Household Food Storage in Ancient Israel and Judah [1 ed.] 9781784919818

This study serves as a source book on domestic food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah by outlining important ethnograp

181 40 34MB

English Pages 196 Year 2018

Recommend Papers

Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant 9781575066684

During the past several decades, family and household religion has become a topic of Old Testament scholarship in its ow

126 14 13MB Read more

Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel and Judah 3161623835, 9783161623837

108 63 20MB Read more

Emergency Food Storage - A Primer On Long Term Food Storage And Emergency Preparedness

March 26, 2012 Emergency Food Storage is a critical part of any emergency preparedness plan. This book covers reasons to

340 80 81KB Read more

Food Storage: Preserving Meat, Dairy, and Eggs

There are a lot of books about food preserving but what sets this book apart is that each food and all the methods for p

109 33 228KB Read more

Technological Developments in Food Preservation, Processing, and Storage 1799819248, 9781799819240

In recent years, professionals have combined nutrition, health, and engineering sciences to develop new technologies wit

357 31 5MB Read more

Food and drink in ancient Bengal

423 84 4MB Read more

The Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context 9781575064147

The dynamics of ancient Judah’s economy are among the most important, but also neglected and least understood, aspects o

144 99 2MB Read more

Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel 9781646022014

Among the many religious acts condemned in the Hebrew Bible, child sacrifice stands out as particularly horrifying. The

145 66 2MB Read more

Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household 9781575068954

Children were an important part of the ancient Near Eastern household. This idea seems straightforward, but it can be un

128 7 5MB Read more

Prophecy in Ancient Israel 0800609166, 9780800609160

Lindblom delivers a masterful and authoritative work on the prophetic movement as a whole, and demonstrates his thesis t

363 67 18MB Read more

Household Food Storage in Ancient Israel and Judah [1 ed.]
9781784919818

Author / Uploaded
Tim Frank

0 0 0
Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up

File loading please wait...

Citation preview

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Tim Frank

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Tim Frank

Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-78491-980-1 ISBN 978-1-78491-981-8 (e-Pdf)

© Archaeopress and T Frank 2018

Cover photography: Paul Jacobs, Lahav Research Project. Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com. The ‘NIV’ and ‘New International Version’ are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Contents Contents��i List of Figures�� vii List of Tables��x Chapter 1 Introduction�� 1 Chapter 2 Foodways in Ancient Israel and Judah�� 3 Diet in Ancient Israel��3 Food items in the Old Testament��4 The times of harvest��4 Chapter 3 Literature Review�� 8 Karin Bartl—a functional approach for the Neolithic ��8 Meredith Chesson—an interpretive approach for the Early Bronze Age��8 Zvi Greenhut and John Currid—the administration of grain storage in the Iron Age II��9 David Hopkins and Baruch Rosen—subsistence economy in the Iron Age I��10 Oded Borowski, Philip King and Lawrence Stager—daily life in Ancient Israel��11 James L. Kelso, Hayah Katz and Avraham Faust— the storage vessels��12 Summary��13 Chapter 4 Methodology��14 4.1 Approaches to History and Archaeology��14 Debates about writing the history of Ancient Israel��14 4.2 Outline of method��14 Analogy in archaeology and history��15 Pattern recognition in archaeology and history��17 Narrative as historical explanation��19 4.3 Method application��20 Setting��20 Household Archaeology��20 Summary��22 Reconstruction of Household Storage—Conclusion��22 Chapter 5 Ethnography��23 5.1 Palestine��23 Grain Storage��23 Dairy storage��24 Water storage��24 Oil storage��24 Wine storage��26 Storage of other grapevine products��26 Patterns in Palestinian houses��26 5.2 Cyprus��31 Grain storage��31 Other stored food��31 Patterns in Cypriot houses��31 5.3 Iran��33 Grain storage��33 Dairy product storage��34 Patterns in houses��34 5.4 Syria��36 House size and family size��36 Patterns in houses��36 5.5 Jordan��37 Grain storage��38 Patterns in houses��38

i

5.6 Egypt��41 Use of storage vessels��41 Patterns in houses��41 5.7 Summary��41 Chapter 6 Food storage in ancient literature��43 6.1 Byzantine trade documents��43 6.2 The Mishnah��43 Ma´serot��44 Terumot��44 Shebit��45 Maaser Sheni��46 Demai��46 Ohalot��46 Makhshirin��47 Baba Batra��47 Summary—the Mishnah and food storage��47 6.3 The New Testament��48 Judgment scenes��48 Attachment to possessions��48 Wineskins��49 Summary��50 6.4 Greek texts��50 Oeconomicus��50 Works and Days��51 6.5 Egyptian Texts��51 Deir el-Medina��51 Wisdom Literature��52 Chapter 7 Food storage in ancient art��53 7.1 Cypriot clay models��53 Model chests��53 Transport Containers��54 7.2 Phoenician figurines��55 Achziv��55 7.3 Inland Levant��56 Tell Abu al-Kharaz��56 Tell Beit Mirsim��56 7.4 Art from Egyptian tombs��59 Tomb of Nakht��59 The tomb of Nefer-hotep��59 The tomb of Antef��61 Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re��63 A model from the tomb of Meket-Reʽ��63 Tomb of Khety��64 Mastaba of K’hjf��65 Mastaba of K’j-m-enh��67 Chapter 8 Food storage in the Old Testament��68 8.1 Food supply and scarcity��68 ‫( מַטֵּה־לֶחֶם‬maṭṭē-leḥem)��68 ‫( מִשְׁעַן־לֶחֶם‬miš an-leḥem)��69 Price of Food ��69 Food supply and scarcity: a summary��70 8.2 Food storage and blessing��70 ‫(יָשָׁן‬yāšān)��71 ‫( אָסָם‬ʾāsām)��72 ‫( מְּגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ)��72 ‫( אָגַר‬ʾāgar)��73 ‫( אָסִף‬ʾāsip)��74 ii

‫( מֶזֶו‬mezew)��74 ‫( טֶנֶא‬ṭeneʾ) and ‫( מִשְׁאֶרֶת‬mišʾeret)��74 Food storage and blessing: a summary��75 8.3 Food storage and royal administration��75 ‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār)��75 ‫( חֹסֶן‬ḥōsen) ��76 ‫( מִסְכְּנָה‬miskĕnâ)��77 ‫( מַעֲבוּס‬ma ăbûs)��78 The Joseph narrative��78 Food storage and royal administration: a summary��79 8.4 Food storage technology: the vessels��79 ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel)��79 ‫( כַּד‬kad) ��80 ‫( צַּפָּחַת‬ṣappaḥat)��80 ‫( אַגָּן‬ʾaggān)��81 ְ‫(אָסוּך‬ʾāsûk)��81 ‫( בַּקְבֻּק‬baqbuq)��81 ‫( נֹאד‬nōʾd)��81 ‫( שַׂק‬śaq)��82 ‫( סַל‬sal)��82 ‫( טֶנֶא‬ṭeneʾ) ��82 ‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî)��82 The vessels: a summary��82 8.5 Food storage, household and society��83 Wine production and storage��83 Containers and purity��83 Living in the Land��83 Provision in uncertain times��84 Storing on the hoof��84 The woman of valour��84 Gift-giving and loyalty��85 Food storage, household and society: a summary��87 Chapter 9 Artefact assemblages��88 9.1 Common artefact types��88 Bowl��88 Open krater��88 Closed krater��89 Jug��89 Decanter��89 Juglet��89 Flask��90 Cooking pot ��90 Cooking jug��90 Storage jar��91 Ovoid jar��91 lmlk-type jar��92 Carinated jar��92 Waisted jar��92 Pithos��93 Holemouth jar��93 Small holemouth jar��93 Spouted jar��93 Pot stand��94 Lamp��94 Pounder��95 Grindstone��95 Quern��95 Clay loomweight��95 iii

Spindle whorl��96 9.2 Activity areas ��96 Food preparation��96 Food consumption ��96 Living room��96 Domestic work��96 Food storage��97 Goods storage��97 Fodder and fuel storage��97 Stable��97 Agricultural production��97 Craft��97 Chapter 10 Tell Halif: the reference site��98 10.1 The F7 House��98 Room 1��98 Room 2��99 Room 3��99 Room 4��100 Room 5��100 Spatial analysis��101 Calculations of food storage availability and consumption��101 10.2 The K8 House��102 Entrance area��103 Central area��103 The northern longroom��104 The south-western area��104 Additional room outside the house��105 Spatial analysis��105 Chapter 11 Archaeological Review��107 11.1 Site selection��107 11.2 Shiloh��107 House 312��107 House 335��109 Storage in Shiloh houses��109 11.3 Giloh��111 11.4 ‘Izbet Sartah ��113 Building 109a��113 11.5 Megiddo��116 11.6 Beth Shean��119 11.7 Yokneam ��121 11.8 Lachish��123 Main Street House 1088��123 Main Street House 1089��125 Lower House West��126 Lower House East��128 11.9 Beer-Sheba��130 House 75��130 House 76��133 House 25��134 11.10 Khirbat Abu Shawan��135 11.11 Mount of Olives Cave��137 11.12 Tel Batash (Timnah)��139 Building 743��139 Building 950��140 11.13 Tel ‘Ira ��142 The storehouse��143 Area L casemate rooms��144 iv

Chapter 12 Patterns of food storage��147 12.1 Statistical analysis of archaeological examples��147 Household storage capacity��147 Overall storage capacity and vessel storage capacity��147 Floor area and storage capacity��149 Storeroom number and size��151 Storeroom number��151 Proportion of storage capacity located in storerooms��152 Size of storerooms��154 Storage vessel capacity and number��154 Conclusions��156 12.2 Visual analysis of archaeological examples��156 Location of food storage��157 Integration of food storage with other activities��158 Food storage equipment��159 Pottery��159 Sacks, skins, baskets ��162 Outdoor storage pits��162 Indoor storage pits��162 Storage bins��162 Bulk storeroom��163 12.3 Food storage in household life��163 Household Storage Capacity��163 Texts and Archaeology��165 Household storage equipment��165 Significance of food storage in the household��166 Royal and household storage��167 Ethnographic comparison��168 Storage equipment��168 Location of food storage��169 Chapter 13 Conclusion��170 13.1 Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah��170 13.2 Household food storage and history��172 Household archaeology��172 History of Ancient Israel and Judah��173 13.3 Household food storage and Biblical Studies ��174 References cited��176

v

vi

List of Figures Figure 1. Kitchen implements, including four milk pots in the middle row and another milk pot in the front row left. Dalman 1935: Abbildung 11.�� 25 Figure 2. Drawing of milk pots, including measurements in centimetres. Dalman 1942: Abbildung 118.�� 25 Figure 3. Palestinian water jars — illustration from Dalman 1942: Abbildung 115. a) water-carrying jar; b) water-carrying jar; c) water-drawing jar; d) water-carrying jar; e) water-carrying jug or milking jug.�� 25 Figure 4. Palestinian jars and jugs — illustration from Dalman 1942: Abbildung 118. d) drinking jar; e) storage jar for water or oil; f) travel flask; g) drinking jug with spout (‘brik); h) jug; i) cup; j) goblet.�� 26 Figure 5. House without pillars in el-malha near Jerusalem. Dalman 1942: Abbildung 28, modified by T. Frank.�� 27 Figure 6. Cave dwelling in el-malha. Dalman 1942: Abbildung 40, modified by T. Frank.�� 27 Figure 7. House in the Golan. Dalman 1942: Abbildung 37, modified by T. Frank.�� 28 Figure 8. House in Marjayoun. Dalman 1942: Abbildung 31, modified by T. Frank.�� 29 Figure 9. House in Geba, north of Jerusalem. Left: ground floor. Right: Upper floor. Dalman 1942: Abbildungen 78&79, modified by T. Frank.�� 30 Figure 10. Sinos 1986: 523 Figure. C, modified by T. Frank.�� 32 Figure 11. Sinos 1986: 523 Figure. F, modified by T. Frank.�� 32 Figure 12. Sinos 1986: 525 Figure. F, modified by T. Frank. �� 33 Figure 13. Living room in Hasanabad. By T. Frank, after Watson 1979.�� 34 Figure 14. Compound in Hasanabad. By T. Frank after Watson 1979.�� 35 Figure 15. Living room and aywan in Hasanabd. By T. Frank, after Watson 1979.�� 35 Figure 16. Plan of house in Darnaj, Syria. Kamp 2000: 86, modified by T. Frank.�� 37 Figure 17. Plan of house in Darnaj, Syria. Kamp 1993: 298, modified by T. Frank.�� 37 Figure 18. House 226 in ‘Aima, Jordan. Biewers 1997: 109–114, modified by T. Frank.�� 38 Figure 19. House 228 in’Aima, Jordan. Biewers 1997: 115–118, modified by T. Frank.�� 39 Figure 20. House 360 in ‘Aima, Jordan. Biewers 1997: 119–122, modified by T. Frank.�� 40 Figure 21. Karageorghis 1996: Plate XLVI: 6. The Foundation ‘Anastasios G. Leventis’, Nicosia, Cyprus.�� 53 Figure 22. Karageorghis 1996: Plate XLVII:1. The Foundation ‘Anastasios G. Leventis’, Nicosia, Cyprus.�� 54 Figure 23. Donkey with jugs. Karageorghis 1996: Pl. XV: 1. The Foundation ‘Anastasios G. Leventis’, Nicosia, Cyprus. �� 55 Figure 24. Donkey with jars and rider. Cesnola Collection. Metropolitan Museum of Art. DP101821.�� 55 Figure 25. Donkey with baskets. Cesnola Collection. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. DP101825.�� 55 Figure 26. Donkey with baskets. Badisches Landesmuseum, B2639.�� 55 Figure 27. Donkey from Achziv. Mazar 2004: Figure 20. Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterranéa. �� 56 Figure 28. Zoomorphic vessel of pack animal found at Tell Abu al-Kahraz. Fischer 2013: Figure 223. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.�� 57 Figure 29. Zoomorphic vessel of pack animal found at Tell Abu al-Kahraz. Fischer 2013: Figure 224. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.�� 57 Figure 30. Zoomorphic vessel found in Iron Age tomb at Tell Beit Mirsim. Ben-Arieh 2004: 88. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. �� 58 Figure 31. Zoomorphic vessel found in Iron Age tomb at Tell Beit Mirsim. Photo Meidad Suchowolski, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority �� 59 Figure 32. The grape harvest and conserving birds. Part of scene from the Tomb of Nakht. Davies 1917: Plate XXVI�� 60 Figure 33. The storehouses of Karnak. Part of scene from the tomb of Nefer-hotep. Davies 1933: Plate XLV.�� 60

vii

Figure 34. Food for the storehouses of Karnak. Part of scene from the tomb of Nefer-hotep. Davies 1933: Plate XLVII.�� 61 Figure 35. The winepress at the estate of Karnak. Part of scene from the tomb of Nefer-hotep. Davies 1933: Plate XLVIII.�� 62 Figure 36. Part of a scene in the tomb of the Herald Antef. Translation of selected hieroglyphs in the lower register. Säve-Söderbergh 1957: Plate XV. Translation: Säve-Söderbergh 1957:18.�� 62 Figure 37. Part of scene of the collection of taxes from the northern towns in Upper Egypt. East wall of hall. Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re. Davies 1943: Plate XXXIV.�� 63 Figure 38. Granary from the tomb of Meket-Re. Metropolitan Museum of Art.�� 64 Figure 39. Scene from the tomb of Khety. Newberry 1893: Plate XVII.�� 65 Figure 40. Mastaba of K’hjf south wall. Junker 1943: Abb.88a.�� 66 Figure 41. Mastaba of K’hjf south wall. Junker 1943: Abb 88b.�� 66 Figure 42. Scene in mastaba of K’j-m-enh. Junker 1940: Tafel VIII�� 67 Figure 43. Bowl. Tell-Halif IV.F7.37#9. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu. �� 88 Figure 44. Open krater. Tell Halif IV.G7.46B#2. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 88 Figure 45. Closed krater. Beer-Sheba bowl type B-41. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016: 600. Figure 12.42:2. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.�� 89 Figure 46. Jug. Tell Halif IV.F8.10#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 89 Figure 47. Decanter. Tell Halif IV.K8.37#54. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 89 Figure 48. Juglet. Tell Halif IV.K8.253#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 90 Figure 49. Flask. Beer-Sheba flask type FL-1. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016: 640. Figure 12.69:1. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.�� 90 Figure 50. Cooking pot. Tell Halif IV.L8.44#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 90 Figure 51. Cooking jug. Tell Halif IV.F8.5#5. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 91 Figure 52. Storage jar. Beer-Sheba storage jar type SJ-1. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016: 613. Figure 12.137:15. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.�� 91 Figure 53. Ovoid jar. Beth Shean. Mazar et al. 2006: Plate 35.2. The Israel Exploration Society.�� 91 Figure 54. LMLK-type jar. Tell Halif IV.F8.17C#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 92 Figure 55. Carinated jar. Tell Halif IV.F7.12D#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu�� 92 Figure 56. Waisted jar. Beer-Sheba storage jar type SJ-9. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016: 618. Figure 12.95:3. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.�� 92 Figure 57. Pithos. Beer-Sheba storage jar type SJ-15. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016: 621. Figure 12.71:4. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.�� 93 Figure 58. Holemouth jar. Tell Halif IV.F7.95A#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 93 Figure 59. Small holemouth jar. Tell Halif IV.G7.45#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 94 Figure 60. Spouted jar. Tell Halif IV.K8.44#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 94 Figure 61. Pot stand. Beer-Sheba stand type ST-2. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016: 644. Figure 12.51:7. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.�� 94 Figure 62. Lamp. Tell Halif IV.F7.12B#1.. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 94 Figure 63. Pounder. Tell Halif Object 2384. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 95 Figure 64. Grindstone. Beer-Sheba. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016: 1264. Figure 26.3:1. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.�� 95 Figure 65. Quern. Beer-Sheba. Horzog and Singer-Avitz 2016: 1264. Figure 26.3:3. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.�� 95 Figure 66. Clay loomweight. Beer-Sheba. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016: 1307. Figure 28.1:1b. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.�� 95 Figure 67. Spindle whorls. Beer-Sheba. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016: 1309, 1311. Figure 28.2:14, Figure 28.3:10. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. �� 96 Figure 68. Overview of the Tell Halif F7 House with activity areas marked. �� 98 Figure 69. Overview of the Tell Halif K8 House with activity areas marked.�� 103

viii

Figure 70. Feature L9008, a cavity built into the cobble floor containing two bowls. Jacobs 1999–2005:L9. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.�� 105 Figure 71. Map of Israel and Judah with sites examined. �� 107 Figure 72. Overview of Shiloh House 312 and House 335.�� 108 Figure 73. Overview of Giloh Building 8.�� 112 Figure 74. Overview of Building 109a at ‘Izbet Sartah.�� 114 Figure 75. Overview of Megiddo Building 00/K/10.�� 116 Figure 76. Overview of Beth Shean House 28636.�� 119 Figure 77. Overview of Yokneam Building III.�� 122 Figure 78. Overview of Lachish Main Street houses.�� 124 Figure 79. Overview of Lachish Lower House(s) in Area S.�� 126 Figure 80. Overview of Beer-Sheba Western Quarter.�� 130 Figure 81. Overview of Khirbat Abu Shawan buildings.�� 135 Figure 82. Overview of Khirbat Abu Shawan Building 200.�� 136 Figure 83. Overview of Khirbat Abu Shawan Building 300.�� 137 Figure 84. Overview of Mount of Olives Cave.�� 138 Figure 85. Overview of Tel Batash Building 743.�� 139 Figure 86. Overview of Tel Batash Building 950.�� 141 Figure 87. Overview of the Tel ‘Ira storehouse.�� 143 Figure 88. Overview of Tel ‘Ira Area L casemate rooms.�� 144 Figure 89. Boxplot of sample overall building storage capacity.�� 147 Figure 90. Overall storage capacity of buildings in sample.�� 148 Figure 91. Vessel storage capacity of buildings in sample.�� 148 Figure 92. Floor area and vessel storage capacity of buildings in sample.�� 150 Figure 93. Dedicated storerooms in houses in sample.�� 151 Figure 94. House floor area v Number of food storage areas.�� 152 Figure 95. Room types identified in sample�� 152 Figure 96. Histogram of the proportion of overall storage capacity located in food storage areas.�� 153 Figure 97. Boxplot of room size of various room types in sample. �� 153 Figure 98. Average vessel capacity in sampled houses.�� 154 Figure 99. Overall vessel storage capacity v number of storage vessels in house. �� 156

ix

List of Tables Table 1. The Mishnaic food basket. Broshi 2001: 123.�� 5 Table 2. Frequencies of words denoting food in the Old Testament.�� 5 Table 3. Harvest times of the most common crops in Palestine and modern Israel (Borowski 1978: 37; Dalman 1933: 4–6; Dalman 1935).�� 6 Table 4. Categories of food storage facilities in Ancient Israel. Borowski 1987: 71-72.�� 11 Table 5. Contents of askalônia and gazitia jars from published papyri and ostraca. Mayerson 1992: 79.�� 43 Table 6. Words used to describe storage vessels in the Mishnah and the Talmud Yerushalmi.�� 47 Table 7. Storage vessel terms in the Old Testament.�� 83 Table 8. Activity areas and storage capacity of the F7 House.�� 102 Table 9. Activity areas and storage capacity of the K8 House, one-storey scenario.�� 106 Table 10. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of House 312.�� 110 Table 11. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of House 335.�� 110 Table 12. Number of distinct rim-sherds found in loci of Giloh Building 8. Mazar 1981: 31.�� 111 Table 13. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of ‘Izbet Sartah Building 109a.�� 116 Table 14. Loci, activities and storage capacity of Megiddo Building 00/K/10.�� 119 Table 15. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Beth Shean House 28636.�� 121 Table 16. Loci, activities and storage capacity of Yokneam Building III.�� 123 Table 17. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Lachish House 1088.�� 125 Table 18. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Lachish House 1089.�� 126 Table 19. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Lachish Lower House West.�� 128 Table 20. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Lachish Lower House East.�� 130 Table 21. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Beer-Sheba House 75.�� 132 Table 22. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Beer-Sheba House 76.�� 134 Table 23. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Beer-Sheba House 25.�� 134 Table 24. Loci, activities and storage capacity of Khirbat Abu Shawan buildings.�� 137 Table 25. Activity areas and storage capacity of Tel Batash Building 743.�� 140 Table 26. Activity areas and storage capacity of Tel Batash Building 950.�� 143 Table 27. Loci and storage capacity of the Tel ‘Ira storehouse.�� 144 Table 28. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Tel ‘Ira Area L casemate rooms.�� 146 Table 29. Correlation coefficients in relation to storerooms in sample.�� 151

x

Chapter 1

Introduction Ever since the archaeological discoveries from the 17th century onwards shone a new light on the world of the Ancient Near East, scholars and the public alike have been fascinated by new insights that excavation in the Holy Land could open up on the world of the Bible. In due course, the multilayered tells were surveyed and excavated, sometimes hastily, sometimes with more care. On the basis of archaeology our knowledge of that world has indeed increased, and sometimes also challenged, long-held notions about the Biblical accounts. While excavators initially focused on the more grandiose remains, no doubt inspired by the monumental ancient architecture of Egypt and Mesopotamia, Biblical accounts of kings and the tendency of history to focus on matters of state, over time, smaller sites and the more ordinary houses also received the attention of archaeologists. While up to the end of the 20th century archaeologists continued to focus on dating and the testing of sweeping theories, there has long been a strand in archaeological thought that considered the plight of ordinary people. Through this effort, usually in combination with Biblical interpretation, we have come to know more about the lives in the many small homes of Ancient Israel and Judah (see, for example, de Vaux 1961).

2001; Borowski 1987; Borowski 2003). I am, instead, focusing on one particular aspect of household life and trying to look at it in detail. The choice of household food storage is not random. The sheer number of storage jars and storage pits indicates that they were important in household life. Storage jars are present in small houses and large. The use of storage equipment has been debated, but little detailed analysis of its use in households has been done. The archaeological evidence is there and this is an opportunity to use it to get to know the people of Ancient Israel and Judah better. The Bible as a whole and the Old Testament in particular also give us evidence of food storage practices and the context in which it took place. This complements the archaeological evidence to build a more coherent picture. I also consider other ancient texts and art as part of this context. But the focus is on the Old Testament, not just because it is the literature most closely associated with Ancient Israel and Judah, but also because I can contribute to a better understanding of the perception of food storage in the Old Testament.1 I focus strongly on the household and consider food storage primarily in a household setting. In my discussion of food storage I also have to look at food storage beyond the household level. Large-scale food storage also affected household food storage and interacted with it. Further, some practices in larger storage facilities were similar to those at the household level, but have been better documented. My investigation of storage practices beyond the household is not thorough and comprehensive, but informs primarily our understanding of household food storage.

In excavations throughout the Levant, in the remains of houses big and small, the potsherds of many storage jars have been found. Often they were hardly noted, and used only for dating. If storage jars had an inscription or an unusual decoration they were given due attention. Archaeologists knew that people stored food in their houses; there was nothing new in that. If archaeologists discovered a large number of storage jars, they did note them as evidence of state organization and dedicated some discussion and space in reports to their presence.

The study also touches on and affects concepts of larger societal and economic organization and systems. But it does so from a specific household perspective. In that sense it is a ‘bottom-up’ rather than a ‘top-down’ approach. The issue of household food storage is a small window on the bigger picture of Ancient Israel and Judah. But from that window we have a particular perspective and cannot see a complete overview.

And yet, these storage jars, together with other archaeological evidence of food storage, such as storage pits and possible storage bins, can help us to gain insights into the very essence of household organization and the lifeways of the people who once lived here. If we want to know more about the world of Ancient Israel and Judah, particularly life in households, this is evidence that we need to take into account. That can be said of many artefacts. But a comprehensive study of all artefacts would not go into the required detail and would probably be far too diffuse to add meaningful information to the scholarly discourse. There are several overviews, but they are often aimed more at the popular market and lack in-depth case studies and detailed comparisons between houses (King and Stager

I use the terms Old Testament and New Testament here not as a theological statement, but simply because they are familiar terms, and also to acknowledge the research tradition out of which I write. Other terms, such as First Testament, Hebrew Bible and Tanakh have their validity and their specific contexts. I hope that my study can also speak into those contexts and be valuable for research. I also acknowledge that these are collections of texts, that were written and edited over a long period, so that there is not necessarily one homogenous view in all texts. 1

1

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Nevertheless, this perspective can contribute to a more general understanding of society in Ancient Israel and Judah.

in Ancient Israel and Judah more generally, based on the assumption that the investigated excavated houses are in some way representative of the many thousands of houses that existed during that time.

To interpret artefacts and say something about household interaction and organization beyond a simple description, household archaeology tends to rely heavily on ethnographic analogy. That such analogy can be quite straightforward and that practices continued in the Near East for thousands of years is shown by the example of the beehives found at Tel Rehov (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2007). Over 20 beehives were excavated in a stratum related to the Iron Age IIA. They were first identified as beehives based on their similarity with current beehives still used in traditional communities in the area. This was confirmed by chemical tests. The similarity between modern and ancient is such that the material, shape and dimensions are exactly the same, right down to the shape of the handle on the lids. The ancient beehives were slightly deformed and deteriorated, but they had been preserved quite well because they had been hardened by a fire raging in the area at the time of the town’s destruction.

Numerical data of food storage capacity in and around houses is compared to human food requirements to understand how, in the particular context of Ancient Israel and Judah, these requirements might have been supplied. Such data also are more easily transferable to other studies, even though they cannot claim full accuracy. A particular problem in archaeological interpretation and data calculation is the distinction between longterm storage and short-term storage. Some products would have been stored in the house for consumption within days or weeks. Other products were stored for a year or even longer. But the distinction is fluid. While wheat, as the most important staple food, was normally stored for availability during the entire year, other products were stored for a limited time, but in some cases still for months. Products may also move from long-term storage to short-term storage. The seasonality of agriculture in Ancient Israel and Judah not only meant that food had to be stored for later, but also that new food sources became available throughout the year. Even though the wheat harvest was particularly important, food became available over a period of at least six months. The harvest was not just a one-time event until exactly the same time the next year when storage equipment would be filled again. Nevertheless, due to our insufficient knowledge of what products were stored exactly in which containers, and how different containers might have been re-used, total storage capacity has to be used for most calculations. As some short-term storage would not have taken place in easily distinguishable storage equipment, I also have to limit my research to those vessels and installations that were particularly identifiable as storage equipment and provided sufficient storage capacity to make a difference in the overall organisation of the household.

While evidence from geographically close ethnographic analogies is usually given preference, household archaeology takes interpretive stimuli from a wide range of contexts. It thereby enlarges the ‘methodically schooled imagination’ (Weber 1904: 54) to understand the significance of artefacts to lifeways far removed from our own (see Hardin and Holt 2017 on imagination and archaeology). As such, not only are the artefacts compared to ethnographic analogies to specify possible uses, but the setting in the household is also considered. This then allows archaeologists to not only see houses as expressions of abstract systems, but rather as the location of homes, where people lived in intimate closeness and interacted with the community around them. With a focus on the home, household archaeology tends to eschew grand models of society and societal change, and rather considers wider societal patterns through the detailed analysis of a few houses and their histories.

Many food items were regularly turned into products that allowed preservation over long time periods: fruit was dried, wine was fermented, vegetables and fish were probably pickled, and milk was converted into preservable products. For many products this process of preservation is a necessary pre-condition for storage. This study does not focus on the process of food preservation, but rather on food storage, an activity that is more visible in the archaeological record. Not all preserved food would have been stored, particularly not in the household. Rather, it might have been used for trade or for imminent consumption.

A further feature of this study is the use of computergenerated visualization, not only to aid in the interpretation of space and to illustrate the integration of food storage into the household, but also to convert the descriptions of physical remains into numerical data. The conversion to such numerical data is not always straightforward, but allows a more uniform description of the houses and statistical comparisons between households. This enables a detailed analysis of the differences between houses and recurring patterns. Such patterns allow me to draw inferences about food storage

2

Chapter 2

Foodways in Ancient Israel and Judah Roman period (Dalman 1935: 198; Borowski 1987: 123– 124). The fig was a staple food item in Ancient Israel. A fig tree yields two crops each summer. The first crop was usually eaten fresh, the second crop was dried. They could be dried individually, dried on a string or mashed into a cake (Borowski 1987: 115). The date (tamar) was cultivated especially in the Jordan valley. Dates were eaten fresh and dried. Date honey was a sweetener (Borowski 1987: 126–127). Other fruit trees were the pomegranate (rimmon) (Borowski 1987: 116– 117), the sycamore (sikmim), and a tree which Borowski suggests was the apricot (tappuah) (Borowski 1987: 128–130). Almonds (saqed), pistacchio nuts (botnim) and walnuts (‘egoz) were also cultivated.

Diet in Ancient Israel Examination of the diet in Ancient Israel and Judah has largely relied on a combination of evidence from the Bible, ethnographic descriptions and archaeology. I propose to use the results of these studies. Rather than considering the evidence anew, the following overview reviews the literature on diet in Ancient Israel and Judah, and therefore the food that was probably stored. The Mediterranean triad of bread, wine and olive oil also formed the basis of the diet in Ancient Israel (MacDonald 2008: 19). Grain-based food, such as bread and porridge, probably provided at least half of the caloric intake (MacDonald 2008: 19). Estimates range from 53 to 75 percent. The main cereals (dagan) grown in Ancient Israel were wheat (hitta/hittim) and barley (se’ora/se’orim), with emmer (kussemet) and millet (dohan and pannag [Ezek 27: 17]) also known. The wheat grown in Ancient Israel was probably durum wheat. It was used for bread and other baked goods, for porridge, and was eaten parched (Borowski 1987: 89). Barley can be grown on soils derived from chalk and limestone. It was also used for bread and other baked goods and eaten parched. Barley may have also formed the basis of beer production (Borowski 1987: 91; Homan 2004: 91), though wheat may also have been used for that function. Other cereals were not as important in Ancient Israel. Emmer is hardly found in Iron Age contexts. Millet was seen as a food used in hard times (Borowski 1987: 93). Legumes archaeologically attested were broad beans (pol), lentils (‘adasim), bitter vetch, chickpea (hamis), and pea (Borowski 1987: 94–97). The identification of hamis as chickpea in Isaiah 30: 24 is based on an interpretation of the verse as describing a time of plenty when animals will eat crops usually reserved for human consumption (Borowski 1987: 96). Spices known in Ancient Israel were black cumin (qesah), cumin (kammon), and coriander (gad). Other field crops were flax pista and sesame for their seeds and oil (Borowski 1987: 98–99).

