No title

7 ''" A --?-,,.•,

•,

-

-. ,

"

.

' d

/

...c -,.- " ", ",:-"•

-

/

-

..•.

. ......

,-:'..":.. ... "•.,

:-

.'

-

I

•

','.

'

>""'

--

• "'"-' : /"/"&";

'

5,,

" "• "

"

"

S

L< • '"' ;•"

"

.

r •-"

fri

f

/ "7.

> -

-.

.'

-

., --'5--Ir-

a-.'• • . •

-_S?

"`

•

. ??.

•

,

_ ,.-

5'5

t

i""

'

." ....,"

..

.,..-

---~i

- •

.

"

-

-,

..

:

r.. .'\

A:

$5?

=

,.

-

'5

/5,

4'

SII

Iz

?liA?~ -• '-?.'•_' -•.-•

:- -

.

-,- . . .

.-.

..

Wei . • .

'

.-_"•7.':

......

I ?

..-

-

.

_•

_.

-- ,

-•- . - , _ .•

.

i~

/

- 1t ! I.,•

,-

tr•

I

".. -• ?.."-.

!

. .

.

. .'.

:

::

i..5,,'.

.',,

'"

',

".,

~

1

/ --

,'..

.•! , !:: ?I

...

.

?

_

5

"

.

. . . .. .

.

i

.

,r'

..

.

.

1 a

A ,

.?

,...

./...

...*, 'S.*..

/

..

,:

.

V;,.

..•

-e

/s

/ ...

.

.-..,.

'

.

..i',..

'

4-

. ,.

5.'.

,

?.,,,

.,,...

,o

,4

.-5.

,

....

..

.

.

AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ADMINISTRATIVE

ORIENTAL RESEARCH

PA 19104 (215)222-4643 OFFICE,ASOR,4243 SPRUCESTREET,PHILADELPHIA,

lames A. Sauer,President EricM. Meyers,First Vice Presidentfor Publications William G. Dever,Second Vice President forArchaeological Policy George M. Landes,Secretary Anne Ogilvy, Theasurer Gough W Thompson, Jr.,Chairmanof the Boardof 7hustees Norma Kershaw,Directorof Tours Catherine Felix, StaffAssistant Ann Norford,Coordinatorof Academic Programs Stephanie Pinter,Secretary Susan Wing, Bookkeeper

ASORNewsletter; lames A. Sauer,Editor BiblicalArchaeologist;EricM. Meyers, Editor Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research;WalterE. Rast, Editor Journalof Cuneiform Studies;Erle Leichty,Editor

W.E AlbrightInstitute of ArchaeologicalResearch(AIAR). P.O. Box 19096, 91 190 Jerusalem,Israel. SeymourGitin, Director JosephA. Callaway,President JoyUngerleider-Mayerson,First Vice President Carol Meyers,Second VicePresident BaghdadCommittee for the Baghdad School. JerroldS. Cooper, Chairman Near EasternStudies, The Johns Hopkins University,Baltimore,MD 21218. AmericanCenter of Oriental Research (ACOR). P O. Box 2470, lebel Amman, Amman, Jordan. David W McCreery,Director EdgarHarrell,President LawrenceT Geraty, Vice President Bert DeVries,Secretary Anne Ogilvy, Theasurer

Biblical

OF 0OF 0

Ir 00 CyprusAmerican Archaeological ResearchInstitute (CAARI). 41 KingPaul Street, Nicosia, Cyprus. Stuart Swiny,Director Charles U. Harris,President LydieShufro,Vice President Ellen Herscher,Secretary AndrewOliver,Jr.,Theasurer Damascus Committee. Giorgio Buccellati, Chairman Center for MesopotamianStudies, University of California,405 Hilgard Avenue,Los Angeles, CA 90024.

Archaeologist

P.O. BOXH.M., DUKESTATION,DURHAM,NC 27706 (919)684-3075

Biblical Archaeologist (ISSN0006-0895)is published quarterly(March,June,September, December)by the JohnsHopkins University Pressfor the American Schools of Oriental Research(ASOR),a nonprofit, nonsectarianeducational organization with administrativeoffices at 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia,PA 19104.

Editor EricM. Meyers Associate Editor LawrenceT Geraty ExecutiveEditor MartinWilcox Book Review Editor PeterB. Machinist Art Director LindaHuff Melanie A. Arrowood Assistant Editor Illustrations Editor LealanNunn Swanson

Subscriptions.Annual subscriptionrates are $18 for individualsand $25 for institutions. There is a special annual rateof $16 for students and retirees.Subscriptionorders and correspondenceshould be sent to the JohnsHopkins University Press,701 W 40th Street, Suite 275, Baltimore,MD 21211(telephone:301-338-6988;telex: 5101012198,JHUPress Jnls).

EditorialAssistants JenniferAllen JohnJorgensen C. E. Carter JohnKutsko LueSimopoulos StephenGoranson CatherineVanderburgh JulieHull

Singleissues are$6; these should be ordered from the JohnsHopkins University Press at the aboveaddress. Outside the U.S., US. possessions, and Canada,add $2 for annual subscriptions and forsingle issues. Second-classpostagepaid at Philadelphia, PA 19104and additionaloffices. Postmaster.Send addresschanges to the JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,701W 40th Street, Suite 275, Baltimore,MD 21211.

EditorialCommittee BaruchLevine LloydR. Bailey Thomas E. Levy JamesFlanagan CaroleFontaine KyleMcCarter,Jr. DavidW McCreery VolkmarFritz CarolL. Meyers SeymourGitin David M. Gunn JackSasson A. T. Kraabel Neil A. Silberman JohnWilkinson

Publisher The JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress Copyright0 1987by the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch.

Advertising.Correspondenceshould be addressedto the JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press,701 W 40th Street,Suite 275, Baltimore, MD 21211(telephone:301-338-6982). Compositionby LiberatedTypes,Ltd., Durham,NC. Printedby PBMGraphics, Inc., Raleigh,NC. Biblical Archaeologistis not responsible for errorsin copy preparedby the advertiser. The editor reservesthe right to refuse any ad. Ads for the sale of antiquitieswill not be accepted. EditorialCorrespondence.Article proposals,manuscripts,andeditorialcorrespondenceshould be sent to the ASOR PublicationsOffice, PO.BoxH.M., Duke Station,Durham,NC 27706. Unsolicited manuscriptsmust be accompaniedby a self-addressed,stampedenvelope.Foreign contributorsshould furnishinternational replycoupons. Manuscriptsmust conformto the format used in Biblical Archaeologist,with full bibliographicreferencesand a minimum of endnotes. See recent issues for examples of the properstyle. Manuscriptsmust also include appropriate illustrationsand legends.Authorsare responsiblefor obtainingpermissionto use illustrations.

B iblical Archaeolog Volume 50 Number 3

A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research

September 1987

The Cuisine of Ancient Sumer

132

Henri Limet The civilizationof Sumerspannednearly3,000 years,andits many accomplishments,includingthe inventionof writing,had a profoundeffect on subsequentpeoples,not only in Mesopotamiabut throughoutthe ancientNearEastandbeyond.Despite this, Sumer was forgottenforthousandsof years-until little morethan a century ago,when archaeologicaldiscoveriesinitiatedthe challengingprocessof its reconstruction.This papercontinues that process,using as its basis tabletsfromthe ThirdDynasty of Ur, its last periodof greatnessat the end of the secondmillennium B.C.E.

Page 132

ArchaeologicalSourcesfor theHistoryof Palestine

The MiddleBronzeAge:The Zenith of the Urban CanaaniteEra

148

William G. Dever Sometime around 2000 B.C.E.the long process of collapse in the

southernLevantwas halted,andimprovedconditions set the stage fora suddenrevivalof urbanlife. Duringthe next 500 years,impressive walledcities werebuilt, new andsignificantlyimprovedforms of potteryandbronzeimplements appeared,a simplifiedalphabet was developed,andinternationaltradewas conducted.These accomplishments,andmore,markthis periodas a formativeone in the history of ancient Palestine.

Lifeon the Land:TheSubsistenceStruggles of EarlyIsrael

178

David C. Hopkins Most scholarsagreethat the Israelitesfirst appearedin Palestine around 1200 B.C.E.The debate about how they came into posses-

Page 148

sion of the land-whether by conquest,peacefulsettlement, or revolution-has often divertedattention fromthe no-lessimportantissue of what their day-to-daylives were like. How did they growenoughfoodto survive?How did their communities organizeto facilitatethis effort?Only by answeringsuch questions can we understandthe impressivegrowththat took place in this period,a growththat contributedto the establishmentof the monarchy around 1000 B.C.E.

Introducingthe Authors Fromthe Editor'sDesk

130 131

Cover:This painting by Linda Huff is based on photographsof side B of the Standardof Ur, a Sumerianartifact that dates to the mid-second millennium B.C.E.

Biblical Archaeologist is published with the financial assistance of the Endowment for Biblical Research, a nonsectarian foundation for Page 178

the study of the Bible and the history of the Christian Church.

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

129

lip.

i

.

TAW

w-4

..................

!~

:'~i• :

David C. Hopkins

the Authors Introducing

.0

20'. Aw William G. Dever

Henri Limet

130

i

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

Henri Limet is a Professorat the Universit6 de Liege in Brussels,Belgium, where he teaches SumerianandAkkadian, as well as the history andarchaeologyof the ancient Near East. He has written many books and articles on ancient Near Easternphilology, linguistics, and archaeology, including the recently published Textessumbriens de la IIIe dynastie d'Ur (Brussels:the Musees royauxd'art et d'histoire, 1976).Dr. Limet is particularlyinterested in the social relations of the ancient Sumerians as revealed in their administrativedocuments and in their myths. William G. Dever is Vice President for Archaeological Policy of the American Schools of Oriental Research. With a Ph.D. from HarvardUniversity, he has directed several excavations-among them, the one at Gezer in 1966-1971 and 1984. He is presently Professorof Near East Archaeology at the University of Arizona. David C. Hopkins is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. His dissertation for Vanderbilt University was recently published as the book The Highlands of Canaan: Agricultural Life in the Early Iron Age (Sheffield, England:Almond Press, 1985).His studies in Israel havebeen based at the Ecumenical Institute forTheological Studies.

'AA

Or

From

the

Editor'

Desk

ith this fallissueof ourfiftiethyearof

publication, we mark several important events. First, I am pleased to announce that the JohnsHopkins University Press of Baltimore is now the official publisher, on behalf of ASOR, of Biblical Archaeologist. This arrangement is part of a multifaceted agreement that calls for Johns Hopkins to publish and provide subscription and fulfillment services for ASOR periodicals (including, in addition to BA, the ASOR Newsletter, the Bulletin, and the Journal of Cuneiform Studies) as well as to launch an importantnew book series, The ASORLibraryof Biblical and Near Eastern Archaeology. We are proud to be associated with one of this country's most prestigious university presses. The affiliation with JohnsHopkins will help ASOR be more effective in reaching a largeraudience, while at the same time not changing the basic nature of our publications. BA will still be edited and designed on the campus of Duke University, and ASOR's other periodicals will maintain their editorial staffs. ASOR will also continue several of its joint projects with Eisenbrauns in Winona Lake, Indiana. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Jim and Myrna Eisenbraun for the fine service they have rendered ASOR publications for the past several years. Their assistance, particularly in the areas of book publication, Bulletin production, and distribution of back issues of ASOR periodicals, has been very much appreciated. I am also happyto announce that BA has againbeen recognized for the excellence of its design. In the past I have reportedto you that this magazine, with the efforts

of the present editorial staff, has won several regional awardsin this area,and now our June 1986 issue (volume 49, number 2) has won a certificate of merit in an international competition. The 1987 Graphic Arts Awards Competition-sponsored by Printing Industriesof America, Inc., Miller Printing Company, SM, Scitex America Corporation,and WestvacoCorporation-drew a field of 6,700 entries from organizations aroundthe world. This achievement could not have been realized without the diligence, imagination, and tireless efforts of Martin Wilcox, Executive Editor,and Linda Huff, Art Director, whom I would like to publicly congratulateand to whom I would like to expressmy deepest gratitude.Others at BA have also helped to make this possible and I am grateful for their efforts as well. Finally, this issue demonstrates the breadth and quality of work that is currentlybeing done in the field of ancient Near Eastern studies. Professor Henri Limet of the Universit6 de Liege takes us to Mesopotamia;basing his paper on a review of cuneiform tablets dating to the last century of the third millennium B.C.E., he describes the fundamental elements of the cuisine of ancient Sumer. Anyone interested in the history of one of the world's first great civilizations will find this article revealingand entertaining. William G. Dever, of the University of Arizona and ASOR'sVice President for Archaeological Policy,follows with another in our series on the archaeological periods of ancient Palestine. Picking up the story presented by Thomas E. Levy in his paper on the Chalcolithic period and Suzanne Richard in hers on the Early Bronze Age, ProfessorDever'sarticle on the Middle Bronze Age does more than merely summarize the work of others; it also attempts to synthesize and interpret all of the various theories about the history and material culture of the region during a pivotal period in the second millennium rB.C.E. Our final paper is by David Hopkins of the Wesley Theological Seminary.Focusingin particularon farming and the social dimension of subsistence, Dr. Hopkins offersmany keen observationsabout life in the highlands of Canaanduringthe early IronAge- a periodthat set the stage for the emergence of the monarchy and the nationstates of Judahand Israel in the first millennium B.C.E. I think you will agreewith me that BA continues to be unsurpassed in its presentation of articles of distinction by noted authorities in their fields of specialization. All of us in ASOR, and at JohnsHopkins, hope you enjoy this issue and encourageyou to invite your friends to join us in rediscoveringthe past.

Eric M. Meyers Editor

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

131

The

C

U1I'SI'NE k , AIi ,, It•'•,

IX.

U.ll

ofAncientSurner o

byHenriLimet Akkad. Sumer. iggurat.

often in broadterms. We can deterUruk. Gilgamesh. Gudea. mine when population groupsbegan to settle, when they first cultivated Ebla.To the person interested in the history of the grains and domesticated animals. We can learn about the basic societal ancient Near East, these words and names call up rich, often powerful, units, about pottery and architectural traditions, and even about images: images of human origins and progress,of the first great civili- some of the basic elements of their diet. Unfortunately,however,the zations and the art and literature they produced;images that cause us archaeology of Mesopotamia, at least in its early stages, was someto journeyback into time, to study and seek to understandthose origins times more interested in the spectacular finds, with the palace and and to evaluate that progress. Our attempt to understandearly temple complexes, with archives. human history is, of course, not new. Again, the less privileged of society were only studied inasmuch as they The great myths and epics first recordedby the Sumerians also give were part of the greaterand more reasons for the human condition. important institutions. In this article I will attempt to human these address quesThey of the reconstruct one aspect of Mesopoin the arena tions, however, often semitamian life in one period of its hisor of superhuman, gods of the lives of the What Sumerian diet at the end of tory: divine, beings. the did live? third How millennium B.C.E. We will they ordinarypeople? look at the diet not only of royalty What role did they play in their villages or in the largersphere of Meso- but also of the common people, of potamian society. What did they eat the privileged classes and of the lower classes of the soldiers, artiand drink?How did they survive? And where can we turn for this type sans, and peasants. To do this, I will draw from a variety of texts dating of information? from the period of Sumerianhistory abundant Archaeology provides known as the Third Dynasty of Ur data that help us reconstruct much about early Mesopotamian life, but (see the accompanyingsidebarsfor

132

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

lit~l

I

Alt,

...... ...

~ ~A1

Al III o V ill

1

jt.

1

ll A

i

'

Drawing of an offeringscene carved on an alabaster vase found at the Sumeriancity of Uruk. The central figurein the top registeris the goddess Inanna (orher priestess), who is being offereda wide rangeof foodstuffs. Drawing, by Elisabeth Andrae,is from Kleinfunde aus den ArchaischenTempelschichten in Uruk (Berlin:Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 1936),by ErnstHeinrich.

I

•j 1C f•.1. WSit

/4Till

~

'4';h

5

-- -

\

I, 7k7fjlo

-

/f

Q!IfVIP

Itt

Ti

WE:.ui

.1114:1

14i 1.

IIt

/ij

hki~])'

1q,1

~

ijt'4,It

~ *171,-

~c'

rr'')II Vu"' It-"

JuI

,

I

Iry ,,"

jL

,l

ol

.*C' . " ' : '.

..

.

Y Pii :..

'

" '!'

I

more detailed information on both the texts consulted and the history of this period). I should mention here that, while these documents do inform us of the staples of the Sumerian diet, we are at a great loss to know how the foods were prepared.Unfortunately, we have not yet discovered one text containing recipes or descriptions of the taste, texture, or appearanceof Ur IIIcuisine.

\

N

J

tamia during this period, and as such was most used in the production of bread.Other grains were cultivated as well but in smaller amounts: wheat and emmer, the latter a coarser cereal. Of these grains, wheat was better able to withstand the high salt content of the soil found in some areas of Sumer.'Despite this, the proportion of wheat to barley was low. A milling list, for example, recordsthe processing of 556 kur of barley,469 kur of flour (barleyflour), 14 kur of wheat and 6 kur of emmer (Jones and Snyder,1961: 135). The barley was winnowed; then the kernels were ground into flour with portable millstones. Milling producedvarious gradesof flours. Sometimes grain was toasted before it was ground.It could be crackedto produce a kind of groats or hulled and crushed, much like the bourghoul of present-daySyria.Emmer yielded a special flour called esa. These flours were then combined with water (generallywithout any leavening agent) to produce various kinds of breads.A number of varieties are attested: excellent, ordinary,fresh, and dry.Of course barley flour was most commonly used (in fact, unless a different type was specified, we may assume that barley flour was used in a given bread).This basic breadresembled the large flat cakes (hobes)that women knead and bake in the Middle East today.It was a rather coarse food, very plain and certainly tasteless. A better kind of breadwas the ninda.d.d.a, which was improvedby

Sumerian Diet "beating in" various fatty substances: What, then, were the items that vegetable oil (sesame oil), lard (pork made up the Sumerian diet in the Ur fat), mutton "butter,"or even fish fat. IIIperiod?The oldest lexical lists Among these breads, distinction was the with terms for made between first-quality and ordibegin water, and Other texts bread,beer, soup. nary, between black and white. include various types of oil, meat, Honey was sometimes added (MSL fish and poultry, fruits, vegetables, XI, 119, 24-35). dairy products, cereal grains, and a Giig cakes were made with a wide variety of herbs and spices. higher quality flour (Legrain 1937: Bread.Barleywas the most common numbers 288 and 985)2 and a "noble" cereal grain cultivated in Mesopofat (ghee or clarified butter?). The

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

133

i'",

V

Ilk

'oo

.AMR MW 97

"IF

"Ael

IV

or,

77

'YAW,,, Side B of the so-called Standardof Ur depicts scenes from a banquet in threepanels. This mosaic, which was found in Royal 779, is Tobmb made of shell, blue lapis lazuli, and red stone (possibly jasper).It measures 22 by 9 inches and dates to around2600-2450 B.C.E. (Seepages 98-102 of Ur'of the Chaldees')Photographcourtesy of the Trusteesof the BritishMuseum.

common folk did not eat them (Gordon1959: 1.52, note 6). Breads and cakes made from other kinds of flours (regularand high-quality) were destined for the royaltable. One text seems to providethe proportions in which the ingredients are to be mixed for cakes that "havegone to the palace"(Delaporte 1912:number 7248): 1 sila of butter; 1/3 sila of white cheese; 3 sila of firstquality dates; 1/3 sila of Smyrnaraisins. We may assume that "excellent" flour would have been added,but it was not mentioned in this case. We may compare this with a recipe for a ninda.1.d6.afrom Nippur, a recipe that dates from the time of Hammurapi:x sila of flour;x sila of dates; 1/2 sila, 5 gin of butter; 9 gin of white cheese; 9 gin of grapejuice; 5 gin of apples; 5 gin of figs (Sigrist 1977: 169). Anothertype of pastry,mentioned quite frequently,was the girl.lam. This was most often offeredto the gods, but it was sometimes received by the king. Sweetened with honey and bound together with small amounts of flour, it was a preparation of fruit, always dates, and also sometimes of figs.

134

Ike

AN&LA"

Oil,

-

.77 '19

If

use-

qw

silk

.J-J low -0 Awl

Limestonerelief from Ur showing a libation offeringbeforea seated god (upperregister)and a temple facade (lowerregister).In the lower scene a figurealso holds a live kid, possibly for sacrifice. In the center of the plaque, which dates to around2450-2100 B.C.E., is a hole that was used to fasten the panel to a wall. (Seepages 123-24 of Ur'of the Chaldees')Photograph courtesy of the Tustees of the BritishMuseum.

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

MediterraneanSea

i

?mm

Vegetableoil. Vegetableoil, another important part of the Sumerian diet, was generally producedby an oilbearing plant, sesame. The olive tree was not grown widely in the Near East until much later. Also known were mutton fat, lard, fish oil, and, above all, the "noblefat."Sometimes the oil was seasoned or flavoredand was described in Sumerian as "made good."This seasoning would mask the rancid taste that the fat would have quickly acquiredin the heat of the Fertile Crescent. Drinks. Another essential component of this diet was drink. Water was the natural drink, of course, one that needed no other preparation and that was availableto all; therefore, it is seldom mentioned in the lexicographic lists. The lists do, however,contain many terms describing various types

Though that texts

the

we

have

contains

do

not

recipe

a

tel

Sumerian

what

us

found

yet

from items

a

Ur

text

the

III,

made

up

diet.

of beer. Though the Sumerianword ka' has been translated as "beer," this is not strictly accurate.It is infor it was not stead "barley-beer," flavoredwith hops. Plain barley-beer, first quality as well as ordinary,is listed, along with a beer that appears to have been weaker in alcoholic content (honey or grapejuice was sometimes addedto it-Civil 1964: 67 and following). A darkbeer was favoredat Ur; a clear beer was also

brewed.Freshly brewedbeer and well-aged beer are mentioned. This latter beer must have been very strong. Sweet and pleasant beers, as opposed to beer one might call "bitter,"are also attested. The Sumerians also drankmilk: cow's milk, goat'smilk, and, it would seem, ewe's milk. A wide variety of cheeses were produced: a white cheese (which was on the royal table), a "fresh"cheese, and

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

135

a 4i.

If

i

Dairy scene that makes up part of a frieze found in the temple of Ninhursagat Tellal-cUbaid. Dating to the first half of the thirdmillennium the frieze shows typical dairy activities-milking, straining,and, possibly, making butter-but the fringedgarments of the workerssugB.C.E., gests that they arepriests ratherthan ordinarylaborers.(Seepage 108 of Ur'of the Chaldees'Photographcourtesyof the IraqMuseum,Baghdad.

a cheese that was richer than the others. The lexical lists also include flavored,sweetened, and sharp cheeses. Although the vine was cultivated (Legrain1937:number 1368),it does not seem that wine was an everyday drink in Mesopotamia. The Sumerian word for grapejuice literally means "thatwhich comes forth from the grape."The word we translate as does not describe wine "grape-water" but vinegar.This fermented grape juice was used to season certain dishes. At Mari, it should be noted, wine was brought in from the north and the west and was offeredas a gift (Finet 1974-1977: 122-31). Soup. Soup,food that is both liquid and solid, came at the top of the lexicographicallists but is not mentioned in any other texts of the period. Should we conclude from this that it was the everydayfood of the people, too common to merit special note? These soups had a starch or flour base: chick-peas, lentils, barley flour or emmer flour. They were sometimes made with hulled barley and may have resembled the bourghouldish that is still preparedin Syriaor the kishk soup found in severalparts of the Middle East today.Certain soups contained mutton fat or oil, honey, or meat juice. They were rarely similar to our vegetable soups. A soup of turnips seems to have been rather unusual (MSLXI, 113,4-46), though another list mentions a few soups with a vegetable base. A "forerunner

136

list" has a possible mention of a "fish soup"(MSLXI, 152).These were thick and nourishing soups that must have really stuck to the ribs. Meat. The diet we are describing is that of a settled population. It was principally vegetarian,made up of cereals and legumes, which provided protein, some carbohydrates,and lipids from the oils and the fats. Nomads ate more dairy products,as well as moderate amounts of meat. The Sumerians,too, certainly ate meat. There was a "slaughterhouse" at Lagash,but this meat may have been reservedfor the temples (Oppenheim 1948:6, note 13). There are, however,a number of indications that animals were raised "forcooking."At Puzrish-Dagan (Drehem),not far from Nippur, there were some very large structures that were probablyused to confine numerous animals. These flocks and herds came from voluntary or obligatory contributions andwere redistributed for dietary or cultic needs. The documents often list animals described as "deliveryfor cooking."Sometimes the animals were delivered alive, then slaughteredby the butcher; on occasion they arrived alreadydead. This does not seem to have made them unfit for human consumption in the eyes of the Sumerians.Accordingto the Drehem texts, the meat was for the soldiers of the guard,the couriers, and the cult functionaries. The following document, from the second year of king Shu-Sinis

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

..

