FAUST, RAMAT-GAN - Social and Cultural Changes in 6th Judah (2004) - Cópia

Sonderdruck aus:

U GARIT -FORSCHUNGEN

Internationales J ahrbuch fur die

Altertumskunde Syrien-PaHistinas

Herausgegeben von Manfried Dietrich . Oswald Loretz

Band 36 2004

U garit-Verlag Munster 2005

Anschriften der Herausgeber: M. Dietrich - O. Loretz, Schlaunstr. 2, 48143 MUnster

Manuskripte sind an einen der Herausgeber zu senden. FUr unverlangt eingesandte Manuskripte kann keine Gewahr Ubernommen werden.

Die Herausgeber sind nicht verptlichtet, unangeforderte Rezensionsexemplare zu besprechen.

Manuskripte fUr die einzelnen lahresbande werden jeweils bis zum 31. 12. des vorausgehenden lahres erbeten.

2005 Ugarit-Verlag, Munster (www.ugarit-verlag.de)

AlIe Rechte vorbehalten All rights preserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,

without the prior permission of the publisher.

Herstellung: Druckhaus Folberth, Pfungstadt Printed in Germany

ISBN 3-934628-65-6 Printed on acid-free paper

Inhalt

Artikel

Chalmers, Aaron RS 25.460 and Early Hebrew Poetry ............................................. 1

Dietrich, Manfried Der kult(ur)geographische und zeitliche Horizont ugaritischer und hurritischer Priester ............................................................... II

Dietrich, Manfried Salmanassar I. von Assyrien, Ibiranu (VI.) von Ugarit und Tudbalija IV. von Ijatti. Ein Korrekturnachtrag ............................................... 41

Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald Alalab-Texte der Schicht VII (I). Historische und juristische Dokumente ... 43

Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald Der Brief des larimlim von Alalab (A TaB 11.0 I = ATT 391182.24) ...... 151

Fallst, A vraham Social and Cultural Changes in Judah during the 6th Century BCE and their Implications for our Understanding of the Nature of the Neo-Babylonian Period ..................................................... 157

Gabbay, Uri Wiping Away Tears in Akkadian Literature. dimfa ba{apu and the Semitic Roots brp/ ~fp ...................................................... 177

Herrmann, W. Die Rede von gottlichem Schlafen im Alten Testament ..................... 185

Kogan, Leonid Ugaritic mm'm 'brain' revisited ................................................ 195

Loretz, Oswald Das pharaonische Wagengespann mit Stute des Canticums (1,9-11) in hippologisch-militargeschichtlicher Sicht ................................. 205

Loretz, Oswald Agyptisierende, mesopotamisierende und ugaritisierende Interpretationen der Gotter Mot und Eras in Canticum 8,6-7: "Die Liebe ist so stark wie Mot." ........................................................................ 235

Inhalt [UF 36

Loretz, Oswald Die ugaritisch-hebraische Gefal3bezeichnung trq I twrq in Canticum 1,3. Liebesdichtung in der westsemitischen Wein- und Olivenkultur ..... 283

Mabie, Frederick J. The Syntactical and Structural Function of Horizontal Dividing Lines in the Literary and Religious Texts of the Ugaritic Corpus (KTU 1) ...... 291

Mazzini, Giovanni Further Lexical Material to Ugaritic SBM "Height" (KTU 1.83,8) and Some Comparative Remarks ................................................... 313

Merlo, Paolo apilum of Mari. A Reappraisal ................................................. 323

Miinnich, Maciej M. Hezekiah and Archaeology. The Answer for Nadav Na'aman .............. 333

Ortlund, Eric A Window of Appearance for Baal? Temples, Chaos, and Divine Appearance in Ugarit and Egypt ...................................... 347

Parker, Simon B. The Use of Similes in Ugaritic Literature ..................................... 357

Romer, W. H. Ph. Zu einem Kudurru aus Nippur aus dem 16. Jahre Nebukadnezars I. (etwa 1110 v. Chr.) .............................................................. 371

Romer, W. H. Ph. Ein altbabylonisches Kompendium von Gallenblasenomina ............... 389

Schmitt, Rlidiger Die frlihe Konigszeit in Israel. Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Diskussion um die niedrige Chronologie in Paliistinal Israel ............................. 411

Spencer, Bradley J. The Relationship between Sentence Stress and Bilabial Alternation in Ugaritic ........................................................................ 431

Tarazi, Matthew S. A Cloud Roams and Beautifies by Spitting Out Her Brother. KTU l. 96 and its Relation to the Baal Cycle ................................. 445

Tropper, Josef Zehn neue Texte aus Ugarit .................................................... 511

Vita, Juan-Pablo RS 15.176 et RS 15.176 bis. Deux bulletins ougaritiques de livraison de vctements ..................................................................... 523

2004] Inhalt

Watson, Wilfred G. E. A Hittite Loanword in Ugaritic? ............................................... 533

Rezensionsartikel del Olmo Lete, Gregorio

Thc Ugaritic Ritual Texts. A New Edition and Commentary. A Critical Assessment .......................................................... 539

Buchbesprcchungen und Buchanzeigen Claus AMBOS: Mesopotalllische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.,

lIlit einem Beitrag VOII Aaron Schmitt (R. Schmitt) ......................... 649 Archaeology and History ill the Lehanon 21 (M. Heltzer) ...................... 652 Francesco ASPESI: Studi di Lillguistica Camito-Sel1litica (0. Loretz) ......... 653 Jacqueline BALENSI / Jean-Yves MONCI-IAMl3ERT / Sylvie MULLER CELKA

(Hrsg.): La Ceramique lIlycenienlle de I 'Egee au Levant. HOl1lmage a Vromvv Hankey (0. Loretz) .................................................... 655

Pierre BORDREUIL / Dennis PARDEE: Manuc/ d'Ougaritique (M. Dietrich / O. Loretz) ........................................................................ 656

Pelio FRONZAROLl / Paolo MARRASSINI (Hrsg.): Proceedings olthe ](/,1 Meeting olHamito-Semitic (Aji'oasiatic) Lillguistics (Florence, i8-20 April, 200i) (0. Loretz) ................................................ 658

Erasmus GASS: Die Ortsn([lIlen des Richterhuches in historischcr und redaktionellcr PerspC'ktive (0. Loretz) ........................................ 660

Fernando GC)NZALES DE CANALES CERISOLA: Del Occidente Mitico Griego a Tarsis-Tarteso (M. Heltzer) .................................................. 660

Fernando GONzALES DE CANALES CERISOLA / Leonardo SERRANO PICIIARDO / Jarge LLAMPART GOMEZ: El elllporio Fenicio precolonial de Huelm (ca. 904-770 a. c.) (M. Heltzer) ................................... 662

Yuval GOREN / Israel FINKELSTEIN / Nadav NA' AMAN: inscrihed in CIay. Provenance Study olthe Amama Tahlets and other Ancient Near Eastem Texts (M. Dietrich) .............................................................. 662

Manfred HUTTER / Sylvia I [UTTER-BRAUNSAR (Hrsg.): Otfizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und individllelle Religiosihlt. Akten des religionsgeschicht-

lichell S}'IIlPOSiUIllS "Kleinasien llnd allgrenzende Gehiete vom Beginn des 2. his zur Mitte des 1. Jahrtallsends v. Chr . .. (SOIlIl, 20.-22. Fehrllar 20(3) (P. Cech) ..................................... 668

Dierk LANGE: Allciellt Killgdoms ol West Aji'ica. Alrica-Centred and Canaanite-israe/ite Perspectives. A Collection olpuhlished and llllpuhlished studies in English and Frellch (0. Loretz) ..................... 671

E. LIPINSKY: itineraria P/lOellicia (M. Heltzer) ................................. 672 Michel MAZOYER / Olivier CASAHONNE (Hrsg.): Melanges otlerts au

Pro/Csseur Relle Le/mill (M. Dietrich) ........................................ 676

