faust 2013 bar israelite burials 1

8/13/2019 Faust 2013 BAR Israelite Burials 1

1/7

THIS IS GOING TO BEA DIFFICULTARTICLE TO

illustrate, I thought to myself as I started to writethis article for BAR. How do you illustrate some-

thing that isnt there?

This is an article about burialsor perhaps tombs

would be more accurate. But they arent there!1

At least not at this time and place. The time is

Iron Age I and Iron Age IIAand even early Iron

Age IIB. This is essentially the Biblical period.

Iron I is usually denominated the period of the

Judges, from about 1200 to the first half of the

tenth century B.C.E. Iron Age IIA and the begin-

ning of the Iron Age IIB cover the rest of the tenth

century (the time of the United Monarchy) as well

as the ninth and even the first part of the eighthcentury B.C.E. So were really talking about 1200

B.C.E. to the beginning of the eighth century B.C.E.,

a period of about 450 years.

The place is (mainly) the highlands of ancient

Israel, which includes the area from northern

Samaria all the way south through Benjamin and

Judah to the southern slopes of the Hebron hill

country (but the phenomenon expands even some-

what beyond that).

At this time and in this region, archaeolo-

gists have rarely discovered a tomb. While briefly

EARLY ISRAEL

An EgalitarianSociety

Avraham Faust

MISSING: Early Iron Age tombs (1200780 B.C.E.) in the highlands of ancient Israel.


2/7


3/7

47

E G A L I T A R I A N S O C I E T Y

during the Late Bronze Age, could have been car-ried out during the Iron Age I (even in new caves)

without any surplus being wasted and with even

less work than digging graves in the ground. Such

burials would easily fit a classless society as

depicted by Kletter.

Any of the above arguments, let alone the com-

bination of all of them, is enough to show that

the lack of surplusor the poor situation in the

highlandsdoes not account for the observed phe-

nomenon. The poverty of this society cannot, there-

fore, explain the phenomenon. So if poor burials

(simple inhumations) do not reflect poor society,

what do they reflect?The above explanation is based on an assumed

direct connection between social reality and the

archaeological record, similar to ideas that were

prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s, during the

heyday of the New (Processual) Archaeology.

According to this view, burials reflect social real-

ity, and an analysis of burials will expose all seg-

ments of society. However, more recent studies

have shown that this equation of behavior and

social structure is not necessarily correct. While

there are many instances in which burials can be

used as an index of ranking, there are also manyinstances in which this is not the case. Archaeol-

ogy does preserve a record of past behavior, but

there are elements that stand between the record

left by behavior and the actual social structure

of the society that produced the archaeological

recordand these are ideas and beliefs. In short,

ideology can influence behavior, resulting in a pat-

tern that is different from social reality.

Examples that highlight the possible difference

between social reality and its supposed material

representations are multiple. For example, among

the Sakalawa of Madagascar, social hierarchy is

expressed in burials, but due to complex symbol-ism, kings are buried in the poorest tombs.10

Hence, an analysis of Sakalawa burials will not

expose their social structure.

An example closer to Israel comes from Saudi

Arabia. It is described in a classic study by Peter

Metcalf and Richard Huntington11: [T]he Kings of

Saudi Arabia are buried with Spartan simplicity,

their only monuments being rough piles of stones.This was a result of the fact that in some of the

stricter sects of Islam a conscious effort is made

to stress the leveling aspect of death. In short,

simple burial does not correspond to social real-

ity. Here the simplicity of the tomb reflects an ide-

ology or ethos, rather than social reality.

In the case of Israel in the Iron Age, it is also

true that simple burials do not reflect social real-

ity. The society in much of this period was not

poor. Nor was it unstratified. We must look else-

where for an explanation. In short, there must have

been an ideology of some sort that influenced the

way the Israelites disposed of their dead. What wasthis ideology or belief system that led the Israelites

to use simple inhumations, and to avoid more per-

manent types of tombs so typical in other regions

and in other periods?