TWobanquet scenes areportrayedon these plaster impressions taken from cylinder seals found in RoyalTomb800 at Ur, which dates to around 2600-2450 B.C.E.(See pages 64 and

cour76 of Ur'of the Chaldees'.)Photograph tesy of the Trusteesof the British Museum.

typical of the listings of the Ur III period. It gives the shipments of animals for severaldays of one particular month. Besides six sacrificial steers, these animals were used for food: day 11:8 steers, 4 cows were loaded on a boat when the king went to Uruk. day 16: 1 living steer and 1 dead cow for cooking were loaded on a boat when the king went to Nippur. day 19: 4 steers, 11 cows, placed at the disposal of the soldiers of the guardwho hauled the boat

from Ur. (Gregoire1981: number 142) Steersand cows were also providedfor the fourth, fifth, ninth, fourteenth, twenty-fourth, and twenty-fifth days of the month. We know neither the number of the soldiers nor the size of the royal suite for whom this meat was intended. So, even if we were able to determine the size of each person'sserving of meat, we would still not know the proportionof meat in the Sumerian diet. Other recordslist deliveries of animals on the occasion of the king's trip to Ur or Nippur (Schneider 1931:number 108).Elsewhere, entries are made of animals delivered to the palace. At Lagash,the workers at the textile workshop got 194 sheep and 39 lambs. At other times, they were given 100 sheep; a single steer with salt; and 6 sheep with bread and salt (Hackman 1937:number 73; Genouillac 1912:numbers 4957 and 5417, 1911:number 4135). The Sumerians had no prohibition against pork. They ate (on rare occasion, it is true) roast suckling pig (Limet 1976:number 70, reverse 1, 4, 5; Oppenheim 1948:43, E3, n.c.). It is clear, however,that they were repulsed by donkey meat, much as we are repulsed by the flesh of dogs. Horse meat does not enter into consideration here, since horses had not yet come into the area. Fish and Poultry.The Sumerians appreciatedpoultry and fish, though these are seldom included in the texts. This may be because many of the texts from this period are economic tablets, recordsof transactions of either the temple or palace. Birds and fish were beyond the control of both institutions; they were not, therefore, quantifiable items for the scribe to record. The many canals contained masses of fish, while game was plentiful as well. And all peasants were capable of raising poultry outside their homes. Nevertheless, we see the following entry made for one day at the

palace at Ur. A suckling pig is delivered for roasting, as well as two wood-pigeons,one duck, and one pigeon (all dead).The fowl were destined, no doubt, for the stewpot (Keiser1971:number 366). Among the other foodstuffs mentioned, occasionally the following were sent: a lamb, a pigeon, one or two geese (once, a goose fattened with barley),and a number of birds that we are unable to identify. And eggs (probablyfrom ducks, geese, or chickens) were certainly represented in the Sumerian diet. Fish were also on the royaltable. Again, it is difficult for modern historians to identify exact species, although the documents list many different kinds of fish (Limet 1976: number 93). The Sumerians enjoyed saltwater and freshwaterfish but preferredthose that had been raised in "fishponds."These ponds were actually reservoirsthat held water before it was released into the canals? Fruits and vegetables.The landscape of southern and central Mesopotamia was very different from the one that we see today in Iraqand Syria. What are now the desolate vistas and arid countryside with their few scattered villages were once far more fertile, planted with fruit trees and gardens.Sumerian cooking made great use of these vegetables and fruits. Chick-peasand lentils begin one list of vegetables (MSLX, 245). But the base of their diet contained members of the onion family: onions, leeks, shallots, and garlic. Their use and variety are shown in both lexical and economic texts. The "Dilmun onion" of the pre-Sargonic period was called the "Maharsi onion" in the Ur III period. The characteristics of these onions were also noted: sharp, sweet, or those "which have a strong odor." To this well-established group of vegetables we may add many varieties of lettuce (perhaps even escarole), the hearts and the tops of which were eaten. Cucumbers, both

of summer and of winter, both sweet and bitter, are attested, as is a kind of rape,which most likely was the turnip. Because the cultivation of dates was not profitable,they were scarce and were reservedfor the temples and the court. Apples, pears,grapes, figs, plums (orthis may have been a medlar fruit), pistachios, and pomegranateswere commonly grown. Of course, a few other fruits whose identification is uncertain were listed in the lexical texts. The fruits were used frequently in the preparation of the giri.lam cakes mentioned above. Food Preparation By gathering the elements of the Sumerian diet, we have done our shopping, so to speak. Now we must try to understandthe finer points of Sumerian cuisine. How were these foods preparedor given flavorin orderto please the palate or, on a more basic level, in ordersimply to be edible? The Sumerians were very conscious of the superiority of their cuisine over that of the bedouin of the western desert. These people, they said, did not know what civilized life was. They ate their food raw.If you gave them flour, eggs, and honey for a cake, they would not know what to do with them (Limet 1972: 130). Wasthis pride in Sumerian culinary artjustified, or were they simply being pretentious?This is, of course, impossible for us to judge.As I stated above,not a single text from this period contains both proportions of ingredients and instructions for preparation of a given dish. We know nothing of the texture or appearance of any Sumerian foods; however, cultic recipes from the later Old Babylonian period do give us specific directions for food preparation (See Bottiro: 1985). Texts have also been discovered that contain exact measurements for pharmaceutical preparations (Goltz 1974: 49). Is it

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

137

not equally possible that such precision existed in food preparation during the Ur IIIperiod?With this possibility in mind, let us examine a few facts from which we may draw some conclusions that are not too farfetched. Use of herbs and spices. Sumerian

and Arabic cuisines, though they are much separatedby time, share the tendency to use spices in large quantities. They also share a taste for garlic and other kinds of onions, which give a very piquant flavorto their respective foods. Among the spices used by the Sumerians,naga (see sidebaron documentation) was the seasoning of the poor. A very piquant spice called gazi, used in meat dishes, was reservedfor the well-to-do.It gave rise to the proverb,"Thepoor man is the one who does not have gazi when he has meat, nor does he have meat when he has gazi"(Gordon 1959: 1.55).Accordingto the same proverb,one ate breadwith salt. The list of condiments is lengthy: coriander,black and white cumin, "themountain plant,"watercress, and many medicinal herbs were included. In fact, it is from the Sumerian word for cumin that our name for this spice is derived (it was written i'.TIRbut was readgamun= cumin).Manyof the names for seasonings are not translatedbut surely describe very common plants such as thyme, fenugreek, rue, and marjoram.

Further,most spice names show a Semitic influence. (Does this indicate a foreign influence on the dietary customs of the Sumerians?) These "herbs"were grown in a "kitchen garden" (see Limet 1982: 259) and were not imported to Sumer (unlike the pepper, cinnamon, cloves, and ginger that arrived in the Mediterranean and Near Eastern countries from the Far East in the Middle Ages; see Rodinson 1949:151). Sweeteners. The Sumerians evidently never encountered sugar. Instead, they used fruit juices, espe-

138

She archivists of the Ur IIIperiod have preservedinnumerablerecordsfor

Sus. These records come from a variety of sources: Economic, literary, and lexical texts all inform us about Sumerianlife and culture. Economic texts. Income, expenditures, amounts of harvest, salaries, ration lists, numbers of livestock at hand, and receipts of even the smallest transactions were all carefullyrecordedand preserved.Not a single action that had any economic significance was overlookedby the scribes.These recordsmay have been kept indefinitely, or collated and revised periodically (andthe originals discarded). Lexicons. The Sumerian language- a non-Semitic tongue- seems to have ceased being spokennearthe end of the thirdmillennium B.C.E. It laterfell into disuse even as a written language, although it was preservedfor cultic purposes and studied in the scribal schools. Some ancient texts were copied even in the last centuries B.C.E. Because Akkadian began to be more widely used than Sumerian, lexicographicallists were drawn up in the beginning of the Old Babylonianperiod (around 1900 B.C.E.)giving Akkadian equivalents for Sumerianwords. The lexicon forfoodstuffsis well furnished.The principalsource is found in the series of tablets known as HAR.RA = hubullu texts. Foodis mentioned as follows: Tablet XVII(MSLX, 82 and following) mentions vegetables and various condiments; tablet XXIII(MSLXI,69 and following)lists soups, beers, and various flours and breads;tablet XXIV (MSLXI, 78 and following) has terms for honey, oil, milk, cheese, and fruit. The "forerunnerlists,"especially those from Nippur, also enhance our knowledge of Sumerianfoods (MSLXI, 93 and following). These lexical tablets give us only the elements of the cuisine of this society. We have not yet discovereda collection of recipes from the Ur IIIperiod. Our majorobstacle is the precise identification of the productsused in cooking: What particulartype of vegetables, cereals, fish, poultry, and game are intended? The messenger texts. These texts give us a reasonablycorrect picture of the Sumerian diet. They come primarily from Lagashand Umma and list provisions givento peoplesuch as militarypersonnelor courierswho passedthrough a particularlocale on their mission (seeJonesand Snyder1961:280-310). They weregenerallygiven beer,bread,and oil. The breadcould be replacedby flour, while another fat such as mutton oil might be substituted for the sesame oil (Thureau-Dangin1903:390,392,397). The beerwas sometimes'good quality." A typical daily rationwas 5 sila (4 liters)of beer and roughlythe same amount of bread. The oil was measured by the flagon, which held a bit less than 2 deciliters. The ration varieddependingon the importanceof the recipient. This type of ration has been confirmed by many documents that also specify the number of days for which a quantity of food is anticipated (see Reisner 1901: 199, 217). At Umma a few fish were added to this frugal diet,

cially grapeand date juice. Honey was used only by the wealthy. As mentioned in merchants'records,it may have been imported. But only "mountainhoney"was definitely brought from afar."Dark,""red,"and "white"honey are also attested. "Date-honey"was a syrup made from the dates, not an actual honey. Honey is classified in the lists with oil,

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

cheese, and the resinous perfumes. It was, therefore,considered a natural product but one that was processed before it could be used (MSL XI, 156, 268-75). Salt. Though salt was plentiful, it is seldom mentioned in the texts. When it is included, it is grouped with other spices (MSLXI, 158).It was weighed in the form of a block

_ _.

The Sumerians used a system of writing known as cuneiform, where a reed stylus was used to make wedge-shapedimpressions in a clay tablet. This tablet, dating to the ThirdDynasty of Ur (approximately2100 to 2000 B.c.E.), lists the quantities of barleyreceived by the ruler Shulgi from various farmers.Photographcourtesy of the 71Tustees of the British Museum.

alongwith a bunchof onionsanda seasoningderivedfromanalkaloidplant (thenaga)whoseashes,sprinkledon fish orbread,gaveit sometaste. The proportionof breadin their diet corresponded to that of the other Sumerians.Fivesila a daywouldequal6 bushelsperyear.This is the precise amountof barleythata slaveis boundto furnishto the wife of his masterin orderto insurehermaintenance.He wasalsoobligatedto provideherwith 6 sila (almost5 liters)of oil (seeFalkenstein1956:number7). Foodfor royalty.Otherdocumentsdescribethe table of the king as more lavishlydeckedthanthoseofhis subjects.A princesson herjourneyto Ashnan in Elamtakeswith her butter,cheese,jugsof milk (clabbered milk?),dried apricots,onions,andtwo spices (Lambert1968:text 46A;Thureau-Dangin 1903:number384). Note:Sumerian or"obligation IJAR.RA (Akkadian hubullu)means"debt" (withintexts(along withthe"forerunner inthe texts" arecatalogued andcollated terest)."These

MSLseries.WorkonthesecollectionsofSumerian-Akkadian textswasbegunbyBenno

with volume I publishedin 1937and the latest volume appearingin 1985. Landsberger, Volumes I-IX are published under the title Materielien zum Sumerische Lexicon, Volumes X-XVIIare entitled Materiels for the Sumerian Lexicon. They are based on work and edited by E. Reinerand M. Civil. The entire set is publishedby Landsberger's the PontificumInstitutum Biblicum in Rome.

and then crushed. The weight of salt while those of inferior quality did was most commonly reckoned in not. The stones that one could turn minas. Once, three talents (90 kiloby hand while using the grip were more desirable (Hussey 1915:numgrams)of salt is noted (Genouillac 1910,number 892, IV;4135; Legrain ber 5, reverseI, 12-13; reverseIII, 1937:numbers 126 and 1021,reverse 17-18; Genouillac 1912:numbers 6; MSLXI 161,VI). 5509, 6145; Legrain1937:number 272, IV,40-41). Grindinggrains.Barleywas ground with Some had a protuThe difference between the millstones.4 berance that served as a handgrip, gradesof flour dependedboth upon

the bolting, which left more or less bran, and upon the fineness of the grind. Emmer and chick-peaswere roughly ground or often crushed. (Gregoire1970:number 135, VI, 34). Corianderand gazi were also crushed so that they might give off all their flavor. Barleyand barley-flourwere often toasted in an oven. Fruits were frequently dried in an oven or in the open air to insure their preservation and facilitate their transport.Grapes were pressedin orderto producetheir juice, just as sesame seeds were pressed in orderto produce oil. Cooking. While the fruits, the salads, the onions, and the cucumbers could all be eaten raw,the breads,the cakes, the meats, and the soups all had to be cooked. The vocabularyfor cooking is imprecise in both Sumerian and Akkadian. For example, the Chicago Akkadian Dictionary translates the Akkadian verb ba'alu as "toboil, to roast,"processes that are quite different.And von Soden'sAkkadishes Handwdrterbuch translates baIalu simply as "tocook." Certainly though, precise and different methods were used to preparethe food. When meat was placed in direct contact with the fire, the cooking was describedby the terms meaning literally, "to touch with fire"or "touchedby the fire"(MSLXIII,157, 73-76, 79). Meats were often cured, dried, and roasted as well. Fish is described as "touchedby fire"and "placedupon the fire,"possibly placed in the glowing coals. Some breadsseemed to have been cooked in the coals as well. A grill was used for cooking over the flames. The stews and soups had to be preparedin pots placed upon the fire. The vocabularyfor such vessels, whether of clay or metal, is very full. We can imagine the foods simmering slowly in the kettles of various shapes and sizes (see Salonen 1966). The Sumerians used severaldifferent types of ovens. The du.ru.un

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

139

tant questions remain unanswered. Forexample, many varieties of plants, fish, vegetables, and wild and domesticated animals contained in the lexical lists cannot be identified precisely. Our greatest difficulty, however, lies in our ignoranceof the manner in which these foods were prepared. Sumerian cuisine seems to have correspondedclosely to the Mediterranean diet of ancient and modern times (see Sorre 1943-1948: I, 267). W.. It was essentially a vegetariandiet, made up of cereals, legumes, and gardenproduce supplemented by large quantities of milk, cheese, and fish, and smaller amounts of red meat. Forthe less privileged, the diet was quite frugal,one which just met basic needs. But in contrast to the nomads, the Sumerians were A man and a woman, seated respectivelyon the right privileged. They had alreadypassed and left, are shown being servedin the upperregisterof the stage of hand-to-mouthexistence this alabasterplaque dating to the thirdmillennium and were not confined to a few prodB.C.E.found at Khafajah,northeast of Baghdad.Photoucts obtained by poorly managed graphcourtesy of the Oriental Institute, Universityof Chicago. agriculture,by meagerbarter,or by dangerousraids. The upper classes enjoyeda or di.li.na was a clay oven (see Civil more varied and refined cuisine, other artisans included are metal1973: 172-75). Its sides were preand jewelers). as the wide variety of spices and workers,basket-weavers, heated before breadwas baked in Another text lists "thegreat cook" seasonings indicates. Perhapsthe and "chiefcook" (MSLXII,36, them, as is still done today.If the professional cooks of ancient Sumer the the at of oven was left had the skill and imagination of the of these chefs even One opening top 95-97). closed off with a cover,heat high an imprint of his seal, which he great chefs of our own day. the for of cakes and him claimed to was enough baking given by King other dishes was produced.The ki.ne Ibbi-Sinhimself. was probablyused as a modern barWomen playedvirtually no role Notes Thisarticle,originallywritten becue is. Wemay conclude, then, in the royalkitchens, as confirmed in French,wastranslatedbyJonathan that at the beginning of the second by the many paleo-Babyloniantexts, Glass. millennium B.C.E. the culinary terincluding those from Mari. (There 'By the end of the third millennium became more most were female servantswho molded the B.C.E., certain areasof land were covered minology precise, with salt because of the poor drainageof likely demonstrating developments barley.)This distribution of tasks in diet. is describedin official administrative the irrigationcanals. Sometimes a field was called ki.mun "saltyplace."This It would appearthat men were texts. It is probable,however,that salinization is reflected in the Atrathe professional cooks during this within the households of the peasHasis myth, in the plague of famine with are a mentioned numit the who ants was women period. They prepared which the gods afflicted humanity ber of times in the documents from the meals. (tabletII, iv: 7-8). Ur (Legrain1937:number 46, 1257). 2The term g"igdoes not describe a While one text from Lagashlists the Conclusion container,as was once thought. cooks merely as "workers"(Reisner The economic and lexical texts from 3Forthe distinction between "salt1901:number 139, IV,23-25; Oppen- the Ur IIIperiod provideus with a water fish"and "pondfish,"see Delaporte heim 1948:3, note 5), a list of artigood understandingof the various (1912:numbers 7091, 8812)and Salonen sans from the EarlyDynastic period foods and components of the ancient (1970:198). 4The term na4 may describe simply begins with "cooks"(MSLXII, 17, 13; Sumerian diet. Yet, certain impor-

110

FIN,

"e-W

40

140

OF.

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

A Brief of

the

Third

History Dynasty

Ur

F

(aJ'

A"'

of

-

-

~c

T

he history of the ancient civilization of Sumer is one of remarkable achievement (see Hallo and Simpson 1971;Jacobsen1977;Kramer1963, 1981;Roux 1980).By the end of the EarlyDynastic period (the twenty-fourth century B.C.E.), the Sumerians had invented writing and cylinder seals, developed a ruling system that has been characterizedas a primitive democracy (see Jacobsen1943, 1957)or an oligarchy(Oppenheim1977:112),plannedand completedmonumental buildingprojects,andproducedsophisticatedart and literature.In many ways,however,the ThirdDynasty of Ur, which lasted from approximately2100 to 2000 B.C.E., marks their greatest accomplishment. Underthe Ur IIIkings, Sumerexperienceda cultural andpolitical renaissance (Halloand Simpson 1971:77);the arts once againflourished,and a highly efficient political bureaucracyemerged. In some respects this ruling system was the last in a series of innovations which beganeven beforethe EarlyDynastic period (2900-2300). At that time, rule in the early settlements was almost certainly clan- or kinship-based.As the settlements grew in size, their affairscame to be governedby an assembly of free adult males. In times of emergency (generally a military crisis but occasionally economic or environmentalproblems-Redman 1978:307), one

A reconstructionof the greatzigguratat Ur built by Ur-Nammu.The structurewas part of a temple complex that included a courtyardin front of, and connected to, the ziggurat area. The excavatorof Ur, Leonard Woolley,believed that the terraceswere planted with trees. The building on top was the god'shouse and would thereforebe seen from the groundoutside the walls as tiers of greenerywith the god'shouse on top. (See pages 141 and 145-49 of Ur 'ofthe Chaldees' [Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1982]; this book is PRR. S. Moorey'srevision and updating of Woolley'sExcavationsat Ur.) of the Drawing courtesy of the 71Trustees British Museum.

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

141

,Oki

A detail from the Stele of Ur-Nammu,founder of the ThirdDynasty at Ur. Ur-Nammu is depictedcarryingtools (an ax, compasses, and basket for mortaror bricks)for the ceremonialfoundingof a temple. Thehands in the lower right of the picture belong to a priest who accompanies the king. Photographcourtesy of the 71-Tustees of the British Museum.

member would be appointedto rule the village or city; however, the ruler was responsibleto the council andwas not to act without its sanction (Jacobsen1943: 165-67). When the crisis ended, the ruler was divested of his power and the council again reigned supreme (Jacobsen 1957: 99-104). This was Jacobsen's primitive democracy. It was a democracy in the "classicalrather than in its modern sense" (Jacobsen1943: 159), an interesting mix of kinship, shared, and individual ("charismatic") rule. As the Early Dynastic period continued and the number and size of citystates in Sumer increased, there was evidently a shift toward centralization of power (Jacobsen 1943: 160). Rulers seem to have consolidated their control rather than to relinquish power to the assembly Although the council continued to be active even in later periods, its powers were circumscribed and the king reignedsupreme.Kingshipcame to be consideredas divinely bestowedupon a ruler and his city-state, and the first true dynasties emerged. Initially, citystates remained semiautonomous; a loose city-state league may even have been formed (Jacobsen1957: 106;Hallo and Simpson 1971: 43). But the drive toward"concentrationof powerin as few hands as possible"continued (Jacobsen 1943: 160). By the end of the Early Dynastic period,majorcity-statesin Sumer were competing for supremacyoverone

142

another (Redman1978:305-07). Ironically, the dynastic ideal was more fully realized under a Semitic (Akkadian) than a Sumerian ruler. Sometime around 2300, Sargon, an Akkadian usurper, wrested control of the city-state of Kish from his lord, UrZababa. After establishing a new city, Akkad, as his capital, he undertook severalmilitary expeditions to such distant areas as southern Anatolia, Elam (southwestern Iran),the Zagros Mountains, and eastern Syria.During most of his reign, the city-states of southern Mesopotamiaremained,as before,independent. It happened, however, that his power came to be challenged by a coalition of some fifty kings, led by Lugalgaleziof Uruk. Sargonrouted the coalition, thereby gaining control of their cities. Thus emerged the world's first empire. The Akkadian empire continued under Sargon'stwo sons and reached its fullest developmentunderhis grandson, Naram-Sin, who ruled from 2254 to 2198. He was the first Mesopotamian king to take the title "king of the four quarters"(which was roughlyequivalent to "king of the universe") and claim divine status. Military campaigns expandedhis territoryso that it stretched from Dilmun (modern Bahrain)in the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean.His long reign was also marked by sound economic and administrative policies.

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

Tradeand tribute brought needed commodities to Akkad from distant vassal territories.In orderto ensure loyalty and stability, Naram-Sinappointedmany of the royal family to important positions throughout the empire. Near the end of Naram-Sin'sreign, signs of unrest and even weakness became evident. But it was when his son Sharkalisharritook the throne that the empire fell apart. Tradition credited a nomadic tribe from the Zagros Mountains, the Gutians, with his defeat, but they were most likely only one of many factorsleadingto the end of the Sargonic period. The Elamites (in southwestern Iran) declared their independence, and additional threats to the east (the Hurrians)and west (theAmorites)doubtless contributed to his downfall. In 2193, Sharkalisharri was defeated, and this period of Akkadianrule ended. The Akkadianempire was followed by a brief period of Gutian control. The SumerianKingList recordsthe length of this interlude at 125 years, including twenty-one kings. The accuracy of the list has been questioned, however, and William Hallo argues that their rule cannot have lasted for more than 40 or 50 years. The geographical extent of Gutian hegemony is also unclear but is likewise considered to have been fairly limited. Georges Roux has suggested that they occupied "Nippur and a few strategic sites" (1980: 154), while Hallo

79 sit A

A detail from the Stele of Ur-Nammushowing him pouringa libation on a plant beforea god. Accordingto the inscription between the registerson the back, this action symbolizes watering the fruits of the earth. Photographcourtesy of the UniversityMuseum, University of Pennsylvania.

has said that their control was at least initially limited to northern Mesopotamia and that it "rested lightly and briefly on Sumer and Akkad" (1971: 710-11; 715). Certainly many Sumerian city-states remained completely independent of the Gutian rulers. In 2120, Utu-hegal,then ensi (governor)of Uruk, rebelledagainstthe Gutian overlords. Other city-states joined the uprising, and the last Gutian king, Tirigan, was overthrown.Utu-hegal reigned for only 7 years, when Ur-Nammu (possibly his son, almost certainly a member of his extended family) declaredhimself king of Ur and founded the Third Dynasty of Ur. Under Ur-Nammu (2112-2095) Sumerian control was establishedthroughout greater Mesopotamia and Syria. It was eventually expanded, during the reigns of his descendants, to approximately the same size as the Akkadian empire (Roux 1980: 165; for a more conservative estimate of the geographical control exercised by the Ur III dynasty, see Redman 1978: 317). UrNammu's concerns were mainly domestic -establishing stability throughout the empire. He is creditedwith promulgating one of the earliest law "codes,"a collection of casuistic, or case, laws, one that is markedby monetary ratherthan capital penalties for crimes. He also carried out extensive building projects, the most noteworthy of which are the

ziggurats of Ur, Uruk, Nippur, and Eridu.The base of the best preservedof these, in Ur, measures 200 by 150 feet and probably supported a three-story structure. It seems that one of UrNammu's strategies for expanding his influence was to build temples for the gods of the various city-states, thus ingratiating himself with their cults. Once he controlled (or at least significantly influenced) the temple of a given locale, political control often followed quickly. The empire was then divided into a series of provinces (ultimately there would be as many as 40 separate districts), each with a city-state as its center. Provided that a province remained loyal to the king and supplied the throne with the demandedtribute,it enjoyed at least some measure of selfrule (Hallo and Simpson 1971: 80). In addition, Ur-Nammu began such significant projects as expanding the irrigation canal system and fortifyingmany of the other important cities of his developing empire. His son, Shulgi (2094-2047), succeeded him and enjoyed the longest reign of the dynasty.In his early yearshe devotedhimself to completing the building projectsbegun by Ur-Nammu and to consolidating the empire further.Once this was successfully accomplished, he turned to the economic and cultural spheres, where significant gains were realized in the second half of his reign.

Texts from Umma, Lagash, and Ur attest, respectively, to a banking or redistribution system, a well-developedjudicial system, and government-controlled trade and industry. It is in this period that a monied economy (based upon silver) first developed (Hallo and Simpson 1971:81; Oppenheim 1977:87). Also in the second portion of his rule, he conducted a number of military expeditions against tribal groups across the Tigris river. These were both for defensive and economic purposes: to protect the empire and developtrade.He was succeeded by his two sons, first Amar-Sin,then Shu-Sin. Amar-Sin (2046-2038) spent much of his comparativelyshort rule in building and military activities. It was in the reigns of both Amar-Sin and his father that the Sumerian empire was most powerful and extensive and may have stretched from Susa to Byblos.The control enjoyed by both kings was a consequence of their efficient centralized government. Like his brother, Shu-Sin (20372029) embarked on regular military campaigns in the northeasternsector of the empire. Among his many building and restoration projects was a fortresswall, the purpose of which was to deter the Amorites. Mention of these nomadic peoples in texts of the time is the first sign of the weakening of the dynasty. Ibbi-Sin's rule began in approximately 2024, following the death of his father, Shu-Sin. Though he reigned for 24 years, his rule was beset by internal and external struggles. The economic bureaucracythat was so efficient under his predecessorseventually became too large to support itself and drained the royal economy. A number of more distant provincesrefusedto submit to taxation, ultimately causing both famine and severe inflation at Ur. Added to the economic disaster was military pressure, both from the Amorites in the north and from city-states that began to assert their independence. Ultimately, it was the challenge of the Elamites that brought down the Third Dynasty of Ur. When they besieged and destroyed Ur in 2004, Ibbi-Sin was captured and taken to the Elamite city of Ashnan. Thus ended the last period of Sumerian rule in Mesopotamia. C. E. Carter

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

143

a rock, a stone weight, or, in the proper context, a millstone. Bibliography Benito, C. 1969 "Enkiand Ninmah"and "Enki and the WorldOrder."Ann Arbor,MI:University Microfilms. Bottero,J. 1982 Laplus vieille cuisine du monde. L'histoire49: 72-82. 1985 The Cuisine of Ancient Mesopotamia. Biblical Archaeologist 48: 36-47. Civil, M. 1964 A Hymn to the BeerGoddess. Pp. 67-89 in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim. Chicago: Oriental Institute of Chicago. 1973 Notes on SumerianLexicography.Journalof Cuneiform Studies 25: 172-75. Delaporte, L., editor 1912 Textesde l'6poqued'Ur.Mission de Chaldee. Inventairedes tablettes de Telloconserves au Musee Imperial Ottomon. Volume IV Paris:E. Leroux. Falkenstein,A. 1956 Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden II. Munich:Verlag der BayerischenAkademie der Wissenschaften. Ferrara,A. J.,editor 1973 Nanna-Suen'sJourneyto Nippur. Series:Studia Pohl series major 2. Rome:Biblical Institute. Finet, A. 1974- Le Vin a Mari.Archiv ftr 1977 Orientforschung25: 122-31. Flfigge,G. 1973 Der Mythos "Inannaund Enki" unter besondererBerijcksichtigung der me. Series:Studia Pohl 10. Rome:Biblical Institute. Genouillac, H. de, editor 1910 Textesde l'6poquedAgade et de l'6poqued'Ur.Volume IIof Mission Frangaisede Chaldee. Inventaire des tablettes de Tello conserves au Musde Impirial Ottoman. Paris: E. Leroux. 1912 Textes de l'dpoque d'Ur. Volume III of Mission Frangaise de Chaldie. Inventaire des tablettes de Tello conserves au Musde Impirial Ottoman. Paris: E. Leroux

144

A

Sumerian/Akkadian Glossary

Sumerianfor this glossary is taken from a varietyof texts of the Ur III or early Old Babylonianperiods. Most entries are from the HAR.RA= hubullu texts, which often (but not always)providean Akkadiantranslation of a given Sumerianterm. Wherethe Akkadianis not listed we havefurnished it based either on the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD) or von Soden's Akkadisches Handwarterbuch. These restorations are marked with an asterisk (*).There are, however,Sumerian words for which the Akkadian is unknown. All Akkadianentries are listed in their lexical form. The following conventions have been used: Sumerian is transliterated in lowercase roman text; where the exact readingof a word is unknown, it is transliteratedin uppercase roman letters. The Akkadian words are listed in italics.