Inhalt [UF 36

Catherine MITTERMA YER: Die Entwicklung der Tierkopjzeichen. Eine Studie zur syro-mesopotamischen Keilschnjipalaographie des 3. undjriihen 2. lahrtausends v. Chr. (Th. Balke) ........................................... 687

Jean-Yves MONCHAMBERT: La d:ramique d'Ougarit. Campagnes de fouilles 1975 et 1976 (0. Loretz) .............................................. 690

Mirko Noy AK I Friedhelm PRAYON I Anne-Marie WITTKE (Hrsg.): Die Aupenwirkung des spiithethitischen Kulturraumes. Giiteraustausch ~ Kulturkontakt ~ Kulturtrans[er. Akten der zweiten Forschungstagung des Graduiertenkollegs "Anatolien und seine Nachharn" der Eherhard-Karls-Universitiit Tiihingen (20. his 22. Novemher 2003) (H.-G. Buchholz) ................................................................ 691

Orte & Zeiten. 25 lahre archiiologische Forschung in Syrien: i980~2()()5 (M. Dietrich) ..................................................................... 701

Ellen REHM: Der Ahiram-Sarkophag (0. Loretz) ............................... 703 1. RENZ I W. RbLLIG: Handbuch der althebriiischen Epigraphik. Bd. II/2:

Materialien zur althehriiischen Morphologie (1. RENZ) I Siegel und Gewichte (W. RbLLIG) (1. Tropper) ........................................... 706

Hanna ROSZKOWSKA-MUTSCHLER: Hethitische Texte in Transkription KBo 45 (G. G. W. Muller I Y. Sakuma) ....................................... 707

Helene SADER: iron Age Funerary Stelaeji'()fn Lehanon (0. Loretz) ......... 710 Benjamin SASS: The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium, The West

Semitic Alphahet ca. 115()~850 B. C. E. The Antiquity o[the Arahian, Greek and Phrygian Alphahets (M. Heltzer) ................................. 711

Bemd U. SCHIPPER: Die Erziihlung des Wenamun. Ein Literatunverk im Spannungs[eld von Politik, Geschichte und Religion (0. Loretz) .......... 717

Rudiger SCHMITT: Magie im Alten Testament (W. Zwickel) ................... 718 D. USSISIIKIN u. a.: The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish

(I973~1994) (W. Zwickel) ..................................................... 721 Heike WILDE: Technologische lnnovationen im zweiten lahrtausend vor

Christus. Zur Verwendung und Verhreitung neuer Werkstofle im ostmediterranen Raum (M. Dietrich) .......................................... 724

Indizes A Stellen ............................................................................ 727 B Warter ............................................................................ 732 C Nan1en ............................................................................ 737 D Sachen ........................................................................... 740

Abkiirzungsverzeichnis ...................................................... 745

Anschriften der Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter ........................... 755

Social and Cultural Changes in Judah during the 6th Century BCE

and their Implications for our Understanding of the Nature of the Neo-Babylonian Period

Avraham Faust, Ramat-Gan

The fate of ludah in the 6th century BCE, following the Babylonian conquest had received a great deal of discussion in recent years. Until recently this was viewed as a period of demographic and cultural decline (e. g., Noth 1960, 296; Bright 1972, 343-344; Aharoni 1979; Mazar 1990). This view was severely criticized over the last decade.' Some scholars, mainly following Barstad's The Myth 0/ the Empty Land (1996) (also Caroll 1992), have accepted the notion that not much changed in ludah after the fall of Jerusalem (e. g., Barstad 2003; Liphschits 1997; 2003; Blenkinsopp 2002a; 2002b). According to these schol-ars only a small minority of ludeans were exiled, and as far as most of the population was concerned, life went on after 586 just as before. Most of the population lived in the rural sector, and the latter was, according to this view, unharmed by the war and exiles that followed. This view had received much criticism (e. g., Stern 2000; 2004; Oded 2003; Vanderhooft 2003; Faust 2003, etc.), which had concentrated on its interpretation of the biblical texts, which lie at the heart of the new school, as well as its interpretation of the Babylonian policies, on which the new school had made some assumptions. Also criticized was this school's treatment of the archaeological evidence from Judah. In an earlier paper I (Faust 2003) showed that the Judahite rural sector, on which Bar-stad et al. lay the burden of continuing their life uninterruptedly, cannot carry the weight, and that almost all the Iron Age rural sites in ludah were destroyed or deserted in the 6th century (in contrast to some other parts of the country)?

, Note that contrary to the impression one might get from some of the recent literature, most scholars, including those eited above, did not see the land as 'empty', and some of them had explicitly rejected this notion (e. g., Faust 2003, 46 and references). They did, however, view the Neo-Babylonian period in ludah as one of a great demographic decline. In a sense, by attributing previous generations of scholars the view that the land was literally empty (a view that was not shared by most), the new school (below) created a 'straw man', in contrast to whom its own vicws could have been seen more reasonable. 2 Recently, Lipschits (2004) had attempted to question these conclusions. While accepting the method employed, he claimed that there were some methodological

158 A. Faust [UF 36

There are several additional lines of evidence which indicate that this is in-deed the case. In the present paper I would like to examine some aspects of cul-tural and social practices in Judah before and after the 6th century, as a mean to examine continuity and change.

Background The Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem is an important historical event. For scholars this date usually marks the end of the Period of the Monarchy or even the end of the Iron Age, the beginning of the Exilic Period, etc. For many, this date was regarded as a watershed. But what was the reality in Judah following the 586 BCE events? The Bible informs us that there were some who remained in the land, but seems to give the general impression that they were relatively few and unimportant. The debate which evolved during the past few years over this issue has brought the archaeological evidence to the front.

The problem is, however, that as is widely known, as of yet, no material culture of the 'Babylonian period' has been identified. The relative lack of evi-

problems in the research, e. g., that I did not differentiate between ludah's sub-regions. This, however, is not the case; the fate of the rural sector in all parts of ludah was the same, and almost all the rural settlements were destroyed or abandoned. It does not matter, therefore, how one wishes to manipulate the data-the results would be the same (for a detailed discussion of the research methodology in general, sce Faustl Safrai in press). Moreover, Lipsehits failed to notice that a large group of abandoned/ destroyed scttlements was excavated precisely where he believes there was continuity (northern ludah), therefore undermining his theory altogether. At any event, even if his methodo-logical notes were all correct, the overall settlement picture of ludah would not be affected, and onc would still have to conclude that the rural sector was devastated. It is particularly revealing that he failed to mention even one excavated rural site out of those that existed, according to him, in the 6th century BCE. Notably, my conclusions arc sup-portcd by an examination of additional sites that are now included in a large databasc compiled by Z. Safrai and myself.

While the methodological issue does not have any impact on my conclusions, onc should note that Lipschits' rcconstruction is methodologically unsound and wrong. lust as an example, one should note that he gave precedence to data from surveys when re-constructing the settlement history of northern ludah (undermining the importance of ex-cavations), while giving prccedence to the data from excavations in his treatment of Bcnjamin (and on this basis "corrected" the conclusions of the surveys); in each case he simply preferred onc set of data, which he considered to be more in line with his theory, and "corrected" the other set. Regarding the area of Benjamin, his assumptions on the nature of the Neo-Babylonian period even drove him to form an impossible scenario, and to the conclusion that the sites surveyed in this region in the Persian period should be viewed as reflecting not the peak of settlement in this period, but rather a period of decline (ibid., 104; see also Lipschits 2003, 349). This, however, is an impossibility, and runs contrary to all the basics-the accumulated numbcr of sites in each period repre-sents its settlement peak (or, in case not all thc sites were contemporaneous, the numbcr of survcyed sites can be evcn higher than the real peak). Thc total number of surveyed sites can ncver represent of the nadir!