Borowski thinks that the small number of references to vegetables in the Bible and the low regard in which vegetables were held suggests very strongly that vegetables were not considered very nutritious and did not constitute an important part of the Iron Age diet. He also suggests that quite a few vegetables and leaves were collected in the wild and not grown in gardens. He identifies the vegetables mentioned in Numbers 11:5 as cucumber (qissu’im), melons (‘abattihim), leek or a green leafy vegetable (hazir), onions (besalim), and garlic (samim). (Borowski 1978: 135–139). Milk could be processed and stored for later consumption, especially by processing it into what we might today call yoghurt, butter and cheese (Borowski 2003: 66). Due to the heat, milk gets sour quickly in the Mediterranean. In Palestine, milk was often processed into leben, a soured, thick milk similar to yoghurt (see Dalman 1939: 293–296). At times, this was mixed with bulgur wheat and dried, so that it could be stored long-term (Dalman 1939: 296). The product was then used in cooking. The making of butter seems to have changed little in this area since the Chalcolithic Period. After shaking the milk in a churn, the butter was separated from the butter milk. Normal salted butter lasted up to 15 days. Cooking butter could be stored for longer periods. It was won by heating the butter twice, adding wheat grouts to soak up the water and removing the wheat grouts again (Dalman 1939: 302). The buttermilk, a byproduct of butter, was often further processed after the remaining water was removed. Thickened, it was formed into small balls, which were then dried. They were often stored in olive oil and used for cooking (Dalman 1939: 302). A soft cheese similar to that produced in Palestine was probably also known in Ancient Israel (Dalman 1939: 312–313). It was made with rennet and salt, and could be stored (Dalman 1939: 303–304).

Borowski suggests that horticulture was an important element of the agricultural economy of Ancient Israel. Grapes were mainly grown to make wine, but were also eaten fresh, dried to make raisins, used to make vinegar and probably boiled down to make syrup (Borowski 1987: 110–113). Olives were extensively grown and seem to have been used mainly to make oil (Borowski 1987: 116–126). Oil was not used only for culinary purposes, but also for hygiene and for lighting. Following Dalman, Borowski suggests that the pickling of olives was only introduced in the Hellenistic or 3

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah While meat was regularly consumed in Ancient Israel, it was certainly not daily fare for the average Israelite, and was more likely consumed at special occasions (Borowski 2003: 67). Some hunted animals were consumed, but the majority of meat was supplied by domesticated animals from local herds. Biblical references to meat preparation relate to immediate consumption (Borowski 2003: 67). Fowl were also eaten. It is likely that pigeons were kept under controlled conditions. Bones of chickens, geese and ducks have also been found at several Iron Age sites, though the introduction of chicken seems to have occurred late in the Iron Age. Until the introduction of chicken, eggs were probably available only in limited quantity (Borowski 2003: 69–70). Zooarchaeological evidence indicates that a variety of fish was consumed in Ancient Israel, even in settlements distant from lakes or the sea. A lively trade in fish is therefore likely (Borowski 2003: 68-69).

for spending the night together or is to be regarded as a separate passage to that mentioning the food basket, the amount would be for seven days. Then the daily caloric intake would be 1606 calories. According to Broshi, the FAO recommends a daily intake of 1540-1980 calories for a woman beyond child-bearing age. The food basket would provide for that amount, whether for the full seven days or just six days of the week. Broshi highlights the importance of the various food items in the diet of Roman Palestine. In particular, he notes that fruit, specifically dried fruit, would have been regularly consumed (Broshi 2001: 127–129). Wine was also a significant part of the diet, but probably more so for men than for women (Broshi 2001: 129). Fish was very important for the Jewish population, and fish sauce a regular part of the diet (Broshi 2001: 134–135). Nathan MacDonald emphasises the variability of the diet in Ancient Israel, primarily along geographical, temporal and social lines (MacDonald 2008: 92). The temporal dimension here not only encompasses changes from the early to the late Iron Age, but also seasonal changes. At different times of the year, different food would have been eaten, as it became available, even though some of the basic foodstuffs would have been consumed throughout the year. It also includes the variability from year to year. In some years the harvest would have been good, in others there was crop failure resulting in famine. But not only drought or pests could cause famine; at times social and political factors, such as warfare, would have diminished the food supply (MacDonald 2008: 57). Strategies like storage, mixed farming and the foraging of substitute food would have allowed many people to survive food shortages and famines (MacDonald 2008: 59).

Assuming that the diet in Palestine was relatively stable over centuries, the Mishnaic description of a food basket that has to be given to an estranged wife is often used as a guide (MacDonald 2008: 43–44; Broshi 2001: 121–123): He who maintains his wife by a third party may not provide for her less than two qabs of wheat or four qabs of barley [per week]. [...] And one pays to her a half-qab of [legumes], a half-log of oil, and a qab of dried figs or a maneh of fig cake. And if he does not have it, he instead provides some food of another type. (Ketubot 5: 8) The food basket may also give us an indication of the overall quantities of food considered to be minimal provisions for one woman. The double portion of barley is disputed within the Mishnah and probably reflects the fact that barley was considered a less desirable and cheaper grain, rather than the difference in nutritional value between barley and wheat.2

Food items in the Old Testament According to Deuteronomy 8: 8, Israel was a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey. Its trade commodities are described as wheat and confections, honey, oil and balm (Ezekiel 27: 17). The frequencies with which different food is mentioned in the Bible may also be an indication of the importance of the food in daily life during the time of Ancient Israel and the Persian Period (Table 2). I do not include references to various animals, as each individual case must be weighed to assess whether it refers to food. The frequencies given here are taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (Lexiconcordance 2014).

Broshi discusses the various methods for converting the Mishnaic measurements to modern measurements, and the calculation of daily requirements. He provides Table 1 as the more likely calculation. As the Mishnah later specifies that the estranged wife should eat with the husband on the Sabbath evening, Broshi thinks that the food basket was supposed to supply sufficient for only six days (Broshi 2001: 123). Then the daily caloric intake would be 1874 calories. But if the reference to the Sabbath meal is a euphemism

The times of harvest

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) gives a slightly higher energy (1630 kJ/100g) for barley than for wheat (1570 kJ/100g), but the digestible energy for barley (81%) is lower than for wheat (86.4%) so that, overall, wheat provides a slightly higher digestible energy per weight (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1999:Nutritional Quality of Cereals). 2

Crucial to any consideration of food storage is not just what food was available and how much, but also at what time it became available and was consumed. The seasonality of food sources is one of the reasons 4

Chapter 2 Foodways in Ancient Israel and Judah

Table 1. The Mishnaic food basket. Broshi 2001: 123. Product Wheat Legumes Oil Dried figs Total

Mishnaic measure 2 qab ½ qab ½ log 1 qab

Volume (litres) 2.854 0.713 0.178 1.427 5.172

Weight (kg) 2.037 0.597 0.162 0.713

Caloric Value 6111 2035 1458 2992 11,244

Table 2. Frequencies of words denoting food in the Old Testament. Word ‫לֶחֶם‬ ‫שֶׁמֶן‬ ‫יַיִן‬ ‫גֶּפֶן‬ ׁ‫דְּבַש‬ ‫חָלָב‬ ‫דָּגָן‬ ‫תְּאֵנָה‬ ׁ‫תִּירוֹש‬ ‫זַיִת‬ ‫שְׂעֹרָה‬ ‫רִמּוֹן‬ ‫חִטָּה‬ ‫יִצְהָר‬ ‫שֵׁכָר‬ ‫תָּמָר‬ ‫חֶמְאָה‬ ‫עֻגָּה‬ ‫שִׁקְמָה‬ ַ‫תַּפּוּח‬ ‫חֲמַר‬ ‫חֹמֶץ‬ ‫יָרָק‬ ‫עֲדָשָׁה‬ ‫שָׁקֵד‬ ‫אֲשִׁישָׁה‬ ‫צִמּוּק‬ ‫כֻּסֶּמֶת‬ ‫כַּמֹּן‬ ‫פּוֹל‬ ‫גַּד‬ ְ‫מִמְסָך‬ ‫חָצִיר‬ ‫דֹּחַן‬ ‫פַּנַּג‬ ‫חָמִיץ‬ ‫אֱגוֹז‬ ‫שׁוּם‬ ‫קִשֻּׁאָה‬ ‫אֲבַטִּיח‬ ‫בָּצָל‬

Word leḥem šemen yayin gepen dĕbaš ḥālāb dāgān tĕʾēnâ tîroš zayit śĕʿōrâ rimmōn ḥiṭṭâ yiṣhār šēkār tāmār ḥemʾâ ʿuggâ šiqmâ tappūaḥ ḥămar ḥōmeṣ yārāq ʿădāšâ šāqēd ʾăšîšâ ṣimūq kussemet kammōn pōl gad mimsāk ḥāṣîr dōḥan pannag ḥāmîṣ ʾĕgōz šūm qiššuʾâ ʾăbaṭṭîḥ bāṣāl

Translation bread, food oil wine grapevine honey, syrup milk cereal fig wine olive (tree) barley pomegranate wheat fresh oil strong drink date palm butter / cheese cake sycamore fig apricot / apple wine vinegar vegetable lentils almond raisin cake bunch of raisins emmer cumin beans coriander mixed wine leek millet millet chickpea nuts garlic cucumber melon onion

food was stored. If it could be harvested at any time and immediately consumed, little storage would be required, except for risk management and feasting.

Occurence 297 193 140 55 54 44 40 39 38 37 34 32 30 23 23 12 10 7 7 6 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 (food), 20 (grass) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

The availability of food in Ancient Israel was largely seasonally determined, even more so than today. Nevertheless, our best indication of the seasonal 5

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Table 3. Harvest times of the most common crops in Palestine and modern Israel ( Borowski 1978: 37; Dalman 1933: 4–6; Dalman 1935). Crop / Location

Mar

Apr

Barley / Lahav

x

Barley / el-Ruwer

x

Barley / Bethlehem

May

Jun

x

x

x

x

Barley / Jesreel

x

Barley / el-kubebe

x

Vetch / Lahav

x

Vetch / el-Ruwer

x

Vetch / Bethlehem

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

x

x

x

x

x

x

Sep

Oct

Nov

x

Vetch / el-kubebe

x

Lentils / Lahav

x

Lentils / el-Ruwer

x

Lentils / Bethlehem

x

Lentils / el-kubebe

x

Peas / Lahav

x

Broad beans / el-Ruwer

x

x

Broad beans / el-kubebe

x

Wheat / Lahav

x

Wheat / el-Ruwer

x

x

Wheat / Bethlehem

x

Wheat / Jesreel

x

x x

Wheat / el-kubebe

x

Chickpeas / Lahav

x

Chickpeas / Jesreel

x

Sesame / Lahav

x

Sesame / Bethlehem

x

Sesame / Jesreel

x

Millet / Lahav

x

x

Millet / el-Ruwer

x

Millet / Bethlehem

x

Millet / Jesreel

x

Flax / Lahav

x

Figs / Lahav

x

Grapes / Lahav

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Grapes / Bethlehem

x

x

Pomegranates / Lahav

x

x

Grapes / ‘auga

Olives / Lahav Olives / Jerusalem Crop / Location

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

availability of food is based on relatively modern observations on the assumption that seasonal patterns in the Eastern Mediterranean have changed little over the millenia.

Jul

Aug

The harvest season for different crops depends on the location. Gustaf Dalman lists those for several locations in the high country (Dalman 1935: 4–6). Oded Borowski’s times are usually somewhat earlier (Borowski 1987: 37). 6

Chapter 2 Foodways in Ancient Israel and Judah

He probably used his own experience as a kibbutz farmer in the Shephelah/Negev area, and from his continued involvement with the agricultural community in that region, to arrive at an indicative calendar. Most of the field and orchard crops were harvested once per year in a relatively short time-span. Vegetables are available over most of the summer (Dalman 1935: 4–6). Barley and wheat are winter crops and mature in early summer. Other field crops such as beans and lentils are also sown in winter and harvested in summer. Sesame, chickpeas and millet are summer crops and are ready for harvest in late summer. Table 3 gives an indication of harvest times of the main crops in Palestine and Israel. I denote the times given by Oded Borowski with ‘Lahav’; the others, given by Gustaf Dalman, are according to the mentioned location.

barley were not only harvested, but later threshed, winnowed and sieved, before they were stored. For crops such as sesame, the process was very similar but different tools were used. Fruit such as grapes and figs were further processed, for example, by drying. Most of the grapes were pressed for wine production. Olives were mainly cultivated for olive oil production. Storage was required to make the food available throughout the year. A portion of the harvest had to be kept as seed stock. Wheat, for example, was harvested in May or June; the seed was sown in November and December, while the part kept for food had to last at least until the new harvest in May. In November, just before sowing the crops again, the maximum amount of food would have been stored. Part of the grain would have already been consumed by the time the olive oil was stored. The stored food changed in a household through the year. It would have also changed from year to year. Bumper harvests would have required greater storage capacity, while at times of crop failure the harvest would have been small.

Not all of the crops were placed immediately into storage after harvest. Processing was often required to make crops more durable or to remove non-nutritious parts. In this way, only the useable parts of plants were kept and stored for later use. For example, wheat and

7

Chapter 3

Literature Review Karin Bartl—a functional approach for the Neolithic

notions such as energy input (Bartl 2004: 49, 189, 306), hunter/gatherer or other developmental stages (Bartl 2004: 223, 231,240-241, 253, 305, 428, 542), and diffusion (Bartl 2004: 522), indicates that her interpretation relies on processual, progressive-evolutionary, and culture history assumptions with little differentiation.

Karin Bartl wrote a comprehensive examination of food storage in the Late Epipaleolithic and Early Neolithic periods in the western Near East (Bartl 2004). She particularly considered the hypothesis of increased social stratification during the Early Neolithic Period.

Bartl seems to give cautious assent to the hypothesis of increased social stratification during the time periods. However, she sees more a transition from the use of wild resources to a producing economy (Bartl 2004: 555). There is no indication of large surpluses, except for limited cultic-ritual purposes. Rather, food storage was largely domestic. Nevertheless, storage installations were often hidden. She thinks this may have been done to keep the stored food for the family, rather than sharing it widely as may have been customary in hunter/gatherer societies. It is this fact of hidden storage installations that she sees as characteristic for the periods and as a possible indication of the transition (Bartl 2004: 553–555).

Bartl first sets out the overall state of scholarship on the relevant periods (Bartl 2004: 1–29) and then the various theories on the processes leading to Neolithic settlement and social patterns (Bartl 2004: 29–38). She reviews general anthropological literature on food acquisition, food storage, risk management and survival strategies (Bartl 2004: 39–108). In particular, she addresses the seasonality of resources, which is the main factor leading to food storage. Bartl uses analogy with relatively recently documented ethnographic descriptions to identify artefacts found in archaeological excavations, examining a wide range of ethnographic literature from the Near East (Bartl 2004: 109–134). The appendix includes a large selection of house plans and illustrations (Bartl 2004: 588–642). They give a good overview of the various traditional methods of food storage in the Middle East in the 20th century. However, she does not discuss the plans in detail, nor the relationship between storage and other domestic activities.

The study by Karin Bartl gives a valuable guide for the study of food storage in the Ancient Near East. However, there are significant differences between the Epipaleolithic and the Iron Age. The complexity and particularity of human action becomes more apparent, and broad categories are not sufficient. Bartl had to use more detailed analysis with the later sites she discussed, analysis which often could not be pushed into the available models but had to be completed on its own terms.

As a result of the ethnographic studies, Bartl develops a typology of food storage installations (Bartl 2004: 134– 160). She lists 14 main types and a total of 34 subtypes. While her typology provides a good overview, I propose to compare the archaeologically excavated materials more directly to ethnographic parallels.

Meredith Chesson—an interpretive approach for the Early Bronze Age Meredith Chesson has been inspired by Julia Hendon’s approach in her consideration of homemaking at the Early Bronze Age site of Numeira in southern Jordan (Chesson 2012). Hendon (2000) approaches archaeologically excavated remains of storage facilities from a post-processual angle. She argues that storage was an important part of mutual knowledge among the people who inhabited the spaces archaeologists excavated. The people thought and talked about what was being stored, and the places where it was stored. Taking her ethnographic and archaeological case studies mainly from Mesoamerica, together with early Spanish texts about the motivated actions of the people, Hendon nevertheless tries to articulate concepts about storage that are more universally applicable. ‘Through storage, past household labor is preserved, the

Of the many Epipaleolithic and Neolithic sites that have been excavated, the preservation, results and publication of most sites were such that few could be used for an analysis of food storage (Bartl 2004: 165, 207, 268). Bartl uses 22 sites, some with multiple occupations. Based on the faunal and floral finds, as well as the possible environmental conditions, she discusses the possible subsistence basis. Using the types she established, Bartl then identifies possible storage installations. Using functional models and theories, Bartl discusses each site separately and then the different sites for each period together, drawing conclusions about food storage, subsistence strategies and social organization. While she questions many of the models and does not fully adopt any of them, her somewhat uncritical use of 8

Chapter 3 Literature Review

potential of future labor embodied, and the different (and differently valued) contributions of women and men actualized (Hendon 2000: 47).’ She also discusses the values embodied in displaying or concealing stored goods. In the Mesoamerican context she suggests that wealthier people tended to keep more of their goods hidden from view, while those with fewer possessions kept them more in public view. This corresponded to the recorded ideal of elite restraint. Hendon enlarges her consideration to also include caches and burials, which she considers extensions of storage. She maintains that storage raises issues of secrecy, memory, prestige and knowledge which help archaeologists to reconstruct the moral systems in which people lived.

lifeways. Like Chesson, I calculate storage capacities and floor areas to determine patterns of food storage. The visual illustrations I use are less interpretive, portraying more the use of space than the lived human experiences. And yet, like Chesson’s visualizations, they also make visual clues more explicit and allow me to use them in interpretations of the artefacts. The approach represents a break with the more functional models. But it is no less dependent on the data and certainly more responsive to them. The interpretive approach focuses on small-scale history and from there contributes to a larger historical narrative. It is more of a bottom-up approach, in contrast with the larger hypotheses and over-reaching historical trajectories, in which functional approaches were couched.

Like Hendon, Meredith Chesson considers the storage of foodstuffs and non-food materials, but sees them as distinct categories (Chesson 2012: 64). She mainly analyses the storage capacity of the different storage features and compares them with the roofed or lived space across the strata. Acknowledging that the vagaries of preservation and excavation may affect the proportions, she nevertheless sees the observed patterns as a cross section of storage behaviours at different life-history moments of the homes.

Zvi Greenhut and John Currid—the administration of grain storage in the Iron Age II Zvi Greenhut completed a study of Iron Age grain storage and distribution (Greenhut 2006). As part of the Tel Moza excavation report, Zvi Greenhut and Alon De Groot used Tel Moza as a case study and discussed it within the wider system of grain production, storage and distribution (Greenhut and De Groot 2009: 215– 233).3

The overall aim of Meredith Chesson is to move to the more imaginative exercise of reconstructing homemaking in the past. Storage was not the only or most important aspect of homemaking, but it resulted in extraordinary archaeological visibility. Using visual illustrations, she and her colleagues attempt to show that people were not emotionless automatons, but rather thinking, communicating people.

Zvi Greenhut explores the conditions under which grain was farmed during the Iron Age in Israel, including the cultivation, storage and transport conditions (Greenhut 2006). He discusses evidence from the Bible and inscriptions on grain cultivation, storage and distribution. The main part of the dissertation is a corpus of excavated archaeological features relating to storage pits, granaries and storehouses. He also lists archaeobotanical evidence and small finds such as sickle blades. The examination of storage concentrates on large-scale storage features beyond the household level.

While Julia Hendon sees storage from the early postprocessual paradigm with her focus on the grammar of archaeological material and issues of power, Meredith Chesson has moved to a more interpretive framework and has left behind the highly stilted post-processual language. She has attempted to draw the most out of the data to discern patterns, and from there move to an imaginative reconstruction of past homes. While the data analysis would probably be accepted by traditional archaeologists, the further interpretation may make them uncomfortable. I believe, however, that imagining homes based on the artefacts and patterns is probably less distorting than pressing these artefacts into functional models or schemes derived from grammatical metaphors.

Greenhut compares the many grain-pit fields during Iron Age I with their relative scarcity in Iron Age II (Greenhut 2006). During the Iron Age II granaries and storehouses existed in many locations in Israel. This was probably due to rapid urbanization. Greenhut suggests that the finds indicate an elaborate hierarchical administration of grain distribution in Ancient Judah. In their discussion of Tel Moza, Greenhut and De Groot follow the general model proposed by Pfälzner (Pfälzner 2002: 261). It sets out three basic kinds of storage: 1. domestic storage; 2. shared community storage; and 3. redistributive storage to an urban centre.

This study follows Chesson’s approach. It is an investigation into the different strands of evidence to know more about the people of Ancient Israel and Judah by focusing on household food storage. It takes up the opportunity provided by the good archaeological visibility of food storage facilities to study in depth and across several sites an important aspect of ancient

Greenhut 2006 is only available in Hebrew, so that I had to rely on the extended English abstract. 3

9

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Tel Moza represents either shared community storage or a storage facility that facilitated redistribution to Jerusalem (Greenhut and De Groot 2009: 219–224). While the widely accepted opinion is that storage pits were largely restricted to the Iron Age I, the evidence from Tel Moza indicates that they continued to be used during the Iron Age II, though the economic and social context may now have changed. Facilities at Gibeon and el-Burj have been interpreted as wine production and storage facilities, while those at Tel Moza were associated with grain. This points to economic specialization in Judah (Greenhut and De Groot 2009: 223).

storing the product of one household. Nevertheless, his general observations on and testing of conditions of grain in pits is helpful for an analysis of those storage pits that might have been used in a household context.4 In contrast to these studies on large-scale grain storage, I concentrate on household or domestic storage. The change from domestic and shared community storage during Iron Age I to more redistributive storage during Iron Age II has to be taken into account, but my research based on household storage will also partly challenge the assumption of the dominance of centrally administered storage during the Iron Age II. I focus on the household, while the studies by Greenhut and De Groot and Currid have focused on large structures that indicate grain storage beyond the household level. The two approaches finally have to be integrated, but a seminal study from the household level up is a necessary precondition to such a more balanced view. I suggest that I can provide such a study. It will also feed into the current debate about the nature of the administration in Ancient Israel and Judah (see Maeir and Shai 2016).

Greenhut and De Groot calculate the overall capacity of the storage pits and small holemouth jars and conclude that it would have been approximately 155 m3 which, according to their calculations, would have required agricultural land of approximately 2600 dunam and provided 71,451 kg of wheat and 9760 kg of barley. This would have been sufficient for approximately 250–300 people, once damage and reserves for seed stock were taken into account. John Currid’s PhD dissertation about Archaeological investigations into grain storage practices of Iron Age Palestine concentrates on large-scale buildings, which he identifies as grain storage facilities, as well as discussing in general the function of pits for grain storage (Currid 1986). His emphasis is on identifying facilities that may have been used for grain storage and outlining why they may have suited this purpose. While he draws together scholarship on the technical conditions under which grain may have been stored in the ancient world, he does little to tie it in with the relevance to the household or society. He does briefly discuss the relationship between grain storage and the subsistence base in the Near East and Syrio-Palestine, in particular, and the possible public administration of grain storage as portrayed in the Bible (Currid 1986: 16–25).

My study will not just consider grain storage, but also that of other food stuffs. The calculations of Greenhut and De Groot assume a diet nearly exclusively based on grain products. While grain was without doubt important in ancient diets of the Levant, a more balanced approach may be helpful. This will also change some of the presumptions that flowed into the calculations. David Hopkins and Baruch Rosen—subsistence economy in the Iron Age I In his study of agricultural life in the Early Iron Age in the central hill country, David Hopkins discusses food storage within the general context of the population of high country settlements (Hopkins 1983). He sees the characteristic collared-rim jars not so much as ethnic markers, but rather as evidence of the social, historical, and economic situation of the population. They were versatile vessels that could be used to store grain or water. As they were very large, they could not be used

Based on his investigation of the technical requirements and accessibility considerations, Currid formulated criteria, such as the structure, building materials, outline and location, for possible granaries (Currid 1986: 26–36). He then identifies the remains of several buildings that could have served as granaries, also indicating whether bulk storage or storage in jars or sacks would have been more likely. Currid does not consider household storage.

In an effort to understand pits in England, Peter J. Reynolds conducted tests storing grain (Reynolds 1979). Even though English climate and living conditions are removed from those of Ancient Israel, some of the conclusions of the experiments are relevant. It was possible to store grain (emmer, spelt, barley) long-term in underground storage pits. The bulk of the grain will be useable. The grain near the pit lining effectively germinated, but if the pit is then well sealed, the carbon dioxide given out by the grain will effect a state of dormancy. It is probably for this reason that opening a storage pit and removing only part of the grain has detrimental effects on the remaining grain, so that most of it was lost. The author therefore suggests that only seed grain was kept in pits, or that grain was stored long-term in pits and then moved to jars, which have been attested archaeologically, for more short-term storage (Reynolds 1979: 73). 4

Currid also adds an analysis of grain storage pits (Currid 1986: 128–202), his major emphasis being on experiments (Currid 1986: 128–182) and technical specifications (Currid 1986: 182–192), with only a brief study of pits from the Iron Age and Persian Period (Currid 1986: 192–202). Currid focuses on large pits that would probably have been public facilities and not just 10

Chapter 3 Literature Review

for transport, unlike the later lmlk-type jars, and were probably kept in the house. The jars could hold about 150 litres. If filled with barley, the contents of one collared-rim jar could provide the basic caloric needs of one person for 2.5 months (Hopkins 1983: 150).

per person per year, the 37730kg of wheat would be sufficient for 188 people. Barley would have occupied about 1/3 of the capacity and would have been used for animal fodder. Based on an estimate of 25 persons per dunam, Rosen takes Finkelstein’s estimate of 100 people at ‘Izbet Sartah (Rosen 1986: 174; Finkelstein 1986: 114). Rosen then calculates the number of oxen required to work the fields, based on comments on the Palestinian economy (Rosen 1986: 174–175). Taking the percentages of animal bones at ‘Izbet Sartah, Rosen calculates the possible number of caprovines and bovines and the possible amount of dairy products and meat available. He concludes that there was abundant grain, but that animal products were probably not as abundant. Based on the calculations, he proposes a diet of cereals, milk and meat.

The fact that Tel Masos also has collared-rim storage jars and is not considered Israelite leads Mazar to reject these as ethnic markers (Mazar 1981: 30). Hopkins sees the value of the many grain pits found in early Iron Age settlements mainly in relation to subsistence security (Hopkins 1983: 151). He thinks that such grain pits might provide food in the case of crop failure, but usually not for more than two years (Hopkins 1983: 151). Storage facilities are expressions of risk-spreading strategies, which allow produce from a year of plenty to be kept for a year of farming failure (Hopkins 1983: 268). These strategies must be seen in the context of other strategies such as staggered sowing, field fragmentation, the variety of foodstuffs, herding and social cohesion (Hopkins 1983: 268–269).

While the focus on the collared-rim jars and the storage pits highlights the distinctive elements of Iron Age I food storage, it tends to disregard the overall food storage context. These distinctive changes over time have to be taken into account when looking at the differences in storage practices across time and space. Collared-rim jars and storage pits were not the only food storage facilities during the Iron Age I. They were part of providing food security for the entire year, part of organizing food storage in the household. That just the most distinctive artefacts were considered is partly conditioned by the preservation of the sites. At ‘Izbet Sartah, for example, the storage pits were from a different stratum than most of the pottery found at the site.

Israel Finkelstein, in contrast, suggests that the large number of grain pits—he refers to them as silos—in the Iron Age I shows that the population was in the process of sedentarization (Finkelstein 1986: 126). He refers to the use of similar silos by the Bedouin of the Negev in the 20th century. In urban societies or those centrally administered, other storage solutions will be used, such as storehouses. Baruch Rosen uses the excavated grain pits at ‘Izbet Sartah, as well as animal bones and a consideration of the available farmable land, to give a numerical representation of the possible agricultural economy at ‘Izbet Sartah (Rosen 1986). Rosen calculates a storage capacity of about 150 m3 for the grain pits—or silos, as he refers to them—at ‘Izbet Sartah.5

The elaborate model by Rosen shows the limitations of such calculations, as it is reliant on many assumptions, averages and uncertain inputs. Such calculations can only be an illustration and are probably more useful in a comparative exercise.

Rosen presumes that the capacity of the silos represents the maximum expected storage volume. Taking into account harvest yield figures from the middle of the 20th century in Jordan and Lebanon, he establishes that the average yield is about 70% of the maximum yield. Therefore, the average volume on which calculations are to be based should be 70% of the maximum volume. Storage waste and seed requirements diminish this average available grain for consumption by another 30%. Taking a modern value of 200kg of wheat consumed

Oded Borowski, Philip King and Lawrence Stager— daily life in Ancient Israel Oded Borowski dedicates one chapter in his book on agriculture in Iron Age Israel to food storage (1987: 7183). He suggests seven different categories, which could also fit in a framework of eight paradigmatic classes (Borowski 1987: 71-72, 82; see Table 4). Borowski also differentiates between public and private storerooms. Table 4. Categories of food storage facilities in Ancient Israel. Borowski 1987:71-72.

This figure has been disputed (Greenhut and De Groot 2009: 220– 221). Rosen used the density of 28 silos per dunam for the excavated silo field and applied it to the entire site, which was estimated to be approximately 4 dunam. He therefore proposed 110 silos for the entire site. In fact, only 43 silos were excavated at ‘Izbet Sartah, all of them surrounding the central building (Finkelstein 1986: 110). If Finkelstein’s average silo capacity of 1.4m3 is correct, a storage capacity of 60.2m3 was excavated at ‘Izbet Sartah (Greenhut and De Groot 2009: 220–221). 5

under ground above ground

11

in bulk in containers public private public private silo grain pit cellar cellar public private public private granary storeroom storehouse storeroom

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Borowski notes that grain pits were found in close proximity to dwelling areas (Borowski 1987: 73). I will use the term ‘storage pit’ to signal that the contents should not automatically be presumed. A well-known example of a silo is the structure at Megiddo, Stratum III. It was 7 metres deep and had a capacity of at least 450 cubic metres. Winding stairs provided entry and exit (Borowski 1987: 74). The only example of a clearly established cellar was excavated at Tell Jemmeh, where it was part of an Assyrian administrative building. Storage jars predominated the fill of the room (Borowski 1987: 75). Few granaries were discovered in Israel during the Iron Age. Several granaries dating to the Persian period were found at Tell Jemmeh. Portions of a conical dome were preserved for that granary (Borowski 1987: 76-78). Several pillared houses have been found in excavations and are commonly thought to represent storehouses. Many different vessels have been found in the side rooms of these storehouses (Borowski 1987: 78-80).

The books describe the range of storage practices in Ancient Israel as part of the overview of life in Biblical times. But in their effort to describe the variety of storage practices, they tend to deflect from the typical storage practices, particularly at the household level. They also do not integrate storage practices with other activities. Any examples given are more an illustration of the unique rather than the data on which the description is built. The presentation of different storage practices is helpful and the concise manner gives an immediate overview. My own work will discuss storage practices in more detail and anchor them more clearly in considerations of household organization and the motivated actions of people. James L. Kelso, Hayah Katz and Avraham Faust— the storage vessels As part of his study on the ceramic vocabulary of the Old Testament, James L. Kelso lists the ceramic vessels mentioned in the Old Testament (Kelso 1948). While his list appears to be complete and exhaustive, he presents encyclopaedia-like conclusions, rather than a discussion based on the texts. He also links the different terms directly with specific forms found in excavations. It is therefore more an exercise of connecting two different corpi—the list of Old Testament words and an archaeological ceramic typology. But the assumption that the use of words in Ancient Hebrew lined up with the archaeological ceramic typology is questionable. It also leads him to identify the function of certain words found in the Old Testament with a certainty that the texts do not support. While his proposals form a good starting point, they have to be examined and viewed in the particular contexts.

Public storerooms were structures attached to public buildings. Often these storerooms held provisions that were probably used in conjunction with the public function of the building (Borowski 1987: 80–81). Private storerooms were normally integrated into a private building rather than being attached to it. Parts of fourroom houses were used for storage. The agricultural produce kept in these rooms was for the daily use of the families residing in these houses (Borowski 1987: 83). In his later book, Oded Borowski indicates which storage facilities and vessels were probably used for different food items (2003: 72–73). Grain was mostly stored in storage pits and jars. Flour was also stored in jars, although it was generally ground daily. Liquids, such as wine, oil and water, were also kept in jars, as were fruit on occasion. Milk would have been kept in goatskins. He suggests that preserved items, such as dried meat or fish and cheese were kept in baskets.