I believe the answer lies in an ideology of egali-

tarianism and simplicity. The simplest type of burial

is simply a reflection of this ideology or ethos.

The best way to test this interpretation is to

see whether a similar pattern is reflected in other

aspects of the life of that society. Is the same ide-

ology mirrored in other archaeological remains? I

think it is.As is well known, Israelite pottery of the Iron

Age is undecorated.*12 This is in contrast to the

*See also Avraham Faust, How Did Israel Become a People? The Gen-esis of Israelite Identity, BAR, November/December 2009.

UNDECORATED POTTERY reflects an ethos of simplicity, as

seen in this assemblage of unadorned collar-rimmed jars,

kraters and bowls from Shiloh, typical of Iron Age I and

early Iron Age II Israelite hill-country settlements.

ISRAEL

FINKELSTEIN


4/7


5/7

49

E G A L I T A R I A N S O C I E T Y

Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age. This is true asfar as forms are concerned, but the ceramic rep-

ertoirethat is, the pottery forms that are used

is extremely limited when compared to both Iron

Age I lowlands and the Late Bronze Age through-

out the region. My colleagues Shlomo Bunimov-

itz and Assaf Yasur-Landau have suggested that

the poverty and isolation reflected in the Israel-

ite [pottery] assemblage might hint at ideological

behavior (emphasis in original).14 Clearly, a lim-

ited pottery repertoire can also convey a message

of simplicity and egalitarianism.15

Still another indication of these characteristics is

the extreme rarity of imported pottery. The rarityof imported pottery to Israelite sites reflects this

same ethos of simplicity.16

The almost-total absence of temples in the

Iron Age I highland villages and in the kingdoms

of Israel and Judah is also very indicative. While

temples are abundant all over during the Late

Bronze Age, they disappear from the archaeologi-

cal record in Iron Age I and II in the highlands. 17

The extreme rarity of temples (probably also tem-

ple personnel, although it is likely that there were

local priests) might also be a result of an egalitarian

ideology that rejected overt signs of hierarchy.The common Israelite domestic structure of this

period is known as the four-room house. Although

a few examples can be found in adjacent areas, the

vast majority are within Israel. An egalitarian ide-

ology is clearly reflected in the plan of the four-

room house, as can be seen in an analysis of the

movement within this house.* Each room is easily

accessible; there is no hierarchy in the structuring

of the rooms. Once in the central room, a person

could go directly to the desired space. If a better

space was reserved for a superior person, this is

not reflected in the spatial arrangements.

Finally, we note a phenomenon that has beenlittle discussed: the lack of royal inscriptions in the

kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Israel and Judah

have been excavated to a much greater extent

than any other polity in the region. And, as might

be expected, they yield more finds of almost any

type, including inscriptions, than any other state

in the region. But when one examines the quan-

tity of royal inscriptions, the situation changes dra-

matically. Although not abundant anywhere, every

state in the region has yielded some royal inscrip-tionsexcept Israel and Judah.18 This is not likely

to be simply an accident of archaeological preserva-

tionthe luck of the spadeand the large number

of excavations suggests that this is a representative

sample. It is likely that a few royal inscriptions will

be found in the future, but their relative quantity

(in comparison with the area exposed) will always

be minimal when compared with other states

(unless many dozens are suddenly found in Israel

and Judah). The absence of royal inscriptions is

also an indication that Israel and Judah did not

generally approve of this genre, thus limiting the

kings ability to show off, in line with the above-mentioned ideology.

All these factors point in the same direction. The

Israelite population had an ideology of egalitarian-

ism and simplicity. It is this ideology that is prob-

ably responsible for the fact that burials are so rare

at this time and in this place.