2004] Social and Cultural Changes in ludah during the 6th Century BCE 159

dence is explained in two contrasting ways:

I. It could be assumed that due to various reasons the region was only sparsely inhabited, therefore leaving only scant remains (e. g., Stem 1997; 1998; 2000).

2. The lack of specific Babylonian period's material culture can also be attrib-uted to the fact that we are dealing with a very short period which had no distinct characteristics. The period's material culture should be viewed as a continuation of that of the late i h and early 6th centuries BCE, and as a predecessor of that of the Persian period. This school, therefore, views the Babylonian period's material culture as a continuation of that of the Iron Age (Barkai 1992; Lipschits 1997; Barstad 1996). Adherents of this school of thoughts usually (though not necessarily) regard the 6th century to be much more populated than supporters of the first school.

Both explanations could, theoretically, account for the lack of detailed and spe-cific knowledge of the 6th century BCE material culture, and for the lack of knowledge on this period's settlements, and it is, theoretically, difficult to judge them. I believe, however, that following the healthy debate that evolved re-cently, enough archaeological evidence was presented in support of (a slightly moderated version of) the first school, as both the urban and rural sector seem to have been devastated (Faust 2003, and references; see more below). Here, I would like to add another line of evidence in support of this view, and to exam-ine some aspects of social and cultural continuity and change during the 6th century BCE.

Social and Cultural Changes in the 6th Century BCE There are sevcral matcrial traits that seem to have been of great importance in latc Iron Age ludahite society, and an examination of their fate in the 6th century BCE can be very instructive as to social and cultural situation at the time: 3

3 This is not the place to discuss all the changes which took place during the transitional period discussed here, but there seems to have been many, not all of them, however, can easily be demonstrated archaeologically. The easterly orientation of structures during the Iron Age, for example, is attested archaeologically and manifested in the texts (Faust 2001). While no archaeological examination was conducted in regard to the Persian period, the texts imply that this element of cosmology Ibclief did not exist any more [e. g., the existence of a western gate in the Chroniclers description of the Temple Mount (I Chronicles 9: 23-24; see also I Chronicles 26: 12-19), as opposed to Ezekiel's description (Ezekiel 40-48; see also Faust 2001 )). Moreover, Vanderhooft (in press) has demonstrated, on the basis of textual analysis, that the entire concept of the Mishpa~a (and kinship) had dramatically changed in the Persian Period (this might be connected to the disappearance of the four-room house, below). It should be noted that in some aspects thcre seems to be continuity between the periods (e. g., in the negative view to-ward imported pottery, Faust in press a), but the process by which sueh traditions continued and were kept, and who exactly were the bearers of this continuity is not yet

160 A. Faust [UF 36

The traits to be discussed here are the Judahite tomb, which was extremely prevalent outside the settlements' walls, and the four-room house, which have dominated the built environment of Judah's urban and rural landscape.

The Judahite tomb The Judahite tombs have received a great deal of discussion (e. g., Barkai 1992; 1994; 1999; Yazersky 1995; 1999; Bloch Smith 1992; 2002; Mazar 1990, 520-526; for specific examples see, e. g., Biranl Gophna 1970; Yezerski 1997; Beit-Arieh/Baron 1999; Yezerski/Lander 2002). In summary, the term refers to a new type of burial that appears in Judah in the Iron Age II, and mainly in its crystallized form, during the 8th - i h centuries BeE. The typical Judahite tomb is composed of a hewed burial cave, with a dramas. From the dramas one enters the cave by stepping down on (a) rock step(s). The cave itself is usually com-posed of a single space of approximately 2.5 x 3 m. The chambers were usually dug in strait lines, although the quality and the finish vary greatly. After entering the cave one reaches a central passage, on three sides of which benches were left undug. The benches are organized like an; one facing the doorway and two on the right and left side of the central passageway. The deceased were laid on the benches until the flesh decomposed. On one of the inner corners, or below one of the benches, there is usually a repository, into which the bones of the de-ceased were collected for secondary burial. The bench was thus freed to ac-commodate a new body. Many funerary gifts accompanied the burials, and these were also found in the repository. This type of burial was used by extended families for many generations. While hundreds of caves follow the above guide-lines, there are many differences among them. Some of the caves are hewed in a high quality: the benches are all uniform, and the walls and roof are smooth, etc. Others, however, are very rough. In addition, while most caves include a single chamber, others were composed of a cluster of adjoining chambers.

Today, we know of hundreds of such burials throughout Judah. Recently, Yazerski (1995, 109) counted some 395 burial chambers, in 278 tombs (in 39 sites), the vast majority of which belongs to the discussed type. Such caves were unearthed all over Judah, from Tel 'Ira in the Beersheba basin in the south (Beit AriehlBaron 1999), through Kh. 'Anim, Tel Halif, Kh. Za'ak, Ein Gedi, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel Eitun, Kh. el-Kom, Ras a-Tawil, Sa'ir, Tel Goded, el-Arub, Tekoa, Nebi Daniel, el-'Atan, Bethlehem, Manahat, Zuba, Moza, Shoresh, Abu Gosh, Jerusalem, to Nebi Samuel, Tell el-Ful and Gibeon in the land of Benja-min in the north (a partial list from Yazerski 1995, plate I; 1999,265).

Admittedly, the caves do not represent the burials of the entire population of Judah. Apparently, only the middle and upper classes, i. e., the landowning peasants Cam ha'aretz), the rich and most of the nobility buried their dead this way (Barkai 1992; 1994; 1999; Faust in press b; see also Bloch Smith 1992,

clear.

2004] Social and Cultural Changes in ludah during the 6th Century BCE ... 161

49). The majority of the urban poor probably disposed their dead in simple inhumations in the ground (Barkai 1992; 1994; 1999; Faust in press b). The royalty and a few of the nobility were probably buried in more elaborated tombs, which do not concern us here (e. g., Barkai 1999).

The Judahite tombs stresses generational continuity and the permanent nature of the family, as well as possession of land, and also some beliefs about death and the relations between the living and the dead (e. g., Baraky 1994; 1999; Bloch Smith 1992). Moreover, several scholars have noted the similarity be-tween the tombs and the typical house of this period (the four-room house, see below) and have suggested that the former was viewed as the house of the dead, where all family members went to after their death (Mazar 1976, 4, note 9; Barkai 1994; 1999). It is clear that the Judahite tomb had became an important social phenomenon, both reflecting ludahite values and structuring them.

It is therefore striking to note that no such caves are known from the Persian period (e.g., Stern 2001, 470-479; Yezerski 1995, 113-114; Wolff 2002, 132, 133, 136). The absence of the typical ludahite burial custom in the Persian pe-riod indicates that an important social institution had disappeared rather sud-denly. This could have only resulted from a cultural break in the 6th century BCE.

Admittedly, there is some evidence for the continuous use of a few of these Iron Age tombs during the 6th century. Continuity was perhaps observed at some sites in the land of Benjamin (e.g., Barkai 1992,372; 1994, 164; Carter 2003,307; Kloner 2004, 1084) and also in Keteph Hinnom, tomb 5 at Mamilla (both at Jerusalem; Carter 2003,307; Barkai 1992,372; but see Stern 2001, 324), Beth-Shemesh (tomb 14; Barkai 1992, 372), and in one tomb at Tel 'Ira (Beit Arieh et al. 1999, 162-166).

The fact that there is some ephemeral use of these tombs in the 6th century, however, reinforces our position on their significance as indicating a major so-cial break at the time. 5

4 Note that in some cases the supposition that the tombs were used in the 6th century and the Persian period is based on the finding of some Hellenistic pottery, and on the assumption that the tombs were used continuously from the Iron Age (e. g., Kloner 2004, 108; sce also Magen 2004). I believe that in most cases this assumption can be doubted. In the cave discussed by Kloner, for example, no Persian Period pottery was found (out of hundreds of sherds), and it appears that the cave was only reused (for whatever purposes) in the Hellenistic period (c. f. EsehllKloner 1990). At any event, the number of such tombs is minimal (Keteph Hinnom might be an exception), and they are all located around Jerusalem or to its north. Furthermore, none was suggested to have been hewn in the Persian period. This means that such usage was sporadic at bests, and did not cover the entire time-span discussed here. (the reality in the Hellenistic period is beyond the scope of the prcsent paper). 5 Interestingly, the tombs comprise almost all the archaeological evidence for the 6th

century (Barkai 1992, 372). I shall discuss this phenomenon later.