The

Fruits and Vegetables apple bitter lettuce chick-pea cucumber date fig grape lentil lettuce onion (generic) onion (exact variety unknown) plum (ormedlar fruit?) pomegranate sweet pomegranate Smyrnaraisin turnip vegetable white onion (garlic?) Grains and Grain Products barley barley flour emmer emmer flour emmer groats flour (generic) excellent flour flour (varieties)

flour for cake groats hulled barley lentil flour toasted barleyflour wheat

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

ha1hur hi.is.ges gi.gal.gal ukui zti.lum pe gestin gii.tur.tur hi.is sum sum.gaz sum.ha.din sum.za.ha.din sennur nu.uir.ma nu.Yr.ma.ku,.ku, geitin.haid.a lu.uib sar sum.sikil se dabin (ZI.SE) ziz esa ni.ar.ra.ziz.an zi zi.siks

zi.ba.ba zi.kum zi.gu zi.gu.ba.ba zi.gu.sigs zi.1.d6.a ni.ar.ra ar.za.na zi.gu.tur.tur zi.se.sa gig

ha'hflru* marrutu hallufru qiCid suluppfU tittu* karanu/kirdnu *

kakkfi hassifmu

salluru* nurmu kuduppainu* muziqu laptu* arqu susikillu e'u tappinnu kunasu sasqu munud kunsi* qemu qemz^damqu* isququ */ziqqu asguqu isququ damqu * mundu arsanu isquq kakki* tappinnu laptu* kibtu

Breadsand Cakes bread cakes made with "excellentflour" and "nobleoil" cakes to which many differenttypes of oil were added dry bread "excellent"bread fruit pastries, offeredto temple and palace fruit p-te' ordinarybread

ninda g6g

akalu kukku*

ninda..d6.a

mersu/mirsu

(ninda.)hIad (ninda.)sigs girLlam

akalu ablu akalu damqu *

.da (ninda.)gin

akalu gin-

*

Drinks apple juice (literally,"that which comes forth from the apple") fig juice grapejuice barleybeer clear beer darkbeer first-qualitybeer freshly brewedbeer ordinarybeer sweet/pleasantbeer a weakerbeer, to which honey or juices were added well-agedbeer water

has'hur.&.a

pes.e.a getin.&.a kas'ikaru ka'.babbar ka'.gi6 kas.sig5 ka'.gibil ka'.gin kal.ku,.ku, ka'.dida

ikaru sallamu * pes.u sikaru damqu* sikaru esu * sikaru ginzl* ikaru matqu* bikletu/bilat labki

kaJ.libir a

sika-rulabiru* mU

i i.nun

amnu himetu

L.ku6

aman nhni naihu saman immeri* amnu ellu samnu tabu

t.batu

Oils andFats oil butter (clarified?; literally,"noblefat" CAD: ghee) fish oil lard mutton fat sesame oil "sweetoil" Soups soup chick-peasoup emmer broth lentil soup meat broth turnip soup Dairy Products milk cow's milk ewe's milk goat's milk

.sah L.udu L.gis i.gis.dig.ga tu7

ummaru ummar halliri

tu,.gU.tur tu,.ziz tu,.g6i.gal tu,.a.uzu tu7.lu.6ib

ummar kunai ummar kakki ummar mbleri ummar lapti

ga ga.ib ga.u8 ga.iz

lizbu lizib litti lizib lahri* lizib enzi

Goltz, D. 1974 Studien zur altorientalischen und griechischen Heilkunde. SudhoffsArchiv,Beiheft 16. Wiesbaden:Steiner. Gordon,E. 1959 Sumerian Proverbs.Glimpses of EverydayLife in Ancient Mesopotamia. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania. Gregoire,J.-P. 1970 Archives administratives sumbriennes. Paris:P.Geuthner. 1981 Inscriptions et archives administratives cuneiformes. Series: Materialiper il vocabolarioneosumerico 10. Rome:Multigraficaeditrice. Hackman, G. G. 1937 TempleDocuments of the Third Dynasty of Ur from Umma. Series:BabylonianInscriptions in the Collection of JamesB. Nies 5. New Haven:YaleUniversity Press. Hallo, W 1971 Gutium. Pp. 708-20 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 3, edited by E. Ebeling,B. Meissner, and W von Soden. Berlin:Walterde Gruyter. Hallo, W.,and Simpson, W 1971 The Ancient Near East: A History.New York:Harcourt, Brace,Jovanovich. Hussey, M. I. 1915 Sumerian Tabletsin the HarvardSemitic Museum, Volume II. Series:HarvardSemitic Series 4. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity. Jacobsen,T. 1943 Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia.Journalof Near EasternStudies 2: 159-72. 1953 The Reign of Ibbi-Suen.Journal of CuneiformStudies 7: 36-47. 1957 EarlyPolitical Development in Mesopotamia. Zeitschrift fuir Assyriologie 52: 91-140. 1977 Mesopotamia. Pp. 123-219 in The Intellectual Adventure of the Ancient Man, edited by H. Frankfort and others. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jones, T. B., and Snyder, J. W. 1961 Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

145

Keiser,C. 1971 Neo-SumerianAccount Texts from Drehem. Series:Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of JamesB. Nies 3. New Haven:YaleUniversity Press. Kramer,S. N. 1963 The Sumerians: TheirHistory, Culture,and Character.Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 1981 History Begins at Sumer,third revised edition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lambert,M. 1968 Tablettes 6conomiques de Lagash (6poquede la IIIe dynastie d'Ur).Series:Cahiers de la Societe asiatique 19. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Legrain,L. 1937 Business Documents of the ThirdDynasty of Ur. Ur Excavations. TextsIII. London:British Museum and the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Limet, H. 1972 Le'trangerdans la societe sumerienne. Pp. 123-38 in Gesellschaftsklassen im alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzendenGebieten, edited by D. O. Edzard.Munich:Verlag der BayerischenAkademie der Wissenschaften (Recontreassyriologique internationale, XVIII). 1976 Textessumeriens de la IIIe dynastie d'Ur. Series:Musees royauxdart et d'histoire.Documents du proche orient ancien 1. Brussels:Musees royauxd'art et d'histoire. 1982 Les Sumeriens et les plantes. Archivffir Orientforschung19: 257-70. MSL 1937- Materielien zum Sumerische 1985 Lexikon (volumes I-IX) Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon (volumes X-XVII). Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Oppenheim, A. L. 1948 Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets of the W Eames Collection. Series: American Oriental Society 32. New Haven: Ameri-

146

sweet milk cheese cheese seasoned with gazi fresh cheese rich cheese sharp cheese

FishandPoultry

bird duck eggs ezitu-bird(exact type of birdunknown) dove wood pigeon (CAD:turtledove) fish carp? fish-pondfish salt-waterfish varieties of fish

Herbs and Seasonings plant an alkali aromatic spices black cumin coriander cumin "grape-water" (vinegar?) meat juice a gardenherb for spice or medicinal use "mountainplant" generally used medicinally mustard(?) (apungent spice) salt variety of spice watercress honey darkhoney date honey (a syrup) mountain honey red honey white honey

FoodPreparation brazier

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

,izbu ga.ku7 ga.ar ga.ar.gazi

matqu eqidu * eqid kasi*

ga.sig,.a ga.SE.A HAB

kisimmu

musen uz.tur nunuz e.zi

issuru paspasu* pelz ezitu

kaskal tu.gur4

sukanninu *

ku6

suhur ku6kun.zi ku6ab.ba pe.gi'd.da sag.kes

nznu puradu*

uammu 6 naga se.zi.bl.tum Wim zi.zi.bl.a.num e.16 6.TIR(gamun) a.getin.e.a

uhhlu/uhhulu zibitum riqqu* zibibanu kusibirru kamhnu tabatu

a.uzu 6.hur.sag.ga

me^eri* azupiru*

ui.kur.ra

nin^

gazi

kasz

mun hu.ri.a.nfim zi.hi.li li lil.gi6 kil.zii.lum.ma lal.kur

tabtu huri'inu sahbl dilpu dilpu $allamu disip suluppi dilip ladi

lhl.su4 lMl.babbar

dilpu peld lallaru

ki.ne

kinunu

clay oven cook (AhW); boil, roast (CAD) butcheredmeat (lamb) (bread)cooked in coals crushed in a mortar boiled meat dried (fruits,bread, vegetables) dried (meats) grill (?)or pan (?) millstone millstone (the upper stone of a handmill) millstone (the lower stone of a handmill) placed upon the fire roasted toasted (barley) touched with fire

Measurements block (literally,"brick," that is of salt) kur (252 liters) sila (0.84 liters) gin (about8 grams) TechnicalTerms brick kiln dead delivery for cooking flask (2 deciliters) for cooking for the king for the queen foodstuffs;offering head (ofvegetable) heart (ofvegetable) kitchen pottery kiln slaughterhouse

di.li.na du.ru.un NE (seg6)

tinufru tinuiru basWlu

udu.dim.ma izi.ninda.mur.ra bur.ra.ar.ra sil.qum had

takmesu akal tumri

tir.zum nig.izi.sig.ga na4.urs er5 nu4.urs5 u si.ga

narkabtu

na4.urs5u nu.tuku

erzA

who molds barley soldier of the guard worker

tersum nakmr

izi.ta.na.a tah.hi.a se.sa izi.tag.ga izi.sig.ga

Summrn kamr

sig4

libittu *

kur SILA gin

kurru* qu*

udun. ba.i su.gid.e.muhaldim a.gam e.muhaldim.sk ki.lugal.s ki.nin.s mal.da.ri.a ugu libis e.muhaldim

utinu

muhhi* libbu * bit nrihatimmi

gir4

kAru

tahzA laptu

ana bit nulatimmi ana sarri(m) ana beltim

6.gu4.gaz

OccupationsandFunctionaries cook courier cult functionary female servant

silqum ablu

li.muhaldim ldi.kas4 16.kur6.ra gemp.kikken

nuhatimmu ldsimu *

aga.6is guru&

redz * etlu*

ararrutu

can Oriental Society. 1977 Ancient Mesopotamia:Portrait of a Dead Civilization, revised edition, completed by E. Reiner. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Redman,C. 1978 The Rise of Civilization. San Francisco:W H. Freedman and Co. Reisner,G. 1901 Tempelurkundenaus Telloh. Berlin:W Spemann. Rodinson, M. 1949 Recherchessur les documents arabesrelatifs a la cuisine. Revue des Etudes Islamiques 95-165. Roux, G. 1980 Ancient Iraq, second edition. Middlesex, England:Penguin Books, Ltd. Salonen, A. 1966 Die Hausgerite der alten Mesopotamien II. Helsinki: Soumalainen Tiedeakatemia (Vertrieb:AkateeminentKirajakauppa). 1970 Die Fischereiim alten Mesopotamien. Helsinki: Soumalaisen Tiedeakatemiantoimituksia. Annales AcademiaeScientiarum Fennicae. Schneider,N. 1931 Die Drehem- und DjohaUrkunden der Strassburger Universitits- und Landesbibliothek. Series:Analecta Orientalia 1. Rome:Pontificio Istituto Biblico. 1932 Die Drehem- und Djohatexte im KlosterMontserrat.Series: Analecta Orientalia 7. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Sigrist, R. M. 1977 Offrandesdans le temple de Nusku a Nippur.Journalof

Cuneiform Studies 29: 169-183. Sorre, M. 1943- Les fondements biologiques de 1948 la gdographie humaine I. Paris: A. Colin. Thureau-Dangin, E 1903 Recueil de Tablettes Chaldeennes. Paris: E. Leroux. 1921 Rituels accadiens. Paris: E. Leroux. Wilcke, C. 1969 Das Lugalbanda-Epos. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

147

ArchaeologicalSourcesfor the History of Palestine

The The

Middle Bronze Age Zenith

of

the

Urban

Canaanite Era

by William G. Dever

A

brieflookatthesucces-

sion of cultures in ancient Palestine might almost convert us to a cyclical view of history. It seems that civilizations rose briefly, only to fall, then repeatedthe process over and over. In this series for Biblical Archaeologist we have alreadysurveyedthe first such cycle (Richard1987),in which the initial urbanphase in the EarlyBronzeI-IIIperiods (around 3400-2350/2300

B.C.E.)

collapsed

towardthe end of the third millennium B.C.E. This was followed by a "darkage"of several centuries duration in EarlyBronzeIV (around 2350/2300-2000

B.C.E.),

a period

markedby a massive disruption and dislocation of population from the urban centers and a reversionto a pastoralnomadic life-style. But the light was soon to dawn again, and the archaeologicalrecordreflects it brilliantly.

Archaeological periods. Sometime

around 2000 B.C.E. the long process of collapse in the southern Levant

Sometime around 2000

B.C.E. the

long process of collapse in the Southern Levant was halted. A sudden revival of urban life ushered in the Middle Bronze Age.

was halted, and improvedconditions soon set the stage for a sudden revival of urban life, ushering in what is termed the Middle Bronze Age (often abbreviatedas MB). The Middle Bronze I-III terminology that has recently been suggested (Dever 1980;Gerstenblith 1980, 1983:2-3), and which is used here, retains the conventional three phases of Middle Bronzefirst distinguished in the 1920s by William E Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim in his Middle Bronze IIA-C. The changed numerical designation, however,is based on the current recognition that Albright'sMiddle BronzeI is not the first phase of the true Middle Bronze Age in the cultural sequence of Palestine; rather,it is the last phase of the EarlyBronzeAge (now generally termed Early Bronze IVDever 1980;Richard 1987). Simply abandoningthe older term, though, would mean that the Middle Bronze

Comparative Chronology Palestine PresentTerms

Egypt OtherTerms

MiddleBronzeI

Albright MBIIA

MiddleBronzeII

MBIIB

Kenyon MBI

MB IIC

Israeli MBIIA

2000-1800 1800-1650

MBII Middle BronzeIII

DatesB.C.E. MiddleKingdom (Twelfthand Thirteenth Dynasties)

MB IIB 1650-1500

Second Intermediate (Fourteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties)

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

149

The great mound of Shechem, situated between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal in the Samariahills, was the creation of Middle Bronzeengineers. Theyput up enormous earthen embankments surroundedby massive walls, thus transforminga low, vulnerable rise in the pass into a seemingly impregnable fortress.Shown here is an exteriorview of wall A at Shechem. Withits massive cyclopeanmasonry built in typical inwardsloping or "battered"construction, this was both a retaining wall and a first line of defense. Inside of it, leading up to the inner wall B, was a tamped chalk glaqis. The mound would have been an imposing sight. Despite its indomitable appearance,however,Shechem has threelayers of the ash of destruction-evidence of violence shared by many other Middle Bronzesites in Palestine. Unless otherwise noted, photographs and drawings of Shechem courtesy of William G. Dever.

148

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

sequence would begin, rather awkwardly, with Middle Bronze II. Thus Kenyon (1973) and others have referred to Albright's Middle Bronze IIA as Middle Bronze I, and we carry this approach to its logical conclusion, adding Middle Bronze II and Middle Bronze III. The change in terminology is thus partly a matter of newer perceptions of the transition between the Early Bronze and Middle Bronze periods, as well as a means of keeping the system of nomenclature consistent and as convenient as possible. It must be noted, however, that all terminologies agree on the essential unity and continuity of the several phases of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine as a historical and cultural entity. Most Israeli archaeologists even go so far as only acknowledging two phases, arguing that there is still an insufficient stratigraphic and ceramic basis for subdividing the second phase into a second and third phase (Kempinski 1983). American authorities, on the other hand, generally retain Albright's threefold division, basing their view on the fine-grained stratigraphic sequence produced by recent excavations, especially those conducted at Shechem and Gezer. There is also broad agreement on several other aspects of the period. First, the Middle Bronze Age represents not only a period of rapid recovery and reurbanization after the hiatus in Early Bronze IV but is, in fact, the zenith of urban development in the long Bronze Age in Palestine (about 3400-1200 B.C.E.).Second, Palestine was less isolated than it had been in Early Bronze; indeed, it was so much an integral part of Syria that it may be properly regarded as simply the southern portion of "Greater Canaan," whose existence is well documented in the literary texts of the time, comprising approximately modern coastal and southcentral Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the West Bank, Israel, and, probably, the northern Sinai. Third, the geograph-

150

The

New

Archaeolog

ew archaeology is a term coined by severalAmericanist archaeologists in the late sixties and early seventies for a new-and then highly controversial-approach to New World archaeology.The new archaeology differed from the old largely in arguingfor the substitution of an overall theoretical frameworkthat was in a sense less historical andmore anthropological and scientific. The new school contended that the traditional approach,which was basically concernedwith studyingculture history,hadprovendeficient. It had been too preoccupiedwith the relative dating,comparison,and classification of regional archaeological assemblages. The principal tool employed was usually typology,the exhaustive cataloguingof artifacttypes and their distribution. The major goal was setting up a relative chronology of the development of types, usually with the assumption that charting the diffusion of artifacts could adequately account for cultural contact and change. But the traditional approach,argued the new archaeologists, remained merely descriptive; because of its narrow perspective it lacked true explanatory potential. The ultimate goal of archaeology,in the new view, should be a science of cultural evolution. The new archaeologydemandednothing less than a radicalrethinkingof the fundamental methods and objectives of archaeology.The debate, which continued into the early 1980sin Americanist circles, was markedinitially by a bewilderingvariety of proposalsand counterproposals,as well as by heated polemics. The leading American journals and the programsof the annual meetings of professionalorganizationslike the Society of American Archaeology reflected the trends. The proliferating literature gradually revealed, however,despite some extremist positions, a growingconsensus. Today,there is generalagreementthat the new archaeologyis here to stay, and the significant trends in theory and method may now be enumerated somewhat as follows. As we shall see, several of these trends have had an impact on Old Worldarchaeologyas well. An ecological approach.This entails the study of sites in their total environmental, as well as historical and cultural, settings. The fundamental assumption is that culture is partly (though, of course, not exclusively) an adaptationto basic physical factors, such as geographicalsituation, climate and rainfall,naturalresources,possibilities for exploiting plants and animals, access to natural trade routes, and the like. One may adopt here a version of generalsystems theory,a theory first developedby economic geographersand currently employed in many of the natural and social sciences today. The fundamentalprincipleof this theory is that any system, biological or social, is the result of the complex interaction of many components, and the system either growsor declines as a result of the changingbalance (homeostasis)it is able to maintain. Subsystems of a culture, such as agriculture and other economic strategiesor population growth,will all preserveevidence to some extent in the archaeologicalrecordand should be investigatedas fully as possible. Centralplace theory may also be employedto study settlement patterns, the relation of sites to each other, urban-ruraldynamics, and the function of marketingeconomics. Multidisciplinary strategies. The broader objectives of the ecological approachoutlined above require the adoption of methods beyond the traditional tools of stratigraphyand typology.Thus the new archaeologypioneered many innovative methods in fieldwork and analysis, often borrowedfrom other disciplines. Today,alongside traditionalskilled excavatorsand ceramic

N

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

experts, the modern dig staff may include geologists, geomorphologists, climatologists, physical and cultural anthropologists, paleobotanists and paleozoologists, historians of technology, computer programmers,and other specialists in allied disciplines. Thus a wide variety of data are collected, analyzed, and integratedinto a systemic reconstruction of a past culture. Quantitative methods of analysis. The collection of so much more, and

morecomplex,dataentailsanattemptto quantify.This is necessarynot only to dealefficientlywith a massof informationbutalsoto providemeaningful statistics that other disciplines can utilize. Increasingly,computersare

coming into use to process the new data.Forexample, radiocarbondatingand neutron activation analysis to fingerprint the source of the clays used in ceramic production both depend upon computer counting. Even seed and bone samples may be so voluminous that they are unmanageable without computer analysis. A scientific (or nomothetic) orientation. The heavy borrowingfrom the natural sciences and the desire to make archaeology a more systematic discipline inevitably suggested to some new archaeologists that archaeology should itself aim at true scientific status. Thus it was arguedthat archaeologists should not merely excavateto "seewhat is there,"howeverresponsibly, but should deliberately formulate and test hypotheses against the archaeological record.Moreover,they should do so with the goal of arrivingat universal laws governingthe cultural process, laws that would then be capable of verification by prediction-exactly as in the natural sciences. Not all were so explicitly scientific but nearly all soon adopted research designs that were deliberately focussed on solving certain very specific problems-sometimes

traditionalhistoricalproblemsbut more often problemsderivedfrom a

broadercultural-anthropologicalperspective. objectives.A naturaloutgrowthof the abovetrends Behavioral-processual was the attempt to move beyond the older descriptive-historicalgoals of archaeology,beyond the exclusive concern with artifacts and dates and isolated events, towardan understandingof human behavior in all its dimensions-indeed towardan explanationof the culturalprocessitself. Admittedly, this is an unattainablegoal but it has broadenedthe horizons of archaeology today and made it infinitely more exciting. Thus the new archaeology,which first developedin Americanist circles more than twenty yearsago,made a somewhatbelatedimpact on Near Eastern and Syro-Palestinianarchaeologyin the seventies and eighties. Not all of its agendahas been adopted;and,because it was pioneeredby anthropologistson relatively recent and simple New Worldsites, it is not totally applicableto the long historical sequence of complex Middle Easternmounds. But aspects of the new look are evident everywhere in our field: broaderresearch designs, more sophisticated presentations at annual meetings and in publications, moreecologicaland interdisciplinaryprojects,more liaison with anthropology and the social sciences, and, particularly,a greaterconcern with professional and disciplinarystatus. It may be said simply that the older style archaeology of previous generations-always something of an amateur enterprise, and really a branch of biblical and theological studies-has finally come of age. Although now an independent, secular discipline, Syro-Palestinianarchaeology todaydrawsmuch from and contributes much to these and many other disciplines. Formore information, see William G. Dever, "The Impact of the 'New Archaeology' on Syro-PalestinianArchaeology,"Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, number 242 (1981),pages 15-29, and "SyroPalestinianand Biblical Archaeology,"pages 31-74 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters,edited by D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker (Philadelphia:Fortress,1980);G. ErnestWright,"The'New'Archaeology,"The Biblical Archaeologist, volume 38 (1975),numbers 3 and 4, pages 104-15.

ical-historical entity thus demarcated may be designated Canaanite in a linguistic as well as cultural sense, since that term is well attested in contemporary texts. Indeed, the

term Canaanite now occurs even earlier, in Syria in the Ebla archives

of the twenty-fourthand twenty-third centuries B.C.E.,where a parallel

term, Amorite, seems to referto the nonurban, or village-pastoral,element of the dimorphic population (Matthiae 1981).And, of course, both terms are correctly rememberedand applied to Palestine by the writers of the Hebrew Bible centuries later (on the Amorites, see further Luke 1965; Buccellati 1966; Dever 1981). Nearly

400 Middle Bronze sites are known in Palestine, but the basic archaeological frameworkfor the period has been elaboratedovermany yearsfrom such large tell-excavations as Tell Beit Mirsim (1926-1932), Megiddo (1926-1939), Jericho (1952-1958),

Hazor (1955-1958), Shechem (19571973),Gezer (1964-1974), and Aphek (1973-1986). More recently, many smaller sites and regional surveys

have addedappreciablyto the picture and have brought it into better perspective. Historical reconstruction. As much as archaeologyhas revolutionizedour knowledge of Palestine, or southern Canaan, in the first half of the second millennium B.C.E.,we are still not in a position to write a full history of the Middle BronzeAge. Although there aregrowingnumbers of specialist studies, we have only a few attempts at a synthesis of the data.