Hayah Katz and Avraham Faust wrote a short article on the distribution and use of storage vessels in the Kingdom of Judah (Katz and Faust 2011). They discussed storage jars found in eighth and seventh century contexts at Tel Batash, Beth-Shemesh, Moza, Khirbet er-Rash, Jerusalem and Lachish. They concluded that even though scholars usually associate the shape of the different storage jars with the storage of certain products, the evidence indicates that the relationship may not hold. Grain was probably also stored in storage jars with narrow necks, and olive oil also in jars with wide rims. They suggested that the shape was more likely related to the storage context. Large jars were more likely part of royal storage and small jars more likely part of a household storage assemblage. They also suggested that the need for immediate short-distance transport might have encouraged the use of small jars in rural contexts. While the suggestion is interesting, it is based on the observation of very few rooms, and not on sites or whole buildings. All, apart from one room, they suggested were associated with royal storage. Therefore, the data set on domestic storage was very small in comparison to that on royal storage.

In their exhaustive book on daily life in Ancient Israel, King and Stager discuss storage incidentally when describing foodstuffs or pottery vessels (King and Stager 2001). They say that in Iron Age houses, an area was reserved on the ground floor for the preparation and storage of food (King and Stager 2001: 94). They mention that wine was stored in jars, with small dipper juglets used for taking the wine from the jar (King and Stager 2001: 101-102). When portraying the importance of figs in the diet of Ancient Israel, they also mention that a string of hundreds of carbonized figs was found in a storage jar at Ekron (King and Stager 2001: 104–105). A fire that destroyed the city in the 12th century brought about the exceptional preservation. In a discussion of pottery forms, King and Stager try to correlate some of the vessels mentioned in the Bible with pottery found in archaeological excavations (King and Stager 2001: 142–146). 12

Chapter 3 Literature Review

Summary

particularly the apparent changes between the Iron Age I and Iron Age II. While basic overviews of the range of storage practices exist in works about daily life in Ancient Israel (in Borowski 1987; Borowski 2003; King and Stager 2001), there is little detailed consideration of typical storage practices and household organization. Various studies have been completed on storage vessels, which help us to understand storage practices in Ancient Israel and Judah.

The most comprehensive study of food storage in the southern Levant is that of Karin Bartl (2004), but she covers just the Late Epipaleolithic and Early Neolithic Periods. Her approach is also very functionalist, in contrast to the more interpretive approach I propose to take. This is partly based on the work of Chesson at the Early Bronze Age city of Numeira (Chesson 2012). While there have been studies of food storage during the Iron Age, these have focused on the centrally-administered storage facilities that enabled redistribution to an urban centre, and did not consider household storage (Greenhut 2006; Currid 1986). I am focusing on household storage. A study of household food storage nevertheless has to take into account the overall context of food distribution,

There is, therefore, no other work that analyses household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah in detail. This study can contribute to our knowledge of the lifeways of those times, to the understanding of household organization and, through that, to come to know the people of Ancient Israel and Judah a little bit better.

13

Chapter 4

Methodology 4.1 Approaches to History and Archaeology

with them are biased, while they and the people they like got it right. In the writing of a history of Ancient Israel this phenomenon is also obvious from the selectivity of archaeological interpretation: historians like to use the work of archaeologists that accord with their view; archaeologists like to use the theories of historians they agree with. This reinforces radically different views of the past. Since larger historical narratives are important for the interpretation of artefacts, just as archaeological finds affect the larger historical narratives, this symbiosis is not unexpected, but does not help in forming a coherent approach for the interpretation of archaeological data and their use in writing the history of Ancient Israel.

An investigation of ancient practice is not just a listing of scattered, potentially relevant data, but rather a reasoned analysis of the various strands of evidence to provide a coherent account of aspects of ancient lifeways. I am involved in writing history, even if it is restricted in scope. I do not provide a general description of a specific extent of time and space or a chronologically ordered overview of the events, but I aim to make connections to better understand the past and to contribute to a reconstruction of life in Ancient Israel and Judah. Debates about writing the history of Ancient Israel

My topic, however, demands an explicit approach to the interpretation of archaeological data. The textual information about household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah is insufficient and what little there is, is better understood in light of archaeology. I also regard a more complementary approach as useful, where the strengths of textual and archaeological evidence are used. All archaeologists use some interpretive scheme, but most do so implicitly. Often such schemes are broadly in line with common approaches and theories of the discipline and so need little further explanation. While my own approach is neither revolutionary nor totally new, it has not previously been formulated clearly to allow for the detailed analysis of a representative set of archaeological data with the intention of writing history.

In the last 40 years, the debate about writing a history of Ancient Israel has been particularly intense (see Bishop Moore 2006). In part, this has been influenced by general debates in historiography, the social sciences and the humanities. But the debate is governed by the value given to a collection of texts, namely the Bible, in writing this history. Some writers, who are often referred to as ‘minimalists’, tend to regard the explicit account of events and conditions in the Bible as nonreliable, and value it only for the implicit information about the time at which, they postulate, the texts were written (Bishop Moore 2006: 75–107). Others, referred to variously as ‘maximalists’ or ‘non-minimalists’ (though those two terms are not interchangeable), give greater weight to the explicit accounts of events and conditions in the Bible and use them as part of writing a history of Ancient Israel, some more critically than others (Bishop Moore 2006: 108–135). Even though the debate has sometimes been heated, there are often similarities in how the writers use other evidence, particularly archaeological evidence. Equally, the approaches of writers can be quite diverse, whether they place great reliability on the Biblical account or not. In a recent volume (Grabbe 2011) much of the debate was focused on what ‘primary facts’ are and to what extent they should be given preference over other pieces of evidence. And while archaeological data are generally seen by all as providing information, there is a debate as to whether the interpretation of archaeological data should override texts or whether archaeological interpretations should be used in conjunction with texts. But little attention is paid to how archaeological data are interpreted in the first place. Some scholars seem to hold a quite mechanistic view that ‘facts’ allow us to write history as long as we do not use them with bias, generally implying that those who don’t agree

4.2 Outline of method I propose to use three steps in evaluating and interpreting data and writing history: •• i nterpretation of artefacts through analogy •• analysis of relationships through pattern discovery •• explanation of significance and change through narrative Through these steps, I highlight common human modes of knowing. For we often use analogy with known things to describe things that are unknown to us. We often use patterns to give order to the environments and situations we encounter. And we give meaning to events and developments through narrative. The use of each of the individual steps in archaeology and history is nothing new, and I use them because they have proven adequate in understanding the past. I 14

Chapter 4 Methodology

think that my attempt to make their use more explicit and to combine them as three steps of a process to understanding the past, is new, though probably partly conditioned by the purpose of this dissertation. Due to the subject matter of this work, I will also place more emphasis on the second step of pattern discovery, because I am not writing an overall history and the interpretation of artefacts is incidental to the analysis of their relationships and the social patterns they may reflect. The steps cannot be fully separated. For analogy is also required in discovering patterns and forming narratives, just as pattern recognition is involved in interpretation by analogy as well as in narratives, and the overall narrative influences our interpretation of artefacts and our discovery of their patterning.

particular or general subject. Analogical inference is used along a continuum from the formal determination of absence or presence of discrete properties to a more case-by-case weighing of relevance. Wylie suggests greater weight can be given to relevance by testing the source and subject side of analogy (Wylie 2002: 151). For example, when ethnographic analogies are used, a detailed study of the use of the artefact is required. Equally, on the subject side, different hypotheses are to be constructed and tested to determine whether an artefact could indeed have been used in a certain way. Strengthening such analogies will always be difficult in the case of ideological comparison. While we may commence with seeking analogs to artefacts in our everyday world, this has to be modified. The use of ethnographic comparison gives us the ability to recognize the use of objects in societies other than our own, societies that may use objects in a similar way to how they have been used in the past. Ethnographic analogies may also suggest various uses that can be further refined through modern experiments. The use of ancient texts and art may suggest further modification. Also, other artefacts, which have been found in a wellestablished context, may serve as another source for analogy. Generally, the strengthening of analogy is also dependent on the consistency of our identification within the context of that time and place: a metal rod found in an Iron Age context is unlikely to be part of an electric motor; a swastika design from the Bronze Age is unlikely to be closely related to National Socialism.

I am not forced to these steps by epistemological considerations, but rather by practical. For all of these particular modes of knowing are somehow involved in linking traces of the past to a coherent, explanatory account of the past. There are other modes of knowing, explanation and interpretation that are also involved, but I have chosen to highlight these three, because they provide an adequate and explicit process. On the other hand, explicitly relying on just one method of knowing and explanation may not give me an adequate process and may lead me to the temptation of subsuming too much under the one mode. Analogy in archaeology and history A basic process to understand unfamiliar objects is through analogy, through making comparisons between the known and the phenomena to be explained. When we find a ‘bowl’ in the archaeological context, we may draw a connection to the bowl in which we had our breakfast cereal. It is not a simple connection, for we always need to be open to the possibility that a ‘bowl’ might have been used differently by the people whose traces we study.

Simplistic ethnographic analogy was often a characteristic of a progressive evolutionary approach to archaeology. With a more rigorous examination of assumptions, the use of such analogy, where societies at similar evolutionary stages were equated, has been discarded (Ascher 1961: 318). However, ethnographic analogy is just one part of analogous reasoning. In his seminal article Robert Ascher only hints at the wider use of analogy apart from ethnography (Ascher 1961: 322). He acknowledges the difficulties with analogy, but affirms that it is the main tool for archaeological interpretation, though one that has to be exercised with caution (Ascher 1961: 317).

If archaeology is really about people, then the data of archaeology have to be interpreted with recourse to analogies (Trigger 1989: 366). We require a ‘persistent coordination of observations on the archaeological record with those made actualistically’ (Watson 1986: 451). This requires us to go back and forth between what we see in the archaeological record and any comparisons we make, whether they are with current usage of objects or those reported in other publications.

Apart from changes in culture, we also need to be aware of the change in physical properties when we try to recognize things from the past. Walls collapse, iron rusts, pots get moved. Often we can see such processes happening. And we can see what a mud brick wall would look like after it has been exposed for decades. Archaeological remains often have been subjected to these processes for a far longer time, but our observations may allow us to draw adequate analogies to recognize the artefacts. We must study formation processes as part of our effort to recognize and interpret objects.

Analogy consists of the selective transposition of information from the source to the subject of the analogy on the basis of a comparison that, fully developed, specifies how the terms compared are similar, different or of unknown likeness (Wylie 2002: 147). Analogy is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular or general subject to another 15

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah While analogy is not limited to archaeology, it has a proper place in archaeology. It is a response to the question ‘What is this?’ - an attempt to recognize things that are both foreign and familiar. Analogy was used from the beginning of archaeology, when excavators tried to make sense of the objects they found, and when they drew comparisons between objects. It is the main way to identify artefacts in the field. Our initial conclusions are then weighed against other analogs, so that we can arrive at a refined, strengthened interpretation of artefacts. Most archaeologists do that intuitively. However, often the analogical process is not methodically applied and our process of identification is not made explicit. By making analogical reasoning explicit, we are not only likely to come to a better interpretation of artefacts, but also to be more honest in our research.

of the various types drawn up and distinctions listed. But often, little attention has been given to what types actually are, how they have been arrived at and what their purpose may be. Over time, types became set and typologies of artefacts emerged, slowly turning into complex taxonomic classification systems. The discussions among American archaeologists in the 1950s about the existence of types and their determination also had some effects in Near Eastern Archaeology.6 A type is not a taxonomic classification system; a type is an essential reference form to which other artefacts can be compared. It is, in other words, the ideal form, the representative, after taking many similar figures into account. Rather than comparing every artefact to another, we can refer artefacts to a representative type. This type may not in fact exist, but rather be ideal. For example, we might define the very type of a bowl to which we could compare all other bowls and from which we could differentiate all other pottery. There are no necessarily defined boundaries, so that a particular ceramic vessel might be referred to as a bowl or as a krater if it shares similarities with both the typical bowl or krater. If such boundary cases occur more frequently than cases more comparable to the type, it would indicate that the type has not been well chosen, and does not reflect the continual interaction of researchers with the data.

A similar approach may also be helpful to understanding aspects of ancient texts, especially if, as in my case, the main emphasis is on the implicit evidence of lifeways in the texts. Those statements should be first read through comparison with our own lifeworld. The reading then has to be modified through ethnographic analogy and the use of other texts, as well as a general sense of past lifeways. Using analogy is not a mechanistic process, so that every person would be able to come to the same conclusion. But it is an explained process, one that can be made explicit. To draw strong analogies and evaluate them, it is useful for the interpreter to be steeped in worlds similar to that of which the artefacts give evidence. That involves knowledge of cultures which use material culture similarly, knowledge of interpretations given in the past, and a general understanding of the overall living conditions in that world.

A typology therefore is not a clearly defined classification system, but rather a range of types to which the data are compared and by which the data can be adequately ordered. The typology needs to be related to the purpose of the study. It needs to arise Probably most well-known is the discussion between Albert C. Spaulding and James H. Ford (Spaulding 1953; Spaulding 1954; Ford 1954; Ford and Steward 1954). Spaulding suggested that types could be discerned by statistical means, so that the combinations of attributes favoured by the makers of the artefacts could be discovered. In contrast, Ford argued that types are abstractions made by the observer to serve a particular purpose (Ford and Steward 1954: 49). Types have not been determined in the past by the people who created the artefacts, only to be discovered by later research. Rather, types allow a researcher to order the large amount of data into groups. For Ford and Steward the type is a tool to do culture history—beyond that, other classifications should be used, for example one based on function (Ford and Steward 1954: 52–53). It is my contention that both sides to the debate have not fully understood the concept of a type, even though they implicitly used it in partly correct ways. It is clear that the various attributes of artefacts have to be determined by the person studying them. It is not a given that some attributes are relevant and others are not. Through analogy and familiarity with the material, the relevant attributes and distinctions become known. It requires continual study of the material and an iterative process to arrive at adequate types. Furthermore, it is not the role of types to delimit a group, but rather to be the essential reference to which other artefacts are compared. While statistical methods may be used to make comparisons, it is unlikely that the type is determined by statistical means. While traditionally types have been determined for the purpose of culture history, this does not mean that the concept cannot be used for other purposes. However, the particular types used for culture history may not be adequate for other purposes, for example for a functional analysis. Types must always be related to the purpose of study. 6

To assess the evidence, analogy with other societies, particularly the one experienced by the historian, is used. For historians assume, consciously or subconsciously, that the past is analogous to the present and one society to another (Miller 1993: 12). ‘Thus a historian’s understanding of present reality serves as an overriding guide for evaluating evidence and interpreting the past, and the cultural patterns of a better-known society may be used as a guide for clarifying those of a lesser-known society (Miller 1993: 12).’ To bring order into vast datasets and to make comparisons between the various points in the dataset, a further heuristic and organising device is necessary. For the description of archaeological artefacts, their comparison and analysis, I suggest that the most useful device and the one closest to common human expression is the traditional archaeological concept of type. Typology has long been a pre-occupation of collectors and classical archaeologists, with exact characteristics 16

Chapter 4 Methodology

out of continual study of the data and while the builtup knowledge of previous researchers should be taken into account, types should not become that fixed that they cannot be changed if they are not adequate for the purpose, or no longer reflect the data set.

Patterns are clearly referenced to the physical remains and contexts. The correspondence of patterns allows us to compare archaeological materials from different times and places and to determine trends, which may reveal something about society as a whole. Not only do patterns have to be ascertained, they also have to be interpreted. The interpretation of patterns is partly dependent on the overall theoretical approach of the archaeologist. Within a processual approach, for example, patterns were sometimes seen as the regularities within systems on which models could be built (Clarke 1968: 244–286).

In archaeology, most attention has been given to pottery typology. Types were usually defined for the purpose of chronology. This does not mean that these types are necessarily the best to study the functionality of the pottery. Even less so does the name given to a type for the purposes of chronology determine the function of such pottery. A storage jar or a cooking pot may not necessarily have been used for storage or cooking respectively. Whether they did, is a separate investigation. It may be the case that new types need to be established or that, even though old types and their names may continue to be used, their function needs to be revised.7

Various methods to discover and interpret patterns have been used. One of the favourite methods is statistical analysis, particularly because it holds out the promise of objectivity and the appearance of scientific method. It therefore gained favour under a processual approach. Unfortunately, statistical analysis was and often is still seen as an end in itself. However, statistical analysis is simply a tool, a tool for identifying patterns in data that have been converted to numbers and a tool for assessing how precisely and how reliably the patterns we identify in our data represent real patterns in the broader world our conclusions are really about (Drennan 2009: vii). If used incorrectly, statistical analysis may, in fact, obscure patterns rather than reveal them.

The concept of type discussed here has similarities to and is influenced by the ideal type, discussed as part of pattern recognition. The difference is one of degree. Pattern recognition in archaeology and history It is a basic assumption of archaeology that human use of materials and space is patterned and not random. Butzer argues that ‘at the micro-level, archaeologists deal with artefacts, artefact-patterning and matters of basic intrasite or intrastructural patterning’ and that most effort in archaeology is at that level (Butzer 1990: 103 as cited in Schloen 2001: 38). It is from the patterned remains of human activities that we can say something about past human lives. Patterns may indicate recurrent practice and social structures. Interpretation of patterns may particularly convey the habitus, the quotidian activities of life, which mediated both practice and structure (Joblonkay 2014).

One particular temptation in archaeology is the use of proportions of pottery types to come to conclusions about the function of areas. But such conclusions are based on several false assumptions: First, pottery types established for chronological purposes cannot be equated with function. Second, the proportion of artefacts may not be an adequate measure to determine function. If one room contained only one jar probably used for storage, it does not necessarily mean that the room was used for storage, even though 100% of pottery might indicate that. However, if a room was full with 12 storage jars plus eight other small vessels, the pattern might well indicate storage, even if just 60% of pottery is directly related to storage. The interpretation of patterns has to be more sophisticated. The pitfalls of such statistical analysis were also demonstrated by Brody (2009).

The question of statistical determination of types has not only been raised by Spaulding (Spaulding 1953), but continues to be discussed and to be relevant today. In part, this is due to the availability of technology, which allows more exact capture of various attributes, and advanced statistical calculation and comparison of data (see for example Sergi et al. 2012). Statistics are often seen as a way to determine the most representative object. We talk of the average man, the average town, the average pot. Their purpose is often to show the centre of a wide range, and the divergence from that centre. And they do arise out of working with particular data. But it has to be clear that statistics is directly related to groups, so that a small variation in the data can drastically change the overall picture and the possible centres, especially in multi-variate approaches. In the clustering approach suggested by Sergi et al. (2012), the results are not representative types, but rather groupings of artefacts. The statistical means can show the variability within and between those groups. They are not necessarily adequate to compare a number of artefact attributes. In other words, statistics can help in the determination of types, and in making some comparisons, but they should not be confused as a means to directly determine or even discover types. 7

With the growth of computer science, not only the practice of pattern discovery but also its theoretical context had to be evaluated. The areas of data mining and image recognition focus particularly on identifying and using patterns. Pattern discovery is often applied to commercial uses. Simple uses may be to profile a customer through shopping habits. Patterns from such historical information are used to predict the future, but in the knowledge that such patterns are not fixed and vary between cultures and places. There are no experiments, no special acquisition of data to 17

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah test hypotheses. Even though data mining is mainly concerned with very practical issues, in a sense it can be seen as a new way of trying to achieve what science was seen to achieve. But it does it in a very pragmatic way, not a positivistic approach. It is an inductive method to arrive at conclusions. Explanations are not taken from theories. They are taken from observations and models that serve a limited purpose, a limited sphere and a limited time. In image recognition, pattern recognition is based on predictive learning: from experience the system can categorize unknown data. Categorization could occur either with reference to specific exemplars or their abstracted representations (Rosenfeld and Wechsler 2000: 102). One possibility is to abstract from learned data and create an ideal type, so that typicality can then be defined in terms of distance from that ideal type. This approach in computer science reflects work in the cognitive sciences, where humans have also been found to categorize things in terms of ideal types (Rosch 1977, as quoted in Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 122). But these ideal types are flexible and do not necessarily have a fixed core, so that categories are open-ended (Lakoff and Johson 1980).

I also propose to use aspects of the image recognition approach and ideal type approaches as an aid to identify and compare patterns found at various archaeological sites. By combining the exemplar and the ideal type approach, comparisons between sites can be made more explicit. While archaeologists can conclude through experience the most typical patterns found at archaeological sites, it is at times difficult to clearly outline this learning process. Rather, if we choose one exemplar site, even though this site may not serve as the most representative site, we can compare other sites and judge the variety of patterns. This site may, in the end, turn out to be substantially different from the majority of sites, may not be very typical, but it will serve as a basis for comparisons not only with that site, but with others as well. We may then come to a better abstraction, an ideal type, which can be used in future research. This is an iterative approach, which allows me to compare many of the relevant sites in detail, provide clear overviews and come to some reasoned conclusions. In relating observed patterns to history writing, I largely follow David Schloen—who in turn was influenced significantly by Paul Ricoeur and Max Weber (Schloen 2001)—even though I disagree with him in some aspects.

It is here that approaches conditioned by modern technology intersect with some classical social science approaches. I am particularly referring to the idea of the ‘Idealtypus’—the ‘ideal type’—developed by Max Weber (Weber 1904). ‘An ideal type is a construction of interrelated events and concepts [Zusammenhänge], which seem to our imagination to be feasibly motivated and therefore ‘objectively possible’, and to our nomological knowledge to be adequate’ (Weber 1904: 66). In a sense it is a utopia, an ideal form, which we can arrive at through the emphasis of particular elements of reality (Weber 1904: 64). It is not an accurate portrayal of reality, but rather a tool to portray and understand the underlying historical reality. Because an historian has to choose from such a wide range of possible events and occurrences, such an ideal type can give some coherence to the infinite amount of possible data.

Schloen sees a necessity for textual interpretation to connect artefacts and their patterning to social structures, which he understands as patterns of meaningful social action (Schloen 2001: 29). In other words, contemporary documents are required to move from an understanding of archaeological patterns to an understanding of social patterns. That does not mean that these documents provide the historical outline and archaeological data have to be fitted into that outline. Rather, it does mean that texts provide the main source to understand the motivations and symbols to interpret the archaeological data. Texts that are closely connected with the people who inhabited the investigated sites, as well as texts from the wider environment, need to be considered. For even from texts that are somewhat removed from the particular historical situation, plausible ethno-historical analogies can be drawn. Such an approach stands in stark contrast to functional interpretations of data. It also stands in contrast with approaches that rely on modern descriptions of motivations, or on generalized motivations based on ethnographic research. I understand Schloen’s concerns to see the past in its own terms. But I would say that we start with our contemporary experience to grasp patterns of meaningful social action. The broader and more involved our experience, the more we can associate and distinguish such patterns of meaningful

By studying several examples in detail, patterns can be discerned and relevant similarities and differences highlighted that may call for explanations. While the differences and similarities may at first be somewhat unclear, they can be highlighted by positing an ideal type based on these examples. This can then be used to compare new situations.8 Such an approach has been used in economics, for example by Elinor Ostrom in Governing the Commons (Ostrom 1990). By closely analyzing several examples of common-pool resource management systems, she extracted several recurring patterns for their success and failure, but also showed that economic theory, which had stood and been applied for decades, was only applicable to very special cases of common pool resource management. She sketches the outlines of a different theory, but I would regard it more as an ideal type or even a narrative relevant in certain historical situations. Archaeologists have used a similar approach, but generally not 8

explicitly. By pointing to regularities discernible at different sites, they come to explanations about the past. I would argue that a more explicit approach is not only more helpful, but also more honest. It also makes clear how archaeologists work with the data, and what data they use.

18

Chapter 4 Methodology

social action. Ancient texts, as well as other sources such as images, are then needed to alter and more closely shape our understanding of social structures in the past. In other words, I think that at this stage analogy is again required, including ethnographic analogy. I think that Schloen himself at least partially used this approach when he illustrated the patterns associated with the patrimonial household through the example of traditional Islamic cities (Schloen 2001: 108–116).

Time is humanized to the extent of its expression in narrative (Schloen 2001: 47). History writing at times tried to move away from narrative. But most of these attempts fall somehow back into narrative form. The Annales school, for example, used geography, demography, and economic patterns as characters in a story. Historians do often appeal to general rules, but Ricoeur and Schloen see this as part of the narrative process to ‘set understanding in motion again’ (Schloen 2001: 26; Pellauer 2007: 76). History writing should not attempt to set up general rules.

With a focus on social patterns in terms of typical motivations for actions (Schloen 2001: 24), understanding of past societies is recast. That does not mean that factors considered in functional approaches are not taken into account, but that they are viewed differently. For example ‘population pressure’ would be understood in terms of perceptions of crowdedness, allowable forms of competition for space, and ways of handling social conflict (Schloen 2001: 40). Environmental factors would not be seen as constraining an ecosystem, but rather as factors for motivated action. For example, ‘drought’ is already a human motivational term, rather than an appeal to more or less frequent decrease in precipitation affecting cultural systems.

Even though, in part, David Schloen has successfully combined the approaches of Max Weber and Paul Ricoeur, it is surprising that he also uses Max Weber’s terminology to follow Eisenstadt’s model of sociohistorical development, which is quite similar to the development stages of progressive-evolutionary approaches (Schloen 2001: 255–256). These are seen as ideal types to explain the very complex historical reality. Even if historical development can be broadly described with the help of ideal types, I would suggest that history can be written and long-term trends described without recourse to such stages. They are too closely aligned with a certain positivistic view of history, which seems to be based on ‘laws’ of progress. That is, the concept of general rules is brought back in from another angle. Such progressive stages also imply a certain worldview with its corollary values, values that often reflect a sense of superiority over other stages, whether they are expressed in terms of culture or learning. I am sceptical of such worldviews and values and do not think that they are necessary for history writing. Historical development can be better expressed in other overviews.

Narrative as historical explanation Explaining the relationship between patterns of action is done from our own historical standpoint through narrative. All history writing must always be a selection and reduction of the far more complex historical reality. Narrative explains by straying never far from the ordinary discourse (Carr 2008: 21). It draws connections between, and highlights and orders events and trends. Even though it is unpredictable, its reasoning and conclusions have to be acceptable. Narrative also is able to convey both the motivated and externally caused aspects of action and events. Narrative ‘does not add something coming from the outside to the documentary and explanatory phases, but rather accompanies and supports them’ (Ricoeur 2004: 238, as quoted in Pellauer 2007: 118). The plot imposed on the past by narrative integrates what is recounted and takes a distance from it (Pellauer 2007: 118).

Forming narratives from observed patterns is a highly contested mode of discourse, particularly obvious in politics. It is also frequently employed in conspiracy theories, which attempt to interpret the past differently from the main, accepted narratives, thus creating a different picture of present reality. But the multiplicity of different narratives and different conclusions should not detract us from this approach to doing history. It may rather point to the accessibility of that approach. Different methods may provide less contested results, but possibly because they deny different viewpoints and make history inaccessible to all but an enlightened few experts. The approach I am suggesting is accessible and explicit, so that any subjective judgments are open and clear. The basis of any conclusions is as apparent as possible.

The processual archaeologist David Clarke regarded historical narrative as a dangerous and incidental way of expressing the results of archaeological research (Clarke 1968: 41), fearing unsystematic connections. But narrative does allow us to draw reasonable connections when writing about the past and explain how historical outcomes were formed. Since historical outcomes are ‘irrational’ in the sense of being unpredictable consequences of chance configurations of factors (Schloen 2001: 76), it is difficult to link events and social patterns in any other way, especially if they are to be understood by humans in their particular lifeworld.

Such an approach to history, espcially history that uses archaeology to a large degree, may cause the fear of utter subjectivity. For while analogy, pattern discovery 19

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah and narrative are very human ways of understanding, they also cannot be easily controlled by a methodology or the limits of a discipline. That makes history uncertain, but also open to new insight. Through that, an account of history may be closer to the truth. The best understanding of any area so far is not an impersonal theory, but a personal perspective (Hardin and Holt 2017, see also Mills 1959). To write good history we do not need the best method, but the best person using the best evidence to the best of their effort. Expertise is a matter of persons, not principles (Hardin and Holt 2017). Such a view may seem presumptious in the task of writing history. I think that, rather than proceeding with the task with excessive self-confidence, we can do so with humility, knowing that we did our best to prepare for it.

researchers are using the same terms, but mean very different concepts (Chesson 2012: 49). The purpose for conducting Household Archaeology studies can be just as different as the theoretical approaches of its practitioners. And yet, Household Archaeology can serve as a counterweight to the large-scales narratives, models and theories (see Pluckhahn 2010: 332). Through a renewed interest in the artefacts themselves, Household Archaeology can be used from a range of theoretical viewpoints to build bridges between them, even if the meaning attached to terms—and from there to conclusions—can vary. While some methods have established themselves, their application is not uniform and their validity has not gone unchallenged. One of the most enduring methods is the use of the concept of activity areas to interpret the archaeological record (Hardin 2010: 19–26; Rainville 2011: 143–144). It is primarily a method to understand how the domestic space in a particular building was used. Based on specific types and occurrences of material remains, certain activities are identified and located. This method is based on a number of assumptions, particularly that activity areas are monofunctional and gender-specific (see Hardin 2010: 21, referring to Kent 1984: 2). As a corollary, it is assumed that artefacts and other remains were abandoned at the location where they were used, and that activities can be identified from the material remains found there (Hardin 2010: 21). The determination of activities is largely based on ethnographic analogies, but other studies, such as experimental archaeology, are also used to identify possible activities. Based on ethnographic research and a closer analysis of the artefacts, activity areas do not necessarily align with ‘rooms’ or other building features. Rather, several activity areas may be identified in a room, or activity areas may even span across different rooms (Baadsgaard 2008: 35; Hardin 2010: 126). While determining activity areas is a matter of interpretation (Kletter 2011), a detailed analysis of houses does require such an interpretation. Indeed, studies that have focused on rooms as a whole and assigned activities to them have been somewhat unconvincing in their interpretation (Daviau 1990, Brody 2009; Nishimura 2012). Michelle Daviau uses ‘functional tool kits’ to identify activity areas (Daviau 1990). Each tool kit paradigm is composed of a weighted list of artefacts. Daviau then compares the finds statistically with the tool kit paradigm to identify the probable function of an activity area (Daviau 1990: 66– 73). She does recognize that areas are not necessarily monofunctional, so that they cannot be perceived as belonging to one class. Daviau’s success in correctly identifying room function is limited. Essentially, she found that many rooms had some similarity (based on coefficients) with the food preparation and consumption paradigm. Her study shows the limits of such a statistically-driven approach.

4.3 Method application Setting Like all archaeologists and historians, I come to the very specific historical questions with assumptions of a greater historical narrative. As it is my hope that this study can be useful irrespective of what historical account is given of Ancient Israel and Judah, I just want to highlight some of the more relevant and guiding assumptions. The first is the very agrarian character of much of Ancient Israel and Judah throughout the Iron Age and the Persian Period. Not only the villages, but also the cities would have been governed by the rhythms of the agricultural year. The great majority of the population would have been involved in agriculture, even though some may also have carried out more specialised roles. The other assumption is the importance of kinship (real or fictional) in society. In particular, I would agree with Schloen (2001) and King and Stager (2001: 4–5) that Ancient Israel and Judah were patrimonial societies, a network of nested households, whether this was seen at a tribal or kingdom level. Just as tribes were perceived as forms of kinship, so the king was seen as father. ‘Thus we find households nested within households on up the scale of social hierarchy, each tier becoming more inclusive as one moves from domestic to royal to divine levels (King and Stager 2001: 5).’ Household Archaeology In archaeology there is a recognized field of study with some established methods to recognize patterns at the household level. This field of Household Archaeology has developed mainly since the 1970s and has had varying degrees of influence in different regions (see Hardin 2010: 10–13). However, Household Archaeology is a diffuse field with few unified conceptual or practical approaches (Foster and Parker 2012: 3). Often 20

Chapter 4 Methodology

While activity areas provide relatively fine-grained spatial analysis, I think that regarding them as monofunctional spaces does not do justice to the evidence. By focusing only on one activity, the relationships between several activities may not be observed. I therefore suggest that activity areas should be determined by what was probably the main activity, but at the same time possible other functions of the areas need to be identified. This requires a detailed consideration of all materials, rather than broad categorization.

survived. Not taking this evidence into account would be intellectually even less honest. In the area of Ancient Israel and Judah, many houses have been excavated for which the question of primary or secondary context is relatively clear. The houses seem to have been abandoned quickly and then destroyed, so that the material remains were sealed. Destruction strata provide a unique opportunity to study ancient houses. To help identify activity areas, I propose to use visual and comparative methods. By building computer models of houses and the artefacts recorded in them, it may be possible for the human observer to detect possible patterns in connection with the detailed consideration of particular artefacts and features, such as specific shape, use wear (where possible) and combination of features. The process does rely on evidence-based inference, rather than a systematic process to analyse space. Visualization may also provide an intuitive interface to access and correlate dispersed information (see Baldissini et al. 2009: 2).

Ethnoarchaeological research also indicates that while activities can be location-specific, more than one activity can be associated with a certain space. In an ethnoarchaeological study of a village compound in Cyprus the investigator found that used objects were not randomly distributed across the compound, but aggregated in certain areas (Sallade 1989). For some activities the objects used were highly aggregated. These activities tended to be carried out in one place, with the objects normally at rest nearby. Objects used in other activities were not as highly aggregated, but it was still clear that they were not randomly placed. These activities were performed over a wider area and the objects used were often not specific to the activity, but could be used in other activities as well.

