Yasur-Lau Assaf. Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
72 assaf yasur-landau
Below the early palace in this area domestic deposits from the mid-
dle part of the MBI were found, seriously damaged by constructional
lls and foundation trenches relating to the walls of the palace. ese
deposits indicate that the palace was built in an area that had been
previously occupied by private dwellings. A similar picture is seen ca.
20 meters to the west, below the massive stone foundations of Wall
673, the northeastern external wall of the palace. ere, in L. 2091, the
top of a smaller wall (Wall 2093) was found, as well as a tabun (bread
oven), in addition to pottery belonging to the middle phase of MBI
(Yasur-Landau and Cline 2008). ese probably belong to a domestic
structure that predates the construction of the palace.
Moreover, these were not the only domestic structures damaged by
the late MBI building program (Fig. 10). Area C, at the north of the
tell, was a residential area during the MBI. e pre-rampart remains
(originally attributed to Stratum, 4 but which should now be attrib-
uted to an earlier phase) included a large, multiroom courtyard build-
ing with at least eight rooms encircling a partially paved court that
contained a large kiln or oven (Kempinski et al. 2002: 39–41). e
court also included, at its north, a built cist burial (502) containing
an adult male and a female, and at its south a large masonry tomb
(503), also containing an adult male and a female. To the south of the
structure, another large masonry tomb (498) contained the remains of
at least 23 individuals (Kempinski et al. 2002: 51–52).
e construction of the rampart severely aected the northeastern
part of the building (Fig. 11). e rooms that were adjacent to the city
wall were abandoned and their walls were levelled and covered by a
layer of burnt clay (Kempinski et al. 2002: 42–44). Furthermore, the
rampart sealed T. 503, ending its use (ibid.: 49–50). However, despite
the impact of the rampart on the Area C structure, domestic life con-
tinued in the area until the destruction of the site in the late MBII
period. e eastern wing of the house survived, mainly intact, and a
new central court was formed to compensate for the loss of much of
this area to the rampart. New burials interred within the new central
court indicate that practices connecting kinship and ownership of a
domestic area did not cease even aer the blow suered from the con-
struction of the rampart.
Despite the fact that, in all likelihood, a number of people lost their
houses during the construction of the palace and ramparts of Kabri,
the situation at the site was not as grave as at contemporary Dan. e
enlargement of the site created an addition of at least 25 ha to the
area that was available for private buildings. e people who lost their
impact of urbanization 73
homes could have easily found another place to live within the site of
Kabri. Furthermore, it is possible that additional people ocked to the
city from the countryside. Survey work in the hinterland of the polity
of Kabri (Yasur-Landau et al. 2008) has demonstrated that the rise of
Kabri was accompanied on the one hand by the fortication of sec-
ondary sites in its hinterland, such as Achziv and Avdon, and on the
other hand by a process of nucleation and the disappearance of many
small rural sites.
Figure 10. Kabri Area C: domestic structures before the construction of the
rampart (aer Kempinski et al. 2002: Fig. 4.26).
74 assaf yasur-landau
ese changes were very likely connected to a process of synoikism,
because population estimates strongly suggest that this nucleation
was not accompanied by any signicant increase or decrease in over-
all numbers. It is easy to see how the Kabri rulership did not object
to, and may have even encouraged, this process, since it resulted in
greater control over the populace and further facilitated access to the
human resources needed for the construction of large public works
Figure 11. Kabri Area C: domestic structures aer the construction of the
rampart (aer Kempinski et al. 2002: Fig. 4.31).
impact of urbanization 75
such as fortications. It is easy to see how such a population could
have found a place to build its home within the huge area encircled
by the Kabri ramparts.
An Implementation of a Syrian Model?
At Hazor, tombs and scattered pottery on the upper tell indicate that
the site was founded as a small village no earlier than the MBI–MBII
transition. Immediately aerward, possibly in the earliest MBII, the
site was fortied with an immense rampart, adding a huge lower town
to the existing upper tell, with a total area of ca. 74 ha (Maeir 1997:
327; Ben-Tor 2005: 51; Burke 2008: 265–271) (Fig. 12).
Kempinski (1992b: 125) saw the urban layout of MB Hazor as a
mixture of preplanning and internal development. e upper tell was
dedicated to temples and possibly a palace. e lower tell included vast
areas in which domestic structures could develop side by side with
formal structures such as the Syrian-style orthostats temple in Area
H (Yadin 1972: 75–79; Yadin et al. 1989: Plan XXXVII, XLI) (Fig. 13)
and the gates in Areas K and P (Yadin 1972: 58–65; Yadin et al. 1989:
Plan XLII; Mazar 1997a: Plans V.2, V.4 ) (Fig. 14). is was, in fact, a
very common solution in Syria and Mesopotamia, seen, for example,
in the upper and lower tells at Ebla (Pinnock 2001). Another striking
example of the combination of planning with long-term organic devel-
opment can be seen in the Kassite map of Nippur (Smith 2003: 216).
is was no doubt a very successful solution to the conict between
urbanization and the ability of the ruler to enforce power on large
groups of households. It ensured, on the one hand, that the general
outline of the city would not change for centuries, and, on the other
hand, minimized the friction between the needs for domestic space
and ocial space.