This same ethos of simplicity and egalitarian-

ismwhat some have characterized as a primitive

democracywas noticed by a number of scholars

from various schools of thought, in works writ-

ten generations ago up to the present day, and by

scholars as prominent as William Foxwell Albright,Frank Moore Cross and William Dever.19 As Dever

has put it:

[T]here does appear to be a kind of primitive

democracy reflected in the settlements and the

remains of their material culture.20

This is an echo of a sentiment earlier articulated

by Cross:

[T]here is a strong patriarchal-egalitarian

anti-feudal polemic in early Israel, which appears

to be authentic, grounded in history.21

Similar views have been expressed by Ephraim

Speiser, Norman Gottwald, George E. Mendenhall,

Robert Gordis, James L. Kelso, Gerhard Lenskiand many others.22 While many of these studies

especially the earlier oneswere nave and simplis-

tic, it is clear that something in the data drove all

these scholars to the same conclusionthat ancient

Israel had an egalitarian ethos. I must stress that

ancient Israel was not an egalitarian societyno

society is truly egalitarian, and Iron II Israel was

quite hierarchicalbut, like some other societ-

ies, it had an egalitarian ideology. Keep in mind

the above example from Saudi Arabia, which

C O N T I N U E S O N P A G E 6 2

*Shlomo Bunimovitz and Avraham Faust, Ideology in Stone: Understand-ing the Four Room House, BAR, July/August 2002.


6/7

62 J U L Y / A U G U S T 2 0 1 3

shows how ideology comes between

human behavior (and the archaeological

record) and real social structure.The rarity of Israelite burials is a unique

phenomenon of thatsociety, as burials are

identified in other regions at that time and

in the very same region in other periods.

This is not simply a representation of

social reality but seems to have resulted

from an ideology of simplicity and egali-

tarianism. A similar ideology seems to

explain additional facets of Israelite mate-

rial culture, as discussed above. It is likely

that when facing societies in which buri-

als had an immense social meaning, the

Israelites chose not to use such burials.23In this way the particular trait (burial

practice) seems to converge with the gen-

eral (egalitarian ideology), both of which

were used to differentiate the new settlers

in the highlands from their contempo-

raneous others, forming part of Israels

the Son and by the grace of God the

Father. These Christological parallels are

so glaring that one is astonished that theyhave not been noted before, either by the

monks who preserved the manuscripts

or the humanists and scholars who com-

mented on them.

Daphnis and Chloe ultimately consum-

mate their union, but not before experi-

encing a few minor adventures that are

mostly bereft of any further Biblical con-

notation. Pagan references now abound.

However it is possible to infer one

last set of Biblical allusions. Recall that

Chloe worried that the Master would

hang Daphnis if he was displeased withthe state of the garden. Why such a dra-

conian penalty, when a mere reprimand,

or at worst a lashing, would do? This can

perhaps be explained by a sudden twist

in the plot, when it is discovered that the

Master is the real father of Daphnis.

We are thus reminded of God the

Fathers willingness to sacrifice his son

who is hung on a cross, of Abrahams will-

ingness to sacrifice his son Isaac (Genesis

22) and, to a lesser degree, of Davids loss

of his beloved son Absalom, who is killedwhile hanging by his hair from a tree

(2 Samuel 18:919:1). The stories of Isaac

and Absalom are viewed by the Church as

precursors and prototypes for Christs later

sacrifice on the cross. Longus has only

partly absorbed and therefore conflated

elements of these stories, without fully

parsing them. In sum and perhaps without

fully realizing it, he is alluding to the belief

that it is the sacrifice of the Son, hung on a

cross, and the resurrection three days later,

that affords the true and deserving Chris-

tian a pathway back to Paradise, whichAdam and Eve had previously forfeited.a

1 Longus,Daphnis and Chloe2.7. All text quota-tions and page numbers are from the excellenttranslation by Ronald Mccail (Oxford: OxfordUniv. Press, 2002), p. 28.2 Longus,Daphnis and Chloe2.11, p. 30.