To further identify patterns in houses, not only spatial relationships but also quantifiable measurements, such as calculations of area, can be used.9 In the case of storage, the overall volume of storage spaces or vessels

Household archaeologists involved in the analysis of micro-artefacts often point out that the position of larger artefacts, such as ceramic vessels, may not reflect the way a space was most commonly used in everyday life (Ullah 2012: 123, Rainville 2012: 145). While microartefact analysis can certainly help with understanding the use of space, the interpretation of results is far from standardised, and at times problematic (see Routledge 2013: 211–213; Foster 2012: 441). Also, errors due to postdepositional processes, to sampling, and to preparation for analysis are far more likely to occur for micro-artefacts (Matthews 2012: 189). In control samples from walls, fragments similar to those found in floors were found (Matthews 2012: 189). Since building materials on sites were often reused, it may be difficult to associate material culture with a particular occupation.

Zapassky and Rosen outline a method for calculating vessel volume with the help of three-dimensional (3-D) computer modelling (Zapassky and Rosen 2006). In contrast to the methodology developed by Zapassky and Rosen, I used vessel profile drawings which had been published in reports or had been prepared for publication. In that case, the mid perpendicular for vessels is usually a given. For irregularly-shaped vessels I was not able to use several profiles as was done in the study of Zapassky and Rosen. Rather, I tried to estimate a shape that would provide a roughly average volume. I used the 3-D drawing programme SketchUp to draw vessels and calculate the volume. When rotating a profile in SketchUp, it is not rotated in a true circle, but rather around an approximating polygon. I generally used a polygon of 24 sides to approximate a circle. For volumes, the outline of the inner shape was rotated. This resulted in the vessel shape, which was then grouped. SketchUp then gave the volume of the shape through the Entity Info dialogue box. In all drawings, I used millimetres (mm) as the basic measurement. Therefore, volumes were given in mm3, which then had to be converted to litres (l). I followed Zapassky and Rosen in calculating the whole interior volume of the vessel from the rim (Zapassky and Rosen 2006). But it must be remembered that it is unlikely that storage jars would have been filled to the rim. They would have been filled at most to the neck or, if they were holemouth jars, to the lower level of the thickened rim. Nevertheless, the volume represented by the neck of a vessel is so small in comparison to the overall volume of the jar that it would be well within the margin of error. For example, a 5 mm difference in diameter at the widest point of the jar would result in a far greater calculated volume difference than the inclusion or exclusion of the neck in the volume calculated. I therefore do not adjust the useable storage capacity of a vessel from the calculated total internal volume. But it has to be kept in mind that the calculated capacity is likely to be more towards the higher end of the actual useable capacity. The capacity of pits with a regular and clear profile can easily be calculated. It is more difficult if we have to rely on a more general description, such as ‘a pit 40 cm deep’. For rooms that were clearly fully used to store granular goods I assumed that the upper limit was level, rather than positing some conical form. The height of the upper limit was also somewhat arbitrarily chosen on what I considered reasonable, as there is little research into similar bulk facilities in the ethnographic record. 9

Hardin as well as Routledge raise several questions about the use of macro-artefacts, especially ceramic vessels, to determine patterns (Hardin 2010: 68–70; Routledge 2013: 210). For example, we cannot necessarily determine whether the artefacts are in a secondary or primary context, whether the patterns reflect normal day-to-day activities or the situation before a siege, whether the patterns are typical or not, especially if only one house or adjacent houses on a tell are considered. However, I think that these questions should not lead to paralysis, but rather need to be taken into account during interpretation and presentation of the results. Archaeology is not a definitive science, but rather an interpretation of remains that have fortuitously 21

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah will give further indications of the use of the house (see Chesson 2012: 65–72).

••

In Household Archaeology there has been considerable discussion about the definitions of houses, residential units, households, families and how the different concepts are related. Coming from the background of Processual Archaeology, there has been a tendency to arrive at functionalist definitions that try to include a wide range of living arrangements (for example, Hardin 2010: 7–14; Foster and Parker 2012: 4; Souvatzi 2012: 18; Özbal 2012: 324; Routledge 2013). I would argue that categorization should not proceed from the limits of categories, but from the centre. We need to ask what the prototypical or ideal household or house is and relate phenomena to this ideal, assessing to what extent they accord with or depart from it.

•• •• •• •• •• ••

Bruce Routledge argues against relating archaeologically excavated houses with the house of the father (‫בית אב‬, bêt ʾāb) attested to in the Old Testament and other ancient literature (Routledge 2013: 215–217). He seems to prefer more functional categories, which would, he tentatively assumes, allow us to consider the variability of living arrangements. I disagree. I doubt that it is possible to draw good conclusions about the kinship patterns of a house from functional analysis alone. Indeed, I would argue that disregarding such overwhelming evidence from emic sources amounts to distortion of the data and points to theoretical shortcomings. Routledge is correct in pointing out that scholars do not agree on the exact form of the house of the father (bêt ʾāb) and that considerable variance can be expected in the different households, and therefore in the archaeological imprint they left in the form of houses. By way of analogy, I want to point to the ideal of the nuclear family in the 20th century and how that ideal influenced arrangements even in such ‘non-family’ settings as student flats. In this study, then, I propose to use the house of the father (bêt ʾāb) as the ideal household type, used to interpret household activities and as a reference point for comparisons.

have been found sufficiently complete to likely have been deposited in a primary context. drawing relevant artefacts in 3D; calculating vessel volumes of storage vessels. spatially locating artefacts in 3D model, keeping an overview through accurate inventories determining possible activity areas through detecting patterns visually and quantitatively with reference to ethnographic analogy. describing and comparing patterns between storage and other activities. This includes a discussion of quantitative measurements. statistical analysis of quantitative measurements to direct attention to possible patterns. assessing the significance of storage for the individual household through comparison with the reference households at Tell Halif. describing patterns across the different sites.

To interpret artefacts and features in context, I initially set out artefact types, determining the activities in which they were used, through analogy with ethnographic descriptions, ancient depictions, and experimental archaeology. Just as in any investigation of evidence, this requires some back and forth between spatial analysis and artefact category analysis, which is not reflected in the final write-up. The types were determined after an initial investigation of the various case studies. These types were then applied to the data on the basis of which they had been determined. This is an iterative process, requiring constant interaction between the proposed types and the data. Similarly, before the various activity areas are finally determined, a discussion of the most typical patterns found in archaeological contexts—particularly on the basis of the case studies— sets out how activity areas may be determined and compared. Ideal pattern types as they relate to possible activity areas are determined based on these examples, through the use of ethnographic analogy and informed conclusions of excavators and other analysts. Such a determination of patterns requires familiarity with ancient lifeways, which is developed through constant interaction with ancient material, whether it be textual, pictorial or archaeological, as well as knowledge of a variety of relevant ethnographic analogs. These ideal pattern types are then reapplied to the examples, so that comparison across the sites is more consistent.

Summary These considerations flow into the proposed method to analyse household storage practice: •• initial scoping of excavated houses based on: time of occupation; location (within Ancient Judah or Israel); main residence of a household or house of the father; preservation; extent of exposure; excavation method; adequacy of reporting. •• initial reconstruction of the space in a computer model taking into account architecture and features. •• determining from reports the artefacts that would have been present in the spaces; some judgment is required here. I will consider artefacts that

Reconstruction of Household Storage—Conclusion The end result will be a tentative reconstruction of household storage practices in their context. This will be in narrative and visual form. Through this we will get to know a little more about the lifeways of the people of Ancient Israel and Judah. It will also help to provide a framework in which new storage facilities in households can be interpreted. 22

Chapter 5

Ethnography Based on availability, I have chosen ethnographies from several Middle Eastern regions that partly coincide with the area covered by Ancient Israel and Judah, or are in the wider vicinity. Some regions have been chosen because of the significance of the ethnoarchaeological work carried out there.

have left their mark on the population and new political systems have affected social interaction and population dynamics in different ways. Therefore, the daily life of Palestinian peasants can only help us in understanding the past better, if we approach the practices critically.

While some ethnographic descriptions include specific sections on food storage, it normally is an incidental topic that is hardly discussed. I had to glean bits and pieces from various books and articles to build up a picture, even though such a picture may not be complete. Ethnographies are not always written to describe daily life. Often they focus on the peculiar customs present in a place, such as festivals and events. After all, this is what we find unique and interesting. Others are written from a peculiar ethnoarchaeological view, trying to find enduring relationships between the use of objects and social institutions. This focus on functional, cross-cultural relationships may strengthen some working assumptions, but it also disregards information that would have been useful for analogies.

Grain Storage After the harvest, the grain was taken from the threshing floor to the house in sacks (Dalman 1933: 188). It was then sometimes dried on the roof before it was poured into the house and there filled into grain storage chests with the help of baskets. These storage chests, called ḫawābi or kwājir, were made by women from clay and chaff, dried in the sun and then lined with plaster. The level parts of the storage chests were made with reeds and then covered with clay. The storage chests were often decorated with various motifs, often by using colourful ceramic or glass pieces. They were 50 – 70 cm tall and 50 – 80 cm wide and deep. A hole at the top allowed them to be filled. It was then closed with a wooden lid or a lid made from clay. At the bottom was another hole, which was plugged with some cloth when in use. The storage chests had small feet. Sometimes several of these storage chests were joined (Dalman 1933: 188–194).

5.1 Palestine The most detailed descriptions of storage practices in the area, as of material culture in general, are the books by Gustaf Dalman, who studied the lives of Palestinian peasants and Bedouins under Ottoman administration in the early years of the 20th century, and recorded his observations in a series of books (Dalman 1928 – 2001). As the area of Palestine also represents the core physical area of Ancient Israel and Judah, the natural environment in which Palestinian villagers led their daily lives was essentially the same as that of earlier periods, apart from some climate and ecological changes, such as the reduction in forest cover. Some cultural continuity can also be suggested, as the lives of Palestinian peasant life continued throughout the ages, despite the fall and rise of empires, the changes in economic fortunes and changing dominance of various religions in the land. However, there are also very real differences. Time alone and historical developments are likely to result in social and cultural change. Over the ages, people have moved in and out of Palestine. As Palestine was a sometimes marginal area, a continued interchange between settled and mobile lifestyles developed, with some people adopting more nomadic lifestyles over the years, and others settling after a Bedouin existence for centuries. Language, religions as well as ethnic identities have changed over the centuries. Conquerors and rulers

It is interesting to note that the medium-sized storage jar was called hābie in northern Palestine, but zīr in the South. In contrast, in the South, the term hābie referred to the grain storage chest. Dalman sees this as linguistic indication that jars may once have been used more frequently to store grain (Dalman 1933: 203–204). A link between blessing and full storage chests can be detected in some of the customs from Palestine. During a drought or when rain arrived late, a procession would walk through a village, often led by an old woman with children following (Dalman 1928a: 134–137). One of the songs recorded for such a procession asks the one with the flood to flow over them, so that water flows, wheat is sown and finally the storage chests are filled again (Dalman 1928a: 137). The importance of wheat supply continued in the West Bank late into the 20th century (Lutfiyya 1966: 112). Even when agriculture was just one of the means of family support, exhausting the wheat stored in the household before the new harvest was frightening. A family that still had wheat to spare at the time of the new harvest was considered affluent. 23

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah At times of a good harvest, grain pits were used to hold the excess grain (Dalman 1933: 195). Such grain pits were excavated in the courtyard of houses, somewhere in the village or out in the fields. If they were located in the field, care was taken to obscure the grain pits once they were filled, so that theft was less likely. Before filling grain into the pits, a layer of chaff was placed at the bottom and around the sides. Chaff was also placed on top of the grain, and dung ash was spread above to protect the grain from moisture. Nevertheless, the grain was often affected by moisture, which also altered the taste of the bread, a well-known occurrence in Palestine. Gases developed in the pit, so that care had to be taken before they were emptied. First a hose was introduced into the pit to let the gases escape. Once it was sufficiently aired, a burning lamp was let down into the pit. If it continued to burn and thus indicated the presence of oxygen, a man entered the pit to fill baskets with grain (Dalman 1933: 195–196).

houses had separate rooms to store animal fodder. If there was space under the living terrace, chaff was sometimes kept there. Another method was to keep the chaff outside in heaps. These heaps were built layer by layer, with chaff at the centre which was surrounded by chamomile and finally covered by dung. These heaps were built in the shape of a cone and topped with mud. Dairy storage Dried dairy products, such as dried balls of buttermilk, were often stored in cloth bags (Dalman 1939: 298). Cheese and other dairy products were also stored in olive oil (Dalman 1939: 302, 304). Butter and liquid milk products, such as thickened milk, were kept in small milk pots (Dalman 1933: 306; Dalman 1942: 240). These milk pots (burnīje) were used for both long-term and short-term storage and are similar in form to what is usually described in archaeological circles as ‘cooking jugs’ (Figure 1 and Figure 2). They could also be used for other household tasks, especially to keep food short-term. The Jewish philosopher Sa’adia Gaon (tenth century CE), writing in Arabic, suggested that the Israelites collected and kept the Manna in burnījes (Dalman 1939: 57). Their use for short-term food storage is therefore also likely in the tenth century CE, an indication of the time depth of this practice.

Pests threatened the harvest during storage (Dalman 1933: 196–197). For grain, the main pest was the Angoumois Grain Moth (Sitotroga cerealella). The larvae bored into the seeds and fed there. If the grain had been left on the threshing floor for long, the moth was more likely to be present. Cleaning storage chests before they were filled was considered the most effective method to prevent the moth. In some areas, wood ash was mixed with the grain to prevent partial loss of the harvest. Seed beetles were another threat, as were grain mites, ants, mice and rats. For lentils and millet, a mixture of olive oil with salt was added to protect against pests, or sometimes even mercury was added.

Water storage Water was stored in large jars. Dalman gives the dimensions of one large jar as 103 cm high, 55 cm wide, with an opening of 14 cm diameter and a flat base of 14 cm (Dalman 1935: 251). He also saw smaller jars being used for storing water, such as one 59 cm high, 40 cm wide and with a mouth of 22 cm diameter (Dalman 1942: 238, Figure 116). Water was carried from the cistern, well or spring in small jars. An example of a jar used to carry water was 42 cm high, 26 cm wide with an opening of 9 cm (Dalman 1942: 238 see Figure 3.a). But Dalman also observed water jars about 59 cm high, 35 cm wide, and with an opening of 10 cm diameter (Dalman 1935: 251– 252; Dalman 1942: 238; see Figure 3.b). These jars had a rounded base. All the water jars had two handles. There was considerable variety in the shape and size of jars used for different purposes in Palestine. Dalman mentions that storage jars with a rounded base, in particular water storage jars, were often placed on rings of straw or more permanently constructed stands out of mud and bricks (Dalman 1942: 123, 139). They could also be placed in a depression on the floor or on jar stands.

Grain was usually ground to flour immediately before its use. Nevertheless, flour had to be stored, at least for short periods. Flour bags made from cloth or leather were often used to store flour for up to a few days (Dalman 1933: 304). These bags were very similar to those used by shepherds to carry their meals. For larger quantities of flour, sacks sometimes were used. If grain was milled at a water mill and therefore had to be stored in larger quantities, it was often kept in storage chests similar to the grain storage chests, though those used for flour were often smaller. Flour was also kept in wooden flour trunks, especially in Syria. They stood on low feet and had an opening near the base of the trunk, which was closed with a lid. The use of pottery jars for storing flour was an exception. Baskets were also used to hold flour, especially if they also had an outer leather lining (Dalman 1933: 303–307; Dalman 1942: 236). Baked bread was kept in straw baskets with a lid (Dalman 1942: 237). Sour dough for use in making the next batch of bread was also stored in a small basket.

Oil storage Dalman also describes large storage jars in connection with oil and wine (Dalman 1935: 251–252, 365–367). Oil was most commonly stored in a large storage jar without handles. These were about 75 cm high, 40 cm wide, had

Chaff was important as animal fodder. Sometimes this was kept in the storage section of the house, formed by a line of storage chests (Dalman 1933: 196). Other 24

Chapter 5 Ethnography

Figure 1. Kitchen implements, including four milk pots in the middle row and another milk pot in the front row left. Dalman 1935: Abbildung 11.

Figure 2. Drawing of milk pots, including measurements in centimetres. Dalman 1942: Abbildung 118. Figure 3. Palestinian water jars — illustration from Dalman 1942: Abbildung 115. a) water-carrying jar; b) water-carrying jar; c) waterdrawing jar; d) water-carrying jar; e) water-carrying jug or milking jug.

an opening of 22 cm diameter, and a flat base of 11 cm ( see Figure 4.e). Another possible jar for the storage of oil had a wide lower body, and was about 42 cm high, 50 cm wide, had an opening of 27 cm diameter, and a flat base of 26 cm. This jar had four handles. Generally, oil jars would have a capacity of 22 to 36 litres. For daily use, oil was also often stored in smaller jars (Dalman 1935: 251–252). 25

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Gustaf Dalman also describes the production of arak. It was produced by distilling a mixture of grapes or raisins and water. It was usually kept in bottles (Dalman 1935: 368). Beer was known in Palestine, but did not have any significance in Palestinian society (Dalman 1935: 368). Grape syrup (dibs) was produced by boiling grape juice for several hours. It was generally stored in pottery jars (Dalman 1933: 306; 1935: 383). Grape juice was also boiled for about 30 minutes and then poured into jars or skins to conserve the juice (Dalman 1935: 366). Raisins were made from ripened grapes (Dalman 1935: 349–352). In bunches the grapes were immersed in oil or a lye and then dried in the sun for several days. Afterwards the grapes were separated from the stems by shaking. They were then often pounded with a stone and formed into balls after adding some flour and sesame. These raisin balls were then dried again and could be kept for later use.

Figure 4. Palestinian jars and jugs — illustration from Dalman 1942: Abbildung 118. d) drinking jar; e) storage jar for water or oil; f) travel flask; g) drinking jug with spout (‘brik); h) jug; i) cup; j) goblet.

Vine leaves were also used in cooking (Dalman 1935: 346). Rice or groats together with minced meat were often cooked in vine leaves. To make this dish available also in winter, vine leaves were placed on a string and stored on the wall inside the house.

Larger oil storage jars were also possible, such as one example with a height of 103 cm, a width of 53 cm, a neck of 14 cm and a base of 14 cm diameter (Dalman 1935: 251). This jar had handles. But often oil was also stored in what Dalman describes as a ‘water jar’, a medium-sized jar with handles. One example was 59 cm high, 35 cm wide, with a neck of 10 cm diameter. Its base was round. To preserve the quality of olive oil it had to be shielded from sunlight. In Palestine, it was therefore often kept in storage jars with a narrow mouth and stored in dark rooms (Dalman 1935: 252).

Vegetables and fruit were usually kept in baskets (Dalman 1942: 236). However, Gustaf Dalman does not seem to imply long-term storage, except for dried figs, which were kept in baskets made from palm leaves (Dalman 1942: 237). Patterns in Palestinian houses Houses in Palestine were not uniform, but had common features. Many of them had just one large room, though it was usually subdivided. Storage containers tended to be towards the back of the house, while animals were mostly kept towards the front of the house. Normally the living space was at a higher level than the area in which animals were kept. At times, above the stable, houses had a mezzanine floor which was mostly used by women during the day to do household chores (Dalman 1942: 56). The water storage jar was usually kept right beside the entrance door.

Wine storage After the wine had fermented for several days in pottery jars, it was transferred to other jars or into large glass bottles (Dalman 1935: 365–367). In some areas, a piece of cloth was tied over the opening and the jar placed into ash, so that it was protected from moisture (Dalman 1935: 365). In Syria, oil was poured over the wine to protect it and cloth placed over the opening to avoid dust entering the jar or bottle. The wine was poured into another jar after 40 days and again each year. Each time, the oil was first removed with cotton, and then new oil poured onto the wine after it had been poured into another jar.

A small house without any pillars, which Gustaf Dalman recorded at el-mālḥa near Jerusalem, will serve as first example for patterning of space in a Palestinian house (Dalman 1942: 112–113; Figure 5). The house did not have any windows. The entranceway was about 50 cm lower than the main living area. The grain storage chest was at one end of the room, the olive oil jars at the other. More towards the centre of the room was the food preparation equipment, though the kitchen stove and the heating stove did not have a fixed place in the house. Not shown in this sketch are a basket, which

Storage of other grapevine products Vinegar was produced by filling a jar with grape juice, grape marc and water, and letting it ferment and sour for one month. After that it was poured into other containers, such as bottles (Dalman 1935: 367–368). 26

Chapter 5 Ethnography

Another basic house was the cave-dwelling. Gustaf Dalman recorded one in el-mālḥa (Figure 6). This dwelling was also used to house animals and animal fodder. The space for the animals was at the rear of the cave. Also at the rear of the cave, but on the other side, was an area to keep chaff, which was used as animal fodder. The food preparation area was towards the front of the cave, near a pillar. The hearth, the rotary mill and two water jars stood there. Off to the side was a storage chest for flour. On the other side of the entrance was Figure 5. House without pillars in el-malha near Jerusalem. Dalman 1942: Abbildung 28, the living terrace, which modified by T. Frank. was elevated 40 cm to 50 cm. Two grain storage chests were located here. hung from the ceiling, and a board attached to the wall, Notable for this dwelling are that the chaff was kept where the lamp and matches were kept. The bedding near the animals in the back of the house, that animal was stored during the day and spread out at night. It is fodder storage and the food preparation area were noticeable that the stored food was not all kept in one close together, and that flour was kept in the food place, but the grain in one corner and the oil in another preparation area, while the other stored food items corner. The rotary mill (stone) to grind grain was close were in the living area. to the grain storage chest.

Figure 6. Cave dwelling in el-malha. Dalman 1942: Abbildung 40, modified by T. Frank.

27

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 7. House in the Golan. Dalman 1942: Abbildung 37, modified by T. Frank.

Gustaf Dalman recorded several pillared houses. One house was in el-baḳa’ti in the Golan (Dalman 1942: 130; Figure 7). The stable was a separate room, but attached to the house. The baking hut with the tannur was a small, separate building (not shown on the plan). Even though the house overall consisted of one room, it was subdivided by storage chests into several spaces. At the entrance of the house storage chests formed a passage, from which openings led on the one side to the kitchen area, and on the other to the living area. From there the storage rooms at the back of the house were accessed. Dalman does not specify what was stored in these storage rooms, but based on his descriptions of the storage of food stuffs, it is likely that especially olive oil and grape syrup would have been stored there, maybe other food articles, chaff and agricultural tools. Grain would have principally been stored in the storage chests that subdivided the spaces.

took place. There were a hand mill to produce groats (flour was milled at a water mill), several pounders and other kitchen implements. Dry figs were kept here in a basket. There were two small storage chests set against the wall in this area: one containing flour, the other groats. A shelf in the corner was also used to store food and empty pottery and baskets.

The main storage area was formed by several grain storage chests and a wardrobe. The wardrobe was used to store bedding during the day. Inside the closed-off storage area was a jar of olive oil and a jar of grape syrup, as well as a box for clothes. Dalman also describes that above many of these storage areas was a hole in the roof (Dalman 1933: 191–193). This was used to pour the grain from the roof into the house, after it dried on the roof. From the storage area it was then poured with the help of baskets into the grain storage chests. On the far side of the storage area was another small storage chest for groats. In front of the storage area a tray was suspended from the ceiling to store meat and other food. Notable is that a separate storage area was formed by the grain storage chests in which food was mostly kept for long-term storage. For short-term storage, the area adjacent to the food preparation area was used. This area also contained a variety of domestic implements. The house also is a good example for the seasonal changes in using space.

The most detailed description is that of a house in Marjayoun near Mount Hermon, today in Lebanese territory (Dalman 1942: 121–128; Figure 8). The house had a large courtyard and separate storage for animal fodder. The complex had a separate guest room, in which guests were welcomed and where they slept. In the summer, the kitchen at the far end of the courtyard was used. The outside terraces were also mainly used during the summer, both during the day and for sleeping. A vine grew over one of these terrraces and provided shade. The tannur oven for baking bread was in a separate hut on the outskirts of the village.

Houses with two storeys were also common in Palestine. Gustaf Dalman described one example from Geba, north of Jerusalem (Dalman 1942: 163–164; Figure 9). The kitchen was not attached to the main building, but on the other side of the courtyard. A large storage chest in the kitchen indicates that some of the supplies were stored right beside the food preparation area. Under the stairs leading to the roof of the kitchen was another small food preparation area only used in summer. The wall of the courtyard had several pigeon holes. In one corner of the courtyard, built against the main house, was a small hut with a tabun for baking bread.

Animals were kept inside the house. The stable occupied the entire front third of the house, though parts of the stable were covered by a mezzanine floor which was used for household chores during the day and sleeping during the night. The water jars were directly beside the door in the stable area. The living area was higher than the stable. To one side was the hearth. Here the inhabitants sat during the winter to keep warm. It was also used for cooking. Near the hearth, food preparation

Stairs inside the main house led to the upper storey. The ceiling between upper and lower storey was left open in one quarter of the house. Directly beside the house entrance were the water jar and a sink. Several smaller jars with milk and oil hung on the wall. The main part of the lower floor was a stable. Dalman does not specify 28

Figure 8. House in Marjayoun. Dalman 1942: Abbildung 31, modified by T. Frank.

Chapter 5 Ethnography

29

Figure 9. House in Geba, north of Jerusalem. Left: ground floor. Right: Upper floor. Dalman 1942: Abbildungen 78&79, modified by T. Frank.

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah the exact partition between the stable and the area in which chaff was kept, but he says that the usual pattern is that of the stable at the front of the ground floor and the chaff storage area at the rear. In this case several storage chests were set against the wall in the stable area. Also at the front was a moveable hearth used to prepare coffee. Storage chests separated the stable and fodder storage from the living area. The bedding was kept in the living area. The upstairs room was mainly used by the men and guests. It also had bedding and in addition a clothes chest. On one side it had a large grain storage chest. This created two separate storage rooms which were used to store jars and household goods. Dalman does not specify whether the jars contained any food. Notable in this house is that the separate kitchen area also contained storage. But the main house also had several storage chests, some of them used as room dividers. It seems grain storage in particular was not limited to one area of the house, but occurred adjacent to other activity areas. A significant part of the space in Palestinian houses was dedicated to food storage. The amount of food stored in a house differed, probably depending on household size and the specific situation. Grain storage chests were often used to divide space in the houses. But some grain or flour also generally seems to have been stored near the food preparation area. 30

Chapter 5 Ethnography

5.2 Cyprus

to have been considered a very grave sin (OhnefalschRichter 1913: 28). Generally, wheat and barley were stored long-term as grain, and ground to flour as it was required (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913: 102).

Due to the relative proximity of Cyprus to Ancient Israel, some aspects of ancient lifeways can be expected to have followed similar patterns. There is evidence for both connection and disconnection between the cultures of Cyprus and Ancient Israel. Village life on Cyprus followed largely traditional patterns until the middle of the 20th century (Allen 1989). Peasant farmers equipped with technology that has changed little since the Bronze Age grew similar crops as in antiquity. Only in the latter half of the 20th century did lifeways change drastically on Cyprus (Allen 1989). Some of the storage patterns used until then, therefore, also would have been similar to those used in the past.

Other stored food Other foodstuffs were processed and then stored ready for consumption. Some animal products could be kept for longer periods. From the tail of the fat-tail sheep an odourless fat was won, which was regularly used in cooking (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913: 156). Carob syrup was produced in abundance in Cyprus and even became an export commodity. Carob fruit was also exported as fodder to some countries (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913: 142–144). In Cyprus, various sweets were also made from almonds, nuts, peaches, plums, cherries, dates, roses, rosehip and citrus fruit and seemed to have been similar to the European jams (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913: 174–175). One fruit that did not require any special preparation for storage was the pomegranate. It can be kept for months and was often hung from the ceiling and offered as a first snack to guests (OhnefalschRichter 1913: 174–175).

In her description of Greek customs on Cyprus, Magda Ohnefalsch-Richter mentions aspects of food storage incidentally (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913). Her book is based on observations from the late 19th and early 20th century. Because the author was the wife of an archaeologist, she frequently compared the observed practices with archaeological equivalents. Grain storage

Processing was also required to win olive oil from olives, and to make wine from grapes (see Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913: 120–122 on the pressing of olives). Wine and olive oil were stored on Cyprus in large pithoi holding up to 800 litres (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913: 122–123 on wine; for storage of oil and wine see Sinos 1989: 522). These large jars were normally manufactured by coiling without the use of a potter’s wheel (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913: 269). Apart from the storage of wine, pottery vessels were mainly used for hauling water from wells, for the transportation and storage of water and for use in milking (Ohnefalsch-Ricther 1913: 269–273). Dishes for serving, washing jugs and vases were also produced by the potters (Ohnefalsch-Ricther 1913: 273). Large jars for liquids usually had a round base and were placed on straw rings (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913: 271). The straw rings allowed the jars to be tilted slightly so that the liquid could be poured from the jar or more easily taken out with a small vessel.

Traditionally, grain was stored either in underground storage pits or above-ground store rooms (OhnefalschRichter 1913: 27). The underground storage pits were hewn directly into the rock. The pits were usually located near the village at a place where the natural rock comes to the surface. The grain storage pits were wider towards the base of the pit and narrower towards the top. The entrance hole was usually just wide enough for a man to enter. On the inside, the pits were coated with clay which was then fired in place. The construction of these pits was organized by the village community, but the sources do not tell us whether they were used by individual households or were used by several households together. Before they were filled, a fire was made with small branches in each pit. Then the grain was poured into the pit and a stone placed on top of it. The other traditional method to store grain was in a small granary built close to the house. It usually had a circular stone base and then a stone dome built on top of that (beehive form). These granaries had two holes: one at the top, into which the grain was poured each season, and one at the base, from which the grain was taken. The top one was closed with stonework after the granary was filled. The bottom one was closed with a stone, which was set in mud.

For smaller quantities, and to take liquids out of larger containers, pumpkin bottles were often used in Cyprus (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913: 265–267). It was also often the vessel from which people drank water and wine. They were often used in the kitchen to store tools and sour dough. Pumpkins were also often used as funnels. (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913: 266–267). Patterns in Cypriot houses

Magda Ohnefalsch-Richter emphasised that there was never any theft from these grain storage facilities, even those out in the open fields. Other crimes and thefts happened in Cyprus, but stealing from a granary seems

I did not have access to detailed descriptions of Cypriot households, especially not the location of food storage in relation to other activities. In a description of the 31

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 10. Sinos 1986: 523 Figure. C, modified by T. Frank.

Figure 11. Sinos 1986: 523 Figure. F, modified by T. Frank.

types of rural dwellings in Cyprus, S. Sinos also alludes to the use of the space (Sinos 1986). In the enlarged broad-front house, for example, the storage rooms are located on one side of the house, with the stable in the centre (Figure 10). In one part of the storage unit, there was an inclined loft for the storage of foodstuffs. Large pithoi of wine and olive oil were placed in front of this. The other part of the storage area was reserved for animal fodder, but could also contain some pithoi (Sinos 1986: 522). Some food may have also been stored short-term in the dwelling and food processing area, because cupboards were apparently located there. Nevertheless, the separation between storage and dwelling is quite clear. In other houses, the storage area seems to have been separate from the dwelling area, but not as clearly delineated from stabling. The house shown in Figure 11 had the fireplace, wardrobes and benches in one part of the house; the other part was used for the storage of produce and as a stable (Sinos 1986: 521). The door marked the delineation between these two areas with different functions. Many houses later had a porch added, which formed the main dwelling area during the summer months (Sinos 1986: 522–525). Cooking and baking was also often carried out in the porch. The circular area next to the porch is not explained. It could be a grain storage area or an oven. In any case, photos from Cyprus seem to indicate that ovens were often near the porch and grain storage facilities were also often close-by. In the mountains, different house types predominated (Sinos 32

Chapter 5 Ethnography

Figure 12. Sinos 1986: 525 Figure. F, modified by T. Frank.