Following Albright'searly,fundamental treatments (perhaps best summarized in 1940; see also 1964), the major archaeological summaries are the masterly treatment of the broader historical context by Benyamin Mazar (1968; see also 1970), an authoritative analysis of the sites and stratigraphy by Kathleen Kenyon (1973), and briefer overviews by G. Ernest Wright (1971) and myself (Dever 1976, 1977-both with something of the history of scholar-

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

151

ship). Syria remains less well known archaeologically,although it has yielded vastly more textual remains (see Tocci 1960;Klengel 1969;Kupper 1973; and for the archaeology add now Matthiae 1984). Wereadilyrecognize the pioneerof the previous achievements ing of scholarship, or two generation upon which our present understanding rests. It would be fair to say,however, that the preoccupation of that generation with stratigraphyand problems of ceramic chronology, as well as models drawnlargely from what we may call "politicalhistory," resulted in a somewhat narrowpicture. Currently,newer approaches, with models drawnmore from anthropology and the natural sciences (see Dever 1981 and the accompanying sidebar),are beginning to make their impact on Middle Bronze studies. The ultimate objective, of course, is to write a socioeconomic history of Palestine in this period. We are already gaining a new perspective through several analyses of settlement patterns and demographic trends (Gophna 1984;Broshi and Gophna 1986;Mabry 1986). One of the most ambitious studies is an attempt to employ the "centralplace theory"of economic geographyto the distribution and relationship of both the urban and ruralMiddle Bronze sites, so as to place these sites in their full ecological and cultural setting (Kotter1986).Even treatments of older themes-such as fortifications, or chronology,or Palestine's relation to the so-called Hyksos period in Egypt-are today much more holistic. These are attempts to see the larger picture, to get at culture in all its dimensions, not merely "history" (which usually meant chiefly the chronology of great public and political events). One of the more important of the new approaches to archaeology will be employed here-that is, a systemic approach (resting specifically on general systems theory; for an orientation, see Dever 1987). In

152

this view, culture is a uniquely human adaptationthat cannot be understood apartfrom the complex interrelationships of a number of subsystems, all of which leave traces of patterned, human behavior in material-cultureremains, in the archaeologicalrecord,when properly observed and interpreted.Such systemic components are:response to environmental factors;settlement of great and distribution and type; subsistence and economy; technology; social structure;political organization; ideology, including art and religion; and the largersetting of international relationships. The systemic approachis relatively new and has not yet had time to produce sufficient data to answer all the questions that we are now asking. I believe, however,that it is salutary,and thus Finally, the hundreds of small Early I shall employ its basic categories as Bronze IV villages and pastoral enan outline in what follows. campments in the marginal zones, mostly in Transjordanand the NegebSettlement Patterns and Types Sinai desert, were abandoned,most In Palestine, the revivalof town life - of them permanently, as the populaand with it the beginning of a recog- tion moved back to the central renizable, distinctive new archaeologi- gions. The brief transition between cal phase termed Middle BronzeEarlyBronze IV and Middle Bronze I is best seen first in a radical shift in witnessed the most dramatic shift of the distribution, size, and character settlement patterns in the history of of the settlements. A great transfor- Palestine. As we shall see, there was mation took place just after approxi- also a nearly complete change in mately 2000 B.C.E. Nearly all the old technology, economic basis, social urban EarlyBronzetell-sites, many of structure, and political organization them abandonedfor centuries, were between approximately2000 and reoccupied. Beforevery long they in- 1800 B.C.E., as urbanism increasingly creased in area and density of settle- took hold. (Formore on the Middle ment, and soon they boasted impres- Bronze I period, see the r6sum6 of sive new fortifications. In addition, Dever 1976, with full references;see many new sites were founded in pre- also Gerstenblith 1980, 1983; viously unsettled regions during this Tubb 1983). initial phase (MiddleBronze I), The urban characterof Middle Bronze is reflected not only in the greatly expanding the area of settlement along the coast and well up more nucleated and growing populainto the hill country. Here the contion but also in the various types of fluence of prime agricultural land, sites and their relationship to each access to trade routes, and defensible other. Using a modified form of locational analysis employed by modern conditions favored urban growth. economic geographers(a commonAnd, indeed, most of these new Middle Bronze towns, although small sense application of the central place at the outset, continued to develop theory discussed in the accompanyuntil they became major urban cening sidebar),several recent studies ters before the end of the period. have concentrated not so much on

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

To understand Middle Bronze we must do more than merely compile a chronology public

political events. We must look at culture in all of its dimensions.

about

By

B.C.E., 65 of

the in

lived

of most

istic

Bronze

percent

Sites Achzib

Nahariyeh

population large

fortified The

Middle

1800

Acco

cities.

proliferation is

these

the

characterfeature

Mevorakh

of %14

the

period.

the few largeurban centers, or citystates, as previous scholars did, but ratherupon the relationship of these centers to each other and to the hinterland. It appearsthat the nearly 400 known Middle BronzeAge sites in Palestine can be groupedinto three categories, arrangedin a three-tiered hierarchy:largeurban sites, about 20 to 175 acres, comprising some 5 percent of the total; medium-sized towns, about 7 to 20 acres, accounting for about 10 percent; and villages and hamlets of about 1 to 7 acres, making up about 85 percent (Kotter 1986).These data yield several interesting results when analyzed. For instance, demographicprojections (Mabry1986) indicate that by the Middle Bronze I period, some 65 percent of the population already lived in a relatively few largefortified cities of 50 acres or more; nevertheless, almost half of the settlements were smaller than 2 acres. Crosscultural studies, both ancient and modern, indicate that such threetiered, hierarchically arrangedsettlement patterns invariablycharacterize a highly urbanized culture. Thus, the largersites were undoubtedly true city-states, dominating an economic hinterland, even though Palestine as a whole may not have

Tel

Mor

been a true state in terms of centralized administration. WalledCities A combination of urban growth, complex social organization,increasedprosperity,and advanced technology may be observedin town-

planning, and especially in defensive systems of the Middle BronzeAge. The proliferationof massive fortifications is the single most characteristic feature of the fully developed phases of the period. This was no doubt a response in part to the growing competition of local city-states,

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

153

but it may also have been a consequence of the threat of international intervention. These complex defense works also imply, however,a superior engineering and industrial capability. More important, they reflect a highly centralized system of planning and deployment of men and materiel-that is, an efficient socioeconomic organizationthat can produce surpluses, as well as a bureaucracythat can control and, if necessary, enforce public policy. (For earlier studies, see Parr1968;G. R. H. Wright 1968;Dever 1973, 1974; Seger 1975.) In seeking to chart the stages in Middle Bronzeurban development, scholars seem inevitably to have defined urban as meaning fortified, and thus they have been especially concerned with determining when the earliest city-walls emerged. Yigael Yadinquestioned the assumption, held by nearly all archaeologists since Albright, that defense systems began in the first phase, Middle Bronze I, and tried in fact to date all the city-walls to Middle Bronze II (Yadin1973, 1978).The majority opinion, however,based on the latest excavations,holds that many sites were fortifiedearly,by the nineteenth century B.C.E.at the latest (see Dever

1976;Gerstenblith 1983).Among these early walled towns would be Achzib and Acco in the north, as well as a group of SharonPlain sites (TelZeror,Tel Poleg, Tel Burga, Yabneh-yam),and especially Aphek, at the headwatersof the Yarkon River.The latter is now one of our most important Middle Bronze I sites, thanks to the excavations of Moshe Kochavi and others since 1973, which have revealed two phases of the city-wall and a "palace"that must be dated fairly early in Middle Bronze I (Kochavi and Beck 1976; Kochavi and others 1979, specifically refuting Yadin). Thus many of the larger sites in Palestine had already been fortified with city-walls and gates before the end of the Middle Bronze I period

154

small chambers or guardroomson each side (see Naumann 1971;GreThe gori 1986). Almost always this inner line of MB of defense defense is augmented with massive, works is evidence steep earthen and plaster embankments along the outer face. Farther for superior downslope there may be an outer revetment or retainingwall, and while engineering, sometimes beyond that a fosse (or dry moat) with its own countertheir massiveness scarp or wall. The earthworks,often termed terrepisee constructions, or an suggests are among the most typical glacis, of and intriguing elements. Eachdiffers, since they were designed for local terrain, and they were constructed quite ingeniously of whatever local soils and fill materials were available. Yetthe purpose of each earthwork, howeverdifferent, seems the 1800 about before same: to consolidate and augment B.C.E.). (that is, But beginning with Middle Bronze the tell slopes, as well as to create a II, and continuing until the end of system of barriersfor any attackers from Middle BronzeIII,the archaeological (see Parr1968).The term glacis, zone the typical medieval free-fire recordat nearly every site shows a continual process of defensive consurroundingthe city- or castle-wall, is added element is probablya misnomer. These fills One structions. atop another, in an almost bewilder- and plasteredembankments do not ing arrayand variety,as though each seem designed to protect against city tried to outdo its neighbors.Not chariots, as Kenyonsupposed, alonly areall the largersites fortified,as though such vehicles were a formidable weapon being introduced at might be predicted,but even towns and villages as small as 2 to 4 acres just this time. Rather,as Yadin are surroundedby city-walls, such as showed (1955),the embankments the tiny coastal fort of Mevorakh,or were probablya defense against the the small hill-country site of Shiloh. Mesopotamian-stylebattering ram; the steep slopes and outer walls were Indeed, scarcely a single excavated meant to keep the ram awayfrom Middle BronzeAge site in Palestine the principal city-wall, and also to has failed to yield formidable make the ram vulnerable to the fortifications. The basic defensive element is, defendersatop the wall. Whateverthe exact rationale of of course, a city-wall, usually conbuilders a mudbrick the of may have been, the desuperhigh sisting fense systems of the Middle Bronze structure on a stone socle or foundation. Often the main wall is of Age exhibit two striking features. with First, there is an almost endless variroughmasonry, cyclopean hewn stone blocks 8 to 10 feet long ety of constructional elements-all, and weighing a ton or more, laid to a however, well integrated. Second, width of anywherefrom 20 to 50 feet. there is an attempt at mass, almost as though psychological warfare were The Middle BronzeAge city-gate is of a standardtype, apparentlyderived being employed. The cumulative from Syria and Anatolia, with three system not only required an enorentryways markedby pairs of oppos- mous investment of resources but it must also have been the work of ing stone piers, and in between two

complexity

0

0

appreciation psychological

warfare.

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

0

Ph

Temp

5 m

Ph 3

2-

Wall B

Casemate WallE

Ph 4-- 3

-Ph

tE

I -as""

-. Altar Ph3-2

Building Wall A

Building 720

Gate Ph 5 -1 Section C

Section Wall A Addition Ph 3

N

A

Palace Ph

-Ph

2

Northwest

Ph 3- 2

/

730

Section SA

"Peephole"

Above: Plan of major Middle Bronzeinstallations at Shechem around the Northwest Gate. In the center is the triple gate with an opening that has been narrowedso that only one chariot at a time could pass throughit. On the left of the gate is a barracksor citadel (building 7200);note the "peephole"in outer wall A. On the right is a temple (building 7300).Below: Schematic section throughall of the building layers of the gate area at Shechem. On the far right is wall A; built on a 3-meter-thickfoundation, it continued to be developed throughoutthe history of the site. The earliest building phases, shown at the bottom of the drawing,rest on virginsoil or bedrock. Over this, two glaqis were built in successive phases (phases 5 and 4); eventually this area was filled in. WallBwas the original city-wall, 11meters inside wall A. In the final phases (3, 2, and 1), the casemate walls and buildings such as the barrackswere added over the ruins of this earlier construction. The five phases indicated here all occurredwithin Middle BronzeII-III. Aerial photographcourtesy of PictorialArchive.

'•

e ,

_3_•sem E

Wall A Ph3 Addition,

Building 7200 Ph 2A

-20

Ph 3-2 m-20

Threshold

m

Ph

.

-

Section Wal A

WallBP3,

p 15

Phase 12pi

-16 m

Phase 2

Phase 3 Phase 4 M Phase 5

0

1

2m

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

155

many generations.A typical thick city-wall might run for a mile or more aroundthe site, and it would have had many towers, severalgates, and a huge embankment outside that. Its construction would have requiredperhapshundreds of thousands of man-hoursand the moving of thousands of tons of stone and earth. Such a system was probably under constant construction, alteration, and repair-and for a continuous period of 300 to 500 years at many sites in Middle Bronze Age Palestine. Two sites may serve to illustrate the walled towns of the Middle BronzeAge. The great mound of Shechem, situated between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal in the Samariahills, was literally the creation of the Middle BronzeAge engineers. They put up enormous earthen embankments that were surrounded by massive walls, thus transforming a low, vulnerable rise in the pass into a seemingly impregnablefortress. The outer wall A, constructed of cyclopean masonry,is a massive retaining wall for the deep artificial fills behind it, and it still stands more than 30 feet high. Atop that is wall B, a double (orcasemate) masonry wall. Between the two principal citywalls is the typical steep, faced slope, or glagis. Twogates are known: the East Gate, a rare,double-entryway gate (otherwise known only at Tel Mor,near Ashdod);and the Northwest Gate, a more typical, threeentryway gate. Adjacentto the latter, on the embankment between the city-walls, is an elaboratemultiroomed structure cleared in 1972 that may best be understood as a barracks or citadel, guarding both the city-gate and the adjacent palace (Dever 1974). The Middle Bronze defenses at Shechem-with at least five phases, all within Middle Bronze II-MIand separated by no less than three destructions toward the endillustrate most dramatically the phenomenon of walled cities of this period. (For more, see G. E. Wright

156

flip",

Above: WallA and barracksor citadel (building 7200)on the north side of the Northwest Gate at Shechem. This building had a stone foundation one meter thick, with a mudbrick superstructure,all of which was plastered on the inside. One room on the outside wall had a "peephole"that looked out over the city-gate.Below: Man pointing to the "peephole"cut through wall A at Shechem.

At

lkI

1965;Dever 1974; Seger 1974, 1975.) Gezer is even more impressive, now that American excavations in 1964 through 1974 have redatedand clarified Macalister'smonumental architecture (partiallycleared in 1902 through 1909).The "Inner Wall,"some 12 to 14 feet thick and

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

still standing as much as 15 feet high, circles the entire site-a

length of about 1,600 yards,or nearly a mile. The "SouthGate"is a magnificent triple-entrywaymudbrick structure at least two stories high. Still preservedare the springersof the archedroof made of mudbrick

R

..

3:

. .. S. A, 4.1

6.1

.421 ?. ep?.

& R-A 'g k."g,

:K gig

Mall "Yo.w., ER osX.',

.em lat: x. iN ... ......... -

V:

01? ?4Ims.

t 31 NPIX.e 4n

that coveredthe passageway;these are flankedby three pairs of massive stone piers, or orthostats. The manner in which these piers served to mount swinging wooden doors at the inner and outer gatewayhas now been illustrated by the splendid citygate at Ebla (TellMardikh)in Syria, where the basalt orthostats and their door-socketsare still preserved (Matthiae 1984:20). And more recently, an almost intact tripleentryway mudbrick gate of this type, with the arches still standing, has been found at Tel Dan (Biran1984). Two quite remarkablefeatures of the Middle BronzeAge defenses of Gezer are "Glagis8012"and "Tower 5017."The glagis, sloping up to the "InnerWall"at an angle of about 45 degrees, is constructed of alternating layers of brown debris from the tell and of virgin chalk. These fills are laid in almost geometric perfection, tightly tamped, then surfaced overwith a thick white plaster to make the slope not only impermeable to water and weather but difficult to negotiate as well. "Tower 5017"lies just west of the "South Gate."Only the stone socle or foundation of this elaborate,multistoried storied structure is preserved,but this consists of nine courses of cyclopean masonry, sunk entirely below ground level in a foundation trench some 14 feet deep. This massive tower or citadel is incorporatedinto a section of city-wall 53 feet thickone of the largest single-phase stone structures in pre-RomanPalestine. (Formore, see Dever and others 1971, 1974;Dever 1973; Seger 1975.)

MI.

?: '922.0. sl? lelx.. le C 1

X m.... ... .... ... N?A

UKI -.'?

mzom?

1g,.

.:Ak

M

M.M.Ml

le

The "SouthGate"at Gezer was a mudbrick structurethat was at least two stories high. 7bTop: The massive stone orthostats or jambs shown here framed the triple sets of wooden doors. Photographsof Gezercourtesy of William G. Dever.Bottom:Locatedto the south and west of Shechem, Gezer was occupied at a much earlier date. Shown here is a plan of the "SouthGate" complex at Gezer.A chalk glagis, or embankment, which would have inhibited any approach to the city, was employed for defense along the outerperimeter.Connectorwall 13004 was faced with cyclopeanmasonry to mask its weakness. Preliminaryfindings suggested that the destruction of the installations was associated with the campaigns of T7thmosisIII around New findings, however,suggest an earlier date around the reigns of Amenophis I 1482 B.C.E. (1546-1526)or ThthmosisI (1525-1512).(Anx marks the place in a room inside wall 13004 where a small hoard of gold and the skeleton of a woman were found in 1973.)Drawing used courtesy of JoeD. Seger.

lbwn Planning and Domestic Architecture The defense systems just described imply the existence, of course, not only of relatively sophisticated engineering but also of the highly centralized planning that characterizes urban centers. Another aspect of town planning is spatial and functional layout of the entire areawithin the city-walls, virtually requiredby

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

157

Though have

a

plan city,

for

complete MB

any

there

evi-

is

that

dence

don't

we

town

was aa planning centralized highly and sophisticated.

no

backwater.

urban life with its dense population and variedactivities. Thus we can distinguish in severalMiddle Bronze Age sites well-planned areasfor administrative structures,public functions, temples, commercial and perhapsjuridical activities, domestic housing, streets, courtyards, water-and food-storagefacilities, stables, and industrial operations. We do not yet have, of course, the complete plan of any Palestinian city of the Middle BronzeAge, but the areaof the Northwest Gate at Shechem includes many well-coordinated elements of what may have been a typical administrative and public area.These include the citywall, gate, and barracks-citadel; a two-story palace with administrative hall; a large open-airplaza; and a monumental public "fortresstemple,"possibly combined with a temple-treasury(Dever 1974).Such an arrangementclearly bespeaks sophisticated city planning. Very nearly the same basic plan is seen in stratum VIIat Alalakh, near the mouth of the Orontes River in north Syria, and also at Ebla (see Woolley 1953:64-82; Matthiae 1984: 19-21; Gregori 1986).Many of these elements are also encountered, al-

158

AV lo m-

Canaan

Greater was

PW im

... Sir

though on a granderscale, well up into central Anatolia and over into northern Mesopotamia. These common features in urbanplanning underscorethe cultural continuum that we have alreadynoted throughout GreaterCanaan in the Middle

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

BronzeAge. Palestine may have been somewhat peripheralbut it was no isolated backwater (as Kenyonconcluded in the prestigious Cambridge Ancient History). Commercial and domestic areas also attest planning. A typical suk,

iii

laid out aroundstreets, terraces,and communal courtyards.The latter feature ovens, food storageand preparation areas,and animal shelters. Particularly noteworthy is a system of run-offareas,with plasteredand coveredsubterraneandrainsthat conducted rainwaterto several deep cisterns hewn into the bedrock. So successful was this water-storagesystem that the cisterns were periodically cleaned out and reused for centuries, down into the IronAge (Deverand others 1971: 126, 127; 1987).All these and other domestic installations point to relatively efficient planning as towns of the Middle BronzeAge grew into large and complex social units.

matic reversalof that pattern. Reurbanization,the return to town was made possible first by the life, ?%•I• .........L •,,!•; resumption of largerscale, intensive farming, then by the growth in industry and trade.Increasedagricultural production not only fed the growing concentration of population in cities but it also generatedsurpluses, stimulated exchangeof goods, and increasingly created an urban elite. Although the revolution took iJ...... place in the cities, it was fueled by the hinterland. Actual archaeological evidence for intensified agriculture is minimal, since our previous generation of biblical archaeologists had little interest in questions of subsistence and did almost no systematic collection of floral and faunal data. NeverSubsistence, Technology,and Trade more recent theless, the very location of the ecological Archaeology's to avoid Middle Bronze settlements themwhile seeking orientation, selves is ample evidence. They are of economic form determinism, any to the attention situated in well-wateredregions calls depenrightly dence of all cultures on successful along the coast, in the river valleys, environand in the hill country-always to the physical adaptation rewithin available natural and to ment rangeof extensive arable Left:This close-up of the "InnerWall"at basiDefensible Palestine's lands. Ancient sources. position and access Gezer shows 8013,"made of alternat"Glacisbrown debris from the routes to trade ing layers of tamped were, of course, faccally agrarianeconomy depended tell and virgin chalk, in the section at the of in the role tors the peasgrowth of large tell-sites, large heavily upon left. Note the steep angle of its incline. thus but the in the social ants 5017"at Gezer.The structure, primary consideration was Above: Section of "7bTower is shown clearly in the white (chalk) call what economists the might agriculturallybased subsistence upon glacis and earthen debris layers on the left. Only mode domestic the of production. economy, similar to that of the Early the stone foundation of this elaborate,multiof smallThis Bronze consisted primarily Age. And, as I have already storied structureis preserved,but it was one in structures stone the some mixed with scale of largest single-phase suggested, spatial analysis of the disagriculture, pre-RomanPalestine. The size of the fortifitances between and relationships and local crafts cottage industry, cations at Gezer and the great care and skill in trade among the three tiers in the settleshown in building them are indicative of the supplemented by sporadic level of development and organizationeviment hierarchystrongly suggests luxury items. dent in Middle BronzeAge communities, as well This economic that towns, and urban cenregime, villages, well as of the dangersthe people faced. suited to the topographyand climate ters were closely linked in a market of Palestine, had alreadybeen estab- economy, where agriculturalproducts were redistributedthrough the lished by the EarlyBronze Age, and even earlier.But such a diversified larger"centralplaces"(Kotter1986). economic strategy depends upon Among plants cultivated again stable conditions, as well as upon a were wheat and barley,probably delicate balance maintained by skill- dominant, along with cereals, ful and, to some degree, centralized legumes, and various fodders.Olives, or bazaar,not unlike those of modern planning. All this had collapsed, grapes,figs, and other fruits and Middle Easterntowns, is seen at however,in EarlyBronzeIV as vegetables were also grown and processed in various ways for home conpeople abandonedcities and towns Jericho,where two-story shopsresidences line the street coming up and revertedto pastoralism in the sumption or export. All common hinterland and the marginal and the hill from the city-gate (Kenyon species of animals had long been semiarid zones. What we see in 1957:228-232). At Gezer, several domesticated, except perhapsthe Middle Bronze I is simply the drahorse, then coming into limited use, private houses in field VI are well

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

159

The Middle BronzeAge in Palestine witnessed the introduction of a true tin-bronzemetallurgy. The result was a metal that was more malleable than that previously available, thus making it possible to shape tools and weapons into entirely new forms, ones that at the same time held a sharperedge. Left:Typicalbronzeimplements from the early part of Middle Bronze.On top are two socketed spear blades and a dagger blade; below is a notched "chisel"axhead. The spear blades were attached to a wooden shaft; later examples are longer and have a tang instead of a socket. The broad,leaf-bladed daggeris approximately17.5 centimeterslong, with cast blood-rillsdown its length and two rivet holes at the top to attach it to a wooden handle. The axhead has a shaft hole (to the left) and a notch to secure it to a handle with thongs. Right: A beautifully cast duckbill ax with welldefined socket and fenestrations. Like the other bronzepieces shown here, it was found at cAin es-Samiyeh,north of Jerusalem;this weapon, which is about 10 centimetersin height, is a refined versionof an earlier type often found from the end of the EarlyBronzeperiod. Photographscourtesy of William G. Dever.

and the camel (probablynot domesticated until around 1200 B.C.E.).

Sheep and goats were predominant, but cattle are also well attested. All were herdedboth by village farmers and by less settled pastoralnomads in the marginalzones (althoughthe latter have left few archaeological traces and have scarcely been investigated for the Middle BronzeAge, unlike EarlyBronzeIV).The University of Arizona'srecent excavation of Tell el-Hayyat, a small agricultural village in the northern Jordanvalley, has employed careful sieving and flotation to retrievefloral and faunal remains. Nearly all the aboveplants and animals are represented(Falconer and Magness-Gardiner1984). Of particularinterest is the high percentage of pig bones, which indicates that certain species of animals were intensively bredwhere local conditions were conducive. It appearsthat agriculture and herding in the Mid-

160

dle BronzeAge were highly specialized and more efficient than ever before. Pastoralhinterlands, village farmlands,and urban markets all constituted a well-integratedand stable economy that fueled the strongest continual period of urban growth up to that time in the history of Palestine. The most conspicuous changes in the material culture of the Middle BronzeAge in Palestine had already been well established before the end of the first phase, in Middle BronzeI, which I surveyedabove.These changes were not only interrelated, since urbanism was obviously an exceedingly complex, multifaceted phenomenon, but they took place relatively rapidly.So far I have described,for the most part, changing patterns of site location and new economic strategies, as cities and urbanpopulation grew.But what made these developments possible?