Daphnis & Chloecontinued from page 53

Egalitarian Societycontinued from page 49

toll free number 1866 456 3768

toll free fax 1866 544 8993

email [email protected]

Androgel1% | 30 sachets

Advair250 | 1 disc

Lipitor40mg | 90 tabs

Provigil100mg | 30 tabs

Nexium40mg | 84 tabs

Our Price

$130YOU SAVE $236

Our Price

$261YOU SAVE $69

Our Price

$89

YOU SAVE $37

Our Price

$144YOU SAVE $140

Our Price

$189YOU SAVE $122

Save up to 70% on prescription drugs

by ordering online from Israel

Your purchase helpssupport recent

immigrants to Israel

USA brand name and generic medication

Easy and secure ordering from Israel

10 day delivery to your door

Accredited and licensed pharmacy

by the Israeli Ministry of Health

Israelpharm only sources medication from Israel

WE DO NOT SUPPLY FROM INDIA OR MEXICO

Easy&secure

ordering


7/7

63B I B L I C A L A R C H A E O L O G Y R E V I E W

16 Faust,Israels Ethnogenesis and many references.17 Avraham Faust, The Archaeology of the Isra-elite Cult: Questioning the Consensus,Bulletinof the American Schools of Oriental Research360(2010), pp. 2335 and bibliography.18 Faust,Israels Ethnogenesis and references.19 See C. Umhau Wolf, Traces of PrimitiveDemocracy in Ancient Israel,Journal of Near

Eastern Studies6 (1947), pp. 98108; JoshuaBerman, Created Equal: How the Bible Brokewith Ancient Political Thought(Oxford: OxfordUniv. Press, 2008); William F. Albright, The

Archaeology of Palestine (Harmondsworth,1961); Frank M. Cross, Reuben, First-Born ofJacob,Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wis-senschaft100, Supplement (1988), pp. 4665.20 William G. Dever, How to Tell a Canaanitefrom an Israelite? in Hershel Shanks, ed., The

Rise of Ancient Israel(Washington, DC: Biblical

self-definition in the Iron Age.

In the Iron Age IIBC, the Judahite

tomba typical burial cave that was used

by extended families over generations

became dominant. The reasons behind

the adoption of this new type of burial bylarge segments of Judahite society will be

discussed in a future article.24a

1 This article is a shorter and updated version ofAvraham Faust, Mortuary Practices, Societyand Ideology: The Lack of Iron Age I Burialsin Highlands in Context,Israel Exploration

Journal(IEJ) 54 (2004), pp. 174190.2 Although many observed the phenomenon, oneof the only detailed treatments was by R. Kletter,People Without Burials? The Lack of Iron IBurials in the Central Highlands of Palestine,

IEJ 52 (2002), pp. 2848. (See more below.)3 See Rivka Gonen,Burial Patterns and Cultural

Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan(Winona

Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992); Gabriel Barkay,Burial Caves and Burial Practices in Judah inthe Iron Age, in I. Singer, ed., Graves and Burial

Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period(Jerusa-lem, 1994), pp. 96164 (Hebrew).4 See list in Kletter, People Without Burials?pp. 2848; see also Faust, Mortuary Practices,Society and Ideology, pp. 174190.5 See Ann Ellison and Peter Drewett, Pitsand Post-Holes in the British Early Iron Age:Some Alternative Explanations,Proceedingsof the Prehistoric Society37 (1971), pp. 190192;Peter Ucko, Ethnography and ArchaeologicalInterpretation of Funerary Remains, World