1986: 526; Figure 12). These normally had two storeys. The upper storey was normally used for dwelling and cooking and had a porch to gain access to the upper storey. This porch was a roofed outdoor area, in which part of the daily work was carried out. The lower storey was used as a stable and for storage. If the lower storey also had two or three rooms, the room under the dwelling would be used for storage, while the room under the porch would be used for stabling animals (Sinos 1986: 526). The result is a similar pattern to that of the single storey houses: the storage of produce was located furthest from the living area. 5.3 Iran Some of the ethnographical studies in Iran are important because they were specifically ethnoarchaeological studies; that is, ethnographical studies with the aim of better understanding archaeological remains. Patty Jo Watson and Carol Kramer are well known in the field and both chose Iranian mountain villages for their studies, as traditional lifeways continued there late into the 20th century (Watson 1979; Kramer 1982). Both studies are also very valuable in giving a well-rounded picture of life in those villages and of the use of material culture. Some of the basic environmental factors are similar to Ancient Israel. Grain storage Patty Jo Watson studied a village of approximately two hundred people in the Zagros Mountains (Watson 1979: 13). All the villagers were share croppers with the land owned by absentee landlords. The main crops were wheat and barley, with wheat used mainly to bake bread, while barley was predominately used as animal fodder (Watson 1979: 66–67). Bread was the staple food item, eaten at nearly all meals. It was made from whole-grain wheat, ground at a mill or in the home. For an average family of four or five, about three kilograms of flour was required each day (Watson 1979: 68). Most of the wheat was ground to flour immediately after the harvest, threshing and winnowing, and then kept in the house either in mud storage chests or in barrels (Watson 1979: 67). The seed grain and any wheat not yet ground to flour were often kept in underground pits in the house. The flour chest or kanu was made by the women out of mud mixed with chaff, and then dried in the sun (Watson 1979: 162–168). The size of the kanu varied, but one kanu shown was about 110 cm high, 70 cm wide, and 30 cm deep. A hole was left in the top of the kanu, and was covered after the kanu had been filled. 33

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah The flour was taken from a hole near the bottom of the kanu, which was plugged with some cloth. Each house had at least one, often two or three, storage chests. In addition, smaller flour storage chests were used. They were also made from sun-baked mud and chaff, but were just 40 cm high and about 40 cm wide. They had access only at the top, a lid covering the opening. Sometimes grain was also stored in a kanu. Kramer describes very similar storage trunks for Iranian villages (Watson 1979: 162, 167; Kramer 1982: 101).

was melted and hardened again (Watson 1979: 110– 111). Dried curd lumps made from buttermilk could be stored and eaten during times when no fresh milk was available. Soft cheese was also made regularly. By storing it in brine, it could be kept for longer and was also sold. From mid-April to early May, sheep and goats were milked three times a day. This was later reduced to twice a day during late spring and the summer. By late summer the milking season was usually over. Cows were also milked (Watson 1979: 97–98).

The storage pits were often located in one corner of the living room, although some were located in the courtyard (Watson 1979: 125–126). They were usually bell-shaped, one metre deep, and with a diameter of one metre at the mouth. They were plaster-lined. When used for wheat storage, a layer of straw or chaff was placed in the bottom, wheat was placed on top of this, then another layer of straw and chaff, covered by dung. The pits were then sealed with a layer of mud.

Patterns in houses Homes usually had a compound with a courtyard and several, often separate, rooms. Most of the household tasks took place in the living room. Food was also generally stored here. Figure 13 shows the living room of a small household. In the centre was the hearth used for cooking, particularly to bake bread on a saj. A rotary quern stood some distance away near the wall. The kanu to store flour stood in one corner of the living room. There were also two grain pits for grain that was not yet milled. Interestingly, one of the pits was inside a manger and covered by straw. It seems the manger was mainly used to store straw, as the animals were mainly kept in the adjacent stable. The water skin was beside the door to the stable.

Other crops grown in the village were maize, melons, tomatoes, cucumbers, chickpeas and other local legumes. Dairy product storage Milk products were an important part of the diet. The villagers ate only a little meat, and some fish caught in the nearby river. The most common food items that were bought in shops were tea and sugar (Watson 1979: 66–72).

Figure 14 shows a whole compound. While there was a hearth in the living room, another hearth was also located in the roofed area adjacent to the courtyard. Several kanu stood in the living room, and one in the roofed area outside. Close to both hearths was also the fuel—dung. Dung was kept throughout the compound. There were two stables, and a stable under the house. One of the stables used to be a living room with a hearth at its centre. While some straw was kept in the aywan, the entrance room, it seems this only consisted of a limited quantity. Other tools were kept in this room, including a saj. Baking clearly did not necessarily take place in the room in which baking tools were stored. Several items were also kept in the

Since most families in the village had very few animals, the women formed several milk-sharing cooperatives to enable them to process larger amounts of milk (Watson 1979: 98). On a specific day, each woman in the cooperative gave a set amount of milk to the woman who received the milk that day. That woman then had large quantities of milk and could process the milk into various milk products, many of which could be stored for some time. One of these products was butter, which

Figure 13. Living room in Hasanabad. By T. Frank, after Watson 1979.

34

Chapter 5 Ethnography

house was not so much between classic activity areas such as ‘food preparation’ and ‘storage’, but rather between different food items, with the storage and processing of grain concentrated in the living room and the processing and storage of milk concentrated in the aywan, the entrance room. In the centre of the living room was the hearth, mainly used to bake bread. The kanu, presumably containing flour, was nearby. Close to both the hearth and the kanu was the dough pan, in which the bread dough was mixed. In this area was also the bedding, which was spread on the floor at night. The jar was hanging on the wall, but it is not clear what it contained. The pots seem to have been used for food preparation. In one corner of the living room was a grain pit. Two parts of a churn indicated that milk was processed in the aywan, or at least that the equipment for processing milk was kept there. Not all the milk products would have been for immediate Figure 14. Compound in Hasanabad. By T. Frank after Watson 1979. consumption. For example, the pots contained dugh, a dried milk product courtyard, most noticeably the plow. Poplars were raised that could be kept for months. A small kanu was also in here for later planting in the field. this room. Some grain products, therefore, would have also been stored here. Water was kept in the entrance Figure 15 shows the main rooms of another household. room, rather than in the living room. Some agricultural The most noticeable division between activities in this implements were also located here.

Figure 15. Living room and aywan in Hasanabd. By T. Frank, after Watson 1979.

35

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah In Hasanabad, cooking and the storage of grain principally took place in the living room, with the hearth at the centre and storage chests set against the walls. Additional chests were sometimes at other locations in the house. Other household activities and sleeping were focussed on the living room. The aywan¸ or entrance room, was also sometimes used for food storage. Generally, agricultural and household implements were kept in the aywan, but they could also be located elsewhere in the compound. Animals were housed in separate stables. Fodder could be kept in the living room, the aywan, or a separate room.

number of rooms, were related to the number of wives living in the same household. These may be wives of the same husband, or the wives in an intergenerational household, or of brothers (Kamp 1987: 286). The dowry of each wife had to be kept separate and was usually kept in a separate living room (Kamp 1993: 297–298). Kamp did not find other potential indicators of household wealth, apart from compound size, to be accurate. In a status-conscious society, signs of wealth can be manipulated (Kamp 1987: 290). In other words, the display of indicators of wealth is partly determined by a family decision to appear wealthy. Some want the prestige, others less so. I think this is also relevant for the past. People were not mindless organisms that followed optimized resources or followed some other anthropological model; rather, they shaped their lives through individual and family choice.

In Aliabad, Iran, living rooms and kitchens were separate rooms (Kramer 1982). There were also separate storage rooms. However, grain was usually stored in the kitchen, in storage chests set against the wall. At the centre of the kitchen was usually a tannur oven. The kitchen presumably also had the most essential food preparation equipment. The living room in contrast had bedding and the prestige items of the household. It was heated by a hearth. It seems that this hearth was just used for heating the room and roasting coffee. Ovens were also located in outside areas. The ideal was to have a warm weather oven in the courtyard and an oven in the kitchen for use during colder weather (Kramer 1982: 99). However, Kramer noticed that smoke dispersion may be better for ovens in the kitchen, so that these may be used even in warm weather, and even if an oven has also been installed outdoors. Most kitchens also had a loom for textile production. However, this was not an old custom. Older women usually did not have a loom in the kitchen (Kramer 1982: 100). The kitchen was the domain of women; the living room, of men (Kramer 1982: 102).

Patterns in houses Her studies of households in Syria led Kamp to state that storage may be an even more important function for domestic architectural spaces than providing activity areas (Kamp 1993: 296). In part, this statement was determined by the significant role that dowries and their storage played in the village. But the storage of food also required special consideration. Food had to be kept dry, ventilated, but also well protected (Kamp 1993: 299, 304). Kamp divides rooms into two basic categories: frontstage rooms and back-stage rooms. In the front-stage rooms, more public activities took place, such as the entertaining of guests and storage of goods; in the backstage rooms, activities often hidden from public view took place, such as the stabling of animals, the storage of hay or grain, and food preparation. Food storage rooms are intermediate (Kamp 1993: 299–301, 307). In Syria, the actual use of the rooms could change, though usually a front-stage room was used for a front-stage activity and a back-stage room for back-stage activity. Food could be stored in either room category.

5.4 Syria House size and family size Following a similar methodology as Carol Kramer and Patty Jo Watson in Iran, Kathryn Kamp took an ethnoarchaeological approach to studying a village located on the east bank of the Euphrates River in Syria (Kamp 1987; Kamp 1993; Kamp 2000). She studied thirty households and in particular concentrated on dwelling size and household wealth. Archaeologists frequently use ratios of covered space per person and relate house size and wealth. Kamp could find some correlation between wealth and total compound area, rather than covered roof space (Kamp 1987: 287; Kamp 1993: 385). Since wealthy families tended to be larger, the relationship between these factors is complex (Kamp 2000: 87). But there was no direct correlation between the size of the home and the number of people living there. Living space per individual ranged from 6 to 58 square meters (Kamp 2000: 86). Children did not require any additional living space. Rather, space, and also the

To determine room use and function, Kamp suggested three basic attributes: architectural attributes; room contents; and use-wear (1993: 312). Food storage rooms tended to be slightly less sturdy and aesthetic, and also smaller than sitting rooms and goods storage rooms (1993: 312). Kamp lists the following room contents for food storage rooms: wooden trestles for keeping food elevated; sacks of grains, flour, sugar and dried foods; strings of dried okra and other produce; loose onions and potatoes; miscellaneous jars and ceramic ewers containing fat, salt, spices, and preserves; other foodstuffs (Kamp 1993: 308). Sitting rooms, goods storage rooms, food storage rooms and sometimes kitchens were swept daily and therefore did not have much refuse on the floor (Kamp 1993: 309). 36

Chapter 5 Ethnography

Figure 16. Plan of house in Darnaj, Syria. Kamp 2000: 86, modified by T. Frank.

Figure 16 shows a plan of a Syrian dwelling. Three rooms, as well as the sitting room, were dedicated to goods storage, showing the importance of possessions in this Syrian village. The food storage room was relatively large and close to the sitting room. It was, however, across the courtyard from the kitchen and long-term grain storage. While the storage facilities seem to be clearly differentiated, this was not in fact the case in all of the households. Sacks of grain were also stored in a sitting room (Kamp 1993: 299), and goods such as a bicycle wheel and wool were kept in a food storage room (Kamp 1993: 302). In another house the large food storage room was directly adjacent to the kitchen (Figure 17). The use of both indoor and outdoor spaces for cooking also is apparent. Animals were kept in a part of the compound that was partially covered. The considerable space dedicated to goods storage is noticeable. 5.5 Jordan Michèle Biewers recorded houses and their organisation in the Jordanian village of ‘Aima (Biewers 1997). Her main focus was on the more traditional

Figure 17. Plan of house in Darnaj, Syria. Kamp 1993: 298, modified by T. Frank.

37

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah houses. The village was originally settled by Bedouin in the Ottoman period. The population became more settled so that agriculture was well established and pastoralism declined. By the late 1980s many inhabitants remained active in farming, but the emphasis had shifted from subsistence farming to horticulture supplying markets outside the village (Biewers 1997: 37–38). The main crops for household use were wheat, barley, lentils, chickpeas, and olives. Fruit grown included apples, quinces, medlars, plums, peaches, apricots, pomegranates, cherries and figs. Almonds and pepper were also grown.

upper side space. A wall enclosed the upper area between the two arches. Since only the upper part was used for grain storage, the lower part was usually open and was used to keep produce in smaller containers or to store implements. The storage installations usually reached from a height of about 1.50m to the roof of the house. A hole at the top allowed the storage installation to be filled with grain; a hole at the base, about 1.50m above the floor, allowed grain to be taken from the installation (Biewers 1997: 66–67). Other grain storage chests, similar to the kanu in Iran and the habie in Palestine, were also used for grain storage in ‘Aima. Smaller containers, made from sundried clay, were normally movable and used especially to store legumes and goat cheese (Biewers 1997: 66–67).

Grain storage The traditional houses had several stone arches and generally only had a single storey (Biewers 1997: 47– 51). The arches both divided the space and provided continuous access, as the centre of the house was open. Houses usually had various storage spaces. There were often separate storage rooms, but much of the storage was also distributed among the living areas (Biewers1997: 66–67). Often the side space between two arches was taken up by grain storage installations. These large, fixed installations occupied the entire

Patterns in houses A few examples will indicate the organization of the houses and the location of food storage in relation to other household activities. House 226 was a relatively small house with two arches (Biewers 1997: 109–114; Figure 18). The most noticeable aspect relating to food storage is that no grain storage installations

Figure 18. House 226 in ‘Aima, Jordan. Biewers 1997: 109–114, modified by T. Frank.

38

Chapter 5 Ethnography

were present in the house. Instead, the wheat was stored in sacks. Those sacks of wheat were kept in the storage annexe in the back of the house and in the living area. Above the sacks of wheat in the living area, several matraces were also kept during the day. A food preparation area was adjacent to the sacks, but this consisted mainly of a gas burner which was used to heat the food prior to consumption. The main preparation of food generally took place in the courtyard outside. Aspects of food preparation, such as sorting beans and lentils occurred throughout the house. Not far from the food preparation area was the water supply, in the form of some metal drums which were filled by hose. Between the water drums and the food preparation area was an electric washing machine. The house also had an electric refrigerator. The location of electric appliances was largely determined by the fact that electric wiring was restricted to the front of the house. Dry cheese was kept in small, traditional containers next to the sleeping area. The main area for storage was in the two annexed side-rooms at the back of the house. Unfortunately, there is no detailed description as to where the animal fodder, and the food reserves destined for human consumption, were kept (Biewers 1997: 109–114).

House 228 had been abandoned for several years by the time the author recorded it (Biewers 1997: 115– 118; Figure 19). Nevertheless, some information can be gleaned from the remains. It had several storage installations distributed throughout the building. Interestingly, they are all somewhat different. There is one storage installation built into the side between two arches, one large installation with several openings built against the back wall and another storage chest standing near the front of the house. It seems there were at least two living terraces in the house. The one towards the back of the house had several small storage containers on it. The annexe was largely empty at the time the house was recorded, but the author notes that these were normally used to store chaff and straw (Biewers 1997: 115–118). House 360 was also a traditional house subdivided by two arches (Biewers 1997: 119–122; Figure 20). It is noticeable how much space in this house was dedicated to storage, especially to grain storage in specific installations. Three grain storage installations were spread through the house and filled the side spaces between the arches. There were several smaller storage containers. Although the contents were not specifically

Figure 19. House 228 in’Aima, Jordan. Biewers 1997: 115–118, modified by T. Frank.

39

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah mentioned, they probably included legumes and goat cheese. I want to highlight that some food was kept close to the living and sleeping area. The type of food stored behind the low, curved wall is not mentioned, nor the containers in which it may have been kept. However, it is unlikely that they were traditional containers, as the author normally mentions them. No food was stored in the adjacent storage room. Even the animal fodder

kept in this area seems to have been limited to some straw lying on the floor. Some aspects of the house layout reflect more traditional technology. There was no running water, so that a water jar was used to get water from the spring. In the house, the water jar was located directly beside the door on a small platform. The old hearth was in the centre of the house (Biewers 1997: 119–122).

Figure 20. House 360 in ‘Aima, Jordan. Biewers 1997: 119–122, modified by T. Frank.

40

Chapter 5 Ethnography

Even in houses in the same village and of a very similar building style, the organization of space can be quite different. In part, this may be attributed to new technology such as electricity, which brings about lifestyle changes. But new social realities, such as a lower reliance on agriculture, may also be reflected in the different ways the houses were organized. The use of sacks to store grain in House 226, instead of using grain storage installations as in the other houses, is noticeable. The increased use of sacks could be related to new practices as houses built from concrete blocks, and without grain storage installations, were taking over.

mouths are characteristic for grain storage, in Egypt, water jars which are no longer porous are reused for dry storage (Ellis 2007: 472). Ellis suggests that people in antiquity also would have frequently reused vessels (Ellis 2007: 473). Patterns in houses Susan Ellis cautions against defining too-rigid functional areas. For example, food preparation was carried out in Egypt in a variety of areas throughout the living space, not in one specific kitchen. Vessels had a variety of uses and are not necessarily limited to one purpose. Some vessels are reused when they no longer serve their primary purpose, so that identification of a vessel with a specific function becomes difficult.

Food storage was distributed throughout the house. Particularly, corners and areas adjacent to walls have been used for storage. Small items, such as goat cheese and legumes were stored in small containers very close to the living area. There was no clear separation between living and storage areas. However, fodder was kept clearly separate in the annexes of the houses. Foodstuff was also sometimes stored in these annexes. Even though the villagers produced olive oil for their own use, there is no mention of olive oil storage.

Traditional houses in Egypt normally had a foyer, which also served as a reception area where guests were entertained. A large water jar was usually kept in this area. The separate rooms of the house were accessed from this foyer, such as sleeping areas and a stable for larger animals. Often the mud-oven was in a hallway off this foyer. Some houses had a central hallway, instead of a foyer. In that case, a separate sitting room, where guests were entertained, was normally at the front of the house. Various rooms opened from this central hallway. Women’s work took place in the private areas of the house, not in the central foyer. Vessels with grain, fresh vegetables, aging cheese, milk products and other food items were usually kept in a variety of places in the house, for example on the roof, in a bedroom or in a hallway. The choice of storage area was usually based on the personal preference of the oldest woman of the household (Ellis 2007: 467).

A. Ayoub gives a general overview of the preservation and storage of agricultural products in Jordan in the 1970s (Ayoub 1985). He mentions pits called bir, which were 6 – 7 m deep and 4 – 5 m in diameter with an opening about one metre in diameter. These pits were used to store grain. Normally chaff and straw would be used to cover the floor and sides of the pit before the grain was poured in and the pit was sealed. The grain stored in pits was usually destined for the market, and stored for a minimum of two years and a maximum of four years. The bir was usually opened when good prices could be obtained in the market.

5.7 Summary

Susan Ellis uses her experience with contemporary, traditional Egyptian households to compare the storage containers used there with the pottery found in excavated Roman-Byzantine dwellings in Israel (Ellis 2007).

The ethnographic examples show the wide variety in food storage practices even in such a relatively small geographical area of related cultures. Many of the food items were quite similar, but variations existed in the vessels used to store food and on the integration into household activities and space.

Use of storage vessels

Nevertheless, some general patterns can be observed:

5.6 Egypt

•• Grain was often stored long-term in grain pits, whether in the house / compound or in the fields. •• Flour or other ground grain was often located close to the food preparation area in smaller containers, while other long-term storage at times was located at a greater distance from food preparation. •• The most common storage receptable for grain was the grain storage chest made from unfired clay or mud.

Ellis suggests the functional use for various pottery forms. Oils and unguents were often stored in small, spouted jars (Ellis 2007: 469–470). Bowls could be used as feeding bowls, for dipping water, scooping dry commodities, drinking, or ceremonial purposes (Ellis 2007: 470). Vessels associated with milk and milk processing are difficult to identify, as a variety of forms could be used. For example, in Egypt, milk fats are stored in closed jars (Ellis 2007: 471). However, these jars are in secondary use; their primary purpose was for water transportation and storage. While large jars with wide 41

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah •• Dairy products, including dried dairy products, were normally kept in small ceramic containers. Often these had a wide, round body, similar in shape to a small jar or a ‘cooking jug’. •• Chaff and animal feed were more likely to be stored towards the back of the house. •• Liquids were often kept in jars with a rounded base. These jars often stood on a ring of straw or reeds. •• A water jar or other water source was generally kept beside the entrance to the house or the main living room.

was nevertheless often subdivided by storage chests. In Iran and parts of Cyprus, separate rooms were used, but most of the household activities centred around the main living room. The number of rooms and their use also depended on the particular circumstances of a household. As a result, food storage was also more separate from other activities in houses with separate rooms, while in houses with one or few rooms food was stored near other activity areas. Nevertheless, as was the case in Egypt, food could be stored in various rooms rather than being concentrated in a particular storage room. For example, dairy products such as dry cheese were kept near the living and sleeping area in Jordan and Palestine, while they were kept in the separate food storage room in Syria.

Clear differences also exist, not only between regions and villages, but from house to house. Even though the diet in all of these regions was based on wheat, the storage of grain varied. In Palestine, Jordan and Iran, grain was kept in storage chests; in Syria it was kept in sacks; in Egypt it was kept in jars; in Cyprus, grain was kept in silos and pits, though grain storage pits were also used in Palestine, Jordan, and Iran. In recent times, households began to have grain milled at larger mills. The storage of flour rather than grain over long periods of time therefore became more common. While in Palestine and Iran, grain pits were near houses, in Cyprus they were in fields. According to the authors, storage of grain in the fields was not possible in Palestine because the farmers feared that it would be stolen, while a strong moral norm meant that, in Cyprus, grain could safely be stored away from the home without fear of theft.

The location of stored food in the house seems also to have been related to social norms, such as whether the work of women should be visible to the public. Even though most of the ethnographic descriptions took place in Islamic societies, women in Egypt appear to have been more restricted to the private areas of the house than in Iran, Syria or Palestine. As a result, food storage in Egypt also seems to have been kept more from public view. Even though the organization of houses reflects cultural and social norms, it was difficult to relate these more generally to the way food was stored in the household. The ethnographic examples help us to interpret storage practices in ancient societies. But we have to be aware that even when there is consistency between the ethnographic examples, storage practices in the past might have been different. We need to be aware of the change across time and be prepared for the peculiarities of past societies.

Particularly in Syria and Egypt, separate rooms were used, while the use of one large room was more common in Jordan and parts of Cyprus. In Palestine, the house often consisted of one main room, which

42

Chapter 6

Food storage in ancient literature To supplement the ethnographic studies and to help us interpret the archaeological finds, textual and artistic sources from the past are important. They allow us to form a rounded picture and are essential to explaining the motivated action, which archaeological data alone cannot provide. While the Old Testament will be my primary textual resource, in this chapter I will look at other texts from the past, as well as art that helps us understand aspects of food storage in the past.

Table 5. Contents of askalônia and gazitia jars from published papyri and ostraca. Mayerson 1992:79. 30 askalônia – askalônia 1 askalônion of mixed sweetmeats 5 askalônia of sweetmeats 4 askalônia of wine 1 askalônion of sweetmeats 20 askalônia of wine 3 askalônia of wine 1 askalônion, empty 1 askalônion of beans 2 askalônia of fish 1 askalônion of fish sauce 6 askalone of cheese 16 askalone of cheese 12 askalone of cheese 56 askalone (jars) 39 gazitia of wine 1 gazition of groats of rice-wheat 1 gazition of choice bread 39 gazitia of wine 15 gazitia of sweetmeats 9 new gazitia of wool (?) 2 gazitia of salted fish 2 gazitia of cakes 1 gazition of wheat meal 7 gazitia of pickled fish 1 gazition, empty 1 gazition of pickled food (?) 1 gazition of black (?) pistachios 1 gazition of white (?) pistachios

I do this by considering sources from more recent times and then going back to those more closely associated with the period of Ancient Israel and Judah. I keep this order of discussing the recent material first, but do group discussion of geographically and topically related material together. This is not an exhaustive exercise, but rather a listing of some examples that indicate practice and thought in relation to food storage. I have tried to treat the Biblical literature, especially the New Testament, more comprehensively, but always with the aim of pointing back to the time of Ancient Israel and Judah. Through the similarities and differences of the literature we can hopefully also discern the distinctiveness of thought and practices more closely. 6.1 Byzantine trade documents In his study of the Gaza and Askalonian jars, Mayerson has compiled data from published papyri and ostraca, mainly from the fifth and sixth centuries CE, that mention the two types of jars (Mayerson 1992). While Gaza wine was well-known in Western Europe and traded there, local trade documents show that Gaza and Askalonian jars were used to carry not only wine, but other commodities as well (Table 5).

considerably later period, it is possible that similar realities of jar use, even in the domestic setting, might have prevailed in the Iron Age as well.

While wine seems to have been the commodity most commonly shipped in Askalonia and Gazitia jars, they also frequently contained cheese and fish. These seem to have been mainly transport jars, but the great diversity of food (and possibly even wool) for which they were used should dispel any notion that jars were used for just one type of food. Archaeologists have probably identified Askalonia and Gazitia jars. They hardly have any neck, but do curve in significantly at the rim so that they have a relatively narrow opening. Liquid, granular, as well as (apparently) bulk goods, such as bread, were shipped in the containers, indicating that jars cannot be aligned with just liquids or granular goods. Rather, jars were used for any commodity that could easily be stored in them. While this is information from a

6.2 The Mishnah Early rabbinic literature can shed some light on food storage practices in Palestine in the early centuries of the first millennium of the Common Era. Dealing with the application of laws in daily life, food storage is also mentioned incidentally. The correct interpretation of those laws in relation to food and possession was an important concern. I will concentrate on two works: the Mishnah and the Talmud Yerushalmi. The Mishnah is the primary religious-legal text on the detailed interpretation of laws and how they should be kept in everyday life. The Mishnah was completed by about 43

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah 200 CE. It portrayed an imaginary Israel governed by an Israelite king, high priest and Sanhedrin (Neusner 1983: xi). The Talmud Yerushalmi, in contrast, portrays the practicalities of Jews living in Palestine in the third and fourth centuries CE under the rule of Gentiles. The Talmud Yerushalmi is structured around the Mishnah. Therefore I also usually take my discussion from the Mishnah and then proceed to the Talmud Yerushalmi. We have to be aware of the passage of time between the documents. Practices may have changed; words may have acquired new meanings. If we want to relate possible storage practices in these rabbinic writings to those several centuries before, we have to be aware not only of the time difference, but also of the drastic cultural changes. And we need to take into account the particular worldview and purpose of the documents. I discuss the books not in any established order, but rather to make one argument, so that the separate books are connected by a common topic.

readied for storage, but not yet stored. The reference to collecting from the wine press after the wine is cleaned may support the notion that wine was fermented in the collecting vat of the winepress. Cleaning the wine would be the last process before it is placed into storage vessels. In the case of the figs the storage is described: The round fig cake [is subject to tithes at the time] when he smoothes it. One may smooth tevel (certainly not tithed produce) figs and grapes. Rebbi Jehudah forbids it. If one smoothes grapes they are not prepared. Rebbi Jehudah says they are prepared. Dried figs [are subject to tithes] when he presses them and places them in a bin (‫מגורה‬, mgwrh). If, while he presses in a jar (‫חבית‬, ḥbyt), the jar broke or the bin collapsed, he may not eat from the contents as a snack, but Rebbi Yose permits. (Ma´serot 1: 8). Here, a distinction is made between figs that are pressed together in a cake (‫עיגול‬, ʿygwl) and individual, dried figs (‫גרוגרות‬, grwgrwt) which are then stored in large containers, such as a jar or a bin. Figs are treated not only as a product to be stored long-term, but also similarly to vegetables which are subject to tithe when they are tied in bundles or placed in vessels in the field (Ma´serot 1: 5). Figs are placed in a basket (‫כלכלה‬, klklh) at harvest time. However, the word ‫( כלי‬kly), a generic word for vessel and often a ceramic vessel, is used interchangeably with the basket. The word ‫( כלי‬kly) already had a wide range of meaning in Biblical Hebrew and this seems to have continued in the Mishnah.

Ma´serot The tractate Ma´serot in the Division of Agriculture deals with the subject of which agricultural produce is subject to the heave offerings and tithes, and at which point in time these are due (Guggenheimer 2002: 407). The Mishnaic principle is that anything that is food, is guarded (‫שמר‬, šmr) and grows from the earth, is subject to tithes (Ma´serot 1: 1). The guarding here seems to be interpreted more as domestication of food rather than in relation to its storage. Nevertheless, the point of storage is important. For produce that is prepared for storage becomes subject to tithing at the time when it is ready for storage.

Terumot The tractate Terumot in the Division of Agriculture treats the separation of the heave offering from the produce. In particular, it discusses situations in which the separated food has again become mixed with the general harvest. Since this happens also when produce is stored, the tractate also makes reference to storage practices.

Dried pomegranates (‫פרדה‬, prdh), raisins (‫צמוקין‬, ṣmwqyn), and carobs (‫חרובין‬, ḥrwbyn) [are subject to tithing] when he makes them into a pile. Onions when they are cleaned, if he does not clean when he makes them into a pile. Grain when it is in smooth piles, if he does not smooth when he makes it into a pile. Legumes when they are sifted, if he does not sift when he makes smooth piles. Even though he made smooth piles, he may take from the broken ones [without tithing], from the sides, and from what is in the chaff and eat (Ma´serot 1: 6).

When discussing the effects of different fig cakes being mixed together, the cakes are here more specifically described as fig cakes (‫עיגולי דבילה‬, ʿygwly dbylh), rather than relying on the context to imply that here figs mashed into cakes are discussed (Terumot 4: 8).

Wine [is subject to tithing] after he cleaned it. Even after he cleaned it he may collect from the upper part of the winepress or the pipe and drink. Oil after it descended into the collection pit. Even after it descended, he may take from the press, the weight, and between the beams [(and use it in cooking without tithing)] [...]. (Ma´serot 1: 7).

The tractate also discusses the case of dried figs separated for heave offering being pushed into a jar, but without remembering into which it was pressed (Terumot 4: 10). The term used for the jar is ‫( כד‬kd) in the Mishnah. The explanatory passage from the Talmud Yerushalmi uses the terms ‫( חבית‬ḥbyt) and ‫כװרת‬ (kwrt), the latter apparently a loan word from Arabic. The terms for different storage vessels seem to have been used interchangeably, even though some terms are clearly differentiated by different times. All three words refer to ceramic jars.

Together with the figs mentioned in Ma´serot 1: 8 and the olives referred to in the Talmud Yerushalmi, the discussion of when tithes are due provides a list of the most important produce prepared for storage. At this stage, the produce is put in piles and therefore 44

Chapter 6 Food storage in ancient literature

The uncertainty of descriptions of storage containers is also apparent for grain storage. When discussing grain set apart for heave offering that fell into one of two storage bins, the Mishnah differentiates between the storage containers ‫( קופה‬qwph) and ‫( מגורה‬mgwrh) (Terumot 4: 12). While the word ‫( מגורה‬mgwrh) is known from Biblical Hebrew (‘storage bin’), the word ‫קופה‬ (qwph) seems to be a loan word from the Greek κάψα (kapsa) or Latin capsa, meaning ‘basket’. In this sense, it is also used in the Talmud Yerushalmi when commenting on Ma’aser Sheni 1: 7 and describing a basket of dates. However, we cannot assume that therefore grain was stored in baskets. That at the very least the authors of the Talmud Yerushalmi felt some uncertainty becomes clear by the commentary on the passage:

preserved fish the possibility is raised that unsalted fish could be preserved together with salted fish. As the salted and unsalted fish is preserved in the same fluid, it must be assumed that salting of the fish took place before it was preserved in the pickling fluid. The tractate Nedarim in the Division of Women mentions further foods, including pickled and preserved food, in a wide-ranging discussion on vows not to eat certain food (Nedarim 5: 1–9: 10). Shebit The tractate Shebit also mentions pickled food as part of its wider concern of setting exact rules for the Sabbatical year. Produce stored in the house was to be removed by eating or giving to the poor after nothing of the same kind was left in the fields for wildlife.

Two ‘baskets’ (‫קופות‬, qwpwt) in two attics (‫עליות‬, ʿlywt) and two storage bins (‫מגורות‬, mgwrwt) in one attic (‫עליה‬, ʿlyh). But not two storage bins in two attics (‫עליות‬, ʿlywt). What is the difference between ‘baskets’ (‫קופות‬, qwpwt) and storage chests (‫מגורות‬, mgwrwt)? ‘Baskets’ (‫קופות‬, qwpwt) are usually moved around; storage chests (‫מגורות‬, mgwrwt) are not.

He who preserves (‫הכובש‬, hkwbš) three kinds [preserves] (‫כבשים‬, kbšym) in one jar (‫חבית‬, ḥbyt), Rebbi Eliezer says one eats because of the first kind, but Rebbi Joshua says even because of the last. Rabban Gamliel says, anything whose kind has been removed from the fields must be removed from the house. Rebbi Simeon says, all vegetables (‫ירק‬, yrq) are one kind for removal; one eats purslain until there are no more sindiot in the Bet Netofa valley. (Shebit 9: 5)

While the storage chests (‫מגורות‬, mgwrwt) are clearly larger containers, maybe similar to the storage chests described in ethnographic accounts, the ‘baskets’ (‫קופות‬, qwpwt) nevertheless seem similar enough to require some form of differentiation. Heinrich Guggenheimer, for example, translates ‫( קופות‬qwpwt) as boxes (Guggenheimer 2002: 161 and 243 for Terumot 7: 5)

Different kinds of vegetables were therefore preserved in the same vessel by pickling. The designation ‫חבית‬ (ḥbyt) for the vessel does not allow us to identify it more closely. The produce is not identified exactly, but ‫( ירק‬yrq) refers to vegetables or green stuff. Since just annuals that are fit for human or animal consumption are subject to removal (Shebit 7: 1), the pickled vegetables mentioned in Shebit 9: 5 are presumably annual plants.