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

One factorwas surely a more efficient technology. Forexample, the Middle BronzeAge, unlike the EarlyBronze, is characterizedby the introduction and rapiddiffusion of true tin-bronzemetallurgy.Somewhere in Syriaand Mesopotamia in the final quarterof the third millennium

B.C.E.,

it was discovered that

the superior qualities of native arsenical copper could be duplicated by alloying copperwith up to 10 percent of tin (byconvention, 2 percent or more tin identifies "bronze").The result was weapons and tools that were more malleable and could thus be cast in entirely new forms, forms that at the same time would take and hold a sharperedge. Justbefore 2000 B.C.E.,

as recent studies have shown

(Stech, Muhly, and Maddin 1985), the new bronze technology reached Palestine; thus, with the beginning of the Middle BronzeI period, a whole new repertoireof sophisti-

The

introduction

metallurgy technology new brought and

pottery,

and

of

true

advances Middle

during forms all

of

tin-bronze in

ceramic Bronze

weapons,

tools,

mass-produced.

on the Upper Euphrates.These documents eighteen-century-B.C.E. actually describe tin tradewith two cities in northern Palestine, Dan and Hazor, known from excavations to have flourished precisely in this period (Malamat 1970).This new technology alone-the mass production of bronzes-stimulated international trade and diplomacy.It created a whole new industrial and mercantile class, as well as probablya guildsystem of craftsmen. It brought immense wealth to some, opened up new frontiers in agricultureand construction to others, and may even have helped to equip the first standing army in Palestine. Thus, we cated bronze implements appeared cannot separatetechnology from in Palestine, all probablylocally ideology. Both contributed to, and made but in imitation of Syrianpro- benefited from, the growth of urbantotypes (see Oren 1971;Dever 1975). ism. And as the Middle Bronze The implications of the bronze period progressed,so did technology. revolution must have been enorIn ceramic technology, too, there mous. Copperwas found locally, but were similar advances in Middle where did the tin come from, andhow Bronze I and II-III.Primitive, slow was it acquired?The only known potter'swheels had been used sources of tin in the ancient Near throughout the EarlyBronze Age to East were in Anatolia (beyondthe smooth and finish ceramic vessels. Caucasus Range, in modern southBut beginning in Middle BronzeI we ern Russia), in the TaurusMountains get a whole new repertoireof sophisticated pottery.The characteristi(in Turkey),or east of the Iranian modern plateau (in cally elaborate shapes and eggshellAfghanistan). We may suppose that tin from such thin wares could only have been sources was brought to Mesopofabricatedby a new technique: that tamia and then shipped to Syriaof spinning by centrifugal force on a Palestine by donkey caravan-a fast wheel. The basic forms, as well distance of more than 500 miles. as the beautiful polished and painted This is not mere speculation. Evidecoration, are clearly influenced dence for such long-distancetrade by the pottery of central and even in the Middle BronzeII period comes northern Syria (Dever 1976;Gerstenfrom several cuneiform letters found blith 1983: 59-87). A generation ago at Mari, the great Amorite city-state we might have seen in this new pot-

tery a new people, possibly Amorites from the north. Todaywe would explain change as more likely the result of advances in technology and trade, as well as of the development of new forms of social organization. The new, mass-producedpottery of Middle Bronze I in Palestine was the finest pottery ever producedin the pre-Romanperiod, and its basic forms continued to evolve steadily throughout Middle Bronze II-III,and even after (see Cole 1984).More than any other medium, this distinctive new pottery may express the new technical mastery,as well as the heightened aesthetic sensibilities, of the urban Middle Bronze Age in Palestine (see Amiran 1970:90-123). I have alreadysuggested in lookat ing the bronze implements that technology, industry,and trade are interrelated;raw materials must often be imported, and finished products need markets. International tradewas certainly a decisive factor,not only in the reurbanization of Middle Bronze Palestine but also in bringing it out of its political and cultural isolation. Tin was clearly imported via Syria, and Syrian-stylepottery is relatively abundant.Egyptianimports of the Twelfth and Thirteenth dynasties are even more conspicuous and include alabastersand faience (Sagona 1980),jewelry of semiprecious stones, and especially scarabsignetrings, which appearfor the first time in Palestine during this period and are found at nearly every Middle Bronze site. (On scarabs,see Martin 1971;Tufnell 1984;and on Egyptian

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

161

/A

Early BronzeIV vessel found at Khirbet Iskander.Photographcourtesy of Suzanne Richard.

relations generally,see Weinstein 1975).Not only was there extensive overlandexchange but Palestine participated in maritime trade for the first time. Cypriot pottery began to be imported even before the end of Middle BronzeI, and by Middle BronzeII-IIIit included several varieties of Black-on-Redand White Paintedwares.The veryend of Middle BronzeIIIwas characterizedby Monochrome, Base Ring, and Bichrome wares, as well as by "Chocolate" ware that may show Cypriot influence. (Formore, see Amiran 1970: 121-123;on the Tell el-Yehudiyeh ware, see Kaplan 1980;and on the Bichrome ware, see Epstein 1966). But what did Palestine export? We have no textual documentation from Palestine itself and little conclusive archaeologicalevidence of Palestinian objects found in neighboring lands. Workingbackward from the evidence of the subsequent Late BronzeAge, however,one can suppose that Palestine'swell-known exports to Egypthad alreadybegun earlier.These included agricultural commodities, especially grain, olive oil, and wine; cattle; timber;possibly copper;and probablyeven laborers, including slaves. Palestinian merchants and tradersalso transshipped goods overlandbetween Syriaand Egypt.A famous wall-paintingfrom a tomb at Beni Hasan of the time of

162

/-•..

Middle BronzePalestine also saw significant advances in ceramic technology Earlierpotter's wheels featured a disk-shapedstone platform with a long knob that was fitted into a socket in a stone basin. Thepotter either turned the platform with one hand and worked the pot with the other or turned the wheel intermittently and used two hands to build the pot. An improvedversion (and one still in use today) was developedin Middle Bronze.It consists of two stone wheels connected by a long shaft. The lower wheel (called a flywheel or a kick wheel) is controlled by the potter'sfeet, while the upperwheel spins fast and allows the craftsman to use both hands to work the clay into more elaborate shapes. Shown here are severalexamples of Middle Bronzepottery.The thinner,more even walls, finished bases, and elegant shapes of these vessels stand in contrast to coarserwares of the EarlyBronzeAge. Drawings by Lealan Swanson. Photographscourtesy of William G. Dever.

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

.43

.......

Amenemhet I (around 1960

interested in political history than in social history, little useful information has been collected. What evidence we do have reflects increasing social differentiation and stratification, which we should expect in an urbanized society. Middle BronzeAge tombs clearly demonstrate the existence of an elite upper class, as shown in some cases by expensive, often im(which dates to around 1750 B.C.E.) lists Asiatic slaves working in a ported, luxury goods. Thus, burials household in Upper Egypt,all bearat Gezer, Jericho,and elsewhere have Amorite ing names, many among producedgold jewelry,Egyptianalathem no doubt from Palestine. basters and scarabs,along with ivory-inlaidwooden furniture,beauSocial Structureand Political tifully carvedwooden utensilsi and other expensive items. The Jericho Organization It has been observedthat "archaecave and shaft tombs excavatedby ologists do not dig up social systems." Kenyonhad multiple, successive Perhapsnot, but these, like the other burials, with a considerable accumulation of wealth (Kenyon1957: subsystems at which we have been looking, do leave observabletraces 233-55). They are probablythe in the archaeologicalrecord-insofar burial places of rich and powerful as material culture may reflect social ruling famlies- merchants, aristoorganization as well as individual crats, possibly priests, and petty human behavior. Since earlier arprinces. (One may compare the chaeologists, however,were more recently published tombs of "The B.C.E.)

depicts a party of thirty-sevendonkey caravanners,probablynomadic traders,crossing the Sinai into Egypt. The inscription lists their Amoritestyle (WestSemitic) names and mentions one product, antimony, a compound used in making kohl, the black eye-shadowmuch favoredin Egypt for cosmetics. The Hayes Papyrus

Lordof the Goats"and "The Princess"at Ebla:Matthiae 1984). Petrie'sold "horse-burials"(orat least equids of some kind) at Tell el-cAjjul, with elaboratebronze weapons, are probablytombs of warriors,perhaps belonging to a professional military class. (Similarburials of Asiatics are also found at Tell ed-Dabcain the EgyptianDelta from the Hyksos period).By contrast, the predominant Middle Bronzeburial is that of someone from the lower classes and is a ratherpathetic affair,with adults laid in a simple cist-graveand children put into a storejarburied beneath a courtyardsurface;there are usually few, if any,gravegoods. Architectural traditions point similarly to a society of "haves"and "have-nots." Wehave alreadysuggested that the massive Middle Bronze fortifications requirednot only centralized planning and heavy taxation but possibly conscript labor. These defenses simply could not have been built by an egalitarian society or with volunteer efforts.

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

163

Above: Fish-shapedvessel, dating to around the eighteenth century B.C.E., found in a tomb at TelPoleg.Measuring11 by 19 centimeters, it is an example of Tellel-Yehudiyehware,named after the site in the Nile Delta where it was first found. This ware, which is always darkslipped and burnished, with white-filled punctureddecoration,has also been found in the Sudan, Cyprus,and as far north as Ugarit. Such a luxury product,spreadovera wide area, suggests a generaleconomic prosperityRight: Jugwith a snake handle. Measuring32 centimeters high and dating to the mid-second millennium B.C.E., it is probably an example of what SirFlindersPetrietermed "chocolate-on-white-ware," a type of pottery coveredwith a white slip, highly burnished,and decorated with a brownpainted design. Although this example lacks the painted decoration, its fine workmanshipis characteristicof the type and also suggests the tradition of excellence among pottersof the time. Photographsby David Harriscourtesy of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

Domestic architecture shows the same trend. Most private houses are simple mudbrick structures,with only a few earthen-flooredrooms;the houses are ratherclosely crowded together aroundcommunal courtyardsand narrowlanes. A few very large, multi-room structures, however, resemble "patricianvillas," such as those at Hazor,Tell Beit Mirsim, and elsewhere. Finally,we have a growingnumber of even more elaboratebuildings, such as the twostory colonnaded structure near the Northwest Gate at Shechem. These are almost certainly the palaces of local dynasts, such as the "kings"of several Palestinian city-states who are well known from the Amarna Age texts severalcenturies later. Again, the palace of Yarim-Limin stratum VIIat Alalakh in Syriaprovides a close contemporaryparallel, complete with throne and audience room, as well as palace archive.And now Eblahas produceda Middle Bronze palace, succeeding the well-

164

known Palace G and its fabulous archive of administrative documents (Matthiae 1984). Social stratification in Palestine may not have been quite as pronounced, or the wealthy as wealthy, but class structure and differential access to resources are evident; and the growth of urbanism must surely have promoted, even required,growing social inequities. The primaryquestion about political organization in the Middle BronzeAge is whether Palestine constituted a state in the true sense. We have seen in earlier installments of this series (Levy1986;Richard 1987)that the tribal level of organization typical of the Neolithic gave way to a chiefdom level in the Chalcolithic period, then to a more advanced city-state level in the Early Bronze Age. With reurbanization and the expansion of Palestine'shorizons in the Middle BronzeAge, we might expect a further evolution towardthe highly specialized form of political organizationthat we

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

characterizeas the state, which had typified both Egyptand Mesopotamia since just before 3000

B.C.E.

Given the complete absence of texts and properlyhistorical evidence from Palestine, it is difficult to be precise, but the country-wide unification, or centralized political decision-making, that essentially defines the state appearsto be entirely lacking in Middle BronzeAge Palestine. There is no evidence whatsoever, on a nationwide scale, of a single dominant city or capital; of institutionalized kingship; of centralized policy and planning;of a standing army;or, for that matter, of any distinctive ethnic consciousness as nation or people. Palestine is certainly not a primary or pristine state in the usage of social theorists; it does not even appearto be a secondary or peripheral state. Nearly all specialists would see the term state as properlydenoting not only social complexity and integration, which Palestine certainly had evolved even

..'•. ..... .: , ::::

i~~1:

L

:-i:i:•:iiil-

Partof a wall-paintingin a tomb at Beni Hasan in Egypt.Thepainting, which dates to around 1960 B.C.E.,depicts Asiatic tradersand thus is evidence for the presence of Asiatic peoples in Egyptbefore the Second Intermediate Period(at the beginning of the Middle BronzeAge).

by the EarlyBronze Age, but also centralization of power,decisionmaking, and access to resources in the hands of a nonkinship-based elite. Palestine, by contrast, remained at an intermediate level of political development, which is usually referredto as that of the city-state. Although the term city-state is frequently used, it is rarelydefined. Often the implication seems to be that while the regional urban centers each control their own hinterland, they are in turn united in a largercentralized confederationthat is, they constitute a true state. Yet there is little evidence of that in Palestine of the Middle Bronze Age. Rather,it seems to have been bound together only by what we may call a common southern Canaanite culture. Politically it probablyremained divided: each city-state enjoying quasi-independence and dominating the surrounding countryside, most likely rivalling other urban centers. I am giving, of course, a theoretical reconstruction, but such a situation of political fragmentation would provide a forerunner for the '"Amarna Age"some three to four centuries later in the Late Bronze,when we have ample textual documentation for rival citystates-most of them precisely the urban centers we see in the Middle

Bronze Age. The same situation seems to have prevailedin Syria, where we see major city-states like Ebla,Yamkhad,Alalakh, Qatna, Ugarit, and the like, but not a unified national state such as Egyptor those in Mesopotamia. Ideology,Art, and Religion The ideational and symbolic aspects of a society, particularlya preliterate society, may be difficult to read directly from the "mute"remains of material culture. As Lewis Binford reminds us, archaeologists arepoorly equipped to be "paleo-psychologists." Yet we do possess innumerable and varied artifacts from Middle Bronze Palestine that clearly had some artistic or cultic significance-however difficult they may be to interpret. Let us look first specifically at artistic production (eventhough, strictly speaking, we cannot in general separateart from religion in the ancient world).There is no representational art from Palestine in this period, and little figural art. Wehave found nothing of Egyptian-or Mesopotamian-style statuary,or indeed monumental art of any kind. In the minor arts, however,Palestine has a tradition, albeit a provincial one. The principal arts include bone and ivory carving, particularly small geometric strip inlays for wooden fur-

niture and boxes or chests (Liebowitz 1977).These were locally made, the ivory coming either from Syria (where Egyptianrecordsindicate that elephants were hunted in this period)or from wild boars of the immediate region. Most Middle Bronze sites produce these inlays, but the Jerichotombs have yielded both the inlays and the wooden furniture in an extraordinarystate of preservation (apparentlybecause Jerichowas located in a tectonic area,where gases seeping through rock fissures renderedorganic materials inert and preventeddecay). Jewelryfrom elite tombs has alreadybeen mentioned. There is relatively little gold, which was imported and prohibitively expensive; there is some silver, although usually not well preserved.The most common pieces are bead necklaces of semiprecious stones, often made of local red carnelian or the like but frequently of Egyptianfrit or faience. Scarabsfrom Middle KingdomEgypt became exceedingly common in Palestine during the Middle Bronze Age; they were mounted in signet rings and probablymeant to be both articles of adornment (that is, prestige items) and practical devices for stamping seals on documents or other pieces of personal property. These scarabsare usually of ivory

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

165

4w

, 44

or bone, carvedon the back in the shape of a dung (orscarabaeus)beetle, with either a name-formulaor merely a decorativedesign on the bottom. Many scarabsare imported and sometimes even bear the name of a well-known pharaoh,but others are local imitations and have only archaizing and often bungled decorative motifs. Mesopotamian-style cylinder seals also exist but are rare. Also of Egyptianmanufacture are a variety of alabasterand faience vessels, rangingfrom small unguentaria and cosmetic containers to largervessels (Sagona1980).These were often imitated in local calcite, an inferior material. In both cases, these vessels were probablystatus symbols, for they are relatively uncommon. Some artistic and architectural remains attest to religious practices. We have several styles of temples from the Middle BronzeAge. Large single-room fortress (migdal)temples, with exceptionally thick walls, are known from Middle BronzeIII levels at Shechem and Megiddo,with a close parallel in the temple in area D at Ebla. (On the Palestinian examples, see G. E. Wright 1965: 80-102; Dever 1974:39-48; on Ebla, see Matthiae 1984:20). These single-

166

Left:Although thereis no representational art fromMiddle BronzePalestine, and little figuralart, there was a tradition of minor arts. Among these was bone and ivory carving,particularly small geometric inlays for wooden furnitureand boxes. Shown here is a carvedivory inlay from wooden furniturefrom tombs at Jericho.FromJerichoI (London:British School of Archaeology,1960), by Kathleen Kenyon.Right: Shown here is a selection of jewelry dating to the mid-second millennium (the transition from Middle to Late Bronze)found at Tell el-cAjjul:a pendant depicting the goddess Hathor,a star pendant, an earring,and three fly amulets. The pieces found at this site, most of which came fromprivatehoards, are the finest Canaanite jewelry known and they demonstrate the high level of craftsmanshipthat had been attained. Photographby David Harriscourtesy of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums.

room temples were once thought to be a typically urban style, but now a sequence of four successive mudbrick temples of this type, on a somewhat smaller scale, has been found at the tiny village-site of Tell el-Hayydt;these temples date from Middle BronzeI to III(Falconer and Magness-Gardiner1984, 1987). Syrian-stylebipartite or tripartite temples are also found, especially

at Shechem (the prototypeof the famous temple of Solomon-Dever

1974:48). Two cultic installations are unique. The first is the so-called Canaanite high place (Hebrew ba-mah)at Nahariyeh, on the coast just north of Acco; this features a long rectangularstructure with an adjacentoutdoor stone altar where charredorganicremains were found.

?dw 7C,...... . ... ..... .., ow V.-AX,

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

do? 4??,

It 40

.A

Pr R"F

IL

Left:These three examples of scarabs found at the Middle Bronzesite at Hazor are interesting because of their often bungled hieroglyphs,which suggests either that the scarabs were made locally to supply a taste for Egyptianobjects or that they are related to the years of the Hyksos (or "foreignrulers") in Egypt.They are,in any event, clear evidence of Egyptianinfluence in Palestine in the Middle Bronzeperiod. FromHazor:The Rediscoveryof a GreatCitadel of the Bible (New York:Random House, 1975), by Yigael Yadin,courtesy of the estate of YigaelYadin. Above: This alabaster fish, dating to the midBelow left: Artist'sreconstructionof a room with Middle Bronzefurniturelike those pieces found in a tomb at Jericho.From Kenyon1957. Below: Display at Royal OntarioMuseum in Toronto,Canada, that reproducesthe scene in the reconstruction. Photographcourtesy of Louisa CurtisNgote.

Among the remains were also a number of bronze and terra-cotta female figurines, as well as the molds for making them (Dothan in Biran 1981:77). Since the Nahariyeh temple is right on the seashore, it may have been a shrine dedicated to second millennium B.C.E., was found at Tell Asherah, the consort of the Canaanful. Almost six inches long, it could el-cAjj have been used as an unguent container. This ite high-god,El; Asherah'sprinciple luxury good is of Egyptianmanufactureand epithet is 'Athiratu-yammi,"Shewho thus suggests that Egyptand Canaan engaged treads upon/subdues the sea." in trade duringMiddle Bronze.Photograph The other installation is the by David Harriscourtesy of the Israel Museums. and famous Department of Antiquities "HighPlace"at Gezer, excavated by Macalister in 1902-1909, then reclearedby the American expedition in 1968 and dated to Middle Bronze III.It consists of ten enormous stelae (standingstones) in a north-south alignment, with an asso ciated stone basin surroundedby a plasteredpavement. It was not a mortuary installation, as previously thought, but was probablyan outdoor covenant-renewalshrine, the ten stelae representingten towns in league (like the later Delphic leagues). Charredsheep and goat remains testify to animal sacrifice (Dever 1973;Dever and others 1971: 120-24). Religion in the Middle Bronze Age is also attested by severaltypes of cultic paraphernalia,found not only in temple but also in domestic contexts. Cylindrical terra-cotta stands, usually fenestratedand topped by detachablebowls, were probablyused for food and libation

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

167

mo. gq

A

B

C SVA Zt.

_

,

_

,

10GM.

Plans of Middle Bronzefortress(migdal)temples from Ebla (A),Shechem (B),and Hazor (C). This type of Canaanite temple often had a distinctive three-partorganizationthat included a courtyard,entranceway,and an inner sanctuary.It also frequentlyhad a towerin the front that may have given access to a second story.Note that A and C have a niche in the rear wall of the sanctuaryfor a statue of a deity

"REj."

d&#hAt 'R

...

?5 ?.S

The Middle Bronze"HighPlace"at Gezer (reexcavatedby the Hebrew Union College-Harvard Semitic Museum expedition in 1968)consists of ten standing stones in a north-southarrangement, with an associated stone basin surroundedby a plasteredpavement. The whole grouping was erected simultaneously and contains all the biblical elements of covenant-making: the setting up of stones to commemorate the occasion, oath-taking(the ten stones possibly representingten towns in league), blood sacrifice (possiblyrepresentedby the basin), and a covenantmeal (there were charredanimal remains found in conjunction with the stones). Photographcourtesy of William G. Dever.

Female figurines werepopularin Canaan, usually inexpensivelyproducedfrom clay. Relatively rareare examples in metal. Thus the two sheet-goldpendants shown here,part of a small hoard from a storeroomjust inside the "SouthGate"at Gezer,were a spectacular find (see the plan of "SouthGate"onpage 157). Measuring16.1 and 10 centimetersin height, they are probablyrepresentationsof Asherah, consort of the Canaanitehigh-godEl. Photograph by David Harriscourtesy of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums.

offerings,as well as for burning incense. Other clearly cultic artifacts are small terra-cottafigurines; interestingly, we have only female examples (the so-called Astarte figurines).These depict the "mother goddess"nude, en face, often with exaggeratedsexual characteristics; they are undoubtedly fertilityv figurines-that is, talismans to aid

the destruction of the "SouthGate" at Gezer; these depict in Syrian-style bas-relieftwo females, representations no doubt of Asherah. Similar reliefs are found in the Late Bronze Age, especially at Tell el-cAjjul (Seger1976). Finally,votive offerings are known. Most consist of miniatures of common ceramic forms;these are

168

women in conception, childbirth, and lactation. They may safely be connected with the veneration of Asherah, the principal Canaanite mother goddess, whose cult continued into the Late BronzeAge and was populareven in ancient Israel. The most spectacularMiddle Bronzefigurines of Canaanite deities are two sheet-goldpendants from

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

human and animal reproduction. The Ugaritic texts of the LateBronze Age give us a particularlyvivid and dramatic picture of this religion, and we may safely projectit back into the Middle BronzeAge. Certainly the temples and cult paraphernaliaof the periods are in direct continuity. Towardthe end of Middle Bronze, around 1650-1600 B.C.E.,the first

system of writing emerges in Palestine. Writingappearslate in Palestine, of course, in comparison with Mesopotamia and Egypt,but when it does appear,it marks a stunning advance.Wehave only a few fragments of these early Proto-Sinaitic or Canaanite inscriptions, but they introduce a vastly simplified alphabetic system of writing with some twenty-two characters,one that became the basis for all modern Westernwriting systems. Forthe first time in the world'shistory, literacy was within the graspof the ordinaryindividual. Beforethe turn of the present century, Sir William FlindersPetrie discoveredthe first of these so-called Proto-Sinaiticinscriptions at Serabit al-Khadem,in the western Sinai. The religious practices in Palestine during the Middle BronzeAge are suggested by this Here Asiatic slaves from Palestine so-called Astarte figurine,part of an incense were kept by the Egyptiansin the stand, found at Shechem. Such figurinesmay be connected with the venerationof Asherah, Middle Kingdom to work the turthe principal Canaanite mother goddess, and quoise mines. These miserable were usually meant as talismans to aid in slaves scrawled graffiti all aroundon conception, childbirth, and lactation. the rock surface, mostly dedicatory inscriptions specifying offerings, usually found in temple precincts, usually a lamb, to various West often at the entrance or near the Semitic deities. Especially favored were the male god, El, and his conaltar,which is characteristically located on the rearwall. Ceramic sort Bacalath/Elath,the "Serpent zoomorphic figurines are also Lady."One inscription reads,underoccasionally recoveredin connecstandably,"Omy god, rescue me tion with these votives. All these from the interior of the mine!" vessels probablysymbolize the prinThe language of these inscripcipal activity in worship:the presen- tions is Canaanite. The system of tation of food and drink offerings to writing, however, is not the cuneithe gods in their house. The Canaan- form script of Ugarit on the Syrian ite deities, well known from contem- coast, much less the Akkadian cuneiform script of Mesopotamia poraryand later texts in Syria,were with its hundreds of signs. Instead, a mostly connected with the fertility cult, and thus rites of worship were vastly simplified script is employed, bound up with the agriculturalyear one that uses only about twenty-two and its produce, as well as with signs-one for each sound, rather

Compared Egypt

or

tamia,

to

Mesopowriting

appeared

late

Palestine.

When

did

was

there

stunning the of fied

in it a

advance:

introduction a

vastly simplialphabet.

than for each idea, word, or syllable. The script developedby means of the acrophonicprinciple, and it became possible thereby for a person to write whatever he or she heard. Thus the sound b came to be representedby a much-simplified picture of a house, because the initial sound of the word for house (beth) is b. Likewise, the sound m was representedby a rendition of water,because the initial sound of the word for water (mem) is m. (See the accompanying chart for the full alphabet and equivalents; see also Albright 1966). These simple signs, with very much the same orderand even the same names, eventually evolved into the modern alphabet employed by all Westernlanguages.Borrowedby the later Hebrews from the Canaanites, it was also adoptedby the Phoenician seafarersalong the coast and thus spreadto the Greek mainland by about 1000 B.C.E.,thence to

the Romans,then to Europe,and finally to the New World.The original aleph-beth-that is, alphabetsigns remain transparentlyclear in modern signs (see the original signs for the modern letters A, Y, and M in the accompanying chart),as well as

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

169

of the Alphabet Development

The

EarlyLetter Namesand Meanings

ProtoHebrew Canaanite

oxhead

Salp

bat house

A

L

14th 131 t

0

10

17th 13th

gaml throwstick 15th 12th digg fish

|

EarlyNorthEarly westSemitic Phoenician Greek

a10th<

h6(?) mancalling St9 w6yH (waw) mace ze(n) ?

h-(t)

'

S ha() t(t)

14yad

fence?

AD

1I Y10th 16th 10th 12th Ih

hankof

yarn

spindle?

16th

10th

arm

13t

10t t

kapp palm

17th 13th

lamd ox-goad

14h 13th

?

4:3>

"

'

mtm water

15th 13th

nah?snake

14th

amk

?_T

can eye a

?

Q

) 10th

o0

lth

o(0)o

15th

pi't corner?

10th

?

C

12th 10th

?

a(d) plant

rs

1

1

?

t'

Notes: The scripts representedin Early Monu- Modem this chart are from a variety of mental English Phonetic sources and time periods. The Latin Capitals Value designation Proto-Canaanite includes the Proto-Sinaitic inscripA tions from the Serabit al-Khadem mines in the Sinai (fifteenth cenand both early and late tury B.C.E.) B b Palestinian inscriptions (seventeenth to twelfth centuries B.C.E.). g Proto-Canaaniteinscriptions were C initially written in any direction; d they have been discoveredwritten left to right, right to left, vertically, and boustrophedon.By the end of the eleventh century B.C.E.the direction of writing had become E h standardized,right to left. The chart is keyed to the modern Hebrew script and inF w cludes a number of phonemes that existed in Proto-Canaanite but were not adaptedinto Hebrew.Of z the original number of phonemes in Proto-Canaanite(27accordingto H h Albright, 29 according to Naveh), at least 5 were lost in Hebrew.The h following phonemes merged from two or more originally separate symbols: Proto-Canaanitez and d became zayin in Hebrew;h and h became bet; s,' z, and 4 merged to sade; t, ? and mergedto sin/shin; I y and g and c became cayin. One may also trace the develK k opment of the alphabetfromProtoCanaanite to English. Around the L 1 tenth century B.C.E.,the Greeks adapted the alphabet from the M Phoenicians. It spread from them m to the Romans, and ultimately to N n Europe. /V This chart is basedon those in Albright (1966)and Naveh (1982). A

0C

P

p/f

R

r

S

I/t

T

t

M

?

1th

qu(p)?