162 A. Faust [UF 36

I. Only a few tombs exhibit this continuity: one in Tel 'Ira, two in Jerusalem and probably one in Beth Shemesh.6 This means that the continuity that is observed by the use of the tombs in the 6th century was extremely limited. The vast majority of the Iron Age tombs were not, after all, used at the time. It is clear, of course, that the 6th century population in Judah didn't immedi-ately change its habits, and the limited use, therefore, reflects the fact that the population was extremely limited. These few tombs indicate that the small population of 6th century Judah continued to practice the traditional Judahite burials at least in the first generation(s) after the collapse (see also Oded 2003,67,note 10).

2. Moreover, these burials represent the last phase of usage in the Iron Age cemeteries (of which they were part; e. g., Stem 200 I, 340). These tombs were used only during a short period of time~hardly any of them exhibits a continuous and prolong use in the Persian period (at best, they existed into the beginning of this period, e.g., Reich 1993, 106~I07 for Mamilla). This means that, after a few generations, the old Judahite practice simply died away (see more below).

It is clear, therefore, that the 'continuity' in use of some of the tombs is an ephemeral episode and statistically insignificant. It is important for someone who wants to prove that the land was not literally empty in the 6th century, but it doesn't prove the existence of more than a very small number of people and does not indicate any real and significant settlement. 7 These later burials were probably practiced by those who remained in Judah after its fall and still con-ducted their traditional burial. This ephemeral use is an indication that the re-mainders were very few, otherwise we would have expected much more caves to be used in the 6th century. Later we will discuss why the custom, which was still maintained by some, gradually faded away and was not practiced in the Persian Period.

The fact that no Judahite tombs were hewn during the Persian periodx clearly

6 As we have already seen, continuity was observed also in the land of Benjamin (e. g., Barkai 1994, 164; Carter 2003,307; but see Yazerski 1995, 114), but this is of less importance for the debate, as there seems to be an agreement among scholars from all schools that this was one of the only regions that prospered in the 6th century (Malamat 1950; Stern 2001, 321-323 ; Lipschits 1999; Barstad 1996, 48). At any event, the situa-tion in Benjamin merits a new and more detailed discussion. 7 As we have seen above (note 1), most scholars did not view the land as "empty," and supporters of the continuity theory simply created a straw-man (sec, most recently, Lip-se hits 2004). 8 Burial in the Pcrsian period was different (sce, for example, Wolf 2002; Stern 1971). Yuval Baruch informed me that he had surveyed two burial caves, reminiscent of the ludahite burials, in which Persian Period pottery was discovered. It was robbed in the past, so no finds were found in-situ. Since the site was not excavated, and in the absence of in-situ finds, there is not much we can learn from this data (on the Persian Period, sce


poses a problem for those who assume almost full continuity between the Iron Age and the Persian Period. A major social institution simply ceased to exist at some point between the end of the Iron Age and the Persian period. Since these tombs were not hewn in the Persian period, it is clear that we are witnessing a break between the late Iron Age practice and that of the Persian period. While archaeologically we cannot date the time when this change took place within the 6th century, anyone who doubts that it is a result of the 586 events and the proc-esses that followed, will have to come up with another reason. Whatever, the exact date, only major population shifts could have caused such an abrupt change.

The cessation of hewing and using the Iron Age ludahite tombs is therefore indicative of both a major socio-cultural change and also of a demographic de-cline.9

The Four-Room House

Another dominant feature of the Israelite and ludahite society during the Iron Age II is the four-room house, which received a great deal of scholarly attention over the last couple of decades (Shiloh 1970; 1973; 1978; Stager 1985; Hol-laday 1992; 1997; Netzer 1992; Braemer 1982; Faust 1999, 190-206; in press b; Faust/Bunimovitz 2003; Bunimovitz/Faust 2002; 2003):

The four-room house, along with its subtypes, was the most dominant type of house during the Iron Age. The house appeared during the early Iron Age, slowly crystallizing into its more familiar fonn and becoming dominant in the Iron Age II. Not only were most dwellings built following this form (or its sub-types), but even some public structures were built in this fashion (e. g., the fort in Hazor). Moreover, we have seen that this plan probably influenced the above-mentioned ludahite tombs, which were built following a similar perception of space.

In the early stages of research, many scholars viewed the house's temporal and spatial distribution as matching those of the Israelites. The house was there-

more below). 9 Notably, one could suggest that because poor people did not use such tomb in the Iron Age II, the disappearance of the tomb does not necessarily indicate that the poorer segments of the population disappeared too. This is of course correct. Whether a large portion of the poorer population remained in ludah or not, cannot be determined by the mortuary evidence discussed. But this pertains only to the poorer elements in the society and there seems to be an agreement that some of these elements remained in ludah (whether they were the ones who used the tombs, or not). Still, what is important for our purposes is that mortuary evidence shows that the structure of the society changed dra-matically (for the reasons for this change, see below). As for the demographic importance of the data, the evidence discussed above pertains for the disappearance of the larger segments of the ludahite population. That even the poorer segments suffered a major blow can be seen in the disappearance of the four- and three-room houses (below; see also Faust 2003).

164 A. Faus( [UF 36

fore labeled the 'Israelite House' (e. g., Shiloh 1973). Later scholarship tended to attribute the house dominant position in the Iron Age to its superb functional-ity, whether accepting the ethnic label or not (e. g., Stager 1985; Holladay 1982; Ahlstrom 1993, 340). This superb functionality referred to the house's assumed suitability for the Israelite (and possibly others) life and practical needs. Ac-cording to this view the uniform plan was adapted because it suited the daily life, whereas certain rooms were used for storing animals, others for food prepa-ration, sleeping, etc.

H is now clear, however, that the functional explanation falls short of ac-counting for the phenomenon. Among the reasons for disqualifying the func-tional explanation are the following (for more details, see Faust 1999; 2000; Faust/Bunimovitz 2003; Bunimovitz and Faust 2002; 2003; Cassutto 2004, 133-134): the plan was used in both urban and rural settings whose functional needs are different, for rich dwellings and poor ones, and even for public build-ings (where nobody would suggest to attribute one of the rooms for storing ani-mals). Moreover, we have seen that the house was even used as a template for the period's tombs. Also, the finds in the rooms of the various structures do not reflect any uniformity in the use of these spaces, contrary to the assumption that it is functional. Additional fact that disproves the functional explanation is that the construction oj'these houses ceased in the 6th century BCE (e. g., Shiloh 1973,281; Holladay 1997, 337; below). No technological changes took place in the 6th century; if the house was adopted because of its suitability to peasant life in the Iron Age, why wasn't it suitable for the peasants of the Persian Period?

In a series of paper, Bunimovitz and I (above) had attempted to show that the 'Israelite' label is justified. We claimed that whether or not all houses were in-habited by Israelites, it is clear that Israelites did use this house extensively, much more than any other group. We showed that the house suited the Israelites world views, kinship, and perceptions of space and suited their daily practices, and that this is the reason for its dominant position.

Whether we are correct or not, the house's ubiquity clearly indicates its im-portance in the social landscape of Iron Age ludahite society. In light of the great importance of the four-room house for the Iron Age society, its demise in the 6th century is interesting. While this fact seems to indicate that the functional explanation is fault, as no major changes that could influence the functionality of the house took place at this time, it is also important for our discussion. The house, which practically embodied the Israelite world, simply ceased to exist in the 6th century, and this clearly indicates major socio-cultural change that took place at the time. This can only be explained by a cultural break.