The storage chest is also mentioned several times in the tractate Terumot as the storage location for grain (Terumot 4: 2; 11: 6). In one instance, we also get an idea of how these storage bins were prepared for storage:

Storage containers are also discussed in the tractate Shebit as part of the sabbatical year regulations, in the context of what the potter may sell. For if the potter sold storage containers to others during the sabbatical year, the produce he sells may be used in the sinful act of storing produce that was grown and harvested against the sabbatical year laws.

If someone removed wheat for heave offering from a storage chest, one does not oblige him to sit down and pick out the last grains but he sweeps it as usual and then fills it with profane [not separated for heave offering] grain. Terumot 11: 6 Terumot also mentions pickling to preserve food. Also, one may give oil olives (‫זיתי שמן‬, zyty šmn) as a heave offering for pickled olives (‫זיתי כבש‬, zyty kbš), but not pickled olives (‫זיתי כבש‬, zyty kbš) for oil olives (‫זיתי שמן‬, zyty šmn) [...] Terumot 7: 5.

The potter may sell five oil jars (‫כדי שמן‬, kdy šmn) and fifteen wine jars (‫כדי יין‬, kdy yyn) because so much one brings from ownerless property. If he brought more than that amount, it is permitted. He may sell to Gentiles in the Land and to Jews outside of the Land. (Shebit 5: 7)

The text seems to indicate that not only were olives routinely pickled, but they were specifically grown for either pickling or oil production. But not only olives were pickled or preserved (Terumot 10: 7); fish (Terumot 10: 8) and, according to the Talmud Yerushalmi, cabbage (Terumot 10: 8, Halakah 6) were pickled, too. In the commentary of the Talmud Yerushalmi on the

The Talmud Yerushalmi discusses whether oil jars and wine jars could be used interchangeably. The rabbis conclude that there are differences between the jars—that even the material (sides) of the jars are quite distinguishable. It indicates that during the time of the Talmud Yerushalmi, at least, jars were made for specific purposes, even though they may have been 45

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah used interchangeably. Further to note is that a harvest of five oil jars and 15 wine jars was considered small, something that could be expected to be harvested from the trees and vines without careful cultivation.

tithe but he does no longer know which one, then he takes the four jars (‫חביות‬, ḥbywt) at the four corners. One row was tithe but he does no longer know which one, then he takes one diagonal row. [...] One jar (‫חבית‬, ḥbyt) was tithe but he does no longer know which one, then he takes from each jar (‫חבית וחביות‬, ḥbyt ḥbywt). (Demai 7: 11)

Maaser Sheni In the tractate Maaser Sheni, the differences between the jar as the unit of sale and the jar as the clay vessel are discussed. The tractate relates to the tithe or its monetary value that the farmer is supposed to take to the temple and consume there in purity. The question concerning the rabbis was whether, if a farmer bought wine to consume at the temple, just the wine itself or also the wine jar, in which it was bought, became set apart. This is the answer.

The term for the jars starts out with ‫( כד‬kd) and later switches consistently to ‫( חבית‬ḥbyt). In the Talmud Bavli this is noted, and the comment made that this is deliberate to equate the Biblical term ‫( כד‬kd) with the rabbinic term ‫( חבית‬ḥbyt). While it is true that the term ‫( כד‬kd) is part of Biblical Hebrew and ‫( חבית‬ḥbyt) common in rabbinic literature, the use in the Talmud Yerushalmi indicates that they were used interchangeably. In a long passage on Demai 7: 11, the Talmud Yerushalmi uses the words ‫( כד‬kd), ‫( חבית‬ḥbyt), and ‫( לגין‬lgyn) apparently interchangeably. ‫( לגין‬lgyn) is a loan word from the Greek λάγυνος (lagynos), meaning a flask.

[...] [If he buys] sealed wine jars (‫כדי יין‬, kdy yyn) at a place they are usually sold sealed, the vessel (‫קנקן‬, qnqn) becomes profane. [...] (Maaser Sheni 1:3)

It was stated: If there were two jars (‫חביות‬, ḥbywt) before him, one of pure tithe which was tevel and one of impure tithe which was tevel, he brings two vessels (‫לגינין‬, lgynyn) and takes from each jar (‫כד‬, kd) of the tithe for both of them. Then he turns and lifts one vessel (‫לגין‬, lgyn) and says [...] (Talmud Yerushalmi on Demai 7: 11)

[...] [If he buys] open wine jars (‫כדי יין‬, kdy yyn) or sealed ones at a place where they are usually sold open, the vessel (‫קנקן‬, qnqn ) does not become profane [...] (Maaser Sheni 1: 4) The same issue is taken up again in later discussion. There are further possibilities for the jar becoming profane, even if it is bought at a place where wine is usually sold open.

While there might be a nuance to each word, the difference does not lie in which particular jar the words describe, but in the association of the words. They might evoke association with traditional language or with recent international parlance. Some words may be part of a set phrase.

[...] However, if he is meticulous to sell by volume, the jar did become profane. Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody said to another person, I am selling you this jar (‫חבית‬, ḥbyt) without its vessel (‫קנקן‬, qnqn), the vessel (‫קנקן‬, qnqn) became profane. (Maaser Sheni 3: 14)

The Talmud Yerushalmi mentions different vessels in a practical solution to a problem when buying wine from an untrustworthy source. When buying wine from the Samaritans, especially if the Jewish buyer wants to consume the wine immediately, he can separate two future measures out of a hundred for heave, ten for tithe, and nine for second tithe. But right there and then he can consume the whole measure (Demai 7: 6). In the discussion of the Talmud Yerushalmi, it is first assumed that the wine is kept in a wine bag (‫נוד‬, nwd). In a wider discussion on setting apart wine in the future, the terms ‫( לגין‬lgyn) and ‫( חבית‬ḥbyt) are used. The assumption in the discussion is that wine is sold in a wine skin (‫נוד‬, nwd) for immediate consumption, is stored long-term in the large jar ‫( חבית‬ḥbyt) and transferred to the smaller jar ‫( לגין‬lgyn) for household consumption.

The words ‫( כד‬kd) and ‫( חבית‬ḥbyt)are used as the unit of sale, while the word ‫( קנקן‬qnqn) is used as the vessel itself. None of the words seems to indicate a particular type of jar. Demai Similarly, in the tractate Demai, different words are used interchangeably to designate jars used for various purposes. Demai concerns produce bought from a source that cannot be trusted to faithfully give tithes. The buyer from a source that is not trustworthy must give onetenth of one-tenths (1 percent) as a heave. One problem that may be encountered is that the buyer dedicates the tithe, but no longer remembers exactly which jar was separated.

Ohalot Most references to storage and storage containers are in the Division of Agriculture. Only limited references are made in the other parts of the Mishnah. So in the Division of Purities it is made clear that clean liquids in a jar (‫לגין‬, lgyn) that becomes unclean by being touched by

If somebody had ten rows of ten wine jugs (‫כדי יין‬, kdy yyn) each, and he said that one from an outer row was tithe but he does no longer know which one, he takes two diagonally opposite jars (‫חביות‬, ḥbywt), One of half an outer row was 46

Chapter 6 Food storage in ancient literature

something unclean, remain clean, even though the jar itself is unclean for seven days (Ohalot 5: 4). The tractate Ohalot also uses the term ‫( חבית‬ḥbyt). If a jar (‫חבית‬, ḥbyt) is used as a rolling stone for a tomb, any clean liquid inside it is still clean, and in contrast to Ohalot 5:4, the jar itself remains also clean, though anyone touching the jar is unclean for seven days (Ohalot 15:9). Even though the passages discuss a similar subject matter, two different words are used to describe the jar. If jars (‫חביות‬, ḥbywt) are stacked on their side or upright and touch each other, uncleanness of one may affect all of them (Ohalot 15: 3).

Not much about storage or drying practices can be taken from this last passage. But it does become clear that leaky roofs may have been a problem on occasion. Baba Batra That some spoiling of stored food is to be expected is evident in a passage from the Division of Damages: He who sells produce to his fellow, lo, he must agree to receive a quarter-qab of spoiled produce per seah; figs, he must agree to accept ten maggoty ones per hundred; a cellar of wine (‫מרתף של יין‬, mrtp šl yyn), he must agree to accept ten sour [jars] per hundred; jars (‫קנקנים‬, qnqnym) in Sharon, he must agree to accept ten faulty ones per hundred. (Baba Batra 6: 2)

Makhshirin Since dry food can also become unclean when it comes in contact with liquids, there are various rules about how food should be treated if it is likely to have come in contact with liquids. Various food items in various possible storage containers are mentioned (Makhshirin 3: 1–5: 5). There is a sack (‫שק‬, šq) that is full of fruit, which may have been inadvertently placed near a river or cistern (Makhshirin 3: 1). The Mishnah then goes on to consider the jar (‫חבית‬, ḥbyt ), which is full of fruit, which may be placed in liquids (Makhshirin 3: 2). In both cases some of the fruit may become unclean. But the wine inside a jar (‫חבית‬, ḥbyt) may also render bread unclean, if the bread is placed above the jar (Makhshirin 3:3). An interesting storage practice is implied in a passage considering loosely stored wheat:

Ten percent spoiling was expected in grain, figs, wine and pottery. The reference to a ‘cellar’, a specific place to keep wine and oil, in this passage is interesting. We also find references to such a storage location in other rabbinic literature. Summary—the Mishnah and food storage The Mishnah and Talmud Yerushalmi mention storage practices in passing. From these references we can conclude that jars were used to store wine, oil, vinegar, fruit and pickled produce. Different names for these jars were used, but rather than each word describing a specific jar, it seems the different words had different nuances, with some words appearing more archaic, others more contemporary (Table 6). Wine also seems to have been kept in skin bags. Fruit was also kept in baskets or sacks. Grain was stored in baskets/bins, storage chests or loosely in the house. For liquids stored in jars, cellars are mentioned, while grain seems to have been stored in the attic or upper storey of a house. We can also learn about the common usage of various

He who sprinkles his house (‫בית‬, byt) and put wheat into it, and they became damp—if it is on account of the water, it is subject to the law. And if it is on account of the rock floor, it is not under the law (Makhshirin 3: 4). A protective layer of some absorbent material (chaff?) seems to have been put on the floor of the house and the wheat heaped loosely on top of it for storage. If water dripped from above on the wheat, it is considered unclean, but if it became damp from below, it is not unclean.

Table 6. Words used to describe storage vessels in the Mishnah and the Talmud Yerushalmi.

The Mishnah also considers the possibility of storing wheat in a trough (‫ערבה‬, ʿrbh) used for clothes washing (Makhshirin 3: 4). The case of olives drying on the roof is also considered, though in this case the olives were probably in a processing stage and not already in storage (Makhshirin 3: 6). That sacks (‫שק‬, šq) were often used to transport food is evident from the discussion on the food that is carried in sacks on asses, and which fell into the river during a crossing (Makhshirin 3: 7). Other situations of contact between food, vessels and liquid are considered. The only other passage probably relating to storage is Makhshirin 5: 3: Pieces of fruit into which rain dripping from the roof fell and which one mixed together for drying [...]. 47

Hebrew term

Hebrew term

‫כד‬ ‫קנקן‬ ‫חבית‬ ‫כװרת‬ ‫לגין‬ ‫כְּלִי‬ ‫כלכלה‬ ‫קופה‬ ‫מגורה‬ ‫נוד‬ ‫שק‬ ‫מרתף‬ ‫עליה‬

kd qnqn ḥbyt kwrt lgyn kly klklh qwph mgwrh nwd šq mrtp ʿlyh

Possible translations jar jar jar jar jar vessel basket basket / bin grain chest / barn skin bag sack cellar attic

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah methods used to preserve food, such as drying fruit, and pickling and salting vegetables, olives and fish.

A similar judgment scene is recounted in Matthew 13: 30. Here it is the separation between wheat and weeds at harvest time that represents judgment.

Overall, the Mishnah and the Talmud Yerushalmi present a household view of storage and responsibility for the stored produce. Each household had to ensure that the appropriate offering was taken from the produce, that tithes were separated, and that the produce remained ‘clean’. This responsibility also relates to bought produce, from which the appropriate offerings and tithes must be separated, if its source is not trustworthy. This presumes control over the stored produce, such control that the householder would normally know which jar held dedicated produce and which jar held produce for general use. This control was vested in the male head of the household, who had to ensure that the precepts of the Law were kept.

Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn (αποθήκη, apothēkē). (NIV) This parable is later explained (Matthew 13:36–43): the wheat (good seed) is a symbol for the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one; the harvesters are the angels sent by the Son of Man, providing judgment. While the barns are not directly identified (France 2007: 531), the righteous are said to shine in their Father’s kingdom (see Daniel 12: 3). In this judgment scene, presence in the barn seems a metaphor for the eschatological presence in the kingdom of the heavenly father. Harvest as a scene of judgment is wellestablished from the Old Testament (Jeremiah 51: 33; Joel 3: 13), but the mention of the storage location is a new element.

6.3 The New Testament In the New Testament food storage is mentioned, but nearly always in a parable. It is a picture that stands for a different reality. Nevertheless, those pictures came from the concrete lifeworld of the Roman-administered southern Levant during the first century CE. Some of those descriptions are specifically rooted in rural lifeways.

Attachment to possessions Food storage, together with other forms of storing goods, is also used in the New Testament to show people’s attachment to possessions and an inability to realize what is really important in life.

Judgment scenes When John the Baptist describes the one who is to come, he describes him as bringing judgment. The picture of a harvest is used as a metaphor to describe the judgment.

13Someone in the crowd said to him, ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.’ 14Jesus replied, ‘Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?’ 15Then he said to them, ‘Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.’ 16And he told them this parable: ‘The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. 17He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’ 18’Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns (αποθήκai, apothēkai) and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19And I’ll say to myself, ‘You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.’ ’ 20’But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ 21’This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.’ (Luke 12: 13–21, NIV)

His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor, gathering his wheat into the barn (αποθήκη, apothēkē) and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire. (Matthew 3: 12, see Luke 3: 17, NIV). The metaphor of winnowing as judgment is familiar from the Old Testament (Psalm 1: 4; 35: 5; Isaiah 41: 15– 16). It is seen as the time of judgment when chaff and grains are separated. The mention of the subsequent storage in barns is specific to the New Testament. While the emphasis is on the separation that the winnowing and therefore the judgment represent, the gathering into the barn (αποθήκη, apothēkē) is seen as a good consequence, while burning with fire is the unfavourable consequence for those who did not pass judgment. The storage in barns is the positive aspect of this metaphor, leading to the purified, true people of God (France 2007: 116). In the rural world of Judea and Galilee, it was expected that the harvested grain would be stored. How exactly those barns (αποθήκai, apothēkai) were built, how the grain was stored in them, and who controlled them is not evident from the texts. But the common practice of storing grain in specific locations can be read from the text.

Luke signals to the reader that the parable is about greed. The message of the story is determined by the framing verses (Green 1997: 489). In this story, the greed of the farmer manifests itself in building bigger barns (αποθήκai, apothēkai) to store grain for years to come. There is no sense that this wealth was ill-gained, but rather that the wealth does not provide the security the farmer has hoped for. The good life is not guaranteed by riches. Commentators also point out that the use of the 48

Chapter 6 Food storage in ancient literature

wealth is totally centred on the man himself, so that he does not share it (Bock 1996: 1152; Green 1997: 491). The rich man also cannot acknowledge that his prosperity is a gift from God (Edwards 2015: 370–372).

19 ‘Do not store up (θησαυρίζετε, thēsaurizete) for yourselves treasures (θησαυρούς, thēsaurous) on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22’The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! 24’No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. (Matthew 6: 19–24, NIV).

The barns (αποθήκai, apothēkai), to which the story refers, were built for the storage of grain, even over several years. They are clearly a private storage facility, controlled by the owner of the land. The plural may not only indicate the great harvest, but also suggest that the man owned an estate. Stored grain gives a sense of security. Storage of grain was a way to provide the necessities of life for the future. Storing sufficient grain seems to have been one of the common cares for many people at this time.

The passage talks about riches and not specifically about food storage. But in conjunction with the passage following it, food storage and the amassing of personal wealth are brought together. The pursuits of earthly and heavenly treasures are contrasted.10

22 Then Jesus said to his disciples: ‘Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. 23For life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. 24Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom (ταμεΐον, tameion) or barn (αποθήκη, apothēkē); yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! 25Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life? 26Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest? (Luke 12: 22–26, NIV)

A focus on possessions competes with the disciples’ loyalty to God (France 2007:2 63). Disciples need to put God first and trust in God as the provider of daily bread (Matthew 6: 11). A similar theme is also developed in 1 Timothy 6: 17–19, where the wealthy are told not to rely on uncertain riches, but to store up treasures (αποθησαυρίζω, apothēsaurizō) for the coming age.

By sowing, reaping and storing food, the necessities of life are normally provided. It was common, as it has been in many societies, to worry about those necessities of life. Barns and stored produce do not represent just wealth, but the possessions to provide for life. And yet Jesus says to his disciples that they should not worry about these necessities, for they are not the most important things in life. It also is a reflection of how little control humans have over the necessities of life and even more so about life itself. Rather than worry, Jesus encourages his listeners to trust. Hoarding surplus is a sign of distrust in God’s provision (Edwards 2015: 373).

Wineskins A further mention of storage practices in first century Judea is made in the passage about wine skins, contained in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew 9: 17; Mark 2: 22; Luke 5: 37–39). And no one pours new wine into old wineskins (α҆σκοί, a҆ skoi). Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins. (Mark 2: 22, NIV).

30 For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. 31But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. (Luke 12: 30–31, NIV)

This is a parable or wisdom saying, used as one of several examples by Jesus to justify and explain his ministry and the behaviour of his disciples (see Boring 1996: 86).

While the importance of food for human life is acknowledged and, food storage is also seen as human striving for security, as something that may cause us not to trust in God. Stored food also includes the connotation of possessions to which humans may attach themselves.

In the wine-making process, after the initial fermentation, the process of fermentation continues at a slower rate. It is during this process that brittle, The word βρῶσις (brōsis), traditionally translated as ‘rust’, in this passage has the original meaning of ‘eating’ (Hagner 1993: 157). Indeed, ἰος (ios) would be the normal Greek term for rust (Hagner 1993: 157; France 2007: 256). The word, therefore, does not necessarily refer to the corrosion of metal, but could also relate to the eating of food products.

The association of food storage with riches is slightly stronger in Matthew. Here the parallel saying about not worrying (Matthew 6: 25–34) is preceded by a warning about possessions and serving Mamon.

10

49

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah old wineskins might rupture. New wineskins are supple enough to contain the pressure. The saying indicates that wine was filled into wine skins shortly after the first fermentation process. It is unlikely that the saying would refer to grape must being poured immediately into wine skins before the first fermentation process (France 2007: 357; contra Hagner 1993: 244). The saying likely alludes to a common storage practice in first century Judea and Galilee.

one of the protagonists of the work and Xenophones was probably born in Athens, it is clear that the author had considerable experience of living in a rural setting (Pomeroy 1994: 5). For several years Xenophones was banished from Athens and was granted an estate in Scillus, south of Olympia (Pomeroy 1994: 5). While the practices clearly reflect those of an upper class household, they nevertheless give us some indication about household life in the countryside during classical Greek times.

Summary

While the book starts off with a rather philosophical discussion on estate management, the details are narrated in the context of a right ordering of responsibilities between husband and wife for managing the household. For, if the wife knows how to administer the household in accordance with the directions of the husband, the estate will prosper. As is mentioned in the Oeconomicus (VII, 5), the wife was considerably younger than the husband and initially had neither the training nor the experience to lead a household. The question is therefore how a man trains his wife in estate management so that she will be capable to manage those parts of the estate for which she is responsible. This joint and yet separate responsibility is well described in the following passage (VII, 39 and 40; translation Pomeroy 1994):

The food storage practice most prominently referred to in the New Testament is the practice of storing grain in ‘barns’, dedicated grain storage facilities. They may be part of a picture of judgment, presenting the favourable outcome of being accepted. But they are mostly associated with worldly possession in which we cannot and should not put our trust.11 6.4 Greek texts Household food storage is also mentioned in some ancient texts of neighbouring cultures. While they may give us some insight into the technology, social aspects and motivations of storing food in those particular cultures, the evidence must be treated with caution when we relate it to Ancient Judah and Israel in particular. Nevertheless, those sources not only provide us with an important comparison, but also take us into an environment that is closer to the conditions of Ancient Israel and Judah than to our modern experience or abstracted notions of past practice.

My wife replied, ‘It would surprise me if the leader’s [queen bee] activities did not apply more to you than to me. For if you were not concerned that supplies were brought in from outside, surely my guarding the things indoors and my budgeting would seem pretty ridiculous.’ And I replied: ‘Yes, but my bringing in supplies would appear just as ridiculous if there were not someone to look after what has been brought in. Don’t you see how people pity those who draw water in a leaky jar, as the saying goes, because they seem to labour in vain?

From Greek literature I chose two works that were immediately concerned with agrarian household management, addressing household practices and attitudes. They include advice on food storage and the cooperation within the household to store food well. Xenophones and Hesiod are the Greek authors who addressed household food storage most directly. A thorough analysis of all Greek literature with oblique references to possible food storage practices is beyond this study.

The husband was concerned with affairs outside the house, especially with growing and bringing in food supplies, while the wife was responsible for the food inside the house. This suggests that the wife was primarily responsible for food storage, including budgeting the stored food. The husband left it to the wife to store the provisions and expected her to give something when he asked for it; he himself did not know where it was stored (VIII, 1). This leads to a discussion of order in the household (VIII-IX). Everything in the household should be in the determined place, so it can be retrieved when needed.

Oeconomicus The Oeconomicus by Xenophones is a work on estate management and agriculture composed in the fourth century BCE in Attica, Greece. Even though Socrates is The only reference to storage practices in the New Testament in a narrative context, rather than in a saying or parable, is a passing mention in the Gospel of John. A jar (σκεΰος, skeuos) of wine vinegar (όξος, oxos) was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to his lips. (John 19: 29) Since σκεΰος is a general term for ‘vessel’, we get little information apart from the fact that wine vinegar or cheap wine was kept in vessels, whether for a short or longer period. 11

Thus the bedroom (θἀλαμος, thalamos), because it was in the safest possible place, invited the most valuable bedding and furniture. The dry storerooms (τἀ ξηρἁ τῶν στεγνῶν, ta xērha tōn stegnōn) called for grain, the cool ones (τὰ ψυχεινὰ, ta psycheina) for wine, and the bright ones for those products and utensils which need light. (IX: 3) 50

Chapter 6 Food storage in ancient literature

Not only were all the household items, including stored food, to be well ordered, there were specific places and rooms in the house, where they were kept. The word στεγνὁς refers to any dry shelter, and the lexicon did not give a specific meaning of storeroom. Nevertheless, the text seems to refer to separate, covered rooms in the house. The different rooms were used to store different items, including food.

While the reference to famine indicates that Hesiod was primarily referring to food stuffs, describing food storage as adding little to little is somewhat odd, when in other passages the need to work at harvest time is mentioned. Nevertheless, the security that stored food gives clearly comes out in this passage. The reference to safely storing the harvest in the home highlights the relative security of the house. It is probably also a feeling of getting the job done that has been shared across agrarian cultures.

Other parts of the book mainly deal with the organization of slave labour, and with agricultural practices that do not touch on food storage.

The reference to opening a storage jar makes it clear that food was stored in jars, which were closed until the food was required. Then, a small portion was taken from the jar for daily needs. Hesiod suggests that after just opening a jar, one should take a liberal portion, but then be mindful not to use up too much. At the end one empties the jar, as it is nearly empty anyway.

Works and Days The Greek poet Hesiod also mentions storage practices incidentally in his long poem Works and Days. It is unclear when Hesiod may have been active, but he is often mentioned alongside Homer, and the eighth or seventh century BCE have been suggested (Most 2006: XXV). The poem reflects a rural outlook on life, centred on agriculture.

According to Hesiod grain was also stored in jars.

Early in the poem he reproaches his brother Perses for becoming involved in politics and lawsuits.

Set your slaves to winnow Demeter’s holy grain, when strong Orion first appears, on a smooth threshing-floor in an airy place. Then measure it and store it in jars (pl. of ἄγγος, angos). (Works and Days 597–600. translation Evelyn-White 1914)

For he has little care for quarrels and assemblies, whoever does not have plentiful means of life stored up indoors in good season, what the earth bears, Demeter’s grain. (Works and Days 30–32; translation Most 2006)

Storage jars here were the primary means for storing food generally, but specifically grain.

Stored food is here equated with life security, which then allows people to become involved in politics. For a man it is more important to provide for life and only when that is assured, other pursuits can follow. Hesiod also suggests that politics is risky and reward uncertain, while farming and then storing food is more certain to provide the necessities of life.

While Hesiod also advises to marry a good wife (Works and Days 694–705), he cautions against the woman that is after the granary and therefore the wealth of a man. Do not let a flaunting woman coax and cozen and deceive you: she is after your barn (καλιἀ, kalia). The man who trusts womankind trusts deceivers. (Works and Days 373– 375. translation Evelyn-White 1914)

That stored food means security is also evident in Hesiod’s exhortation to bring things into the house:

Hesiod does not mention the co-operation between husband and wife or different responsibilities that are such a feature in the work of Xenophones. But whether this mindset is due to differences in time or social level, or more due to personal inclinations, is difficult to tell.

If you put down even a little upon a little and do this often, then this too will quickly become a lot; whoever adds to what is already there, wards off fiery famine (αἰθωπὁς λιμὁς, aithōphos limhos). What lies stored up in the household does not cause a man grief: it is better for things to be at home; for what is outdoors is at risk.

6.5 Egyptian Texts

It is fine to take from what you have, but it is woe for the spirit to have need of what you do not have. I bid you take notice of this.

Although the tomb artisan village could not in any sense be called representative of a village in Ancient Egypt, remains from it have been well preserved. It would be even more different from village life in Ancient Israel and Judah, where the king’s administration probably would not have been involved in the provision of food. The people of Deir el-Medina did not produce food for themselves. Rather, the state supplied the workmen with

Deir el-Medina

Take your fill when the storage jar (πιθος, pithos) is just opened or nearly empty, be thrifty in the middle: thrift in the lees is worthless. (Works and Days 361–369; translation Most 2006) 51

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah all their needs, such as grain, fish, vegetables, pastries, and even water (McDowell 1999: 5–6). Fuel, pottery and a laundry service were also provided. Nevertheless, the texts may suggest the goods, including food, present in a house. Ostracon OCairo 25670 provides a list of household contents that have been recorded and that should be kept safe while the owner is away (McDowell 1999: 66–67):

are foodstuffs. The food is listed right among the other possessions. Was there little difference between food and other possessions for these people? Was it a commodity that could be exchanged, something that had to be safeguarded, just like the nice footstool? All the granular food was kept in sacks, not in jars or boxes. Jars were found at Deir el-Medina. But they may not have been the main storage container for dry goods. Another list similarly records barley and emmer in sacks, and fat, sesame-oil and beer in jars (HO 56= O Nash 56; McDowell 1999: 45–46).

List of the items left behind by me in the village: 3 sacks barley 1 ½ sacks emmer 26 bundles of onions sheqer-box 2 couches for a man 2 folding stools 1 pedes-box 1 inlaid tjay-box har (unknown object) 2 griddle-stones 1 gatit-box 2 footstools 2 folding stools of wood 1 sack of lubya beans (3 oipe) 12 bricks of natron 2 tree trunks 1 door 2 sterti of sawn wood 2 hetep-containers 1 small hetep-container 1 mortar 2 medjay All of which are with Pa-shed and Sherit-Re, and all recorded. Another matter for Sheri-Re (fem.): Please have Amenem-wia stay in my house, so he can watch it. Please write to me about your condition.

Wisdom Literature The wisdom literature of Egypt is a tradition reaching from the Old Kingdom well into the Graeco-Roman Period. The instructions usually took the form of an elder male addressing a younger male to teach about the practicalities of life (Depla 1994: 28). The Instruction of Ani dates to the New Kingdom. It mentions that the wife is organizing the house: Do not control your wife in her house, when you know she is efficient. Don’t say to her, ‘Where is it? Get it!’ when she has put it in the right place. (Translation: Lichtheim 1976: 143 quoted in Depla 1994: 44) It presupposes that the wife was in charge of many activities in the house, not least the allocation of space, which may include the storage of food. On the other hand, it seems that the husband was also aware of the correct place of things in the household. In that sense, cooperation between husband and wife was presupposed in the wisdom literature. However, men were expected to provide for their wives and families and were the main authority in the house (Depla 1994: 29, 32).

It is noticeable that most of the possessions listed are pieces of furniture or kitchen tools. Only few of them

52

Chapter 7

Food storage in ancient art Depictions of storage practices can give us an indication of how food was stored in the Eastern Mediterranean. Since few representations of food storage have been found from Israel and Judah in particular, such comparison is a useful reference for interpreting archaeological evidence and the storage options available in this environment. I also want to include representations of storage vessels where the representations are not immediately associated with storage, but rather with transport. They can show us the varied uses of some of the vessels that were probably also used for food storage. We have to be careful, since the purpose of these pieces of art was not to document storage practices or the use of certain vessels. Rather, they were often used for what broadly can be called religious purposes. If some motifs were common in art, it does not necessarily imply that they reflect the most common practices of daily life. It often was the extraordinary, the highly significant, that was reflected in art, not the daily and mundane. Nevertheless, the mundane is not absent from art. It requires judgment on the part of the interpreter to distinguish the relevant. And it requires knowledge of the existence of these pieces of art, which were published with other criteria in mind, to arrange possible artwork that may be relevant to illustrating ancient storage practices. The following examples are therefore not a definitive list of art relating to ancient food storage, but rather a selection of examples.

The most common figurines are horse and rider figurines and those of a goddess. They suggest that figurines were not primarily given as provision for the afterlife, but rather to seek protection or some other favour from the gods. While figurines portraying daily life may have been used for a similar purpose, it is possible that exactly because of the different subjectmatter they portray, their purpose may also have been different. Some figurines in this style even have wheels and parts where they could be attached to a handle, so that they could be pushed across a floor, indicating that they were toys. Were figurines of daily life also used as toys, or may they have been votive gifts to the gods? Their purpose remains uncertain, but they give a glimpse into the world of ancient Cyprus. Model chests The only direct representation of possible household storage are model chests (Figure 21, Figure 22 ). They vary in size, design and detail. Most of them have short legs and many have a hinged lid or door. As the provenance of these models is uncertain or only noted in the broadest terms, it is impossible to determine what function they may have had. They could have been used to keep small items or may have just served as models of chests found in houses. While it is likely

7.1 Cypriot clay models Many fine, clay figurines and models have been found in Cyprus, particularly those dated to the Cypro-Archaic (750–480 BCE). Because most of the Cypriot figurines were ripped from the ground in the 19th and early 20th centuries in a manic drive to acquire collectibles, little is known about the contexts in which the figurines were found. It can be assumed that many of the figurines were robbed from graves. Some were unearthed during more systematic excavations of temples. The figurines, therefore, should be understood as votive figures or as grave goods. John Myres argues that the figurines added to graves together with ceramic vessels that may have contained food were meant to equip the deceased for the after-world, similar to the practices in Egypt (Myres 1914: 330). However, such a conclusion might be somewhat skewed, as excavations have concentrated on monumental architecture and graves. The presence or absence of such figurines at smaller sites has not been adequately examined to my knowledge.

Figure 21. Karageorghis 1996: Plate XLVI: 6. The Foundation ‘Anastasios G. Leventis’, Nicosia, Cyprus.

53

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 22. Karageorghis 1996: Plate XLVII:1. The Foundation ‘Anastasios G. Leventis’, Nicosia, Cyprus.

that full-sized chests were used for storage in Cyprus, little can be known about their exact function. For example, we do not know whether they would have contained food or were used to store other items. It is not even known what materials the full-size chests would have been made of, though it is likely that they would have been made out of wood (Karageorghis 1996: 82–83). A connection with Egypt, where such chests were common, is possible.

that it is apparent that they portray donkeys rather than horses: the ears are larger, the mane smaller or absent, and the head not held as high. Their characterisation as a beast of burden also is quite prominent, although an example of a donkey with just a rider and no other load has also been found. Examples include a donkey with two jugs (Figure 23), and with a rider and two large jars on its back (Figure 24). Others show two baskets on the back of the donkey (Figure 25, Figure 26). The models make it clear that jars were used for land transport. It is likely that jars were used for both storage and transport and that their contents were not necessarily moved into another vessel for transport. The baskets shown, on the other hand, were probably particularly used for transport, though similar baskets may have also been used for storage, whether long-term or short-term.