I4t headofman 16th

14th

-

1qQ

ra', composite tann bow

X+

170

t6 (taw)

owner's mark

• 13th

W

10th

4 13th

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

>

T

The MiddleKingdom(theTwelfth andThirteenthDynasties)lastedfor nearly500years.It not only revived the gloriesof the OldKingdomand the legendary"Pyramid Age,"it also carriedEgyptiancultureto new heightsandenormouslyexpanded Egyptianinfluenceandpowerabroad. Amongthe firsteffortsof the earlypharaohsof the TwelfthDynastywasthe resumptionof the old sea tradewith Byblosandthe coast (seePosener1971; Phoenician The "GezerPotsherd,"a surface find in ProtoCanaanite script. The three charactersperWeinstein1975;Dever1976).Within haps read "Caleb." a shorttime, Egyptianluxurygoods wereflowinginto Syria.The contents of the famousRoyalTombsof the localrulersat Byblos(northof in their earlier Latin, Greek, PhoemodernBeirut,on the Lebanese Ifebrew versions and nician, (Naveh coast)reflectjusthow fondthe 1982). What is of note here is that this Syrianswereof Egyptianculture. The and Byblianprincesnot only filled nearly astonishingly simple theirtreasury,andlatertheirtombs, universal writing system was the with expensiveEgyptianimports, work of some anonymous genius (or they alsowrotetheirSemiticnames perhaps a committee?) somewhere in Egyptianhieroglyphs,andeven Relations International along the Levantinecoast, probably real Palestine's As in Palestine, in the Middle Bronze alreadysuggested, adoptedthe Egyptiantitle "governor." And that is not all. Elsewherealong international connections (that is, Age (the seventeenth and sixteenth Phoenician the centuries B.C.E.).Earlyexamples of coast,in the inland beyond Syria),apartfrom sporadic well downinto Palestine, and tradewith Cyprusand Mesopotamia, centers Proto-Sinaitic (or,better, Protowere largely with Egypt.Indeed, nearlyall of the majorsites of the Canaanite)inscriptions have been renascentMiddleBronzeAgehave found at Megiddo,Shechem, BethEgyptprovidesnot only part of the stimulus for reurbanizationin Pales- producedEgyptianartifactsof the shemesh, Lachish, and elsewhere in TwelfthandThirteenthDynasties. Palestine, as well as in ancient Syria, tine but its chronology is also the basis for a fixed chronology of the all dating to the Middle and Late Amongthe most intriguingitems aresmall carved-stone Middle Bronze I-IIIperiod in Bronze Ages. One of them was also statuettes, inscribedwith the namesof a numdiscoveredat Gezer in 1929 by a visi- Syria-Palestine. In Egypt,the First Intermediate berof high-ranking tor on a field trip from the American Egyptianofficials of the earlyMiddleKingdom, School of Oriental Researchin Jeru- Period-a "darkage"there, tooended just after 2000 B.C.E..At that evenof the royalfamily.Thus,from salem and published later by the director of the school, William F.E time, the Middle Kingdomwas Syriawe haveseveralsphinxesof Twelfth under the IIIandIV,as well as of founded Amenemhet is The Gezer vigorous inscription Albright. Thesemay theirprincess-daughters. scratched on a sherd of a typical Dynasty pharaohs,who reinstated We have a few fragments of Akkadian tablets written in cuneiform (the language of North Syria and Mesopotamia).From Hazor come two tablets, one dealing with a real estate transaction, another a lexical text (Landsbergerand Tadmor1964). At Gezer, from destruction debris of Middle Bronze III,we found a fragment of the clay "envelope"of a tablet with a list of names. Most are Semitic, but one of them is clearly Hurrian,the earliest evidence we have thus far of Indo-Aryansfrom the LakeVanregion pushing down into Palestine (Deverand others 1971: 111-13).Only recently a much longer cuneiform inscription has been reportedfrom Middle Bronze levels at Hebron,with a list of sacrifices. These are but tantalizing hints of the earliest known literary tradition of Palestine, but we shall undoubtedly find more in the future.

cylindrical cult stand of the Middle Bronze Age, the three characters perhapsreadingKlb-the name "Caleb." The few texts we have just described in the local Canaanite script hardly constitute literature, and they do not give us much insight into either the history or ideology of the Middle BronzeAge. Weknow, however,that some individuals were not only literate but multilingual.

the old dynastic succession. The date of 1991 B.C.E. for the accession of Amenemhet I (the founder of the Twelfth Dynasty) is our earliest astronomically fixed date in ancient Near Easternhistory. We owe it to the Egyptians'observation of a solar eclipse and their correlation of that event (which we can date, of course, to the exact year)with the accession dates of early pharaohsof the dynasty mentioned in the King lists.

have been sent from the Egyptian court as temple gifts or, more likely, were intended to cement diplomatic and commercial relations with Syria. From Palestine, we have further evidence of international relations. At Megiddo,there was found a broken statue of one Thut-hotpe, a wellknown nomarch (orgovernor)at Hermopolis, who servedunder Amenemhet II (approximately1929and Sesostris III(approxi1895 B.C.E.)

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

171

the initial phase of the urban revival in Middle BronzeI correlateswith the renascent Twelfth Dynasty in Egypt (approximately1991-1785

mately 1878-1843 B.C.E.).His in-

scribed and decoratedtomb has been excavatedat Deir el-Bersha.What was he doing in Palestine-unless he was a commercial attach6, or even a sort of ambassador,of the Twelfth Dynasty? Another contemporary Egyptianofficial, Sebek-khu,left his stele at Abydos;it describes an Egyptian campaign to ikmm, almost certainly Shechem near Nablus, which GermanandAmerican excavations have shown to have been foundedprecisely in Middle BronzeI. Why would Egyptiansbe campaigning in northern Palestine and maintaining commercial and diplomatic relations both there and in Syria? To put it precisely, what were the TwelfthDynasty interests in Syria-Palestineand how may they have contributed towardthe urban renascence there shortly after 2000

B.C.E.).The second phase of develop-

ment and consolidation in Palestine, occurringduringMiddle BronzeII, is roughly coeval with the succeeding Thirteenth Dynasty (approximately 1785-1652 B.C.E.).The zenith of the

development of the local Canaanite culture in Middle BronzeIII (approximately 1650-1500 B.C.E.)

then coincides almost precisely with the Second IntermediatePeriod in Egypt (approximately1652-1544 B.C.E.).The latter, like the First

B.C.E.?The artifacts show, without

any doubt, that the contacts existed; they do not in themselves, however, specify the exact nature of the relationships. Again, just as they are on the beginning of the first urban era in EarlyBronzeI, archaeologists are divided. Some preferto see in the artifacts only peaceful trade relations, while others suppose that we confront an actual Egyptianempire in Syria-Palestine(see Posener 1971; Weinstein 1981;Dever 1976). We do have, however,further evidence in severalgroups of Twelfth Dynasty execration texts from Egypt. These are curse formulas, specifically mentioning dozens of places in Syria-Palestineand naming their rulers, all of whom bear distinctive West Semitic or Amorite-style names. One group of texts (the Berlin texts, so-called because of their place of publication) is inscribed on small clay statuettes of bound captives; another (the Brussels texts, which are slightly later) is inscribed on red ceramic bowls. These curious items were used in magical rites; they were deliberately smashed, and thus a hex was placed upon the enemy named on the statuette or

172

Clay figurine from Saqqaraof a captive Asiatic prince with an execration text written across it in Egyptianscript. Such figurines were smashed after the curse (execration)was written, and thus a hex was placed upon the enemy named in the text. These texts form an importantprimary source for our knowledge of Levantinepolitical developmentsfrom the Middle Bronze period because they list the names of rulers and city-states in Canaan,southern Syria, and along the Mediterraneancoast. Photographcourtesy of the Institut Royaldu PatrimoineArtistique, Brussels, Belgium.

bowl. Howeverwe may understand the motives of the Egyptiansregarding these princes, one thing is clear- Egyptianintelligence was superb.They possessed a singularly detailed knowledge of topography, local conditions, and sociopolitical organization in Syria-Palestineduring Middle BronzeI. (On the execration texts, see especially van Seters 1966;Posener 1971;Weinstein 1975). The Hyksos in Egyptand Palestine As we noted in the previous section,

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

IntermediatePeriod,is a time of collapse and disorder;external factors apparentlyplayed a part in this case, however.(On the Hyksos periods, see especially von Beckerath 1964; van Seters 1966;Redford1970;Helck 1971;Hayes 1973;Bietak 1979, 1984; Weinstein 1981;Dever 1985). Among the threats, real or perceived, to the old line of Theban rulers was the presence of increasing numbers of Asiatics in Egypt.The Asiatics-Amu, or "SandDwellers," as they were called-were alternately hated and fearedas foreigners by the xenophobic Egyptians.One famous text describes vividly the miserablehomeland of the Asiaticsfrom the Egyptianperspectiveobviously somewhere in central and southern Palestine: Lo, the wretched Asiatic

-

it goes

ill with the place where he is, afflicted with water,difficult from many trees, the ways thereof painful because of the mountains. He does not dwell in a single place, [but] his legs are made to go astray. He has been fighting [ever] since the time of Horus, [but] he does not conquer, nor yet can he be conquered. He does not announce a day in fighting, like a thief who ... for a gang. (The Instruction for King MenKa-Re; see Pritchard 1955: 416) Various groups of these West Semitic peoples from Syria and Palestine suc-

"Tutimaios.

In

his

for

reign,

what

I know

cause

not,

a

blast

of God smote us; and unexpectedly from the regions of the

East

invaders

of victory

of

against

obscure our

ceeded in penetrating the Delta in largerand largernumbers, beginning alreadyin the TwelfthandThirteenth Dynasties. By the Fifteenth Dynasty, they rose briefly to power.In the Second Intermediate Period,where the rival Sixteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties vied simultaneously for power,revealingEgypt'sweakness, a series of Asiatic kings actually ruled northern and central Egyptfor a hundredyears under the Fifteenth, or Hyksos, Dynasty. The Egyptianword for Hyksos (hk3w-h3swt) means simply "foreign ruler,"not "ShepherdKing"as formerly thought because of the supposed connection between these Asiatics and the biblical patriarchs and their migration to Egypt.But we can show that these "foreignkings" were in fact Semitic-that is, from Syria-Palestine.Fortunatelywe possess lists of the names of the six kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty; at least three of them are demonstrably West Semitic. Indeed, these kings bear typical Amorite- or Canaanitestyle names. One is called Yaqubhar, "Maythe Mountain Deity overreach"-a name that is almost identical in style and meaning to the original form of the name Jacobin the Hebrew Bible. Severalscarabsof these Hyksos kings have been found in the Middle Bronze levels of Palestinian sites. How did these Syro-Palestinian interlopers manage to seize power in Egypt-something

that never

occurredbefore or after in that supposedly inviolable country? The chauvinistic Egyptiantexts of later periods always portraythe hated

land.

marched

race

By

main

force

Hyksos as barbarianswho temporarily overranthe country. This tradition survived into the Roman period, when the Jewishhistorian Josephusdescribedthe Hyksos through Egyptianeyes thusly: Tutimaios. In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; andunexpectedly from the regions of the East invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they seized it without striking a blow; and having overpoweredthe rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razedto the groundthe temples of the gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others. Finally, they appointed as king one of their numberwhose name as Salitis; he had his seat in Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and LowerEgypt, and always leaving garrisonsbehind in the most advantageousplaces. (AgainstApion, book 1, chapter 14, line 75 and following; see Thackeray 1961) It is not surprisingthat most scholars until recently assumed a Hyksos invasion, which was thought to have been the direct cause of the dissolution of the Second Intermediate Period.But recent Austrian excavations have discoveredthe location of long-lost Avaris,frequently mentioned in the Egyptiantexts as the Hyksos capital, at Tell ed-Dabca in the Nile Delta (Bietak1979), 1984). What the excavations have

in

they

confidence seized

it."

brought to light is fascinating:a large settlement that was founded about 1900-1800 B.C.E.,with domestic and

temple architecture,pottery, metal implements, and burial customs almost identical to those of Palestinian Middle BronzeI. The population and material culture of Avariswere, then, clearly Canaanite. Furthermore, the settlement is pre-Hyksosfounded in the late Twelfth or early Thirteenth Dynasty-and it is the result not of a sudden military invasion but ratherof a long, relatively peaceful process of colonization (for this reinterpretation,see Dever 1985, contra Bietak).Thus Asiatics had long been settled in the Delta. Their takeoverof Egyptunder the Fifteenth, or Hyksos, Dynasty, after some 250 years, was more the result than the cause of the collapse of central authority in the Second Intermediate Period.Already acculturated,and having a largepowerbase in the local Canaanite population of the Delta at Avarisand elsewhere, the Asiatic pretendersto the throne probablysimply took advantageof internal weakness and seized power in a lightning coup. The Hyksos remained in control of a good portion of Egyptfor a hundredyears, until the kings of the late Seventeenth and the early Eighteenth Dynasties succeeded in reuniting Egyptand expelling them, ultimately driving them back into Palestine and Syria.This is where the fortifications described above came into play. My interpretationof the data, including the new evidence from Tell ed-Dabca,is somewhat contro-

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

173

turies thereafter.Kamose'sbrother Ahmose, founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the New Kingdom,continued these campaigns against the Hyksos, as subsequent pharaohsdid well down into the fifteenth century B.C.E..Several Egyptian texts detail

III on the walls of a temple at Karnak,from the first years of Victoryinscription of T7bthmosis the revivalof the EighteenthDynasty pharaohs. T7bthmosis III is depicted holding Asiatic enemies by their hair, a common conventionin Egyptianart to show the subjection of foreign enemies to the king. The successful reestablishment of Egyptianhegemony in the Delta meant the expulsion of the hated Hyksos, or "foreignrulers."

versial. If I am correct, however,then we have for the first time a rational explanation for the enigmatic Palestinian defenses, which attained their maximum buildup in Middle Bronze III, 1650-1550 B.C.E.-preciselythe time of the Hyksos period in Egypt. The Palestinian city-states constituted the powerbase for the Asiatic expansion in the Delta. They were the heartland of Canaanite culture, which sustained and supplied the colonies in Egypt.The Palestinian sites were heavily defendednot against the rival city-states of the local regions but ratheragainst the possibility of a forcedretreat and Egyptianretaliation. This eventuality became more and more a concern late in the period, as Asiatic rulers pushed their power to its limits in Egypt.In time, what was fearedhappened.The fortifications were needed but they failed. The end of the Second Intermediate Periodand Hyksos rule came around 1540 B.C.E., when

Kamose, the last pharaohof the Theban Seventeenth Dynasty, re-

174

asserted himself. A well-known text describes the pharaoh'swar council: His majesty spoke in his palace to the council of nobles who were in his retinue: "Letme understandwhat this strength of mine is for! [One]prince is in Avaris,another is in Ethiopia, and [here]I sit associated with an Asiatic and a Negro! Each man has his slice of this Egypt, dividing up the land with me. I cannot pass by him as far as Memphis, the waters of Egypt, [but],behold, he has Hermopolis. No man can settle down, being despoiled by the imposts of the Asiatics. I will grapple with him, that I may cut open his belly! My wish is to save Egyptand to smite the Asiatics!" (The WarAgainst the Hyksos; see Pritchard1955:232) Other texts recount that, as they pushed north, the Egyptiansbesieged Avarisand destroyedit, and the excavations at Tell ed-DabCareveal that the site was burned around 1540 B.C.E. and lay destroyedfor cen-

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

military campaignsagainst a number of sites in Palestine and into Syria as far as the Upper Euphrates,mentioning specific sites by name. The most explicit text is the victory account of Tuthmosis III,found inscribed on the walls of the greattemple of Amun at Karnak(nearmodern Luxor).It lists dozens of identifiable sites in Palestine and Syria,which the pharaoh claims to have taken on his famous first Asiatic campaign, around 1482 B.C.E. Latertexts document almost annual campaigns of the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs, down to the time of Tuthmosis IV at the end of the fifteenth century B.C.E.(Weinstein 1981; Dever 1985).

Some historians still dismiss these Egyptianstexts, which were popularfor centuries, as propaganda (see Shea 1979;Redford1979),as a bombastic attempt to focus blame for the Second Intermediateinterregnum on the Asiatics, and also an idle boast of Egyptiantriumph over them. But the fact is that every single Middle BronzeIIIsite excavatedthus far in Palestine shows one or more destructions precisely between about 1550 and 1480 B.C.E.--so devas-

tating that most sites were abandoned for a generation or more thereafter,well into Late BronzeI. Shechem sufferedthree destructions in rapidsuccession in the Northwest Gate area, leaving heaps of burned mudbrick that are still visible on the mound's surface today. Gezer is a parade example, and also one of the most closely dated destructions. The "South Gate," "Inner Wall,"and massive "Tower 5017" were violently burned and so badly damaged that they were never rebuilt. Inside the gate, houses were found filled with up to six feet of destruction debris. Among the smashed pottery and

stone implements on the floors was the crushed body of a young woman in her twenties; she had apparently returnedto retrievethe gold deity pendants discussed abovebut was killed when the burning roof fell on her. It is likely that we can date the destruction during Middle BronzeIII at Gezer precisely to the spring of 1482

B.C.E.,

among the latest in

Palestine. It would thus be connected with the first Asiatic campaign of Tuthmosis III,on his way to the famous battle at the Megiddo pass in that year.This campaign is recordedin detail on the wall of the great temple at Karnak,and Gezer is specifically mentioned as one of the sites taken (Deverand others 1971: 102, 103; 1974; Seger 1975, 1976). Not even the smaller Palestinian forts of two to three acres escaped this long series of Egyptiancampaigns, as shown by the recent excavation of Tel Mevorakhon the coast. It is irresistible to connect these violent destructions in Palestine with the campaigns that the Egyptian texts describe following the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Delta. The Middle Bronze IIIsites in Palestine were at their absolute zenith, climaxing nearly 500 years of steady,peaceful, urban development. They were not only heavily fortified but also more populous and prosperousthan they would be until the Roman period. They exhibited the maturity of the long, homogeneous Canaanite culture in Palestine. It is unlikely that these citystates suddenly turned on each other and destroyedthemselves in little more than a generation. It is also unlikely that the foe came from the north, for most of the rival urban centers in Syria had already been destroyed (like Ebla) by the Hittite advance around 1600 B.C.E.A far more plausible explanation for the devastation in Palestine, as several scholars have suggested recently, would be the Egyptians' vengeful pursuit of the Hyksos as they retreated to their homeland and made

Bietak,M. a last, unsuccessful stand at the 1979 Avarisand Piramesse. fortified sites there (see Weinstein ArchaeologicalExplorationin the 1981;Dever 1985).It was this evenEasternNile Delta. London:The tuality that had been anticipated all BritishAcademy. 1984 Problemsof Middle BronzeAge along and that had no doubt motivated the augmentation, if not the Chronology:New Evidencefrom American Journalof Egypt. of these enormous construction, 88: 471-85. Archaeology Middle Bronze I-III defenses. With Biran,A. that came the end of the second, bril1984 The Triple-ArchedGate of Laishat liant urban era in ancient Palestine. Tel Dan. Israel ExplorationJournal

Conclusion It would be a generation or so after the Middle Bronze destructions before Palestine would recover. Many sites were abandonedfor a generation or more, until the Late Bronze IBperiod (approximately 1450-1400 B.C.E.).Those that were

reoccupied were shadows of their former selves, depopulatedand impoverished,until full recovery finally came in the Late BronzeII period, under Egyptianhegemony (approximately 1400-1200 B.C.E.). The cycle with which we began our story-the periodic rise, collapse, and renascence of civilization-had come full circle again. And this time Palestine would not regainher former degree of urbanization until the Classical era, many centuries later.

Bibliography Albright,W.F. 1940 Fromthe StoneAge to Christianity. Baltimore:JohnsHopkins University Press. 1964 The Eighteenth-CenturyPrincess of Byblosand the Chronologyof Middle Bronze.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 176:38-46. 1966 The Proto-SinaiticInscriptionsand their Decipherment. Harvard Theological Studies 22. Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversity Press. Amiran, R. 1970 Ancient Potteryof the Holy Land. New Brunswick,NJ:Rutgers University Press. Beckerath,J.von 1964 Untersuchungenzur Politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Agypten. AgyptologischeForschungen23. Glhickstadt:J.J.Augustin.

34:1-19. Biran,A., editor 1981 Templesand High Places. Jerusalem: HebrewUnion College. Broshi,M., and Gophna,R. 1986 Middle BronzeAge IIPalestine.Its Settlement and Population.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research261: 73-90. Buccellati, G. 1966 TheAmorites of the Ur III Period. Naples: Institute of Near Eastern Studies. Cole, D. P. 1984 Shechem I. The Middle BronzeIIB Pottery.WinonaLake,IN: American Schools of Oriental Research. Dever,W.G. 1973 The Gezer Fortificationsand the "HighPlace":An Illustrationof StratigraphicMethods and Problems. Palestine Exploration Quarterly105:61-70. 1974 The MB II Stratificationin the Northwest Gate Area of Shechem. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research216:31-52. 1975 MB IIACemeteries at CAinesSamiyehand Sinjil. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research217: 23-36. 1976 The Beginningof the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine.Pp.3-38 in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memoryof G. Ernest Wright,edited by E M. Cross, E. W. Lemke,and P.D. Miller. Garden City, NY Doubleday. 1977 Palestine in the SecondMillennium BCE:The ArchaeologicalPicture. Pp. 70-120 in Israelite and Judean

History,edited by J.M. Miller and J. H. Hayes. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1980

New Vistas on the "EB I" lV-MB Horizon in Syria-Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237: 31-59. 1981 The Impact of the "New Archaeology" on Syro-Palestinian Archaeology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 242: 15-29.

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

175

1985 RelationsBetween Syria-Palestine and Egyptin the "Hyksos"Period. Pp.69-87 in Palestine in the Bronze and IronAges: Papersin Honourof Olga Tuifnell,edited by J.N. Tubb. London:Institute of Archaeology. 1987 The Collapse of the UrbanEarly BronzeAge in Palestine:Towarda Systemic Analysis. Forthcomingin L'urbanizationde la Palestine a l'6ge du BronzeAncien, edited by P.de Miroschedji.Jerusalem:Centre de RechercheFrancaisde J6rusalem. W Dever, G., and others 1971 FurtherExcavationsat Gezer, 1967-71. The Biblical Archaeologist 34: 94-132. 1974 GezerII. Reportof the 1967-71 Seasons in Fields I and II. Jerusalem:HebrewUnion College. 1987 GezerIV The 1969-71 Seasons in Field VI, the 'Acropolis." Jerusalem: HebrewUnion College. Epstein,C. 1966 Palestinian BichromePottery. Leiden:Brill. B. Falconer,S., and Magness-Gardiner, 1984 PreliminaryReportof the First Season of the Tell el-HayyatProject. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research255: 49-74. 1987 Tell el-Hayyat.Archaeologyof Jordan,volume 2, edited by J.BHennessey and D. Hombs-Fredericq. Brussels:FoundationG. Dossin. Gerstenblith,P. 1980 A Reassessmentof the Beginningof the Middle BronzeAge in SyriaPalestine.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research237: 65-84. 1983 The Levantat the Beginningof the Middle BronzeAge. WinonaLake, IN: American Schools of Oriental Research. Gophna,R. 1984 The Settlement Landscapeof Palestine in the EarlyBronzeAge II-IIIand Middle BronzeAge II. Israel ExplorationJournal34: 20-31. Gregori,B. "Three-Entrance" City-gates of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria and Palestine. Levant 18: 83-102. Hayes, W. C. 1973 Egypt: From the Death of Amenemes III to Seqenenre II. Pp. 42-76 in Cambridge Ancient History, third revised edition, volume 2, part 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helck, W. 1971 Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien in 3. and 2. Jahrtausend V Chr. 2. Wiesbaden: O. Harassowitz. 1986

176

Kaplan,M. 1980 The Origin and Distribution of Tell el-YehudiyehWare.G6teborg:Paul Astrom. Kempinski,A. 1983 Syrienund Palistina (Kanaan)in der letzten Phase der Mittlebronze IIB-Zeit (1650-1570 v. Chr.). Wiesbaden:Otto Harrassowitz. Kenyon,K. M. 1957 Digging Up Jericho.London:Ernest Benn. 1973 Palestine in the Middle BronzeAge. Pp. 77-116 in CambridgeAncient History,third revisededition, volume 2, part 1. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Klengel,H. 1969 Geschichte Syriensim 2. Jahrtausendvor unser Zeit, II. Historische Geographieund Allegemeine Darstellung.Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Kochavi,M., and Beck, P. 1976 Aphek-Antipatris,1972-1973. Tel Aviv:Institute of Archaeology. [reprintedfrom TelAviv 2 (1975): 17-42, 45-85]. Kochavi,M., and others 1979 Aphek-Antipatris,Tel Poleg,Tel Zeror,and Tel Burga:FourFortified Sites of the Middle BronzeAge IIA in the SharonPlain. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins95: 121-65. Kotter,W, 1986 Spatial Aspects of the Urban Development of Palestine During the Middle BronzeAge. Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation, University of Arizona. Kupper,J.-R. 1973 Northern Mesopotamiaand Syria. Pp. 1-39 in CambridgeAncient History,third revisededition, volume 2, part 1. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Landsberger,B., and Tadmor,H. 1964 Fragmentsof Clay LiverModels from Hazor.IsraelExploration Journal14:201-18. Levy,T. E. The Chalcolithic Period. Biblical Archaeologist 49: 83-109. Liebowitz, H. A. 1977 Bone and Ivory Inlay from Syria and Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 27: 89-97. 1986

Luke,J.T. 1965

Pastoralism and Politics in the Mari Period: A Reexamination of the Character and Political Significance of the Major West Semitic Tribal Groups on the Middle Euphrates, ca. 1828-1758 B.C. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

Michigan. Mabry,J. 1986 The Canaanite Countryside.Unpublished manuscript,University of Arizona. Malamat,A. 1970 NorthernCanaanand the Mari Texts.Pp. 164-77 in Near Eastern Archaeologyin the TWentieth Century,edited by J.A. Sanders. GardenCity, NY:Doubleday. Matthiae,P. 1981 Ebla:An EmpireRediscovered. GardenCity, NY:Doubleday. 1984 New Discoveries at Ebla:the Excavationof the WesternPalaceand the RoyalNecropolis of the Amorite Period.Biblical Archaeologist47: 18-32. Martin,G. T 1971 EgyptianAdministrative and Private-nameSeals. Principallyof the Middle Kingdomand Second Intermediate Period.Oxford:Oxford University Press. Mazar,B. 1968 The Middle BronzeAge in Palestine. Israel ExplorationJournal18:65-97. 1970 Canaanin the PatriarchalAge. Pp. 169-88 in The WorldHistory of the Jewish People, Volume2. Patriarchs, edited by B.Mazar.Tel-Aviv: MassadaPublishingCompany. Naumann, R. 1971 ArchitekturKleinasiens, second edition. Tiubingen:E. Wasmuth. Naveh, J. 1982 EarlyHistory of the Alphabet, An Introductionto WestSemitic Epigraphyand Paleography. Jerusalem:MagnessPress. Oren,E. D. 1971 A Middle BronzeAge I WarriorTomb at Beth-shan.Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins89: 109-39. Parr,P.J. 1968 The Originof the Rampart Fortificationsof Middle BronzeAge Palestine and Syria.Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palistina-Vereins84: 18-45. Posener, G. 1971 Syria and Palestine C. 2160-1780 B.C.: Relations with Egypt. Pp. 532-66 in Cambridge Ancient History, third revised edition, volume 1, part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pritchard, J. B., editor 1955 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Redford, D. B. 1970 The Hyksos Invasion in History and Tradition. Orientalia 39: 2-51.