e idea for this solution at Hazor may not have been invented
locally, but was probably derived directly from the Syro-Mesopota-
mian urban traditions. e many examples of Syrian-style architecture
at MBII Hazor, as well as cuneiform tablets from the site, speak of
the important position of the site in the international economic and
cultural networks of the Old Babylonian period. As the only site in
Canaan mentioned in the Mari archive (e.g., Malamat 1989: 52–69),
the rulers of Hazor were unique in having direct access to the Mesopo-
tamian urban tradition, and very likely unique in the southern Levant
76 assaf yasur-landau
in terms of implementing a literate administration using cuneiform
script.
e impact of these international connections on Hazor included at
least the partial adoption of Syro-Mesopotamian traditions of kingship
and world views. us, the use of the standard Mesopotamian encyclo-
pedic lexical list (Horowitz and Oshima 2006: 73) and a mathematical
text (Horowitz 1997; Horowitz and Oshima 2006: 78–80) were potent
mediums for acculturation, used to train scribes in literary traditions
that were previously foreign to Canaan. Practices directly connected
with rulership were also imported through the use of written documents,
Figure 12. Plan of Hazor (aer Herzog 1997: Fig. 4.8: A).
impact of urbanization 77
as seen in the ceramic liver models (Landsberger and Tadmor 1964),
including one mentioning conict between kings and enemy attacks.
ese were no doubt used to educate divinators in giving correct
omina in the service of a king.
It is thus not surprising that Hazor provides the only evidence in
Canaan for the direct involvement of the king in a land dispute. A
cuneiform tablet dealing with a land dispute, found at the site, indicates
that the king of Hazor had the power to decide on real estate matters,
Figure 13. Hazor Area H, the temple of Stratum 3 (aer Herzog 1997:
Fig. 4.8: C).
78 assaf yasur-landau
both in the city of Hazor and in the kingdom. e tablet mentions
Hazor (
URU
ḫa-zu-ra, line 5) as well as the fact that the trial was held in
front of the king (a-na pa-ni LUGAL, line 6) (Hallo and Tadmor 1977;
Horowitz and Oshima 2006: 69–72):
Bin-Hanuta and Irpadu and Sum-Hanuta, three junior attendants, a law-
suit against Sumulailum initiated in regard to a home and a garden in
the city of Hazor, and a garden in the city of Gilead(?). Before the king,
they came in. e king (in favor of) the case of Sumulailum rendered
judgment. (Horowitz and Oshima 2006: 60–71 Hazor 4 lines 1–8)
e archaeological evidence for the success of the Hazor model is seen
by the fact that the temple and gates, manifestations of the power of
the ruler and icons of Syrian urbanism, maintained their position and
general plan throughout the later part of the Middle Bronze to the end
of the Late Bronze Age, demonstrating the power of the rulership to
maintain the outline of urban planning dictated centuries earlier. At
the same time, excavations in Area 210 uncovered an area that was
used for more than four centuries for domestic structures. e earliest
structures in this area were constructed on virgin soil, indicating that
Figure 14. Hazor Area K, the gate of Stratum 3 (aer Herzog 1997: Fig. 4.8: D).
impact of urbanization 79
they were built more or less at the same time as the construction of
the fortications of the Lower City in MBII. e plans of the houses
thereaer reect the natural life cycle of a domestic area (Yadin 1972:
47–50; Yadin et al. 1989: Plan XLVI) (Fig. 15).
A similar picture of the dynamic development of vernacular archi-
tecture can be seen in Area C (Yadin 1972: 28–38; Yadin et al. 1960:
Pls. CCVII, CCVIII, CCIX). In MB Strata 4 and 3, structures included
burials of both adults and infants under the oors of the houses, con-
rming their domestic use. e size of a large courtyard house of Stra-
tum 3 Building 6205 may indicate that building space was not in short
supply. e picture changed during the Late Bronze Age, when rooms
are smaller in size and structures are more cramped together (Yadin
1972: 34–35). e apparently uninterrupted domestic development in
this area led to a shortage of building space in the fourteenth and
thirteenth centuries and the subsequent appropriation of public space
for the needs of the community. e clearest manifestation of this is
the construction of Temple C, a vernacular cult place with an irregular
plan that is very dierent from the formal plan of the Area H temple.
It was built directly on the conglomerate of the rampart, taking pos-
session of an area that was not intended for habitation according to
the original urban layout of the town (Yadin et al. 1958: 83–85; Yadin
et al. 1960: Pl. CCVIII) (Fig. 16).
Conclusions
Royal land grants within the city and in the countryside are common
in second-millennium-bce societies in Syria and Mesopotamia, (e.g.,
Ugarit and Alalakh; Schloen 2001: 241–246, 307–308). is is testi-
mony to the power of the rulers to control and transfer, at least to
some extent, land to other individuals, beyond their ability to appro-
priate land for public works. us, for example, in PS 18.500 Amis-
tamru, the king of Ugarit “has taken the houses and elds of Abutenu
and gives them to Abdi-Ḫageb son of Shapidanu, and his sons forever”
(Helzer 1997: 256–257).
It is likely that this ability to grant land, either as the result of a legal
action against an individual, as part of redistribution of land follow-
ing a conquest, or as a mere conrmation of a land transaction, was
dependent on the power held by the king. A study of the Middle Baby-
lonian Kassite documents shows that royal land grants were larger in
80 assaf yasur-landau
Figure 15. Hazor Area 210 (aer Yadin et al. 1989: Pl. XLVI).
impact of urbanization 81
Figure 16. Hazor Area C (aer Yadin et al. 1960: Pl. CCVIII).