Transport Containers Representations of other possible storage vessels show them not for household storage, but rather for transport. Several models of donkeys carrying jars or baskets have been found on Cyprus. They are similar to the horse-and-rider models, the most frequent model type on Cyprus. But the animals are slightly different so 54

Chapter 7 Food storage in ancient art

Figure 23. Donkey with jugs. Karageorghis 1996:Pl. XV: 1. The Foundation ‘Anastasios G. Leventis’, Nicosia, Cyprus. Figure 24. Donkey with jars and rider. Cesnola Collection. Metropolitan Museum of Art. DP101821.

Figure 25. Donkey with baskets. Cesnola Collection. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. DP101825.

7.2 Phoenician figurines Achziv Several figurines were excavated in the Phoenician city of Achziv, which is situated on the northern coast of the modern state of Israel. While these figurines are similar to those found throughout Phoenicia and Cyprus, many of them, especially the horse figures, have a sufficiently distinct style, to allow Eilat Mazar to call it the ‘Achziv sculpture style’ (see Mazar 2001: 145). Very similar to the Cypriot donkeys carrying goods is a donkey found in Family Tomb N. 1 (Figure 27; Mazar 2004: Figure 20). While its hind legs and one ear are missing, the figurine is otherwise largely complete. It is 14 cm long. Three rolls are tied to its back. The excavator is uncertain

Figure 26. Donkey with baskets. Badisches Landesmuseum, B2639.

what these rolls may represent (Mazar 2004: 80). Based on modern images, it is possible that the donkey is represented carrying sacks. Wineskins, bags, or bundles are other possibilities. In any case, it is evidence that these flexible containers were also used for transport. Whether they were meant to contain food and were also used for storage is uncertain. 55

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah in Phase XIV, which was destroyed in 732 BCE (Figure 28 and Figure 29; Fischer 2013: 524). The zoomorphic vessel was found just outside House 2, which was identified as a domestic dwelling. Several artefacts with a possible cultic function were found near the zoomorphic vessel, indicating that it may have been used in domestic ritual. The zoomorphic vessel differs from the Cypriot and Phoenician figurines: it was not a figurine with a solid body, but rather could hold liquids. There were openings at the two jars or bags, and at the mouth of the zoomorphic vessel. The two containers are globular with a neck and are attached on either side of the animal’s back. They could represent ceramic vessels with a globular body and a narrower rim; or they could be seen as full sacks that were bound at the top, but still leaving a rather large opening. I would tend to see them as ceramic vessels. The shape of these vessels on the animal differs from those found in Cyprus and also from the standard storage jars found in archaeological excavations. The zoomorphic vessel indicates that various vessels were carried on pack animals and probably also used for storage. Whether we should read into the obvious use of the zoomorphic vessel with liquids, also frequent transport of liquids by pack animal, is less certain.

Figure 27. Donkey from Achziv. Mazar 2004: Figure 20. Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterranéa.

The significance of such a figurine in a tomb is unknown. Other items found in the family tomb far outnumber the figurines discovered there. Many pottery vessels, such as bowls, juglets and small jars, were found. A considerable amount of jewellery, of ivory objects and of weapons and agricultural tools were also found in the tomb among the skeletons. We therefore cannot associate the figurine with burial in particular. Rather, it seems that many objects that somehow had a connection with the deceased persons were placed with them.

Tell Beit Mirsim Tell Beit Mirsim is in Judah, where the Hebron Hills meet the Shephelah. In an Iron Age tomb a zoomorphic vessel of a pack animal was found (Figure 30 and Figure 31; Ben-Arieh 2004: 88–89).This figure probably represents a donkey carrying panniers across its back, with a container on each side. It is likely that the containers are representations of ceramic jars. The tops of these jars have been broken, so that their original shape is unknown. However, it is likely that the zoomorphic vessel shows accurately how such jars might have been carried on the back of a donkey.

7.3 Inland Levant Figurines of pack animals were also a tradition in the Levant away from the coast. The type can be traced from the Chalcolithic Period onwards, was more common in the Early Bronze Age, and after it was missing during the Late Bronze Age, recurred again in the Iron Age (Fischer 2013: 524).

As with the vessel from Tell Abu al-Kharaz, this zoomorphic vessel also had several openings into or from which liquids could be poured. Similarly, these were the mouth and the vessels in the panniers. The use of such zoomorphic vessels as grave goods may indicate that they symbolized wealth, prosperity and blessing beyond death (Keel and Staubli 2001: 37).

Tell Abu al-Kharaz Tell Abu al-Kharaz is located to the east of the Jordan in the Jordan Valley south of Pella. A zoomorphic vessel or rhyton in the shape of a pack donkey or horse was found 56

Chapter 7 Food storage in ancient art

Figure 28. Zoomorphic vessel of pack animal found at Tell Abu al-Kahraz. Fischer 2013: Figure 223. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Figure 29. Zoomorphic vessel of pack animal found at Tell Abu al-Kahraz. Fischer 2013:Figure 224. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

57

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 30. Zoomorphic vessel found in Iron Age tomb at Tell Beit Mirsim. Ben-Arieh 2004: 88. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

58

Chapter 7 Food storage in ancient art

incantations. Instead, the accompanying inscriptions described the activity in the simplest manner, such as: ‘The serving-priest [of Amon], the scribe Nakht, madkheru, and his heartily loved sister, the chant[ress of Amon], Tawi, amusing themselves by looking at the good things, the products of the open lands and the papyrus beds.’ (Davies 1917: 67). While a large scene portrays agriculture in Eygpt, from clearing and ploughing the land to winnowing the grain, Figure 31. Zoomorphic vessel found in Iron Age tomb at Tell Beit Mirsim. there is little indication Photo Meidad Suchowolski, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority of storage practices. That is different in the scene 7.4 Art from Egyptian tombs portraying the hunt on the Nile and the harvest from the vines, where some storage practices are shown Egyptian paintings and models were found in tombs. (Figure 32). There is an association between vines They were partly intended to furnish supplies and food in Egyptian art and the wastelands, which probably for the afterlife. But the scenes were also meant to reflects the reality of their location in Ancient Eygpt provide as ‘pleasant a resort for the dead as possible and (Davies 1917: 70). were to mirror back the memories and aroused desires which would naturally come to him when so nearly in The upper band of the picture shows the grape harvest contact with the familiar scenes from which he had and to the left, the treading of the grapes in a wine press. passed, memories which he could renew and desires The must flowed into the collecting vat, from which it he could gratify again in some place and way which was poured into large storage jars. These were closed Egyptian optimism did not trouble to particularize’ with a clay lid. It seems likely that the fermentation of (Davies 1917: 25–26). The models and painted scenes, the wine took place in jars, and the wine may have been therefore, do not necessarily depict those actions and filled into other jars later. It is therefore not fully clear themes necessary for the provision of food, but rather whether the jars represent long-term storage or more also those which gave pleasure to the deceased and short-term processing. might have been considered artistically decorative. The fowl and fish caught in the Nile were prepared in I focus on tombs from the New Kingdom, as they are the household. The birds were first plucked, cleaned and temporally closer to Ancient Israel and Judah, but then hung to dry before they were apparently packed also include references to older tombs to show the into jars. How the birds were prepared to allow them to developing tradition. be stored in jars is not known. However, the use of jars to store animal products is also known from the Byzantine Tomb of Nakht Period. Evidence from New Kingdom Egypt shows that the practice was common across a long time frame. The tomb of Nakht was built in the Necropolis of Thebes during Dynasty XVIII, probably in the 15th century BCE The tomb of Nefer-hotep (Davies 1917: 50). His profession as scribe is mentioned several times. He seems to have been wealthy and was able The tomb of Nefer-hotep is another Dynasty XVIII tomb to afford a reasonable tomb cut into the rock. It contained at Thebes. He was the ‘chief scribe’ of the god Amun, vivid scenes of daily life. In contrast to the more ‘religious’ and the overseer of cattle for the temple estate (Hodelscenes, these were executed with much attention to detail. Hoenes 2000: 179; Davies 1933: 17). On the north wall of There were few scenes related to the cult of the dead, and the inner room, a large scene showing probably the estate these were relatively carelessly executed (Davies 1917: 53). of the temple of Karnak also shows several depictions of storage practices. The scene was painted in a dark spot The scenes of daily life had no magic connotation— of the inner hall, where it would be hard to see for any otherwise they would have been accompanied by person passing through (Davies 1933: 12). As the scene 59

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 32. The grape harvest and conserving birds. Part of scene from the Tomb of Nakht. Davies 1917: Plate XXVI

Figure 33. The storehouses of Karnak. Part of scene from the tomb of Nefer-hotep. Davies 1933: Plate XLV.

60

Chapter 7 Food storage in ancient art

Figure 34. Food for the storehouses of Karnak. Part of scene from the tomb of Nefer-hotep. Davies 1933: Plate XLVII.

has no apparent funerary import, it may be more related to Nefer-hotep’s personal interest (Davies 1933: 12).

Another part of the scene I want to illustrate is the wine cellar (Figure 35). On the left is a wine press in which men tread the grapes so that the must gushes into the collecting vats. From there the liquid is filled into wine jars with the help of a jug. It should be noted that the stoppers on the jars are different and some jars are missing a stopper at all. Commenting on a similar scene, McGovern thinks that jars with no stopper—in this illustration those in the middle row—contain fresh juice that is yet to ferment (McGovern 2003: 144–145). The jars with stoppers—here probably those in the top row—contain fermented wine. He discerns a further group of storage jars with stoppers that show some organic material.

A part of the scene shows the storehouse of the temple (Figure 33). On the left is the office. To the right are the store chambers. Two of these chambers seem to be filled with bulk grain. Others contain loaves of bread, others jars, and one, probably bundles of papyrus (Davies 1933: 34–35). It is noticeable that the jars in the different chambers have different shapes and that they have different stoppers, while in one chamber they seem to have been left open. From intact jars found in tombs, we know that these stoppers in Egypt were made out of clay and sometimes extended like a lid over the entire neck, at other times sealed the opening more like a clay ball.

The tomb of Antef

A further part of the scene also shows irrigated fruit trees, particularly several date palms (Figure 34). The interesting depiction from the perspective of storage is in the middle register. It shows a fenced enclosure, which is also encircled by a wall of earth, in which grain was kept to secure it against prowling animals (Davies 1933: 36). Presumably, this is just for short-term storage and maybe to dry the grain before it is brought to the storehouses. The lowest register is a continuation of that shown in the previous illustration. It shows the stored goods and, on the left, apparently some construction taking place.

The tomb of Antef is another Dynasty XVIII tomb at Thebes. Antef was the great herald. A small excerpt from a vintage scene shows aspects of wine storage (Figure 36). To the left of this excerpt, the harvest of grapes is shown near the wild marshes of the Nile, as well as the wine press. In this excerpt, a girl gives a steward wine to taste (Säve-Söderbergh 1957: 18). He remarks that it is sweet, implying that it has passed the taste test. The labourers then carry the wine jars to the wine cellar. It is in the upper register of this scene that McGovern notes that the jars have different stoppers (McGovern 2003: 144–145). 61

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 35. The winepress at the estate of Karnak. Part of scene from the tomb of Nefer-hotep. Davies 1933: Plate XLVIII.

Figure 36. Part of a scene in the tomb of the Herald Antef. Translation of selected hieroglyphs in the lower register. Säve-Söderbergh 1957:Plate XV. Translation: Säve-Söderbergh 1957: 18.

62

Chapter 7 Food storage in ancient art

What is interesting in this scene from the tomb of Antef is the banter between the workmen recorded in the hieroglyphs, so that it appears like a comic strip. This scene was really meant to recreate life. There is nothing about the afterlife, no mention of funerary practices.

of processed and more valuable food materials, such as spices and fine cakes. Of course, there cannot be an assumption that the formalized presentation for tax purposes reflected storage practices. But they are at least an indication of the types of storage containers that might have been used for certain products.

Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re

Many more scenes from New Kingdom Egyptian private tombs could be presented. Some are better preserved than others; some repeat similar scenes from other tombs. The vintage scene in conjunction with hunting in the marshes seems to have been particularly popular. The scenes show food storage, but generally in some official capacity. Because of that and artistic convention, the jars and bundles are evenly sized, and one type of jar seems to have been used for one produce. That might not have been the case at the household level. It should also be noted that there are stylistic differences between the different tombs, indicating that the shape of the jars, for example, depended on the artist. That difference may also reflect more variety in the real world, which the scenes intended to portray.

The tomb of Rekh-mi-Re is another Dynasty XVIII tomb at Thebes. Rekh-mi-Re was the vizier of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, but seems to have fallen from grace, as his name and image have been deliberately effaced from the tomb (Davies 1943: 3). Below is a small part of one scene, the collection of taxes from Upper Egypt by the vizier (Figure 37). While they are decorations, the collection of taxes is shown in a very official style—with the towns bringing taxes and the exact amount being recorded—but also shown in bright visual style. Taxes consisted of a mix of precious metals, agricultural produce such as food and animals, and craft goods such as grass mats. This excerpt shows the collection of taxes from Northern Towns. Barley, wheat, beans, and country cakes are shown in large heaps (Davies 1943: 103–106). Spice and finer cakes are shown in bowls. Honey and salve are shown in jars. Some sacks are also shown, but the product is not clear. Honey is also shown in a bowl. In addition, there are gold and silver rings, reed mats, grass mats, cloth, papyrus, and various animals.

A model from the tomb of Meket-Reʽ A Middle Kingdom model from the tomb of Meket-Reʽ can give a better idea of the layout of a granary (Figure 38). Meket-Reʽ died around 2000 BCE and was the Grand Chancellor of King Nebhepetre Mentuhotep from Dynasty XI at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. While most of the tomb had been looted in antiquity, a small room with models had been left untouched (Winlock 1955). There were models of people carrying provisions to the tomb, of boats, of a procession, a

This collection of taxes may indicate that barley, wheat, beans and some cakes were stored in bulk, honey and salve in jars, and that bowls were used for the storage

Figure 37. Part of scene of the collection of taxes from the northern towns in Upper Egypt. East wall of hall. Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re. Davies 1943: Plate XXXIV.

63

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 38. Granary from the tomb of Meket-Re. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

residence, a stable, a butcher shop, a brewery and bakery, a weaving shop, a carpenter shop, and a granary. The granary model shows a group of scribes in the office, where the grain is measured and recorded. It was probably brought to the granary in sacks. After measuring, the grain is carried up the stairs to an elevated passage, from where it is poured into one of the three bins (Winlock 1955: 25–27). These bins are just partitioned rooms with a small door at the base, through which the grain could be taken out again. The bins were filled from the top and emptied from the bottom.

food storage in Egypt. The Egyptians were concerned with overseeing the storage of food, recording the food that entered the storehouses and keeping lists. That this attitude may have also permeated to the more common people and was not just the concern of the administrative elite is shown by the lists from Deir el-Medina. But in all this administrative effort, there nevertheless seems to have been a measure of appreciation for human interaction and festivities that ancient Egyptian art portrays.

It is clear that this granary was part of an administrative system, whether of a large estate or of tax collection. Smaller bins in a similar style might have been used at a household level, but this style might only have been used for the purpose of storing large amounts of grain.

The Middle Kingdom tomb of Khety is located at Beni Hasan and is one of the larger tombs at the site (Newberry 1893: 77). Khety was the governor of the Oryx nome (Newberry 1893: 53). The tombs at Beni Hasan also contain many household and estate management scenes, but also of festivities and the journey of the dead. It is interesting to note that pastoral scenes predominate over agricultural. Scenes of butchery and meat being carried before the deceased are prominent.

Tomb of Khety

Just like the tomb paintings, the granary does not emphasise so much the fact of food storage, but rather the administration of it. The art of Egypt gives the impression that administration was the essence of 64

Chapter 7 Food storage in ancient art

Figure 39. Scene from the tomb of Khety. Newberry 1893: Plate XVII.

Figure 39 shows a scene from the western half of the south wall of the tomb of Khety. It contains a depiction of a granary with dome-shaped silos. Workers are seen taking grain from a heap and carrying it up steps to pour it into the silos. At the side, the silos have openings to take out the grain. Further provisions in boxes and other containers (sacks, skins, jars) are seen to the right. It also seems that goods such as carpets or arrows were stored here (Newberry 1893: 62). Grain storage seems to have been associated with goods storage more generally. Dome-shaped storage facilities have also been identified in the archaeological record for the Early Bronze Age in Palestine (Currid 1986: 87–99). They persisted in Cyprus into the 20th century (OhnefalschRichter 1913: 27).

food is depicted among prepared food during the meal of the grave owner. Such scenes were also common at later times, but I want to show it here. On the south side of the mastaba, K’hjf and his wife are shown feasting in the presence of their children and grandchildren (Figure 40 and Figure 41). The couple is portrayed in a prominent position, and far larger than the other participants. The children sit at individual tables facing the couple, while musicians provide entertainment. In the two upper registers a variety of food containers and open food is shown. The pieces of meat, particularly veal legs are quite notable. Some food seems to be ready for consumption in tureens or cooking pots on tables. Fruit is piled high. But there are also several large storage jars, which are still closed with a lid. These jars all stand on pot stands. Similar pot stands were also found in Ancient Israel and it is likely that they were also used for storage jars. That such storage jars are pictured right beside the feast may indicate they contained food that was immediately available for consumption, such as beer or wine, and did not require further preparation (see Junker 1943: 121). But they may also just represent the abundance of food available at this feast.

Mastaba of K’hjf This is a mastaba at Giza from the Old Kingdom, probably Dynasty VI (Junker 1943 :94). K’hjf was a priest and the overseer of tenants (Junker 1943: 96). The walls of these graves were painted with scenes that were also common at later times and many of the main themes are already established. While harvest scenes are common, I could not find a scene showing the gathering of the harvest into store houses. Stored 65

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 40. Mastaba of K’hjf south wall. Junker 1943: Abb.88a.

Figure 41. Mastaba of K’hjf south wall. Junker 1943: Abb 88b.

66

Chapter 7 Food storage in ancient art

The scene may suggest that such feasts would continue in the afterlife, just as they had occurred in the house of K’hjf before his death (Junker 1943: 124). But it probably also relates to the feast of the dead, when family members assembled at the grave of the deceased and ate a meal there (Junker 1943: 125).

67). Unfortunately, this scene is not illustrated, but it apparently shows the dome-shaped grain silos already described for the Middle Kingdom (Junker 1940: 68). Another scene on the western wall shows the kitchen, where meal dishes, bread and beer are prepared (Figure 42). In the two lower registers the production of bread is shown in the middle and left, the production of beer on the right. The man in the middle register probably kneads bread and sieves it into a pot, where it is added to the liquid. After fermentation in the large open jars to the right, the beer is then transferred to the storage jars—which are capped with a mud lid—shown in the bottom register (Junker 1940: 65–67). The beer in these storage jars could then be used for later consumption.

Mastaba of K’j-m-enh The mastaba of K’j-m-enh is another Dynasty VI grave at Giza. He was the overseer of the treasury (Junker 1940: 4). In contrast to other Old Kingdom graves, this contained a scene of food storerooms, not in connection with the harvest, but rather as the place from which provisions for new feasts were available (Junker 1940:

Figure 42. Scene in mastaba of K’j-m-enh. Junker 1940: Tafel VIII

67

Chapter 8

Food storage in the Old Testament A discussion of food storage in the Old Testament has to approach the subject from various angles, paint the context, examine the patterns and arrive at an overall picture, clearly spelling out convergences and differences in the texts.12 I intend to do this by focusing on several words that are mentioned in a looser or closer context of food storage. I will begin by looking at wider issues of food supply and then move over to Biblical passages that may indicate some of the technologies used to store food, such as the different storage vessels.

that the phrase comes from the custom in southern countries to stack round breads on wooden staffs. Even if that might have been the background, he thinks that Isaiah 3: 1 and the verses in Ezekiel indicate that the phrase was now used in a more general sense, so that the original meaning was no longer understood.13 I think that Hebrew was capable of using very figurative language. Maṭṭē here is the support on which one depends. I would see it being parallel to ‫מִשְׁעֶנֶת‬ (Mišʿenet), meaning staff or support. Just as Judah relied on Egypt (Isaiah 36: 6; Ezekiel 29: 6), so people rely on food. Martin Noth compares maṭṭē-leḥem with the

8.1 Food supply and scarcity Food storage is also about having a consistent food supply. Some of the attitudes to food supply are particularly apparent when it is threatened, when there is the threat of scarcity. Rather than looking at descriptions of famine in the Old Testament, I concentrate on words that were used to describe situations when the normal, consistent food supply is disrupted.

It seems that the understanding of the Biblical phrase ‘staff of bread’ as a stick on which bread was carried by vendors was introduced by Ludwig Köhler in a small booklet written in popular language to explain several Biblical passages (Köhler 1945). In discussing the phrase, he recounts how he was walking in Italy and in the town of Faenza saw the staff of bread: a reed basket with a few sticks, on which round bread was stacked (Köhler 1945: 25–27). After talking with others who had visited the Orient, he came to the conclusion that this must be the ‘staff of bread’, for they had observed a similar custom there. It is true: round bread is sold in the Middle East today, though it is seldom stacked on sticks. Particularly well known is the koulouris bread in Greece or the simit bread in Turkey, which once was particularly popular in Constantinople. It has been baked in this form for centuries. There are indications that it is a very old form, with a possible depiction of it in coroplastic art from the CyproArchaic age (Karageorghis 1996: Plate XXX). Gustaf Dalman described round bread being sold in Jerusalem and other Levantine cities. It was produced only in cities by professional bakers (Dalman 1935: 127–128, 134). The oven used to make this bread has the Arabic name furn, from the Latin word furnus. It consisted of a large, arched baking chamber on a base of stone and lime, and was similar to ovens used until the 20th century throughout Europe and Latin America. It probably spread from Italy with the expansion of the Roman Empire. Only with the introduction of the Roman oven into Palestine would the large-scale production of round bread have become possible. It is clear from ethnographic observations and archaeological finds that the main form of bread in the Near East for millennia was the flat bread, baked in small ovens. This would not have been stacked on a stick. It is further questionable whether, during the Iron Age, professional bakers would have been common in Israel or Judah. The ovens during the Iron Age were smaller than Bronze Age ovens or those from later periods such as the Roman Period. They were also frequently found in private houses and spread throughout settlements. It is therefore likely that the baking of bread was a household task, with little bread being offered for sale. Leviticus 26: 26 accords with that archaeological interpretation. It also mentions the maṭṭē-leḥem. When it will be broken, ten women will break bread in one oven. Normally, fewer women would have baked their bread in one oven, probably each one in her own oven. In the Hebrew lexicon KAHAL (Dietrich and Arnet 2013: 292) maṭṭēleḥem is described as a stick on which the round ‫( חלה‬ḥalah) breads are hung to protect them from mice. But the word mateh is never used in conjunction with the word ḥalah. The only indication that ḥalah bread may have been round is on possible etymological grounds. The phrase maṭṭē-leḥem is only used when there is talk of famine, when basic nourishment will not be available. It is never mentioned in any cultic context. Therefore, maṭṭē-leḥem is likely to refer to the nourishment required for daily life. I would suggest that the 20th century explanation of bread stacked on a stick took on a life of its own and was perpetuated in academic circles without critical reflection. 13

‫( מַטֵּה־לֶחֶם‬maṭṭē-leḥem) The term ‫( מטה־לחם‬maṭṭē-leḥem) is used several times in the Old Testament, most frequently in the book of Ezekiel where it occurs three times, always in a speech of judgment. Ezekiel 4: 16 may serve as an example: ‫וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי בֶּן־אָדָם הִנְנִי שֹׁבֵר מַטֵּה־לֶחֶם בִּירוּשָׁלִַם וְאָכְלוּ־לֶחֶם‬ ‫בְּמִשְׁקָל וּבִדְאָגָה וּמַיִם בִּמְשׂוּרָה וּבְשִׁמָּמוֹן יִשְׁתּוּ׃‬ He said to me: Son of Man, behold, the staff of bread will break in Jerusalem and they will eat bread by weight and with anxiety and they will drink water by measure and with despair. Walter Zimmerli suggests that maṭṭē-leḥem is a pictorial description (Bildrede), so that ‘staff and support’ was a phrase that transferred the image from the physical support to a more figurative one (Zimmerli 1969: 125). This would be similar to the usage of the English word ‘support’. He refers also to the use of the parallel word ‫( מִשְׁעַן‬mišʿan) in Isaiah 3: 1. There the prophet speaks about the ‘stick of bread and the stick of water’ that God will take away from Jerusalem. It is clear that here the word mišʿan has become a metaphor. Nevertheless, Zimmerli mentions a view among German academics There are few references to food storage in the Apocrypha, books that in some traditions are considered to be part of the Old Testament. These relate to the requirement of having sufficient stored food during war, and to exhortations to store treasures in heaven by giving alms. 12

68

Chapter 8 Food storage in the Old Testament ‫כִּי הִנֵּה הָאָדוֹן יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת מֵסִיר מִ‍ירוּשָׁלִַם וּמִ‍יהוּדָה מַשְׁעֵן‬ ‫וּמַשְׁעֵנָה כֹּל מִשְׁעַן־לֶחֶם וְכֹל מִשְׁעַן־מָיִם׃‬

phrase ‘strengthen (‫ סָעַד‬sāʿad) the heart with a piece of bread’ (‫פַּת־לֶחֶם‬, pat-leḥem) and concludes that it is a metaphorical expression (Noth 1965: 199).

See how the sovereign Lord YHWH of hosts is taking away from Jerusalem and from Judah support and staff, all the support of bread and all the support of water.

Ezekiel 4: 16 is part of the prophet’s word declaring a siege that will come over Jerusalem. As part of that siege, the maṭṭē-leḥem will break and food and water will be rationed. The phrase does not directly describe stored food, but rather the provision of food, the required sustenance. The food required for living may come from storage or directly from the land. In a siege situation, people rely on stored food. If they no longer have that support, the situation becomes desperate. It is the overall concern for food which becomes apparent in these verses. The loss of that support of food is part of judgment. The immediate effect will be that food will be rationed. Only a certain measure will be given to each person. This stands in contrast to the normal situation when food was not measured, when there was enough to fulfil the requirements of the people. It should be noted that in this passage no agent who will break the maṭṭē-leḥem is mentioned. Rather, the disruption of the food supply is part of the overall situation; it is part of the judgment.

The word ‫(מִשְׁעַן‬mišʿan) is generally used in the sense of support, while ‫( מַשְׁעֵנָה‬mašʿēnâ) often refers to an actual staff on which the infirm lean (see Exodus 21: 19; Zechariah 8: 4), but also extends from there as a metaphor to cover ‘comfort’ and ‘support’. The two words ‫( מִשְׁעַן‬mišʿan) and ‫( מַשְׁעֵנָה‬mašʿēnâ) are used first in parallel, but then ‫( מִשְׁעַן‬mišʿan) only is linked with bread and water to indicate that food and drink, the necessaries of life, are the support that the YHWH will take from Jerusalem. The verse is part of a judgment speech. Because of the sins of the people, the YHWH will bring disaster upon them. This disaster not only consists of unbearable living conditions, but also of the reversal of the normal order. The people who mattered before will be there no longer. Rather, boys will be their leaders. Not having food and water could therefore also be seen as something abnormal, though entirely possible.

In Psalm 105: 16, the breaking of the maṭṭē-leḥem is used to describe the famine in the Joseph narrative. No longer could people rely on the food from the field or in household storage. While it was YHWH who called the famine over the land, he does not break maṭṭēleḥem. Rather, the breaking of the maṭṭē-leḥem seems to be a consequence or a description of the famine. As mentioned, the expression is also used in Leviticus 26: 26:

Again, it is YHWH who actively takes away what the people normally rely on. It should be noted that the verse does not indicate that YHWH normally gives that support. No, he is the one who takes away something that the people normally have access to. Through this, the passage emphasizes the character of judgment. Price of Food

‫בְּשִׁבְרִי לָכֶם מַטֵּה־לֶחֶם וְאָפוּ עֶשֶׂר נָשִׁים לַחְמְכֶם בְּתַנּוּר אֶחָד‬ ‫וְהֵשִׁיבוּ לַחְמְכֶם בַּמִּשְׁקָל וַאֲכַלְתֶּם וְלֹא תִשְׂבָּעוּ׃‬

It is in the context of scarcity that the price of food is mentioned or, more specifically, the price of grain after a siege. 2 Kings 6: 24–7: 20 tells the story of the siege of Samaria by Ben-Hadad and the price of food is used to illustrate firstly its scarcity during the siege and then its abundance after the siege was lifted. The famine in Samaria became so severe that a donkey’s head was sold for eighty shekels of silver and a kab of dove’s dung for five shekels of silver (2 Kings 6: 25). These are exorbitant prices for things that would not have been used as food in normal conditions.14

When I break for you the staff of bread, ten women will bake your bread in one oven and they will bring your bread by weight, so that you will eat and not be satisfied. Here, the breaking of the staff of bread by Yahweh is part of the curses of the covenant. The description of the situation assumes that each woman normally bakes in her own oven, but when the food supply is broken, there will only be such a small amount of flour that ten women can use one oven. Food will be rationed and people will not be satisfied with the little they eat. The corollary is that if the staff of bread is normally not broken, people have sufficient food and they will be satisfied. It is in this context of having sufficient food to be satisfied that food storage in Israel should be seen.

When a woman then tells the king of the cannibalism that had occurred in Samaria, the extent of the disaster is evident. The surprising proclamation by Elisha that flour and barley—good food—will be sold at far less seems impossible (2 Kings 7: 1).

‫( מִשְׁעַן־לֶחֶם‬mišʿan-leḥem) The parallel expression in Isaiah 3: 1, as mentioned, uses the term ‫( משען‬mišʿan) and couples it with bread and water.

Commentators mention that the term ‫( דִּבְיוֹנִים‬dibyônîm) ‘dove’s dung’ is the popular name of inedible husks (Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 79) or of a plant (Hobbs 1985: 72). It would then not be as revolting as eating dung, but they are still exorbitant prices. 14

69

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah ‫וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלִישָׁע שִׁמְעוּ דְּבַר־יְהוָה כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה כָּ‍עֵת מָחָר סְאָה־סֹלֶת‬ ‫בְּשֶׁקֶל וְסָאתַיִם שְׂעֹרִים בְּשֶׁקֶל בְּשַׁעַר שֹׁמְרוֹן׃‬

one particularly severe form of judgment was the failure of food supply. These texts do not distinguish between losses of the harvest in the field or during storage, by enemy action or through natural events. Rather, it is the disruption of the normal system for obtaining, storing and supplying food that they combine in overarching phrases.

Elisha said: ‘Listen to the word of YHWH: Thus says YHWH, at this time tomorrow a seah of flour will be a shekel and two seahs of barley will be one shekel in the gate of Samaria. It is noteworthy that the prophetic formula of the word of YHWH should refer to such menial issues as the price of flour and barley as a reference to salvation. The fulfilment of the oracle through a miracle of YHWH and the message of the lepers again refers back to the prices, which had seemed unimaginable during the siege.

In the context of scarcity there is also evidence for a market economy in Ancient Israel, even though its extent in normal times is unknown. Some food was bought and sold in the gate of larger cities.

It is not certain whether the prices for flour and barley mentioned here are still relatively high prices, normal prices or even very low prices for those commodities. If the shekel in Israel was similar to the one in Babylonia, the price would still be relatively high (Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 81). Hobbs suggests that the text reflects a standard vendor’s cry, so that these could be seen as standard prices (Hobbs 1985: 85–86). While barley was cheaper than what was presumably wheat flour, the processing of the wheat needs to be taken into account. Both were apparently seen as desirable for human consumption.

In the Old Testament, food supply is often associated with the fertility of the land and a successful harvest.

8.2 Food storage and blessing

I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees of the field their fruit. Your threshing will continue until grape harvest and the grape harvest will continue until planting, and you will eat all the food you want and live in safety in your land. (Leviticus 26: 4–5, NIV) So if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today—to love YHWH your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul—then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and olive oil. I will provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be satisfied. (Deuteronomy 11: 13–15, NIV)

The passage may be seen as evidence for a market economy in Samaria. The selling of wheat flour and barley was a normal activity in the gate of Samaria. However, the extent of such a market and its relative importance, are unclear. For in this text it is mainly used to contrast the situation of scarcity during the siege with the more abundant food supply after the siege. It should be noted that the king refers to the threshing floor and the wine press in his response to the woman, rather than to any stored product or possible market purchase (2 Kings 6: 27).