1979 A Gate Inscriptionfrom Karnakand EgyptianInvolvementin Western Asia During the EarlyEighteenth Dynasty.Journalof the American Oriental Society 99: 270-87. Richard,S. 1987 The EarlyBronzeAge:The Rise and Collapse of Urbanism. Biblical Archaeologist 50: 22-43. Sagona,A. C. 1980 Middle BronzeFaienceVessels from Palestine.Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina-Vereins96: 101-20. Seger,J.D. 1974 The Middle IICDate of the East Gate at Shechem. Levant6: 117-30. 1975 The MB IIFortificationsat Schechem and Gezer-A Hyksos Retrospective.Eretz-Israel12:34-45. 1976 Reflections on the Gold Hoardfrom Gezer. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research221: 133-40. Seters,J.van 1966 The Hyksos:A New Investigation. New Haven:YaleUniversity Press. Shea, W, 1979 The Conquests of Sharuhenand MegiddoReconsidered.Israel ExplorationJournal29: 1-5. Stech, T., Muhly,J.D., and Maddin,R. 1985 MetallurgicalStudies on Artifacts from the TombNear CEnan.CAtiqot 17:73-82. Thackeray,H. St. J.,translator 1961 JosephusI. The Life.Against Apion. Cambridge,MA, and London: HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Tocci, E M. 1960 La Siria nell'eta di Mari. Rome: University of Rome. Tubb,J.N. 1983 The MB IIAPeriodin Palestine:Its Relationshipwith Syriaand Its Origin. Levant 15:49-82. Tufnell,O. 1984 Studies on ScarabSeals II. Scarab Seals and Their Contribution to History in the EarlySecond Millennium B.C.Warminster:Aris & Phillips. Ward, W. A. 1961 Egypt and the East Mediterranean in the Early Second Millennium B. C. Orientalia 30: 22-45, 129-55. 1971 Egypt and the East Mediterranean World 2200-1900 B.C. Beirut: American University of Beirut. Weinstein, J. 1975 Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 217: 1-16. 1981 The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment. Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research241: 1-28. Woolley,L. 1953 A ForgottenKingdom.Baltimore: Penguin Books. Wright,G. E. 1965 Shechem. The Biographyof a Biblical City. New York:McGraw-Hill. 1971 The Archaeologyof Palestine from the Neolithic throughthe Middle BronzeAge. Journalof the American Oriental Society 91: 276-93. Wright,G. R. H. 1968 Tell el-Yehudiyehand the Glacis. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PaldstinaVereins84: 1-17. Yadin,Y 1955 Hyksos Fortificationsand the BatteringRam. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 137:23-32. 1973 The Tell Beit Mirsim G-FAlleged Fortifications.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 212: 23-25. 1978 The Nature of Settlement in the Middle BronzeAge IIAand the Problemof the Aphek Fortifications. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalistinaVereins94: 1-23.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCHOLARS TOURSNOTED 1988 TOURS THAILAND/BURMA Jan. & Nov.; F. K. Lehman,U. of Illinois EGYPT Feb. & Nov. Dr. RobertBianchi,TheBrooklynMuseum GUATEMALA March CAVES & CASTLES June Prof. NormanTotten,BentleyCollege INDONESIA March& August Prof. WilliamCollins,U. of C, Berkeley Prof. RobertHefner,BostonU. TREASURES OF BYZANTIUM April Dr. RobertBianchi,The BrooklynMuseum SICILY May Prof.WilliamBiers,U. of Missouri ANATOLIAN TURKEY May& Sept. EASTERN TURKEY June Zohar,HebrewU. Mattanya ETRUSCAN ITALY May Prof. Nancyde Grummond, FloridaSt. U. PERU May Prof. AndrewMiracle,TexasChristian U. CHINA AncientCapitals May, June & October China& Tibet August Silk Route September CYPRUS/RHODES & CRETE October Zohar,HebrewU. Mattanya

4ISRAEL October Prof. E. Oren,Ben-Gurion U.

tours archaeological 30 East42 Street Suite1202J SNew

York,NY 10017 212-986-3054

in Israel Adventures Archaeological A PracticalGuide by ArnoldJ. Flegenheimer RoslynHeights) (RothPublishing,

Paperback:$9.95 (will)encourageandreassureotherswho may be thinkingaboutthe possibilityof diggingin the landof the Bible... conveysthe kindsof detailseitherignoredor assumedin the standard manuals... (in an) informalstyle (fromthe prefaceby PhilipJ. King,Professor of BiblicalStudies,Boston College,and former Presidentof the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research)

Please send me copies of Archaeological Adventuresin Israel. Enclosedis a checkfor $ to coverthe cost of the book, handlingand shippingcharges.* *Handlingand shippingcharges $1.60 for single copies, $3.00 for 2 to 5 copies. For largerorders, pleaseenquire. Please make checks payable to UB Foundation,and remit to Chair, Departmentof Classics, SUNYAB, Buffalo, New York 14260

Name (pleaseprint) Street 0 City

State

Zip

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

4

177

L onihLa

But they

shall sit every person under his vine and his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid (Micah 4:4) 178

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

The SubsitenceSt Israel arly by DavidC

Hopkins

highlands of Canaan was limited by certain environmental constraints, lands of Canaanwere the heart- especially the availability of water. land of what would become But this limitation was offset by the the Israelite nation-state. What was presence of certain technologies, life like for the first Israelite settlers such as techniques of cistern conin this region?Until recently, the struction, terracebuilding, and the debate about the characterof the knowledge of surface-waterpropersettlement process-whether it ties. These technologies, however, occurredby means of conquest, independed in turn on economic feasifiltration, or a peasant revolt (see bility. In Iron Age Israel this ecoFritz 1987)-has usually diverted nomic feasibility was mostly a matter attention from this question. Now, of labor supply, and thus we arriveat however,a few portraits of the life of the demographicfactor.The relathese settlers have begun to appear tionship between population and Ben-Tor labor supply is clear but not straight1983; 1985; Stager (Callaway Yet our of the All sorts of factors can inforward. understanding 1979). struggle for agriculturalsubsistence, fluence how much work a given the most basic level of life for the population will accept, so that even settlers of the highlands, remains the simplest measure of how many indistinct. What were the hands might be availableto hew cislargely that faced the ancient terns and construct terraces is eluchallenges Israelite farming families? How sive. Students of the period are left ddidthey grow enough food to wondering whether at one time there survive?Answering such ques- were enough hands to keep the growtions will providea new per- ing number of mouths fed and from which to view whether at another time there were Sspective issues surroundingthe emer- enough lands to keep the growing number of hands occupied. This ingence of Israel. To conjureup the world of the terrelatedness can be daunting, but Israelite farmersof the early Iron it is only by interpretingthe emergAge, one must recognize the coming data on the environment, popuplexity of agriculturalsystems, even lation, and technology in a holistic fashion that the world of the early among the preindustrialcommunities of the ancient world. Agriculture Iron Age settlers of the highlands is affectedby many variables:crop becomes clear. types, length of growing season, water resources,kinds of impleEnvironment What was the nature of the environments, types of land use, and forms of economic organization,to name ment that faced the settlers of the but a few. In general, these can be early IronAge? Archaeologists are classified as environmental, demousing a variety of scientific analyses of data unearthed in their excavagraphic,and technological factors. The interrelatednessof these tions to answer this question. These n the Iron early Age, beginning around 1200 B.C.E., the high-

I

The nutritional value of the sugar-richfig and its leisurely harvest timetable made it an important item in the biblical world.

factors bears emphasizing. For instance, it is clear that farming in the

analyses include the studies of sediments (geology), of tree and plant

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

179

~.

....... ..

~

The present state of the hills surroundingShiloh makes reconstructionof the soil profile of the early IronAge difficult. It is certain, however,that the highland settlers found a much richer landscape than that shown here, which has been denuded by radical deforestation. Note the natural rock terracesthat have thus been exposed;present-dayfarmerssometimes use these as the basis for the construction of agriculturalterraces.(Unless otherwise indicated, all photographsare courtesy of the author.)

remains (paleobotany),and of pollen grains (palynology).Evenwith these new methods, however,any reconstruction we may wish to make must remain tentative. Forexample, only limited areas of Palestine are suited for pollen preservation;thus palynological studies have offered only minimal help. The data do record,though, the decline of treepollen percentages-which presumably parallels the expansion of settlement-from even before the historical period (Horowitz 1971; VanZiest and Bottema 1982: 283-84). Other studies have provedmore fruitful. Liphshitz and Waisel (1980, and previous articles cited there) have identified plant remains recoveredfrom stratified contexts from a variety of sites. These plant species invariablyoccupy the same regions today,albeit in greatly reduced numbers. In this way, their study has providedfurther evidence for the continuity of the composition of vegetation of the highlands. By inference, this paleobotanicalwork also testifies to a continuity of the climate. This conclusion in turn grantsauthority to the use of presentday climatological data to portray the ancient situation. Thus, farmers

180

of the highlands could probably count on the same propitious temperaturesknown today in Palestine but would also have to contend with the same desiccating seasonality and variableprecipitation patterns. Some analysts offer more dramatic conclusions, such as a greatly expandedwinter wet season for early historical times. These ideas, however, are too tenuous to play a part in historical reconstruction. Progressin the study of paleosediments, especially in the drier valleys of the south, may allow a more reliable reconstruction of the relative humidity and aridity of particular periods (Rosen 1986:263). Yet even this data cannot be used in a heavy-handedmanner. Means for recoveringthe absolute state of the ancient environment do not exist, and the role of humans in altering the landscape cannot be neglected. Until the potential of paleobotanical, palynological, and geomorphological study is fulfilled, more exacting determinations of the state of the climate and vegetational cover of the highlands duringthe early Iron Age will not be possible. Yet enough is known to correct the more-or-less romantic portraits of settlement life that have often pictured Israel'san-

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

.......

'RNP11. ....... ONO-...

cestors as woodsmen wielding axes to open up life-space for themselves in previously unoccupied areas. While this picture of a densely forested landscape serves well in overcoming our images of today'sbarren, denuded landscape, forest clearing was not a key activity in the settlement of the highlands. The original vegetation of the areawas never the dense forest with little underbrush in the mold of the Grimm'sfairy tales. Rather,evergreenoaks and deciduous terebinths were scattered among an often dense thicket of tall shrubsknown as maquis. By the early IronAge the forest and maquis were alreadydeclining as a result of both previous sedentary occupation (in

Galilean vegetation is dominated by the evergreen oak. This present-dayforest and maquis in western upperGalilee may reflect the nature and state of the forest coverof the early IronAge beforedenudation by successive generationsof clearing and cutting for firewood.

40k•

• !ili•!i•low

4m

4,k

••~% • ii!iii,!iii•i!•

Early Iron Age ExcavatedSite IzbetSarta TelHarashim Giloh TellIsdar KhirbetRaddana Beth-zur TellQiri Ai Shiloh Tellen-Nasbeh TellBeitMirsim TelMasos Hazor

Size in Hectares 0.40 0.45-0.50 0.50-0.70 0.78 0.80 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.80a 3.00 4.50 6.10b

Notes:aEstimate basedon IronIIsize. bEstimate.

the EarlyBronze Age) and the activities of nonsedentary exploiters who wielded fire as a tool to improvepastures and flush game. In the hands of the early Iron Age settlers of the highlands, fire probablyalso played a much more significant land-clearing role than the ax. In any case, in preparingthe predominantly terrarossa fields of the highlands for farming, the settlers faced a more arduous task than felling trees: removing stumps and roots. A field opened to the sun and rain through burning or other methods of deadening trees, however,would have initially been planted aroundthe denuded trunks. The readily plowable field only emerged over a period of time among

these technologically simpler farming communities. Demographics Demographyis perhapsthe most neglected area of the historical study of the biblical world. Evidence is limited and, as appliedto the ancient highlands, demographicscience remains rudimentary.That the highlands of the early Iron Age experienced a massive increase in population and a radicalalteration of settlement patterns stands, nevertheless, as a fact unquestioned by any side in the debate about the settlement period. As the mapping and excavation of these settlements proceed, more precise demographiccalculations will be possible. Already, severalhighlights of the changing population landscape stand out. The dominant feature of this landscape is the dispersedpattern of small settlements, variously situated in environments that span the scale of agriculturalfeasibility. Stager(1985: 3) has calculated that the average size of the early IronAge site was less than 2 hectares (approximately 5 acres).That the median size rests below this figure is readily apparent in the survey data (Stager1985:table 1)and is further suggested by the clustering of the sizes of excavated sites at the low end of the scale. From the geological and ecological

standpoint, the locations of these sites lack the homogeneity often attributed to them (see, for example, Callaway 1985:33). Their locations are diverse with respect to agricultural conditions, defensive possibilities, and communications routes. Most of these sites were newly founded in the early IronAge, but many were resettlements. Thus the early IronAge settlement boom involved both opening new areas and reclaiming previously settled villages. Recognizing this fact helps to brighten the portrait of the environmental conditions of the early Iron Age expansion of settlement. Many of the sites of this dramatic surge of occupation were at marginal locations where previous highlanders had chosen not to settle. They are sites with a limited access to fresh water and a ruggedtopographyoffering little bottomland. The zone of human occupation was expandedat Giloh, Tell Isdar,and Izbet Sarta,all newly founded sites with limited subsistence potential. Settlement was renewed at sites such as Ai-that offeredessentially unfavorableagriculturalconditions. But a largepercentageof sites offered much better agriculturalcircumstances; these were close to springs, situated on slopes at the edge of basins of colluvial soils, or nestled on hills astride fairly level small plateaus. On this side of the ledger renewed settlement at KhirbetSasa, Hazor, Tell en-Nasbeh, and Shiloh found good environmental conditions. The founding settlers of Tel Masos andTelHarashim (atthe end of the Peqi'invalley, which runs southeasterly) also encountered favorable circumstances for farming. Fourunexcavatedsites from the central highlands, at which surveyorsfound pottery of the earliest phase of the Iron Age (Kochavi1972: 154),are worthy

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

181

.

Ifin

.. . . - . . . ..

.

.

.

.................

ALA fig,

-

.

.?? kg, ......

.

. .

. .... I......MO.. 1.

..... ...... Based on the data collected in David Dorsey'sforthcomingcatalogue of IronAge sites, this pie chart shows the relative proportions of: (A)sites occupied exclusively in Iron I (total represented,57);(B)sites occupied, although not necessarily continuously,in both IronI and II (total represented,253); and (C)sites occupied exclusively in IronII (total represented,309). Of the two periods, Iron II representsthe most dramatic expansion of the habitable zone of the highlands. Note that out of the total number of Iron I sites, about 20 percent (57 of 310)saw no occupation at all in IronII.

In the early IronAge the highlands of Canaan experienceda largeincrease in population. Although this was expressedmainly in the founding of new sites (such as Giloh, TelIsdar,and Izbet $arta),there are also many examples of resettlement-sometimes at sites where the subsistence potential was limited (forinstance, Ai) but mostly at sites where agriculturalconditions were favorable(forinstance, Hazor,Shiloh, and Tellen-Nasbeh).Shown here is Khirbet Sasa, anotherresettlement site that offeredrich agriculturalconditions.

furnished room for 3 or 4 occupants, while the households at Tel Masos were somewhat larger.The small size of these families is conspicuous and testifies to the settlers' demographicdilemma. What few demographicstatistics are availablefor the ancient eastern Mediterranean confirm this perceptionof instability. In of notice in this respect:KhirbetIbn analyzing cemetery populations Nasir, sitting abovethe valleys east of from Greece in the early Iron Age, Shechem; Tel Abu Zarad,a renewed Angel found 4.1 births, but only 1.9 survivors,per female (1972:94-95, occupation of a well-wateredtell situated equidistant from Shechem 97). Under these conditions even the extended family (bet -ab),such as and Shiloh, about 10 kilometers west of the north-south highway; might be evidenced archaeologically Khirbeter-Rafid,at the southern by the house clusters at Ai and Radedge of the Shiloh valley; and Ras et- dana (Stager1985: 18),would be hard-pressedto achieve stability Tahuneh,near KhirbetRaddanaon the north-south highway that runs through increased household size. across one of the least dissected por- How many extended families reached tions of the Bethel Hills. These sites the proportionsof the ancestral family of Jacobis difficult to say providedsettlers with agricultural than better markedly opportunities (Genesis 46:8-27); presumably,high those often associated with early mortality rates often kept their numbers low. Thus, periodically, IronAge settlements. a thriving bet 'abwould lose its The domestic architectureof breadthand be returned,de facto, to these small sites offers a dramatic indicator of the nature of the life led a nuclear family, probablyunable to fend for itself agriculturally. by their inhabitants. The familiar four-roomhouse is a strikingly small Composed of such small and inherently unstable units, the populastructure, one that could only have tions of the small sites that peppered been occupied by a nuclear family. Basedupon a cross-culturallyderived the landscape of the early IronAge estimate of per person space allothighlands never mounted very high. If Ai with its densely packed houses ments, houses at Ai and Raddana

182

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

is taken as typical, then early Iron Age villages boasted no more than 200 to 300 individuals. This fact gives rise to an important paradoxof the highlands settlement boom. Communities that were collectively part of a tremendous surge in population were beset by many problems arising from not having enough people. The demographicrealities faced by individual families and villages are easily overlookedin contemplating the transformationof the settlement landscape of the highlands, but they likely constituted the most severe constraint faced by the settlers themselves. The facts of domestic demographicsand the small sizes of the early IronAge villages make it easy to understand why so many failed to develop. Coupled with the growing centralization and urbanization associated with the emergence of the monarchy, the dismal realities of reproduction help to explain the abandonmentof so many sites after a few generations (Mazar1981:33). Technology In outlining the technological level in the highlands duringthe early Iron Age, scholars have ordinarilyfocused on tools and the processes for making them, as well as on various agricultural and construction techniques.

MWINI .

RON

War,

W

so -bt ?! MR.. OV, Il? 1: ffla..?n. Olt:

It

W.

YVI:

M."

RE.

N

A'?

a

o:

ft

X-M

MII

..

31,

the

x?

midst

great

05

NMI,

JIM

inthe a

i.ill "N" ?:j MY,

the

W

ISM.?

?.lM

ISMS

....... ..

g

.Ay

M.

population highlands

whole,

l-WR?

?g lgo

x

IN

e'p.

Pl

1?'gg;;. ..... ......

'. INNMR. IN* PlmlMR

z

..... . . .

gi' g

?i

MIR:lm

S

X

ORNEW

1'?.%

I

:

RD r9h

WE R

43

. ..

RPM

?R? OR! El M

"M

mg., .... ....... 11P 'yla NICE, W-.. A

A

q.

in of a

as

individual

communities from suffered

p, having

Pi,

V;

V.ma

wW?. IN 0..

of

surge

W

Op.

that

ironic

is

not

enough

people. MM

iron ax or iron plowpoint within an agriculturalsystem where landSite plan of area S at KhirbetRaddana. The three early IronAge pillared buildings excavated clearing and plowing are only two by JosephCallaway enclose a common courtyardand may evidence the social unit of the bet crucial operations among many. In cab,an extended family composed of two or more nuclear families related by blood. Accordneither of these so-called fact, ing to Harmon (1983:98), the largehouse at the top of the plan (XIV)includes 55.6 square advances in technology played a meters of floor space, enough for six or seven persons. The two smaller houses include 24.1 (XIII)and 29.6 (II, estimated) square feet of floor space, enough for three to fourpersons each. decisive role in the achievement of agriculturalsubsistence in the This has unfortunately ignored a offer no evidence for cisterns, such highlands of Canaanduring the whole range of vital knowledge, as Izbet Sarta,Tel Masos, and Giloh, early IronAge. and skills The technique of agricultural to found another must have abilities, organizational way social one that their water meet needs, terracingalso fails to fill the role of (especially skills). Moreover, the role of individual innovations better fit their total subsistence situ- the prime mover of the expansion of in material technology has been ation. Similarly, the widely dissemi- settlement in the highlands during both from the this period. Terracedhillsides were idea that the development of nated greatly exaggerated of substantive evidence doubtless a feature of the agriculthe decisive iron was standpoint metallurgy and with respect to their impact on tural landscape of the early IronAge material basis for the expansion of a To subsistence as whole. has not been settlement highlands highland (see Stager 1985:5-9), but a systemic take a widely recognized example, of archaeStatistical studies investigation also raises real quesproven. William F.Albright (1971:113)sughave recovered metals tions about how prominent they ologically that the of a waterwere. It must be asked, for example, this notion undercut discovery gested by chronicling a for for cisterns was rise of what labor force built and mainthe proof lining key drawn-out,centuries-long Israelite settlement. Yetthis claim tained these terribly costly, longiron to common use. Metallurgical has had to be abandonedbecause of studies have shown the slow and hap- term investments? Evidence for the discovery of lime-plasteredcishazardappearanceof an iron (steeled widespreadterracingin this period is at best thin and the practice apterns from much earlier contexts, as iron) that was actually superior to well as of cisterns hewn in naturally bronze (Stech-Wheelerand others parently did not become widespread 1981: The until the eighth century B.C.E..His255; Waldbaum1978:41). impermeable limestone. In addition, water cisterns do not stand out as an effect of the introduction of a new torical reconstructions of the settleof make of tool than a new feature of most the occuintegral (rather type) ment period that have granteddeterhas also been sites of the Iron greatly overestimated; mining roles to terrace construction, pation early Age we have 40 offers the often not considered what iron metallurgy,or plasteredwateroppos(Callaway1985: can be the The settlers sites cisterns all show the dangersof of that ing view). actually accomplished by

A

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

183

Temperature Centigrade

Millimeters

400

200

300

150

200

100

- - - - Rainfall PotentialEvapotranspiration

LIIiJ WaterDeficiency W WaterSurplus

10

0

/

Soil MoistureRecharge

0

00

.

Soil MoistureUtilization --

-

These two charts illustrate important aspects of water availability in the highlands. The one on the left comparesJerusalem'saveragemonthly rainfall (indicated by the bars)with its averagetemperatures(indicated by the curvedline). The one on the right plots the averagemonthly rainfall (dottedline) against what has been called evapotranspiration(that is, the amount of water lost from the environmentas a result of transpirationthroughleaf surfaces and evaporationcaused by the sun'srays, indicated here by the solid line). Cropsdepend upon rainfall until the soil water is renewed- usually completed by February- and then draw upon the reservesof moisture in the soil until the end of the whateverreservesremain. growing season. The dry summer months dramin

abstractingtool technology from the the wet season. Unlike the middle farmingworld in which it functioned. latitudes, where the dead season (winter)is wet, the crops of the highlands'planting season are comAgriculturalObjectives With my preceding comments pletely dependent upon the rains of the planting season for their gerwe can serving as an orientation, mination and growth. Thus the now consider the three basic objecwinter tives aroundwhich highlands agriplantings are highly vulnerable to any hiatus of precipitation culture shaped itself and how each fit within the environmental, demo- after germination. Sowing of the fields cannot even begin until suffigraphic,and technological scene of cient moisture has accumulated in early Israel. Waterconservation and control. the soil left hard-bakedby the Wateravailabilitywas the decisive summer heat. In addition to its frustrating environmental constraint under which village agriculturalsystems of seasonality, rainfallis also highly the highlands operated.Rainfall in variable,both with respect to its disPalestine is concentrated in a few tribution throughout the year and winter months and is highly intenthe achievement of averageannual accumulation. This variability is sive. (Whenit rains, it pours.)The same amount of rainfall that London such that three years out of ten sees spreadover three hundredrain- might not follow the expected daysfalls onto Jerusalemin only fifty. pattern-for example, it might be This high-intensity rainfallmeans very wet in the beginning of the season and very dry towardsthe high rates of runoff;precious water end - so that there could be an agriis thus lost to agriculture.When it cultural droughteven though the is not raining, it is sunny, and the absolute total rainfall reaches the climate is markedby world-class insolation rates. During the summer average.What'smore, one or two months this extreme insolation years out of ten might show more than a 25 percent deviation from the drains the soil of whatever small mean annual rainfall. Drought years quantity of moisture remains from

184

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

are known historically to bunch up, addingto the difficulties of subsistence. There is no mistaking that this is a very high-risk environment. Verylimited possibilities for irrigation from springs or streams leave farmingvillages with no choice but to face the difficult facts of water availability head-on.What strategies of water conservation and control did the highlandersof the early Iron Age pursue?The primarystrategy for water conservation is terracing. Though the motivation for terracing has often been seen as the desire to protect soils against erosion, it was more important in early Israel as a water-conservationmeasure. Farming communities cannot change the patternsof precipitation,but through terracingthey can reduce the losses of water due to runoff. Its benefits include drought resistance as well as higher yields for any village able to apply this kind of special treatment to surroundingslopes. But here was the problem for the small and demographicallyunstable communities of the early IronAge. Terraceagriculture is highly intensive and demands a great deal of labor for construction and maintenance. It may well be that

fallowing, as well as fertilization. Based upon literary sources and on the practices of contemporarytraditional farming communities of the Mediterraneanregion, it is most probablethat the highland settlers used a type of short-termfallowing in which a year of cultivation was followed by a year of bare-groundfallow (Hopkins 1985: 194-95). The practice aided in the recoveryof fertility and also broke the natural cycle of noxious plant pests and diseases. Bare-groundfallowing, however,is a most inadequate means of restoring plant nutrients, and some kind of fertilization is usually associated with it. In the highlands during the early IronAge this amounted to nothing more than the grazingof Takenin the winter months of 1962, this photographof the fields surroundingGibeon illusflocks and herds on fallow ground, trates two ways of dealing with the risks of farming.Fallowing, where a field is left uncultivated so that fertility may be restoredand the natural cycle of plant and pest diseases harvestedfields, and orchardsas the broken,aims to minimize risk. Staggeredsowing, where members of a community plant at means of applying manure. This is different times throughouta season so that an entire crop will not be lost to an unpredictable not the most efficacious system risk a aims to the as well as to make use limited labor out, of dry spell, effective spread supply. It is likely that these practices were also used by settlers in the early IronAge. either, but, for various reasons, it well suits the demographicand enthe labor-strappedvillages would be relativescarcityof bottomlandmeant vironmental situation. that hillside slopes (which are easily The outcome of such a system willing to bear the high labor costs of terracingin orderto enjoy its were cultivated. of Furthermore, fallowing and fertilization was eroded) clear-cut advantages,especially the no agriculturalcommunity can forthat these communities had to be reduction of the risk to crops that everneglect the task of conserving satisfied with fairly low crop yields enhanced water accumulation would the plant nutrients of its soil environ- that they could do little to enhance on a broadscale. Precisely what present.Evidencefor terracingaround ment, nutrients that are depleted Iron is not with each season's But how these early Age villages compelcropping. yields were is not easy to say. It is more to however. reasonable much did Israelites Because there are no economic ling, energy early recordson the yielding characterispictureterracesystems of the time expend in conservingand protecting not as a dominatingfeatureof the their soil environment?Despite some tics of early IronAge crops and cultiromantic projections of contempovation techniques, evidence comes landscapebut as an occasionalphenomenon, the result of variablelocal raryecological concerns onto the only indirectly. From later talmudic conditions and site histories.Unable recordof the past, the answer to this reports,Roman literary sources, and to take advantageof terracing,and calculations made by Mayerson question is: very little. Terraces lacking conditions for other strategies would best protect hillside slopes, (1960: 18-19) based on papyriof the for water conservationand control, but these were too costly. In their seventh century C.E. recovered at such as irrigationand drainageworks, struggle for agriculturalsubsistence, Nessana in the Negeb, it is clear that the early settlers had to devote their a seemingly meager ten- to fifteenmost villages would havebeen hardpressedto do much about the agricul- energies to the short term and could fold harvest would have been welill affordto take long-termviability comed by any farming family. Falling turally frustratingpatternof water into consideration. Farmingis posavailability. yields would have provided incentive Soil conservationand fertilitymainsible on unterracedslopes, and "soil to put more land into production tenance.At most of the highland mining,"the consumption of the soil as villages "mined" the soil in their sites that were settled in the early base, is a regularfeature of incipient environs. Migration would also sugIronAge, soil profilesoffereda fairly agriculturalcommunities. gest itself, as distances from village With regardto fertility mainhomes to newly opened fields productiveenvironment,one not yet strippedof its mantle of soil by raditenance,however,earlyIsraelundoubt- became intolerable. cal deforestation.Nevertheless,the edly practiced a form of agricultural Risk-spreading and the optimization i!