Archaeology1 (1969), pp. 262280; Ian Morris,Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the GreekCity-State(Cambridge, 1987), p. 105.6 Kletter, People Without Burials? pp. 2848.7 I am referring to the Israelite population, not toall the population within the kingdom of Israel.8 Kletter, People Without Burials? p. 39.9 For a few exceptions, see Irit Yezerski, IronAge Burial Customs in the Samaria Highlands,Tel Aviv40 (2013), pp. 7298; note that the fewreported tombs (many of which represent pre-cisely the phenomenon discussed here, i.e., simpleburials) do not change the overall pattern. Ifburials were as common in the Kingdom of Israelas in the Late Bronze Age, for example, hundredsof tombs would be expected to be found.10 Maurice Bloch, Tombs and States, in S.C.Humphreys and Helen King, eds.,Mortality and

Immortality: The Anthropology and Archaeologyof Death(London, 1981), p. 144.11 Peter Metcalf and Richard Huntington, Cel-ebrations of Death, the Anthropology of Mortuary

Ritual(Cambridge, 1991), p. 134.12 Avraham Faust,Israels Ethnogenesis: Settle-ment, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance(London: Equinox, 2006), and many references.13 James Deetz,In Small Things Forgotten: An

Archaeology of Early American Life(New York:Anchor Books, 1996), p. 81.14 Shlomo Bunimovitz and Assaf Yasur-Landau,Philistine and Israelite Pottery: A ComparativeApproach to the Question of Pots and People,Tel-Aviv23 (1996), p. 96.15 Note that the limited repertoire is relevantonly for the Iron I, and disappears in the transi-tion to the Iron II.

AUTHORS

Amnon Ben-Tor (Who Destroyed Canaanite Hazor? p. 26)

is Emeritus Yigael Yadin Professor in the Archaeology of

Eretz Israel in the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew

University of Jerusalem. Since 1990 he has directed the

Hazor excavation project.

Eric H. Cline (Aegeans in Israel,

p. 37) is chair of the department of

Classical and Near Eastern languages

and civilizations, as well as director of

the Capitol Archaeological Institute

at the George Washington University.

He is codirector of the excavations at Tel Kabri, Israel, and

associate director of the excavations at Tel Megiddo, Israel.

He also edited the Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age

Aegean(Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).

Assaf Yasur-Landau (Aegeans in Israel, p. 37) is senior

researcher at the Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Stud-

ies and director of the Maritime Coastal Archaeology and

Underwater Survey Lab at the University of Haifa. He is

codirector of excavations at Tel Kabri

and at Tel Achziv, both in Israel.

Avraham Faust (Early IsraelAn

Egalitarian Society, p. 45) is professor

of archaeology at the Martin (Szusz)Department of Land of Israel Studies

and Archaeology at Bar-Ilan Univer-

sity. His latest book is The Archaeol-

ogy of Israelite Society in Iron Age II

(Eisenbrauns, 2012).

Theodore Feder (Daphnis and Chloe in the Garden of

Eden, p. 50) is president and founder of Art Resource, the

worlds largest photo archive of fine art, as well as president

of the Artists Rights Society, both in New York City. He

is author of Great Treasures of Pompeii and Herculaneum

(Abbeville Press, 1978).

Ben-Tor

Yasur-Landau

Feder

Cline

Faust

Archaeology Society, 1992), p. 54.21 Cross, Reuben, First-Born of Jacob, p. 62.22 G. Mendenhall, The Hebrew Conquest ofPalestine,Biblical Archaeologist25 (1962),pp. 6687; Robert Gordis, Primitive Democracyin Ancient Israel, in Gordis,Poets, Prophetsand Sages(Bloomington: Indiana Univ., 1971),pp. 4560; James L. Kelso, The Excavation at

Bethel(Cambridge MA: ASOR, 1968); GerhardLenski, review of Norman K. Gottwald, TheTribes of YahwehinReligious Studies Review6(1980), pp. 275278.23 It is likely that this is the reason the Isra-elites did not use even the multiple-burialnatural caves.24 See Avraham Faust and Shlomo Bunimo-vitz, The Judahite Rock-Cut Tomb: FamilyResponse at a Time of Change,IEJ58 (2008),pp. 150170.

faust 2013 bar israelite burials 1

Documents