One need not accept all of our interpretations of the four-room house in order to see the importance of the house's disappearance in the 6th century. The disap-pearance of something which must be seen as an important cultural feature of the Iron Age begs an explanation. If life went on just as before the Babylonian destruction, why didn't the people continue to use the same houses?

r


Again, it is possible that there is an ephemeral use of these structures in the 6th

century. It is possible that the four-room house uncovered at 'Alona, not far from Jerusalem, should be dated to the 6th century. In the publication, the house was described as an Iron Age structure (Weksler-Bdolah 1997,98), but the excavator informed me that later analysis revealed that the structure should probably be dated to the Persian period. Iron Age pottery was found under the floor, but it is not clear whether this indicates an earlier occupation of the same structure (Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, personal communication), or not (AI on De-Groot, personal communication). It is likely that the house should be dated to the 6th century.IO Moreover, Jeffrey Zom has attempted recently to date several large four-room houses from Tell en-Nasbeh to the 6th century (e. g., Zom 1997). According to him, stratum II at en-Nasbhe represents the city that became the new capital of Judah in the early 6th century after the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah and Jerusalem (ibid.). If Zom is correct, then the fact that the inhabi-tants built four-room houses strengthen the notion that the people of Iron Age Judah built such houses whenever they lived. The destruction of Jerusalem didn't prevent the survivors from building the houses they were familiar with. The absence of these houses elsewhere, therefore, begs an explanation. It should be admitted, however, that Zom's re-dating of the structures is doubted (e. g., Herzog 1997, 237). The most we can say is that perhaps these structures were reused in the 6th century, and at any event, we are discussing an extremely lim-ited number of houses.

Just like in the case of the Judahite tombs, the quantity of the 6th century structures is exceptionally restricted, exhibiting a great demographic decline. After all, the entire 6th century population was expected to use these houses, at least in the first generation after the destruction, and if there were many of them, we would have expected to find many such houses. Moreover, we are not fa-miliar with any four-room house that was built in the Persian period in the Ya-hud Pahwe, or even in the larger territory of what used to be Judah. This means that even the ephemeral use of these houses ceased during the 6th century, probably a generation or two after the destruction, but not much more.

Just like that demise of the Judahite tombs, the four-room house was still used by the limited population that lived in Judah in the 6th century BCE, but even this ephemeral use by the limited population that remained had declined and eventually died-away. Notably, the four room house was used by all segments of Judah's population, and its disappearance is indicative also of the great demo-graphic decline in all social clases.

10 Note that de Groot (e. g., 2001) rejects all the attempts to date finds to the 6th century, rightfully pointing to both, the methodological problems with some of the datings and to the difficulties such dating would create for our understanding of the Persian period (and he is probably right in his discussion of the finds on the western hill, for example). How-ever, if indeed the pottery of the 6th century doesn't have any special characteristics of its own, than there is no reason to reject every 6th century dating.

166 A. Faust [UF 36

Discussion The discussed traits are of extreme importance for the study of daily life, as they accompanied the individual from cradle to grave. The house practically struc-tures the individual's hahitus (Bourdieu 1977) on a daily and regular basis, and the tomb is where everyone goes. Both the markers of life and death, which were so prevalent in Iron Age ludah, exhibit a sharp and abrupt change at the transition to the Persian Period. I cannot see it as anything but an indication of an extreme social and cultural break. The above-mentioned changes reflect fun-damental changes in lifestyle, ethos and beliefs, and only a significant event could have caused them.

It should be emphasized that archaeologically speaking the changes cannot be dated with any precision within the 6th century. It is clear, however, that they occurred during this century. The traditional view of the Babylonian conquest, whereas many people died in the war and the catastrophes that followed, while many survivors fled and others were exiled, leaving ludah with little population, can easily account for the phenomenon. The new school, which viewed ludah in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods as a continuation of the Iron Age where life went on 'as usuall', cannot accommodate these changes. If not the 586 events and the processes which followed, what could have caused them? In the absence of another explanation one must recourse to the traditional and widely accepted explanation mentioned above.

It should be noted that the lack of ludahite tombs and four-room houses could be partially explained differently. Persian period ludah was sparsely settled. Even the figures suggested so far demonstrate the great demographic decline in com-parison to the Iron Age; most figures consider the Persian period population to be a third or even less, of its late Iron Age predecessor (e. g., Carter 1999, 247; Lipschits 2003, 363-366; Meyers/Meyers 1994,280-282),11 and I believe that a close examination of the archaeological evidence reveals that these estimations even exaggerate the percentage of the Persian period inhabitants when compared with their Iron Age predecessors (the issue will be discussed at length else-where). As a result, the small population of Persian period ludea left very little remains. It is possible, therefore, that the fact that so little cultural continuity is evident, results mainly from the fact that there was small population, and as a consequence, few remains. If this is true, then we can expect more four-room houses and ludahite tombs to be discovered in Persian period Yahad in the fu-ture (see also Wolff2002, 137 [note 1]).

It should be stressed that even if this is the main cause for the lack of four-room houses and ludahite tombs in the Persian period, it still proves our point. Such a great population decrease (which represents the peak of the Persian Pe-

11 Note that even these (generous, to my opinion) estimations are enough to characterize Judea as a post-collapse society (compare, for example, Tainter 1999, 1016). The issue will be discussed at length elsewhere (sce also a brief discussion below).


riod), clearly support the notion that ludah was devastated in the 6th century. Moreover, such a decline inevitably resulted with a social and cultural disinte-gration, and this is the next issue to be discussed.

Sixth Century Judah as a Post-Collapse Society Supporters of the continuity theory argue that it is unlikely that the land would be so empty and that 'emptying' the land was against the Babylonian interest (e. g., Barstad 1996; 2003; see also Blenkinsopp 2002b, 187; but see Stern 2000; 200 I ; Vanderhooft 2003; see more below). Common sense is essential, but can also be misleading. Interestingly, the archaeology of 6th century ludah is not without parallels and the reality that seemed unrealistic to the supporters of the continuity school is quite frequent and normal. Tainter (1999) had recently published a cross-cultural study of what he termed "post-collapse societies," and this seems to be of major importance for the present discussion. According to Tainter (1999, 989) "collapse is a rapid, significant, loss of an established level of socio-political complexity." A society can collapse as a result of internal processes, as emphasized in many recent studies, or as a result of external forces, or a combination of them (e.g., Tainter 1999; Fagan 1999,193-195, 288-289,210; Liverani 2001). Frequently, collapse has consequences in diverse areas such as art, architecture, and literature. Tainter's study bears much rele-vance for our discussion, and almost all his characteristics of post-collapse so-cieties can be seen in the 6th century BCE ludah: 12

The first feature in Tainter's synthesis is population, on which he (1999, 1021) writes:

"[W]hether as cause, consequence, or both, depopulation frequently ac-companies collapse. Not only do urban populations decline, so also do the support popuJations of the countryside. Many settlements are concur-rently abandoned. The levels of population and settlement may revert to those of centuries or even millennia before."

This is an amazing description of the way most scholars view ludah in the 6th

century. Moreover, Tainter showed that, at times, the depopulation could have reached 75%-90% (Tainter 1999,1010) and even 94%! (ibid., 1016). The data from Tainter does not prove that this is what happened in ludah, of course, but it clearly shows that it is possible (in contrast to the assertion of the continu-ity school).

Tainter (1999, 1022) also points out that as societies become vulnerable to collapse there are great differences in opinions as to what is wrong, if at all. He presents various literary evidence which seems to have been common to many such societies, from diverse cases as China at the end of the Western Chou, Rome in the third century and the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Cleary, the literary

12 It should be noted that while the study of 'post-collapse societies' had concentrated on empires, "any kind of society can collapse" (Taintcr 1999,991).

168 A. Faust [UF 36

evidence from late i h and 6th century ludah fits well. From an architectural perspective, "there is an end to monumental construc-

tion" (ibid, 1024). In many cases, people reuse older structures (e. g., for our discussion, the finds at Kh. Abu et-Twein; Mazar 1982, 105).