!

i

....

i

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

185

'd

7

IfZ7P

4,

l

LIPk"

MW

X M

9 Ap

Notes: This chart reconstructs the labor demandof early IronAge subsistence in the highlands in relation to the religious and agriculturalcalendars.LaborDemand:Periodsof peak demand on a community's labor resources occur during the grain harvest and also duringthe lengthy plowing and planting seasons when, however,rains regularlykeep the farmerfrom the fields. The grapeand olive harvestspresent two relatively brief but highly intensive periods of work. Lulls occur duringthe summer and early fall, before and after the grapeharvest, and early spring, when the ripening fields of grain are watched with considerableinterest. The Months-First Temple Period: These months are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in Exodus23:15 and in 1 Kings 6:37-38 and 8:2. Gezer Calendar:The occurrence of these activity periods would have variedaccordingto agriculturalconditions, and they were not correlatedwith the months (new moons) of the Israelite lunar calendar.The alignment here with the modern months of the Roman solar calendar is arbitrary.MajorReligious Festivals: Listed here are the majorfestivals of the FirstTempleperiod (approximately1000-

mpo

m

ast '

114t

Mr. CereaK

SModerate to Heavy Rainfall

586 B.C.E.).The celebration of massot

(UnleavenedBread)lasted seven days and was precededby pesah (Passover).It marked the beginning of the barleyharvest (Exodus 23:15, 34:18;Deuteronomy 16:1).The Feast of Weeks (hag'abucot; Exodus34:22) or Harvest (haghaqqasir; Exodus23:16)culminates the cereal harvest.Its date is fixed in Deuteronomy 16:9-10 as seven weeks after the beginning of the barley harvest. The year was broughtto conclusion with the Feastof Ingathering(hbag ha'asip;Exodus 23:16, 34:22),which is termed the Feastof Booths (sukkot)in Leviticus 23:42. Pastoral Activities, Workin Orchardsand Vineyards, Workin Grainfieldsand Gardens:These are aligned with the calendarin a generalway. The pattern of rainfalland temperaturein a particularyear,the geographicalposition of fields and orchards,and the location of pasture each contribute to a farming family's decisions about when to conduct these activities.

186

\

Months-First Temple Period Gezer Calendar Modern Calendar Months Major Religious Festivals PastoralActivities Work in Orchardsand Vineyards Work in Grainfields and Gardens

I•I[Z HeavyLaborDemand

I W

ModerateLaborDemand Light LaborDemand

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

of labor.The first two objectives of highland agriculturethat I have discussed here-water conservation and control, and soil conservation and fertility maintenance- aimed to lower the risk of farmingby producing largerand more reliable harvests. Initial attempts to lower the risks of farming in the highlands through terracing,replenishing soil nutrients, and protecting the soil environment could not have been very successful. This negative conclusion adds considerable importance to the third objective of highland agriculture. It sought not to lower the risk (bymanipulating the environment) but to spreadit out (bydistributing the community's energies across a broadspectrum of pursuits). Thus, a naturalconcomitant of risk-spreading is the optimization of labor,where an attempt is made to balance labor demand and availability throughout the agriculturalyear. How was labor organizedto spreadthe risk of farming?In the crucial grainfields,the farming families adoptedstaggeredpatterns of sowing their wheat and barley. This procedurewas well suited to the limited availability of labor and draft animals for plowing. It also hedged against the variability of rainfall mentioned above.As the first lines of the Gezer calendar indicate, with their referenceto two periods (fourmonths) of planting, the sowing of the seed was spread out over the first months of winter in orderto avoid depending upon any particularpattern of rainfall. Sown all at once, an entire crop could be lost to an unpredictable,but not surprising, dry spell. Grainswere by no means the sole focus of the agriculturaleffort. Farming communities planted a variety of crops in a wide selection of environmental niches. The natural diversity of the highlands'environment aided in this endeavor.The crop mix included not just the staple cereals and vegetables but also tree and vine crops, as the "sevenspecies"list of

I. -Aig.

This inscribed stone is known as the Gezercalendar, because it was found at that site and it lists agriculturalseasons. Dating to around the tenth century B.C.E., it may be translated as follows: "7Womonths of [olive]harvest (line 1);two months of sowing (lines 1 and 2); two months of late sowing (line 2); a month of hoeing weeds (line 3);a month of harvesting barley (line 4); a month of harvesting and [measur/ing(line 5); two months of cutting [grapes](line 6); a month of [collecting]summer fruit (line 7)."Photographfrom BAarchive.

Deuteronomy 8:8 makes plain. Thus, granateand almond), as well as many the tree and vine crops spreadthe important vegetables such as broad risk by diversifyingthe subsistence beans, lentils, chick-peas,and combase. And this could be done withmon peas, all of which have been out their competing for the labor attested archaeologically (Borowski needed for field crops,because 1987: 93-97). grapes,olives, and figs do not require Agriculture was also mixed attention at the same time as field with pastoralpursuits. The rich and crops. The repertoireof highlands specific vocabularyof the Hebrew Bible is ample testimony to the imcrops also included other fruit and nut trees (forinstance, the pomeportance of pastoralism in the econ-

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

187

Left:Therisksof farmingcanalso be spreadout bystoringfood.Thediscoveryof a storagebuildingat Shiloh,a reconstruction of whichis

shown here, indicates that this strategy was practiced at the community level in the early IronAge. It should be noted that the existence of such a structureat a site with strong cultic connections testifies to the role played by the religiousinstitutions in structuringthe emerging society Drawing courtesy of Qadmoniot.Right: Collared-rimpithoi and otherpottery vessels excavated at Shiloh. These pithoi- typically large vessels-stand overa meter in height and have a capacity of about 150 liters. Thus they must have been intended only as storagevessels, since once they were filled with water, wine, or grain, these jars would have constituted impossibly heavy burdens.Photographcoprtesy of the Israel ExplorationSociety

omy, and archaeologicalattention to the recoveryof animal bones more than supportsthis conclusion (Hesse 1986;Hesse and Wapnish 1986; LaBianca1987).The exact nature of the pastoral-agriculturalmix remains to be clearly defined, but the indispensability of livestock husbandryand its complementarity to farming are without question. The grazing of livestock-sheep; goats, cattle-added greatly to the resiliency of communities struck by agriculturalfailure. Animals are a mobile resource subject to a different set of environmental constraints than fixed fields of crops. The dietary contribution of herd animals was significant, with milk and milk foods (cheese and curds) the most important products.Animals could also be used directly for food (though never incautiously, for they constituted a capital investment) and otherwise contributed wool to home and commercial industry.Livestock husbandryalso made use of marginal land, provided needed fertilizer, and did not com-

188

pete for agriculturallabor,because shepherdingcould be carriedout by youths (recallthat David, the youngest of Jesse'ssons, nearly missed Samuel'svisit because he was out pasturingthe flock-1 Samuel 16:11). The settlers of the early Iron Age highlands also developedways to preserveproduce from a year of plenty for a year of want. Much of the produceyielded by various trees and crops could be stored, such as fruits, processed juices, and oil. Large storagejars (the collared-rimpithoi and the Galilean pithoi) and household grain pits that have been found at the sites of the period are concrete and nearly ubiquitous manifestations of this strategy.Perhapsthe crucial attribute of flocks and herds is their ability to act as a kind of storage-"adisaster bank on the hoof"'-subject to a different set of constraints than agricultureand capable of receiving deposits in good years and withstanding withdrawals in years when crops do not suffice. That this need to store foods found communal expression has now been

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

demonstratedby the discovery of an unambiguous storagebuilding at Shiloh dating to the early IronAge (Finkelstein 1986).The building has offeredup more than forty collaredrim pithoi. Its existence at a site with strong cultic connections cannot be a coincidence and testifies to the role playedby the religious institutions of early Israelin structuring the emerging society. Some highlands'communities may have become involved in interregional trade,either as predators, transit agents, or tradingpartners (Coote and Whitelam 1986: 133-35). Though the historical circumstances are highly suggestive, actual evidence for this participation is almost entirely lacking. The sites of the period have not yielded, for example, any kind of commercial containers. The collared-rimpithoi are clearly too heavy to be involved in transport. Nevertheless, they may themselves have been items of trade (Mazar1981:30). Tradein deerskins is evidenced at Tel Masos by the discovery of fallow deer remains (foot

bones; see Hesse and Wapnish 1986). Some sites were also well positioned to take advantageof trade as a nonsubsistence-relatedmeans of diversifying. Har Adir is the most striking example. Its location vis-A-visPhoenicia is suggestive, as is the remarkably well-workedpick-an item of trade?-discovered by its excavators (Muhly 1982:45; Kochavi 1985: 57). Finally,risks were spreadthrough the development of interhousehold and intervillage systems of cooperation and networks of exchange. These were especially important for sharing food when, as was often the case, proximate villages experienced concomitant crop success and failure. Further,they providedthe means for regularlabor exchange to cope with the great seasonal fluctuations in labor demand and to provide the greaterquantity of labor needed for large-scaleprojects. The Demographic Challenge and the Social Dimension of Subsistence This review of the major objectives and strategies of highlands agriculture reveals how crucial risk-spreading and labor-optimizingstrategies were for securing agriculturalsubsistence in the early Iron Age. Other events and activities that are often taken to be determinative of the struggles of the period-developing iron metallurgy,clearing forests, hewing cisterns, and building terraces- certainly shaped aspects of the settlers' lives. Yet these did not spell the differencebetween survival and failure, as did diversifying crops, mixing farming and husbandry,investing in means of storage,and developing reciprocalinterfamily and intercommunity networks. It is on these goals that the highlanders concentrated. The key to securing subsistence through risk-spreadingand laboroptimizing (and,indeed, to laying the groundworkfor further highland development) rested in the second term of this dual objective. The importance of mustering sufficient

labor can be read in the population landscape. The small and demographicallyunstable villages composed of small and demographically unstable families constantly faced crises of insufficient hands. While the tension was in part a consequence of the demands on pioneer settlements, it was primarily the result of the pressures on conducting agriculturaloperations. In addition to its importance for the short term, labor-optimizingis essential for moving beyond mere coping with risk to risk-reductionthrough terracingand other special treatments of the environment. Because no technological quick fix, such as a more efficient iron plow, solved the labor problem for highlanders of the early Iron Age, these settlers relied upon other means of addingto the quantity of availablelabor.Among these, the most obvious was enlarged population. As a rule, village cultivators the world over invest farming surpluses in increased family size rather than in increased standard of living. Though reproductivesuccess could hardly be controlled in the ancient world, literature from the early Israelite period clearly indicates the desire of the farmingfamily for great size (see, for instance, the wish expressed by the witnesses to the marriageof Ruth and Boaz in Ruth 4:11-12).Furthermore,the prominence of regulations of sexual morality in the Hebrew Bible has been related to the unstable conditions of the settlement period (Meyers1978:98-99); the stipulations would have assured that sexual energies were directed toward the crucial task of replenishing the family. One thing is clear: Burgeoning family and community size would fuel greater investments in risk reduction and risk-spreading. These would lead to more stable agriculture, better nutrition, lower infant and mother mortality rates and, thus, further increases in population size. Many of the prominent families in

the narrativesof the book of Judges are depicted-in

symbolic terms-

as having attained considerable size and may reflect just this process. Gideon is reportedto have had "seventy"sons, all his own children (8:30);Jairand Ibzan each had "thirty"sons (10:3and 12:9);while Abdon sired a total of "forty"(12:14). Another means of enlarging the labor supply is to provideinducements to largerindividual contributions of labor-longer days in the field, more arduous types of work. The high view of work that is part of the creation epic of Genesis 2 and 3 (the human creatureis placed in the gardento till it and keep it) makes good sense in such a context, as does the encouragement of the Joseph tribe by Joshuato undertake difficult land-clearingoperations (Joshua 17:14-15).The way that the Sabbath commandment is phrasedin the early legal collection of Exodus"Sixdays you must do your work, but on the seventh day you must rest"(23:12;compare also 20:9)stands as a reminder that the indirect force of a single day of rest is six days of work. This represents a strikingly intense commitment to labor when comparedto most preindustrial agriculturalsocieties. A third means of meeting the labor requirement of highland agriculture may have been the formation of communal work groups. Presumably,these groupswould cooperate at times of peak labor demand when many households were unable to supply their total needs. The group may also have made collective investments in the agricultural economy beyond the domain of individual households. Similarly, reciprocal exchange networks linking proximate villages may have come into existence; such an exchange would have taken advantage of variable harvest times by sharing labor. The advantages of regular cooperation and incentives for sharing in times of want suggest that the highlands of the early Iron

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

189

Age were crisscrossed by social relations that contributed to securing subsistence. Here is where the study of farming contributes most to our understanding of the emergence of Israel. The social dimension of subsistence, in particularthe risk-spreadingand labor-optimizing,can help us reconstruct more accurately some of the reasons for the transitions and changes in Palestine in the early Iron Age. RobertCoote and Keith Whitelam (1986: 118-21) have emphasized how dramatically the decline in trade and commerce during the Late BronzeAge affected those nonsedentary groups that were in large measure dependent upon that economy. With the decline of trade, pastoralnomadic groupsand bandits, among others, were forced to seek alternative sources of income; many adoptedagricultureand village life in orderto secure their subsistence. As Late Bronze society ended, so did the incessant conflict between citystates that is so pervasivelyportrayed in the Amarna correspondence.The calming of the ruralinstability that had been inspired by the urbanized political environment of the Late Bronze Age permitted the expansion of village agriculturallife beyond the limits of urban control and protection. Finally,the movement towards more intensive, sedentary agriculture was propelledby the gradual increase in the population of the highlands. Fedby the dispersion of city centers and immigration from the lowlands, and stimulated by decline in warfare(and,perhaps,the distance from epidemic disease that may have been prevalent in urban centers), the overall increasing population of highland regions could not be supported by the predominantly pastoral economy of the Late Bronze Age. Agricultural intensification ensued. Thus, the transformation of the population landscape that took place after the breakdown of society in the Late Bronze Age can be viewed as representing the movement from

190

a more pastoraland less sedentary economy to a primarily agricultural economy dominated by small settlements. It is precisely within the context of such a shift that the new social relations that set the foundation for the emergence of Israelwere forged. In place of their reliance upon the broadereconomic frameworkof the Late Bronze Age and the autonomy and resiliency affordedby the predominantlypastoralmode of production, the diverse highlandergroups of the early Iron Age were impelled towardscooperation. The abatement of conflict instigated by the citystates played a role in creating conditions conducive to such cooperation. But the sheer necessities of shortterm survival contributed even more fundamentally to the creation of intercommunity networks. These networks could be relied upon both for the exchange of vital commodities in times of need and for the provision of labor to carryout the various special strategies necessary to increase the stability of production. Though it would be easy to overstate the role playedby the daily subsistence struggle of households and villages, there can be no doubt that the perception of sharedconcerns and the development of institutions to express and put into effect this mutuality contributed significantly in shaping the emerging Israelite identity. The material evidence for the emergence of the village-dominated landscape that would become the heartland of Israel suggests that the process of agriculturalintensification was a gradual one that took an extremely uneven course. As noted above, many sites were occupied for only short periods and were victims of subsistence failure, demographic difficulties, and ecological deterioration of the village life-space, among other agents. But the picture was not everywhere so dismal. Some communities were able to meet the challenges of this demanding highland

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

environment. The towns of Tell enNasbeh and Shiloh, though the latter met an untimely military destruction, offer readyevidence of growing stability and subsistence security. Throughout the countryside as well, villages prosperedand families put down roots. The whole highland region experienced a tremendous growth in ruralstability, wealth, commerce, and, also, stratification as various communities experienced differentrates of development. With the success in the early IronAge struggle for agricultural subsistencecame the conditions and tensions that led to a second and more durable transformation of the highlands:the emergence of the monarchy and the nation-states of Israel and Judah.

Bibliography Albright,W.F. 1971 TheArchaeologyof Palestine, reprintedition. Gloucester,MA: PeterSmith.

Angel,J.L.

1972 Ecologyand Populationin the EasternMediterranean.World

4: 88-105. Archaeology A. Ben-Tor, 1979 Tell Qiri:A Lookat Village Life. Biblical Archeologist 42: 105-13. Borowski,O.

in IronAgeIsrael. 1987 Agriculture

WinonaLake,IN: Eisenbrauns.

J.A. Callaway, 1983 A Visitwith Ahilud:A Revealing Lookat VillageLifeWhenIsrael Settledthe PromisedLand.Biblical Review9 (5):42-53. Archaeology on the Hill 1985 A NewPerspective Country Settlement of Canaanin

IronAgeI. Pp.31-49in Palestinein theBronzeandIronAges:Papersin Honorof OlgaThfnell,editedby J.N. Tubb.Series:Instituteof ArchaeologyOccasionalPublication, 11.London: Instituteof Archaeology. Coote,R.B.,andWhitelam,K.W of Israel:Social 1986 TheEmergence andStateFormation Transformation followingthe Declinein LateBronze Age Trade.Semeia Supplements37:

107-47. Finkelstein,I. 1986 ShilohYieldsSome,ButNot All, of its Secrets.BiblicalArchaeology Review 12(1):22-41.

Fritz,V. 1987 Conquest or Settlement?The Early IronAge in Palestine. Biblical Archaeologist 50: 84-100. Harmon, G. E. 1983 FloorArea and Population Determination:A Method for Estimating VillagePopulationin the CentralHill CountryDuring the Periodof the Judges(IronI). Dissertation, SoutheasternBaptistTheological Seminary. Hesse, B. 1986 Animal Use at Tel Migne-Ekronin the BronzeAge and IronAge. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research264: 17-27. Hesse, B., and Wapnish,P. 1986 The Contributionand Organization of PastoralSystems. Paperpresented at the Ancient MediterraneanFood Systems Symposium at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Researchin Atlanta, November 1986. Hopkins, D. C. 1985 The Highlands of Canaan:Agricultural Life in the EarlyIronAge. Series:Social Worldof Biblical Antiquity 3. Decatur,GA: Almond. Horowitz A. 1971 Climatic and VegetationalDevelopment in NortheasternIsraelduring Upper Pleistocene Times. Pollen et Spores 13:255-78. Kochavi,M. 1985 The IsraeliteSettlement in Canaan in the Light of ArchaeologicalSur-

veys. Pp. 54-60 in Biblical ArchaeProceedingsof the ology 7bToday: International Congresson Biblical Archaeology,Jerusalem,April 1984. Jerusalem:IsraelExploration Society. Kochavi,M., editor 1972 Judea,Samaria,and the Golan: Archaeological Survey,1967-1968. Series:ArchaeologicalSurveyof Israel 1. Jerusalem:Keter.(Hebrew) LaBianca,O. S. 1987 Sedentarizationand Nomadization: A Study of Food System ransitions at Hesban and Vicinity in Ransjordan.Hesban I, edited by L. T. Geraty.BerrienSprings,MI:Andrews University Press. Lipshitz, N., and Waisel,Y. 1980 DendroarchaeologicalInvestigations in Israel (Taanach).Israel Exploration Journal30: 132-36. Mayerson,P. 1960 The Ancient AgriculturalRegime of Nessana and the CentralNegeb. London:Colt Archaeological Institute. Mazar,A. 1981 Giloh: An EarlyIsraeliteSettlement Site near Jerusalem.Israel Exploration Journal31: 1-36. Meyers,C. 1978 The Roots of Restriction:Womenin EarlyIsrael.Biblical Archeologist 41: 91-103. Muhly,J. 1982 How IronTechnologyChangedthe Ancient WorldAnd Gave the Philis-

tines a Military Edge.Biblical ArchaeologyReview 8 (6):42-54. Rosen, A. M. 1986 EnvironmentalChangeand Settlement at Tel Lachish,Israel.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research263: 55-60. Stager,L. E. 1985 The Archaeologyof the Familyin Ancient Israel.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research260: 1-35. Steech-Wheeler,T., Muhly,J.D., MaxwellHyslop, K.R.,and Maddin,R. 1981 Ironat Taanachand EarlyIron Metallurgyin the EasternMediterranean.American Journalof Archaeology 85: 245-68. VanZiest, W, and Bottema, S. 1982 VegetationalHistory of the Eastern Mediterraneanand the Near East duringthe Last 20,000 Years.Pp. 277-95, in Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the EasternMediterranean Region in LaterPrehistory,edited by J.L. Bintliff and W VanZiest. Series: British ArchaeologicalReportsInternational Series 133. Oxford:British ArchaeologicalReports. Waldbaum,J.C. 1978 FromBronzeto Iron:The ransition from the BronzeAge to the IronAge in the EasternMediterranean. Series:Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology54. G6teburg:Paul Astrom.

In theNextBA

TheLionBowl FromKinneret Fritz by Volkmar

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

191

OOS OF 0,1

e

The

7

oI

Schools

American

of

%r

Oriental

Research

and The

Johns

Hopkins

ri

University Press Journals

Books Scrolls fromthe Wildernessof the Dead Sea (Cross) ThePaleo-HebrewLeviticusScroll(11QpaleoLev) (Freedmanand Mathews) AmericanArchaeologyin the Mideast(King) The Synagoguein LateAntiquity(Levine) A ComprehensiveIndexto BiblicalArchaeologist Volumes36-45(1973-1982) (MacKay) Excavationsat AncientMeiron(Meyers,Strange,and Meyers) Scrolls fromQumranCaveI ('lYever) Excavations,1981-83 PreliminaryReportsof ASOR-Sponsored (BulletinSupplement23) (Rast) Excavations,1980-84 PreliminaryReportsof ASOR-Sponsored (BulletinSupplement24) (Rast)

Subscriptions, claims, and back issues Ordersfor ASORjournalsand correspondenceabout subscriptionsor single issue purchasesshould be sent to the Johns HopkinsUniversityPress. (telephone301-338-6988,telex #5101012198) Advertising Correspondenceaboutadvertisingshouldbe addressedto the Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.(telephone301-338-6982) The Johns HopkinsUniversityPress 701 West40th Street, Suite 275 Baltimore,MD21211

EditorialCorrespondence

The Johns HopkinsUniversityPress 701 West40th Street, Suite 275 Baltimore,MD21211 All previouslypublishedworks,in printand not listedabove,are still handledby Eisenbraunsfor ASOR. Eisenbrauns P.O.Box 275 WinonaLake,IN 46590

Articleproposals,manuscripts,and editorialcorrespondenceshouldbe sent directlyto the journaleditors. BiblicalArchaeologist,EricM. Meyers ASORPublicationsOffice Box HM,DukeStation,Durham,NC 27706 Bulletinof ASOR,WalterRast Departmentof Theology ValparaisoUniversity,Valparaiso,IN46383 Journalof CuneiformStudies,Erle Leichty Departmentof OrientalStudies Universityof Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,PA 19104 ASORNewsletter,JamesA. Sauer AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch 4243 SpruceSt., Philadelphia,PA 19104

Journalsand Membership Bulletinof ASOR

ASOR Newsletter

Journalof Studies Cuneifonnrm

Biblical Archaeologist

free

free

free

free

$33.00 35.00

$12.00 14.00

$28.00 30.00

$14.00 16.00

NonmemberSubscriptions individual UnitedStates Mexico Canada, outsideNorthAmerica

40.00 43.50 50.00

15.00 15.50 16.50

35.00 36.50 38.50

18.00 20.50 24.00

students,retirees,handicapped UnitedStates Mexico Canada, outsideNorthAmerica

35.00 38.50 45.00

14.00 14.50 15.50

30.00 31.50 33.50

16.00 18.50 22.00

institutions UnitedStates Mexico Canada, outsideNorthAmerica

50.00 53.50 60.00

22.00 22.50 23.50

45.00 46.50 48.50

25.00 27.50 31.00

Subscriber Category

Membersof ASOR life(singlememberships: $1200.00; $1500.00) jointmemberships: annual(annual fee:$15.00) andCanada U.S.,U.S.possessions, outsideU.S.,U.S.possessions, andCanada

192

Biblical Archaeologist, September 1987

loop-

rv

? I.

a

oo

iA

,

il 4

Io" 44