008, following a geophysical survey of the area, two
squares were opened to the west of the square excavated by Yadin’s
expedition and a row of four additional squares was opened to its south
and southwest (Fig. 2). By the end of the season the plan of the area
(termed Area S) in its nal phase was cleared. e western part of the
area seems to have been a 2 m wide alley, separated from the rest of
the area by a coarsely built wall. To its east, there were two structures,
Figure 1. Area S in the Lower City of Hazor (from the north).
a case study from the lower city of hazor 41
Figure 2. Area S in the end of 2008 season (north is on the le).