Tainter (\999, 1025) also notes that in many cases the term 'dark age' is applied to post collapse societies. While he suggests that the term should be used with care, suffice it to show that situations similar to these of ludah are frequent. Collapse is also accompanied by territorial and political fragmentation (Tainter 1999, 1026), as is evident with the later emergence of Yahud Pahwe, which covered only a limited part of area of the former Kingdom of ludah, which was now divided between several polities.

Tainter also notes (1999, 1028) that a feature of many post-collapse societies is that they treat their past as "a paradise lost, a golden age of good government, wise rule, harmony and peace." While not surprising, it should be noted that this point, too, is known from ludah (as is evident by some of the literature that is usually dated to the 'exilic period').

An interesting point, which cannot be developed here, is that the recovery takes time - usually couple of hundreds of years (Tainter 1999, 1026-1027). From this perspective it should be noted that while the 6th century BCE reflects the lowest point in the region's social complexity, demography, etc., ludea dur-ing the entire Persian period should still be viewed as a post-collapse society. This is in line with our understanding of the demographic reality in Persian Pe-riod ludea, briefly mentioned above (a more comprehensive treatment of the Persian period society will be published elsewhere).

And finally, a few words on what Tainter labeled "post-coIlapse archae-ology" (Tainter 1999, 1029-1030). Tainter laments the lack of data from settle-ments and writes (ibid., 1029),

"[T]he extent to which post-collapse archaeology relies on burials is striking [ ... ] Much of what we know of [ ... ] post-collapse societies comes from a very small number of graves." He adds (ibid.) "[A]r-chaeologists who study these periods are not averse to excavating settle-ments, but they are able to locate surprisingly few." Furthermore (ibid., 1030), "[W]hile this is deplorable from the perspective of representative data, it does reflect the nature of post-collapse societies."

Again, this description fits extraordinarily well with the traditional view of the 6th century BCE in ludah. Here too, the limited data is derived from a few tombs, and no real settlements were excavated.

All the characteristics mentioned above show that 6th century ludah should be viewed as a post-coIlapse society.I3 More important, however, is that the

13 Moreover, according to Tainter (1999, 1023) "simplification of the political hierarchy is almost by definition an attribute of collapse." Many ranks simply disappear, and the entire political structure changes its make up, and becomes much simpler, and so the is the society in general (ibid., 1024).


above shows that the traditional view of Judah cannot be ruled out because it doesn't make sense, as claimed, for example, by Barstad (2003, 11) who wrote: "[ ... ] it would have been unwise of Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Judah." Even if the Babylonian did not want this to happen, as claimed by Barstad (1996, 67-68; 2003, 11) and Blenkinsopp (2002b, 187),14 and this is doubted by many (Stem 2000; Vanderhooft 2003; see also Stager 1996,71*-72*), then not ~verything was in their hands. Once in motion, the processes of collapse contirtued, to a large extent indifferent to Babylonian imperial intentions.

Such situations are common (see also Price 1978, 176), and we should try to understand them, instead of ignoring the evidence and claiming that they are not logical.

The above clearly demonstrates that not only isn't the situation in ludah unique and unheard of, but that Judah fits nicely into the category of a post-collapse society. This, again, support the traditional view of 6th century ludah. This also shows that collapse is a process that involves disintegration and social changes. The cessation in the use of cultural features (i. e., the Judahite tomb and the four-room house in our case) is therefore expected.

Conclusions The four-room house and the Judahite tomb were important components of ludahite culture, both social/ spiritual and material. They accompanied the Juda-hite from cradle to grave, both reflecting and structuring life. These features, which dominated the social landscape of late Iron Age Judah, had both experi-enced a sudden end during the 6th century BCE, indicating an abrupt social change.

As previous archaeological studies have clearly shown, the 6th century BCE

14 A full discussion of this question is beyond the scope of the present paper. There are, however, many problems which apparently disprove this view. First of all, Ashkelon and Ekron were the most important economic centers in southern Israel during the late 7th century, in the end of the Assyrian period. Both were destroyed by the Babylonians, and were not resettled in the 6th century (e. g., Stager 1996; Gitinl Dothan 1993; Faustl Weiss in press). If indeed the Babylonian were motivated by economic considerations, as suggested by the continuity school, they would have reestablished these flourishing eco-nomic centers in the Coastal Plain. A suggestion that they turned ludah into their major area of production (Barstad 2003, 12) and that the production centcrs will be discovered in the future, is divorced not only from the archaeological reality in ludah (where no such centers existed), but also from an understanding of the late Iron Age economic sys-tem of southern Israel, as ludah was only a minor component of it, while Philistia was its center. Furthermore, as far as Mesopotamia is concerned, it seems as if for commercial purposes ludah was simply too remote from Mesopotamia to have been a major center of supply (e. g., Machinist 1992). Even without a detailed discussion, I believe that the above is sufficient to show that this 'common sense' assertion, too, simply doesn't make sense.

170 A. Faust [UF 36

witnessed major archaeological changes in both urban (as accepted by all, e. g., Stem 2001; Barstad 1996, 50-51) and rural settings (Faust 2003). Clearly, not all members of the society were exiled. This is indeed illogical (but not new, see already, e. g., Oded 1984, 176; Bright 1972, 343-344; Noth 1960, 296; Mazar 1990, 548; Stem 2002, 39). The exact number of exiled is irrelevant for the present argument; more people probably died in wars and in the epidemics and famine that inevitably followed. Others fled to other regions, such as Egypt, and probably also to parts of the Coastal Plain and other regions which were not devastated in the early 6th century, etc. (see also Faust 2003; Stem 200 I ).15

Some people, however, have indeed remained in the land. As Carter (2003, 318, emphasis added) recently phrased it, "life went on in some manner in ludah after the destruction and deportations of 597 and 586." What is important is that those who stayed behind and remained alive were a relatively small group, and they knew it and felt so (Meyers and Meyers 1994). The Iron Age ludahite soci-ety ceased to function as such. The lack of leadership, the death of so many people and the exile of the leaders that remained (among others) caused a rapid social disintegration, so typical of post collapse societies (Tainter 1999, 996-1020, for examples and references).

In summary, the lack of four-room houses and ludahite tombs in the Persian period is a clear manifestation of the social disintegration of the 6th century BCE. The fact that no one hewed such tombs and built four-room houses any-more indicates an abrupt social change and, as we have seen, also demographic decline.

Endnote It is possible, as claimed by many, that the biblically driven assumption that ludah was empty lead scholars to ignore this period and to refer to it as a gap in the history of this region (e. g., Blenkinsopp 2002b; Barstad 1996, 77-79). How-ever, one of the problems with the claim that the break is just a scholarly construct is the fact that a decline was observed in other regions as well. After all, if biblical bias influenced scholarship on ludah, a Babylonian period should have been identified in other regions, for whom this 'assumption' (or bias) was irrelevant. If really a scholarly construct, the gap in ludah would have been ac-companied with ('constructed') prosperity in other regions, both because no bias existed regarding these regions and also in order to put the devastation of ludah in its 'proper' context (i. e., to contrast the two pictures and to stress the empti-ness of ludah). The fact that remains from this period in other regions are also relatively poor teaches that while the biblical bias no doubt does exist, it is not

15 All these mechanisms were simply ignored by the new school (also Faust 2003, 45, and references), which just claimed that it was illogical that all the population was exiled, and that the land was empty. At any event, it is possible that more people were exiled than the new school tend to think, since many Judahites are mentioned in many texts in Mesopotamia. Scc c. g., Eph'al 2000; Oded 1995; 2000).


(only?) it that created this gap. This is probably also a result of the Babylonian policy, or perhaps lack of it (Stem 2000; 2001 ; Vanderhooft 2003; Oded 2003), as well as other processes (above).

Paradoxically (and sadly), the plea to 'liberate' archaeology from its coop-eration in the creation of the 'myth' (e. g., Blenkinsopp 2002b, 187)16 does not involve a call for an independent archaeological agenda that will inform biblical scholars on the material reality in 6th century. Rather, it is an explicit call for a recruited archaeology-an archaeology whose agenda, and even conclusions should be biblically (and even politically) driven. 17 While the archaeology of the 6th century BCE should be infonned of biblical studies, as the two are related, it will be better off with studying the 6th century BCE mainly in archaeologi-cal I anthropological tenns, i. e., to concentrate on concepts such as abandonment of sites and regions (e. g., Cameron/Tomka 1993; Nelson/Schachner 2002; Hegmon/Nelson/Ruth 1998), processes of collapse and post-collapse (e. g., Tainter 1988; 1999; Yoffee/CowgillI991), etc.

Bibliography

Aharoni, Y., 1979: The Land of the Bible: Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Ahlstrom, G. W., 1982: Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient

Palestine. Leiden. - 1993: The History of Ancient Palestine from Paleolithic Period to Alexan-

der's Conquest. Sheffield. Barkai, G., 1992: The Iron Age II-III. In A. Ben Tor (ed.): The Archaeology of

Ancient Israel. New Haven. Pp. 302-373. - 1994: Burial Caves and Burial Practices in Judah in the Iron Age. In

I. Singer (ed.): Graves and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period Je-rusalem. Pp. 96-164. [Hebrew]

- 1995: New Excavations at Ketef Hinnom. In Z. Safrai I A. Faust (eds.): Re-cent Innovations in the Study of Jerusalem, Proceedings of the First Confer-ence. Jerusalem. Pp. 8-15. [Hebrew]

- 1999: Burial Caves and Dwellings in Judah during the Iron Age II: Socio-logical Aspects, Material Culture. In A. Faust I A. M. Maeir (eds.): Society and Ideology: New Directions in the Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Ramat Gan. Pp. 96-102. [Hebrew]

Barstad, H. M., 1996: The Myth of the Empty Land. Oslo.

16 When reading some of the literature on the subject (e. g., Blenkinsopp 2002b), one gets the impression that much of it has a (not so much hidden) agenda and that much of it is at fault with what it is charging previous generations of.

17 It goes without saying that not all biblical scholars belong to the new school (see ref-erences above; see also, for example, Meyers/Meyers 1994), but Blenkinsopp wants an archaeology that will support his views (the reader should perhaps refer to the first part of his 2002b paper, to appreciate why he thinks archaeologists should reach these con-clusions).

172 A. Faust [UF 36

- 2003: After the "Myth of the Empty Land": Major Challenges in the Study of Neo-Babylonian Judah. In O. Lipschits / J. Blenkinsopp (eds.): Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona Lake. Pp. 3-20.

Beit-Arieh, I. / Baron, A G., 1999: The Cemetery. In Tel 'Ira, A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. Tel-Aviv. Pp. 129-169.

Biran, A. / Gophna, R., 1970: An Iron Age Burial at Tel Halif. Israel Explora-tion Journal 20, 151-169.

Blenkinsopp, 1., 2002a: There was no Gap. Biblical Archaeology Review 28/3, 37-38,59.

- 2002b: The Bible, Archaeology and Politics; or The Empty Land Revisited. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27/2, 169-187.

Bloch-Smith, E., 1992: Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. Sheffield.

- 2002: Life in Judah from the Perspective of the Dead. Near Eastern Archae-ology 65/2,120-130.

Bourdieu, P., 1977: An Outline of A Theory of Practice. Cambridge. Bright, J., 1972: A History of Israel. Philadelphia. Bunimovitz, S. / Faust, A, 2002: Ideology in Stone: Understanding the Four-

Room House. Biblical Archaeology Review 28/4,32--41,59-60. - / -: 2003. Building Identity: the Four-room House and the Israelite Mind.

In W. G. Dever / S. Gitin (eds.): Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age Through Roman Palestine. Winona Lake. Pp. 411--423.

Cameron, C. M. / Tomka, S. A, 1993: Abandonment of Settlements and Re-gions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches. Cambridge.

Carroll, R. P., 1992: The Myth of the Empty Land. Semeia 59, 79-93. Carter, C. E., 1999: The Emergence ofYehud in the Persian Period: a Social and

Demographic Study. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 294. Sheffield.

- 2003: Ideology and Archaeology in the Neo-Babylonian Period: Excavating Text and Tell. In O. Lipschits / J. Blenkinsopp, eds.): Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona Lake. Pp. 301-322.

Cassutto, D. R. 2004: The Social Context of Weaving in the Land of Israel: Investigating the Context of Iron Age II Loom weights. Master's thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.

de Groot, A, 200 I: Jerusalem During the Persian Period. In A Faust / A Baruch (eds.): New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the i h Confer-ence. Ramat-Gan. Pp. 77-81. [Hebrew]

Dothan, T. / Gitin, S., 1993: Miqne, Tel (Ekron). In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 3. New York. Pp. 1051-1059.

Eph'al, I., 1996: Siege and its Ancient Near Eastern Manifestation. Jerusalem. [Hebrew]

-- 2000: Ethnic changes in the Land of Israel following the destruction of the

~~---------------------------------------------------


Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Public lecture in memory of the late Prof. Benjamin Mazar, 27 September 2000. [Hebrew]

Eshel, H. / Kloner, A, 1990: A Late Iron Age Tomb Between Bet Hanina and Nebi Samwil and the Identification of Hazor in Nehemia II : 33. Eretz Israel 21,37-40. [Hebrew]

Fagan, B. M. 1999: World Prehistory: A Brief Introduction. New York. Faust, A., 1999: The Social Structure of the Israelite Society during the 8th - i h

centuries BCE according to the Archaeological Evidence. Ph. D. thesis, Bar-Han University, Ramat-Gan. ~ 2000: Ethnic Complexity in Northern Israel during Iron Age n. Palestine

Exploration Quarterly 132,2-27. ~ 200 I : Doorway Orientation, Settlement Planning and Cosmology in Ancient

Israel during Iron Age 1I". Oxford Journal of Archaeology 20/2,129-155. ~ 2003: Judah in the Sixth Century B. C. E.: A Rural Perspective. Palestine

Exploration Quarterly 135,37-53. ~ in press a: Israel's Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Re-

sistance. London. ~ in press b: The Israelite Society in the Period of the Monarchy: an Archaeo-

logical Perspective. Jerusalem. [Hebrew] Faust, A / Bunimovitz, S., 2003: The Four-room House: Embodying Israelite

Society. Near Eastern Archaeology 66, 22-31. Faust, A / Safrai, Z., in press: Salvage Excavations as a Source for Reconstruc-

ting Settlement History in Ancient Israel. Palestine Exploration Society. Faust, A. / Weiss, E., in press: Judah, Philistia, and the Mediterranean World:

Reconstructing the Economic System of the Seventh Century B. C. E. Bulle-tin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

Hegmon, M. / Nelson, M. C. / Ruth, S. M., 1998: Abandonment and Reorgani-zation in the Mimbres Region of the American Southwest. American An-thropologist 100, 148-162.

Herzog, Z., 1997: The City in Ancient Israel. Tel Aviv. Hollady, J.S., 1992: House, Israelite. In D.N. Friedman (ed.): The Anchor

Bible Dictionary, 3. New York. Pp. 308-318. ~ 1995: The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Centrali-

zation in the Iron IIA-B. In T. E. Levy (ed.): The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York. Pp. 368-398, 586-590 ~ 1997: Four-Room House. In E. M. Meyers (ed.): The Oxford Encyclopedia

of Archaeology in the Near East, 2. New York. Pp. 337-341. Kern, P. B., 1999: Ancient Siege Warfare. Bloomington. Kloner, A., 2004: Iron Age Burial Caves in Jerusalem and its Vicinity. Bulletin

of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 2001-2002, vol. 19-20,95-118. Kochavi, M., 1972: The Land of Judah. In M. Kochavi (ed.): Judea, Samaria

and the Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967-1968. Jerusalem. Pp. 19-89. [Hebrew]

Lipschits, 0., 1997: The 'Yehud' Province under Babylonian Rule (586-39

174 A. Faust [UF 36

B.C.E.): Historic Reality and Historiographic Conceptions. Ph. D. Thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv. [Hebrew]

- 1999: The History of the Benjamin Region under Babylonian Rule. Tel Aviv 26,155-190.

- 2003: Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries B. C. E. In O. Lipschits / J. Blenkinsopp (eds.): Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona Lake. Pp. 323-376.

- 2004: The Rural Settlement in Judah in the Sixth Century BCE: A Rejoinder. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 136,99-107.

Liverani, M., 2001: The Fall of the Assyrian Empire: Ancient and Modem In-terpretation. In S. E. Alcock (et al.) (eds.): Empires: Perspectives from Ar-chaeology and History. Cambridge. Pp. 374-391.

Machinist, P., 1992: Palestine, Administration of (Assyro-Babylonian). In D. N. Friedman (ed.): The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 5. New York. Pp. 69-81.

Magen, I. 2004: The Land of Benjamin in the Second Temple Period. In Y. Magen et al. (eds.): The Land of Benjamin. Jerusalem. Pp. 1-28.

Malamat, A., 1950: The Last Wars of the Kingdom of Judah. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 9, 218-227.

Mazar, A., 1976: Iron Age Burial Caves North of the Damascus Gate, Jerusa-lem. Israel Exploration Journal 26, 1-8.

- 1982: Iron Age Fortresses in the Judean Hills. Palestine Exploration Quar-terly 114,87-109.

- 1990: The Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586 BCE. New York.

Mazar, A. / Amit, D. / Ilan, Z., 1996: Hurvat Shilhah: An Iron Age Site in Ju-dean Desert. In J. D. Seger (ed.): Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeo-logical Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. van Beek. Winona Lake. Pp. 193-211.

Meyers, C. L. / Meyers, E. M., 1994: Demography and Diatribes: Yehud's Population and the Prophecy of Second Zechariah. In M. D. Coogan / J. C. Exum / L. E. Stager (eds.): Scripture and Other Artifacts. Louisville. Pp. 268-285.

Mileveski, 1., 1996-1997: Settlement Patterns in Northern Judah during the Achaemenid Period, According to the Hill Country of Benjamin and Jerusa-lem Survey. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 15,7-29.

Nelson, M. C. / Schachner, G., 2002: Understanding Abandonment in the North American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Research 10/2, 167-206.

Netzer, E., 1992: Domestic Architecture in the Iron Age. In A. Kempinski / R. Reich (eds.): The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Period Jerusalem. Pp. 193-201.

Noth, M., 1960: The History of Israel. New York / Evanston. Oded, B., 1984: The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. In 1. Eph'al (ed.): The His-

tory of Eretz Israel, Volume 2: Israel and Judah in the Biblical Period. Jeru-salem. Pp. 99-200. [Hebrew]

2004] Social and Cultural Changes in ludah during the 6 th Century BCE ... 175

- 1995: Observations on the Israelite/ Judaean Exiles in Mesopotamia during the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B. C. E. In K. van Lerberghe / A. Schoors (eds.): Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Leuven. Pp. 205~ 212.

- 2000: The Settlements of the Israelite and Judean Exiles in Mesopotamia in the 8

th-6th Centuries BCE. In G. Galil / M. Weinfeld (eds.): Studies in His-

torical Geography and Biblical Geography, Presented to Zecharia Kallai. Leiden. Pp. 91~103.

- 2003: Where is the "Myth of the Empty Land" To Be Found? History versus Myth, Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Bahylonian Period (0. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp, eds.), Winona Lake: 55-74.

Of er, A., 1993: The Highlands of Judah during the Biblical Period. Ph. D. The-sis, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv. [Hebrew]

- 1998. The Judeans Hills in the Biblical Period. Qadmoniot 115, 40~52. [He-brew]

Price, B. J., 1978: Secondary State Formation: An Explanatory Model. In R. Cohen / E. R. Service (eds.): Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia. Pp. 161 ~ 186.

Reich, R., 1993: The Cemetery in the Mamilla Area of Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 103~104, 103~109. [Hebrew]

Shiloh, Y., 1970: The Four-Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Isra-elite City. Israel Exploration Journal 20, 180~ 190.

- 1973: The Four-Room House-The Israelite Type-House? Eretz-Israel 11, 277~285. [Hebrew]

- 1978: Elements in the Development of Town Planning in the Israelite City. Israel Exploration Journal 28, 36--51.

Stager L. E., 1985: The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260, 1~35.

- 1996: Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction: Kislev 604 BCE. Eretz Israel 25, 61*~74*.

Stem, E., 1971: A Burial of the Persian Period near Hebron. Israel Exploration Journal 21, 25-30.

- 1982: Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period. 538~ 332 B. C. Warminster.

- 1997: The Beginning of the Province of "Yahud" in the Persian Period. In A. Faust / E. Baruch (eds.): New Studies on Jerusalem: Proceedings of the Third Conference. Ramat-Gan. Pp. 69~ 72. [Hebrew]

- 1998: Is There a Babylonian Period in the Archaeology of the Land of Israel. In O. Lipschits (ed.): Is It Possible to Define the Ceramics of the 6th Century BCE in Judah? Tel-Aviv. Pp. 19~20.

- 2000: The Babylonian Gap. Biblical Archaeology Review 26/6, 45~51, 76. - 200 I : Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian and

Persian Periods (732~332 B. C. E). New York. - 2002: Yes there was. Biblical Archaeology Review 28/3, 39, 55.

176 A. Faust [UF 36

- 2004: The Babylonian Gap: The Archaeological Reality. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28/3, 273-277.

Tainter, 1. A., 1988 : The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge. - 1999: Post-Collapse Societies. In G. Barker (ed.): Companion Encyclopedia

of Archaeology, vol. 2. London. Pp. 988-1039. Vanderhooft, D., 2003: Babylonian Strategies of Imperial Control in the West:

Royal Practice and Rhetoric. In O. Lipschits / J. Blenkinsopp (eds.): Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona Lake. Pp. 235-262.

- in press: The Israelite Mishpa~a in the Priestly Writings: An Elite Recon-struction of Social Organization.

Weinberg, S. S., 1969: Post-Exilic Palestine-An Archaeological Report. Pro-ceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities VI (5), Jerusa-lem. Pp. 78-97.

Weksler-Bdolah, S., 1999: 'Alona. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 19, 68*-70*.

Wolff, S. R., 2002: Mortuary Practices in the Persian Period of the Levant. Near Eastern Archaeology 65,131-137.

Yezerski, I., 1995: Burial Caves in the Land of Judah in the Iron Age-Ar-chaeological and Architectural Aspects. MA Thesis, Tel Aviv University. [Hebrew]

- 1997: Burial Caves in the Hebron Hills. Atiqot 32. 21-36. - 1999: Burial-Cave Distribution and the Borders of the Kingdom of Judah

toward the End of the Iron Age. Tel Aviv 26, 253-270. Yezerski, l. / Lander, I., 2002: An Iron Age Il Burial Cave from Lower Kh.

'Anim. Atiqot 43,57*-73* [Hebrew]. Yoffee, N. / Cowgill, G. L., (eds.), 1991: The Collapse of Ancient States and

Civilizations. Tucson. Zorn, J., 1997: Mizpah: Newly Discovered Stratum Reveals Judah's Other

Capital. Biblical Archaeology Review 23/5, 28-38.

FAUST, RAMAT-GAN - Social and Cultural Changes in 6th Judah (2004) - Cópia

Documents

Transcript of FAUST, RAMAT-GAN - Social and Cultural Changes in 6th Judah (2004) - Cópia