‘Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,’ says YHWH Almighty, ‘and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop their fruit before it is ripe,’ says YHWH Almighty. (Malachi 3: 10–11, NIV)

Food supply and scarcity: a summary Even though only a few limited terms were explored, they indicate that the authors of the Old Testament were painfully aware of the reliance on a continued food supply. With that they are certainly not alone, since food supply was and is an issue in many societies. However, the particular metaphors and concepts that the Old Testament uses are notable. In these texts, food—bread (leḥem)—is what keeps life upright. When the people can no longer rely on this support, their life becomes threatened, just as it would do if the support of an ally is withdrawn in times of conflict. Losing one’s food supply is a form of judgment, a judgment for which often YHWH is responsible. But it must be noted that we cannot infer from this that the Old Testament writers regarded all food shortages as judgment, but rather that

(See also Leviticus 25: 18; Deuteronomy 7: 13: Deuteronomy 28: 12; Deuteronomy 33: 28; Psalm 65: 9–13; Psalm 107: 36–38; Isaiah 1: 19; Isaiah 30: 23; Jeremiah 31: 12; Ezekiel 34: 26–27; Ezekiel 36: 30; Joel 2: 23–27; and on provision from the land 2 Samuel 9: 10; 2 Kings 19: 29; Isaiah 37: 30; Nehemiah 5: 1–12) Similarly, the lack of food is generally described in the failing of the natural processes that result in a harvest from the land. Then the Lord’s anger will burn against you, and he will shut up the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land YHWH is giving you. (Deuteronomy 11: 17, NIV) 70

Chapter 8 Food storage in the Old Testament

The fields are ruined, the ground is dried up; the grain is destroyed, the new wine is dried up, the olive oil fails. Despair, you farmers, wail, you vine growers; grieve for the wheat and the barley, because the harvest of the field is destroyed. The vine is dried up and the fig tree is withered; the pomegranate, the palm and the apple tree—all the trees of the field—are dried up. Surely the people’s joy is withered away. (Joel 1: 10–12, NIV)

the purview of the Old Testament. But also—and this is a bolder assertion—food storage was most closely connected to questions of blessing.

(see also Deuteronomy 28: 38–42; Isaiah 32: 9–13; Amos 4: 6–9; Haggai 1: 9–11; Haggai 2: 15–19; Habakkuk 3: 17)

‫וַאֲכַלְתֶּם יָשָׁן נוֹשָׁן וְיָשָׁן מִ‍פְּנֵי חָדָשׁ תּוֹצִיאוּ׃‬

‫( יָשָׁן‬yāšān) Leviticus 26:10 expresses the abundance of the harvest with reference to the produce that still lies in storage, but now has to be thrown out because the next plentiful harvest has to be stored.

You will eat the very old and the old you will clear out in the face of the new.

Most of these references to food supply are found in a wider context of blessing and cursing (or the withdrawal of blessing). At times this is part of a covenant between YHWH and his people. The most obvious example of food supply seen in this context is in the book of Deuteronomy. The book attaches blessing, especially an abundant food supply, to hearing and keeping the commands that YHWH gives to his people through Moses. In Chapter 28, blessings and curses are listed in a parallel structure: if the people follow the commandments, then the people and everything they rely on will be blessed (Deuteronomy 28: 1–6); if they do not follow the commandments, they and everything they rely on will be cursed (Deuteronomy 28: 15–19). Not only can we say that in the book of Deuteronomy food supply is seen within the context of blessing, but even more forcefully that blessing consists most essentially in the fruitfulness of land, people and stock. Anything needed for life came from these. In Leviticus the assurance of food supply is similarly associated with blessing and the keeping of the commandments. The concept is also present in the prophetic literature. Isaiah 1: 19 links the provision of food with keeping commandments. Joel and Haggai describe punishment and contrast it with blessing. In Malachi, the association between blessing and food supply is made very explicit and here connected to giving tithes and keeping the covenant. In some prophetic passages, such as Ezekiel and Jeremiah, we can find the further themes of deliverance and restoration in connection with food supply, while the themes of blessing and covenant continue. Where the food supply is mentioned in the book of Psalms, the blessings of YHWH are signs of his goodness.

There will be so much new produce that the old produce, which presumably was stored from previous seasons, is no longer required and is cleared out in favour of the new harvest. Not requiring the stored food in the following seasons is seen as a sign of abundance, an abundance that is the result of keeping the covenant on YHWH’s part. Even though the word ְ‫( בָּרַך‬bārak)—to bless—is not mentioned, it is implied and commentators read it into this description of good things that will be bestowed on the people (see Milgrom 2001: 2272–2303). Reading the verse together with verses 6 and 7, it may be suggested that such an abundance is beyond that normally experienced. Just as five men will normally not chase a hundred fighters, so throwing out the old produce is an exceptional outcome. In the Samaria ostraca (see below), the word ‫(יָשָׁן‬yāšān) is linked with ‫( ין‬yn) to indicate old wine, that is, wine that has been stored and matured (Renz 1995: 82–83). That ‫( יָשָׁן‬yāšān) describes stored produce is also supported by Leviticus 25: 21–22, where the word is used in the context of the Sabbath year or the Jubilee year, when the land is to have a rest. The verses respond to the question as to what the people will eat in the seventh year if they do not plant or harvest the crops. ‫וְצִוִּיתִי אֶת־בִּרְכָתִי לָכֶם בַּשָּׁנָה הַשִּׁשִּׁית וְעָשָׂת אֶת־הַתְּבוּאָה‬ ‫לִשְׁלֹשׁ הַשָּׁנִים׃‬ ‫וּזְרַעְתֶּם אֵת הַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁמִינִת וַאֲכַלְתֶּם מִן־הַתְּבוּאָה יָשָׁן עַד הַשָּׁנָה‬ ‫הַתְּשִׁיעִת עַד־בּוֹא תְּבוּאָתָהּ תֹּאכְלוּ יָשָׁן׃‬ I will send my blessing to you in the sixth year and it will produce the crop (enough) for three years. You will plant the eighth year and eat from the old crop to the ninth year; until its crop comes, you will eat the old.

But how does this provision of food, seen through the theme of blessing, relate to food storage? While the food is brought forth by the land through the one who blesses, who sends rain and makes the fruit grow, the food is then also stored and then seen as part of the food given to the people. Indeed, most of the references to stored food in the Old Testament occur in the wider context of food supply and blessing. It is in this context of blessing that questions of food storage came in

The food for the Sabbath year will be provided through the abundance of the previous year. That bountiful harvest will be stored to provide food until the harvest is again gathered after the Sabbath year. While the verses describe the special situation of the Sabbath year, it is probable that it makes use of a more general knowledge 71

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah ‫כַּבֵּד אֶת־יְהוָה מֵ‍הוֹנֶךָ וּמֵ‍רֵאשִׁית כָּל־תְּבוּאָתֶךָ׃‬ ‫וְיִמָּלְאוּ אֲסָמֶיךָ שָׂבָע וְתִירוֹשׁ יְקָבֶיךָ יִפְרֹצוּ׃‬

of storing food for times at which it was not available in the field. I do not want to go into the discussion of how feasible a break of one or two years in the harvest cycle would have been for peasants in Ancient Israel (Milgrom 2001: 2245–2251). Rather, I want to link it with the usual practice of keeping the old crop from good years for lean times and probably also for the annual times at which little food could be gathered in the fields.

Honour YHWH from your wealth and from the firstfruit of all your crop, and your grain stores will be filled in plenty and your (wine) vats will overflow. No mention is made of the covenant, and yet the relationship between the farmer and YHWH is clear. It is given expression through giving from the wealth, especially the tithing of the firstfruit. As a consequence, the grain stores will be filled. The underlying assumption of the book of Proverbs that certain actions will bring about consequences can also be seen in this short passage. No mention is made that YHWH will bless the grain stores, or that YHWH will somehow cause the stores to be filled. Rather, the full grain stores are a consequence of the tithing. It therefore stands in contrast to such passages as Malachi 3: 10–11, where tithing is also demanded, but YHWH as the giver of the blessings is clearly stated.

The word ‫( יָשָׁן‬yāšān) links food storage with blessing, the blessing that has come through a plentiful crop. A sign of the great abundance of that blessing is when the stored food has to be cleared out for the new crop. ‫( אָסָם‬ʾāsām) At times the storage location itself is seen as part of the blessing. It is not only a means to keep an abundance of produce for later. ‫( אָסָם‬ʾāsām) occurs only twice in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, its meaning as ‘barn’ or ‘grain store’ is well established, not least because of its relationship to later Aramaic and Syriac words (see Meyer and Donner 1987–2013: 83).

‫( מְּגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ)

The blessing in Deuteronomy 28 is first described in the fruitfulness of the land, the animals and the people. It is then further elaborated. In Deuteronomy 28: 8, the blessings on grain stores are mentioned:

The word ‫( מְּגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ) for a large grain storage bin is known from the Mishnah. Whether, in Biblical Hebrew, it also represented some storage facility in the house or whether it was outside the house is difficult to judge from the few occurrences in the Old Testament. It refers to grain storage at the household level. Petterson suggests that a ‫( מְּגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ) is a storage pit, rather than an above-ground facility (Petterson 2015: 79).

‫שלַח ָי ֶד ָך ו ֵּב ַר ְכ ָך ָּב ָארֶץ‬ ְׁ ‫ְיצַו יְהוָה ִא ְּת ָך אֶת־ ַה ְּב ָרכָה ַּב ֲא ָסמֶי ָך ו ְּבכֹל ִמ‬ ‫אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ׃‬ YHWH will send you the blessing on your grain stores and on everything that you put your hand to and he will bless you in the land which YHWH, your God, is giving you. Just as the land provides for the people, so a full grain store is provision. That is why it can be blessed. Here it stands in parallel to ‘everything (you) put your hand to’. In all endeavours the people (here addressed in the masculine singular) will be successful; however, this success should not be immediately equated with the modern striving for success, but rather in the work to provide the necessities of life—especially working the fields (Haggai 2: 17). A good outcome of that work is never assured. Similarly, full grain stores are not a certainty. Observing the blessing in food provision is an acknowledgment that the people are not fully in control, that provision of food not only depends on the work of the hands, but also on the one who makes it prosper. While the blessing on the grain stores may refer mainly to a bountiful harvest, it may go further to include the success of that storage—that the crop is stored with little or no wastage.

In Haggai 2: 19, the word occurs in connection with blessing. In the preceding verses the prophet recounts how little the people have harvested. YHWH declares that he struck ‘all the work of your hands’ with blight, mildew and hail (Haggai 2: 17). That is, the field crops will not prosper as the farmers hoped. Even after harvest the produce is not safe. There is less in the grain heaps than initially gathered; there is less in the wine vats than pressed (Haggai 2: 16). The wastage referred to here is after harvest, but before storage. It comes at an unexpected moment. But now the prophet declares that the situation will change. For now the foundations of the temple have been laid. He describes the change from abandonment to blessing (Haggai 2: 19):

From a wisdom tradition, a similar statement can be made. Proverbs 3: 9–10 also mentions the grain stores that are plentiful.

Is there still any seed in the grain storage bin? Until now the wine, the fig tree, the pomegranate and the olive tree have not carried; from this day I will bless.

‫הַעוֹד הַזֶּרַע בַּמְּגוּרָה וְעַד־הַגֶּפֶן וְהַתְּאֵנָה וְהָרִמּוֹן וְעֵץ הַזַּיִת לֹא‬ ‫נָשָׂא מִן־הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אֲבָרֵךְ׃‬

72

Chapter 8 Food storage in the Old Testament

The verse could just describe a time of the agricultural year from which YHWH will bless the people.15 However, I would argue that the verse makes a more substantial statement and contrasts the new with the old: up to now provisions were low, but now YHWH will change this. YHWH will bless his people: the grain storage bins will be full, the tree crops will provide a rich harvest.

‫( חַת ּו ָג ְר ׄנתֵיהֶם‬ḥatû gārnotêhem), which would mean ‘their threshing floors are desolate’ (Garrett 1997: 329). It is likely that the phrase somehow refers to the overall drought situation. However, the other phrases referring to the two storage locations are clearer. The first word used for storehouses ‫( א ֹוצָר‬ʾôṣār) is more commonly used to describe the storehouses of the temple or the palace (see Section 8.3), and is generally not used in an agricultural setting. In this case it might have been used in parallel with ‫( ּמְגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ) to describe an agricultural or household installation, or its use might suggest that even the official storehouses were empty or in disrepair.

In either case, the grain storage bins are part of the blessing. There will be sufficient grain, whether for seed or food. This future blessing is the principal statement (Petterson 2015: 79–80). In the book of Joel, the word is used again, here in the description of a drought. Joel sees this drought as judgment and therefore issues a call for repentance. The description of the drought in Chapter 1 stands in contrast to the blessings promised in Chapter 2 of the book. It is the very absence of blessing. It should be noted that while much of the book of Joel describes a locust plague, Joel 1: 17–20 describes a drought. Part of that description is Joel 1: 17:

The second word used for a storage facility is probably the term ‫( ּמְגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ). This implies reading ‫( ְּמגֻרוֹת‬mĕgurôt) instead of the hapax legomena ‫( ַמ ְּמגֻרוֹת‬mammĕgurôt) (Crenshaw 1995: 109), or regarding this as a different version of the term (see KAHAL; Dietrich and Arnet 2013). It could also be seen as a partitive, implying that only some storage bins have broken down (see Crenshaw 1995: 109). However, the different readings of the word tend towards the same meaning. If the prophet at this stage laments that the storage bins have broken down, it is part of describing the situation without food supplies as it may happen during a drought. There is no grain to store. The absence of stored grain is seen as part of judgment and the absence of blessing.

‫עָבְשׁוּ פְרֻדוֹת תַּחַת מֶגְרְפֹתֵיהֶם נָשַׁמּוּ אֹצָרוֹת נֶהֶרְסוּ מַמְּגֻרוֹת כִּי‬ ‫הֹבִישׁ דָּגָן׃‬ The seeds have shrivelled beneath their clods; the storehouses are destroyed, the grain storage bins have broken down, for the grain has dried up.

A further version of the word may occur in Psalm 55:16 in the form of ‫( מְגוּרָם‬mĕgûrām), here with a third person plural suffix. Here it refers to the evil that is in their— the enemies’—chambers or houses. If grain storage bins are really alluded to here, it would be in a metaphorical sense.

The meaning of the first phrases is uncertain, because three of the first four words are hapax legomena (McComiskey 1992: 267). A translation, according to KAHAL (Dietrich and Arnet 2013), would result in the phrase ‘the grain reserves have dried under their digging tools’, while the Septuagint version would translate ‘heifers danced at their mangers’, suggesting that the words were uncertain by the time of the translation and were probably misunderstood (McComiskey 1992: 267). The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia suggests the reading

‫( אָגַר‬ʾāgar) It is likely that the word ‫( מְּגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ) was derived from the verb ‫( אָגַר‬ʾāgar). This verb occurs three times in the Old Testament with the likely meaning of gathering in crops. It is mentioned in Deuteronomy 28: 39, where the people are warned that they will plant and cultivate vineyards, but will not gather from them nor drink their wine. The verse forms part of the description of curses that the people will be subject to if they do not obey the commandments of the covenant.

The verse may be seen as just a time-reference to a season in the year when seeds are normally low in the household. If ‫( הַזֶּרַע‬hazzeraʿ) is seen as describing only seed grain, then the text refers to a time at which the seed would be planted—October to December. If ‫הַזֶּרַע‬ (hazzeraʿ) is seen to describe grain also stored for food, then the text is more likely to refer to a time shortly before the harvest in early summer (May). In the first case, the latter part of the verse would describe a tree crop failure, because grapes and the tree crops would have been harvested in the previous months (August to October). In the second case, it would refer more generally to the fact that the harvest of the tree crops is not here yet. However, a definite time is given for the speech, namely the 24th of the ninth month (Haggai 2: 10 and 2: 18), which would put this in December (Meyers and Meyers 1987: 55). Meyers and Meyers interpret the verse as saying that even though the tree crops have been destroyed earlier, the grain storage bins are still full (Meyers and Meyers 1987: 80). Therefore, there is evidence of YHWH’s blessing even at this stage of the agricultural year. It would represent a blessing over the stored grain, against a failure of the tree crop harvest. The verse could also contrast the past with the future: in the past there was no seed in the storage bin; the trees did not carry fruit—but from now on this will change (Petersen 1985: 94–95). 15

The word is used in Proverbs 6:8, where an ant is held up as a good, contrasting example for a lazy person: ‫תָּכִין בַּקַּיִץ לַחְמָהּ אָגְרָה בַקָּצִיר מַאֲכָלָהּ׃‬ It prepares its bread in summer; It gathers its food in the harvest. The gathering of food during the harvest does not indicate in itself that it will be stored, but in the context it is clear the sage advises that work is required at the 73

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah ‫מְזָוֵינוּ מְלֵאִים מְפִיקִים מִ‍זַּן אֶל־זַן צֹאונֵנוּ מַאֲלִיפוֹת מְרֻבָּבוֹת‬ ‫בְּחוּצוֹתֵינוּ׃‬

right time to have food later on. If a lazy person is asleep at the crucial time and does not gather, poverty will follow (Proverbs 6:11).

Our barns are filled, providing from sort to sort; our flocks increase a thousandfold and ten thousandfold in our streets.

The same message is given more concisely in Proverbs 10: 5:

The word ‫( זַן‬zan) is also a hapax legomenon. The meaning ‘sort’ has been taken from the old Persian (Dietrich and Arnet 2013). Whatever its exact meaning, in this sentence the word is used to state that the barns are well filled. The passage is part of joyous celebration of salvation and blessing expected for the people from YHWH. Full barns are part of that blessing, just as the fruitful flocks are. The obvious parallelism may indicate that the barns represent abundant field crops, while the flocks represent fruitful animals. Field crops and animal breeding are the two complementary spheres of agriculture in Ancient Israel. By mentioning both, this verse encompasses the whole agricultural provision from the land. The blessing here is not explicitly stated to be part of a covenant relationship, but rather is caused by YHWH being the God of his people, the one who helps them. Where YHWH acts, blessings and protection will ensue.

‫אֹגֵר בַּקַּיִץ בֵּן מַשְׂכִּיל נִרְדָּם בַּקָּצִיר בֵּן מֵבִישׁ׃‬ A prudent son gathers in summer, but a shameful son sleeps during the harvest. Gathering food at the right time and therefore working at that time is important in an agricultural society. It is the predictable aspect of food supplies that is emphasized in Proverbs. If you gather food during the harvest and store it, then you will have sufficient. The concept of blessing is less predictable—while humans can work to provide food, that work is only successful if it is blessed. The verb ‫( אָגַר‬ʾāgar) does not directly describe food storage, but it is used in contexts in which the idea of storage and food supply is crucial. ‫( אָסִף‬ʾāsip) The verb ‫( אָסִף‬ʾāsip) is used similarly to describe the gathering of the crop from the field to the house. Exodus 23: 10 describes the normal rhythm of agricultural life:

‫( טֶנֶא‬ṭeneʾ) and ‫( מִשְׁאֶרֶת‬mišʾeret) The word ‫( טֶנֶא‬ṭeneʾ)—basket—is probably not related to long-term storage, but is associated either with the harvest of fruit or together with the word ‫מִשְׁאֶרֶת‬ (mišʾeret)—kneading bowl—with the bread-making process in Deuteronomy 28: 4–5:

‫וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע אֶת־אַרְצֶךָ וְאָסַפְתָּ אֶת־תְּבוּאָתָהּ׃‬ For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield.

‫בָּרוּךְ פְּרִי־בִטְנְךָ וּפְרִי אַדְמָתְךָ וּפְרִי בְהֶמְתֶּךָ שְׁגַר אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרוֹת‬ ‫צֹאנֶךָ׃‬ ‫בָּרוּךְ טַנְאֲךָ וּמִשְׁאַרְתֶּךָ׃‬

The seventh year is different and the land should be rested. The normal order of working the land is interrupted. Gathering the produce in is a regular activity in the covenant between YHWH and his people.

Blessed be the fruit of your womb, the fruit of your soil, the fruit of your livestock—the young of your cattle and the increase of your flocks. Blessed be your basket and your kneading bowl.

In Job 39: 12 the word is used for bringing the grain from the field to the threshing floor. This is a normal part of agricultural activity, something that a domesticated ox would do. But the wild ox could not be used for that. It is clear that gathering and storage are part of settled life in contrast with the wild life of the animals.

This blessing has its counterpart curse in Deuteronomy 28: 16–19. The word ‫( טֶנֶא‬ṭeneʾ) is also used in Deuteronomy 26: 2+4. Here the farmer is told to put some of the first of ‘all the fruits of the soil’ in a basket and bring them to the sanctuary. The basket is here associated with harvest, transport, and offering. It is unlikely that ‘fruits of the soil’ refers only to fruit from trees. Nevertheless, the basket— ‫טֶנֶא‬ (ṭeneʾ)—might be particularly closely associated with fruit, as Jack Lundbom suggests (Lundbom 2013: 762). The blessing in Deuteronomy 28: 4–5 may therefore be an all-encompassing blessing, listing the fertility of humans, land, animals, tree crops and finally food processing.

‫( מֶזֶו‬mezew) This word is another hapax legomenon. Scholars disagree on what its basic form would have been. I have adopted the form of the word as listed in the New Strong’s Dictionary, though its derived basic form is also listed as ּ‫( מׇזו‬mǒzû) (Dietrich and Arnet 2013). The word is generally translated as ‘barn’. It occurs in Psalm 144: 13: 74

Chapter 8 Food storage in the Old Testament

If Deuteronomy 28: 5 is related to bread-making and therefore focuses on domestic activities in contrast to the field activities in Deuteronomy 28: 4, then the blessing includes the entire food production process. Probably not mentioned is food storage, but food storage should be seen in this overall movement of ‘putting food on the table’ or the all-encompassing blessing.

emphasis is on the provision of food for the household and the people in an uncertain world. The passages may be seen as part of large historical narratives, for life in the land is also situated in time and relationships. But the main emphasis is on the return of the seasons, the certainty of the next harvest, and the provision for the next year. I suggest that this is a strand that runs throughout Biblical literature, a strand that is not limited to a particular historical situation, geographical region (as far as regional variation can be identified), or ‘school’. It is a strand that is rooted in lifeways that involved living in the land and providing food from the land. By focusing on this we can explore ‘agricultural worldviews’, questions of how life made sense for the many farmers in Ancient Israel and Judah, in contrast to a focus on history of religion, which has been so dominant in past scholarship.

Food storage and blessing: a summary The daily concern of having sufficient to eat, a concern understandable in an ancient agricultural society, is reflected in many parts of the Bible. The supply of food is most often seen in terms of blessing, and the lack of food is considered the absence of blessing or more forcefully as a curse. Blessing may be seen as part of a covenant relationship, as evidence of God’s presence and attentiveness, or as the consequences of a wise person doing what pleases God. The different literary settings affect the emphasis and theological direction in which the concept of blessing is seen.

8.3 Food storage and royal administration Food storage is also repeatedly mentioned in another context in the Bible: royal administration. Because I am concentrating on household food storage, I will discuss the area of royal administration only briefly, but it must be mentioned, for just as there is overlapping vocabulary, so there were probably overlapping social realities.

To get an idea of the ways in which food storage may have fit into the worldview underlying the Bible, it must—not only, but also—be situated in this concept of blessing. That nearly all references to grain storage equipment and agricultural storage houses occur in texts that deal with blessing, absence of blessing, or cursing, strongly points to positing food storage within the concept of blessing. Food storage is normally not the dominant theme of these texts. It is incidental. And yet, food storage is there, is best considered in this light. In other words: if we start with blessing, our investigation of Biblical ideas would not necessarily lead to food storage, but if we start with food storage our investigation of Biblical ideas necessarily leads to blessing.

‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār) The word encountered most frequently in the Bible for any storage place is ‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār), derived from the root ‫( אָצַר‬ʾāṣar)—to gather. It occurs 79 times in the Old Testament, while the verb ‫( אָצַר‬ʾāṣar) occurs five times. The word ‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār) normally describes the temple or palace treasury, especially when it is raided to pay a foreign power. 2 Kings 16: 8 may serve as an example: ‫וַיִּקַּח אָחָז אֶת־הַכֶּסֶף וְאֶת־הַזָּהָב הַנִּמְצָא בֵּית יְהוָה וּבְאֹצְרוֹת בֵּית‬ ‫הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּשְׁלַח לְמֶלֶךְ־אַשּׁוּר שֹׁחַד׃‬

The most explicit articulation of blessing theology is in the book of Deuteronomy. It is little wonder that in this book, food storage is most clearly seen in the context of blessing. But there is evidence of a similar approach in Leviticus and in the Prophets, particularly the Minor Prophets. The concept of food provision as blessing, and the mention of food storage associated with it, is also present in the Psalms and the book of Proverbs, though seen from a different angle.

Ahaz took the silver and gold found in the house of YHWH and in the treasuries of the house of the king and sent it as a gift to the king of Assyria. From the text it seems that mainly items of wealth, not food, were stored in these treasuries. While the temple had its own collection of valuables, it seems that they were also somehow under the control of the king. It is only in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah that we read about people giving food items to the temple treasury. While there are references in Deuteronomy to bringing food ‘to the place that YHWH, your God, will choose’ (Deuteronomy 12: 11; 14: 22–24; 26: 2), the clear connection between food and temple treasuries is only present in literature that clearly refers to the postexilic situation. At that time there may have been an emphasis on food donations to the temple. While in the

By extending the blessing to storage facilities, it also includes an element of averting any threat to the provisions of life and the rhythms that are necessary for life. Blessing is the opposite of a curse, when what makes for life is disrupted. Most of the passages speak directly into an agrarian way of life. Cultic matters may be part of that, for cult was essential to the proper life in the land. But the main 75

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah ‫אוֹצָר נֶחְמָד וָשֶׁמֶן בִּנְוֵה חָכָם וּכְסִיל אָדָם יְבַלְּעֶנּוּ׃‬

literature referring to pre-exilic times the focus is often on the king, in these two books the temple stands at the centre. But I would also suggest that Biblical texts that are clearly late (Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles) indicate a concern with more centralised food storage, a concern that is generally lacking from (possibly) earlier texts.

A pleasant store and oil are in the abode of the wise, but a foolish man devours it. The text seems to imply that the wise man, in contrast to the fool, has wealth and sufficient food, at least in part because he knows how to properly use and store it, rather than to use it all up. Rather than being a statement about food storage, it is about the proper care of possessions and the general advantage of a wise life, which results in wealth and the security of abundant stores.

The two references, where ‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār) probably refers to royal food storage, are in 1 & 2 Chronicles. 1 Chronicles 27: 25–31 lists officials who were responsible for some aspect of David’s property, generally some agricultural production unit of the royal estate. Azmaveth, son of Adiel, is listed as set over the royal storehouses, while Jonathan, son of Uzziah, is said to have been over the storehouses in the country. It implies that agricultural products, most likely food items, were kept in these country storehouses. Rather than any products collected from the population at large, the text indicates that the royal storehouses were used for products from the royal estate. A more general role of the king to store food might be indicated by 2 Chronicles 11: 11. After describing Rehoboam building 15 defensive towns in Benjamin and Judah, the text continues:

The term ‫( א ֹוצָר‬ʾôṣār) can also be used poetically to describe God’s actions. Jeremiah 10: 13 may serve as an example. In Jeremiah 10, the prophet contrasts YHWH with the idols. As part of illustrating the actions of God, Jeremiah 10: 13 describes how YHWH controls the weather: ‫לְקוֹל תִּתּוֹ הֲמוֹן מַיִם בַּשָּׁמַיִם וַיַּעֲלֶה נְשִׂאִים מִ‍קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ‬ ‫בְּרָקִים לַמָּטָר עָשָׂה וַיּוֹצֵא רוּחַ מֵ‍אֹצְרֹתָיו׃‬ At the voice of his uttering (there is) the roar of the waters of heaven and clouds come from the end of the earth; lightning for rain he makes and brings forth the wind from his storehouses.

‫וַיְחַזֵּק אֶת־הַמְּצֻרוֹת וַיִּתֵּן בָּהֶם נְגִידִים וְאֹצְרוֹת מַאֲכָל וְשֶׁמֶן וָיָיִן׃‬ He strengthened the fortifications and placed in them commanders and storehouses of food, oil and wine.

The storehouses here show the control of YHWH over the wind. YHWH sends rain, snow and wind. The forces of nature are at his command. They are not other, independent forces, but tools that YHWH stores and uses. The use of ‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār) in this picture allows us to conclude that in these poetic passages an attitude emerges that having something in a storehouse is to have control over it.

Here the word ‫( א ֹוצָר‬ʾôṣār) is clearly linked to food storage. But it is not clear how this food storage would have functioned. Did the author attempt to portray food stores for the army, emergency stores for siege, central food storage of a city or a district, taxation centres, or storehouses of the royal household? The words allow many options. But it is clear that the author of Chronicles saw food storage as a proper exercise of royal power.

‫( חֹסֶן‬ḥōsen)

In the Prophets, the loss of storehouses—using the word ‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār)—through enemies is mentioned in speeches of judgment (Isaiah 30: 6; Jeremiah 15: 13, 17: 3, 20: 5, 50: 37; Hosea 13: 15). It picks up the theme in the books of Kings and Chronicles, where the loss of treasures in war is seen as part of national disaster and judgment.

The word ‫( חֹסֶן‬ḥōsen) is a more abstract reference to stored wealth. It is usually translated as either strength or wealth, indicating that they were seen as linked. For wealth enables the holder to act (Staubli and Schroer 2014: 251). As the word is often associated with the relative strength of a city or king, wealth shows the prominence and status of the city. Defeat and loss of the wealth are an indication of weakness. In a speech of judgment, Jeremiah declares (Jeremiah 20: 5):

Contrasting with that, there are other occurrences in the Old Testament, where ‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār) probably does not refer to royal storage, but to storage at a household level. So, in Joel 1: 17 the term ‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār) is used to describe what are probably local, household storehouses (see Section 8.2). Now, after a drought, they were empty. In Proverbs ‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār) is used to describe private property, given by wisdom (Proverbs 8: 21), obtained in wickedness (Proverbs 10: 2), owned in turmoil (Proverbs 15: 16), or gained through a false tongue (Proverbs 21: 6). Proverbs 21: 20 refers to stores, set in parallel with oil, and therefore may refer to food. But it is generally the wealth that is emphasized:

‫וְנָתַתִּי אֶת־כָּל־חֹסֶן הָעִיר הַזֹּאת וְאֶת־כָּל־יְגִיעָהּ וְאֶת־כָּל־יְקָרָהּ וְאֵת‬ ‫כָּל־אוֹצְרוֹת מַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה אֶתֵּן בְּיַד אֹיְבֵיהֶם וּבְזָזוּם וּלְקָחוּם וֶהֱבִיאוּם‬ ‫בָּבֶלָה׃‬ I will give all the wealth of this city and all its gains and all its prized belongings, and all the stores of the king of Judah I will give into the hand of their enemies and they will plunder them and will take them and will bring them to Babylon. 76

Chapter 8 Food storage in the Old Testament

It is the kingly wealth that enhances the status of Jersualem. Its loss will indeed be judgment. The loss of such storehouses is a sign that the enemies have wrought victory over a city.

not clearly spelled out, but their connection with royal power is clear. It is, however, in the book of Chronicles that the term ‫( מִסְכְּנָה‬miskĕnâ) is used more frequently. The verses 2 Chronicles 8: 4+6 echo 1 Kings 9: 19 and mention again the store cities that Solomon built, using the phrase ‫( עָרֵי הַמִּסְכְּנוֹת‬ʿārê hammiskĕnôt) twice. In 2 Chronicles 16: 4 the word is used again. During a campaign of Ben-Hadad, king of Aram, together with Asa, king of Judah, against Baasha, king of Israel, the allied kings captured a number of named towns and ‘all the stores of the cities of Naphtali’. The role of these cities in the kingdom of Israel is not spelled out, but the author seems to suggest that they formed part of king Baasha’s royal administration in Israel.

Isaiah turns such a notion of wealth, security and status around by saying that not storehouses full of precious materials, but YHWH, is the real treasure of Jerusalem. Isaiah 33: 6 puts it poetically: ‫וְהָיָה אֱמוּנַת עִתֶּיךָ חֹסֶן יְשׁוּעֹת חָכְמַת וָדָעַת יִרְאַת יְהוָה הִיא אוֹצָרוֹ׃‬ He will be the steadiness of your times, the wealth of salvation and wisdom and knowledge, the fear of YHWH that is her store.16 The term can also be used for more private wealth, particularly in the book of Proverbs. It is the provision that makes life secure. It seems to refer to long-term security that is won by the household over many years, rather than to the annual, but less secure harvest that provides food for the coming year. Proverbs 27: 24 warns that even such long-term wealth is not necessarily secure (see Section 8.5). Proverbs 15: 6 contrasts the wise, who gathers wealth over time, with the fool, whose income is lost:

As part of describing Jehoshaphat’s greatness, the books of Chronicles states that he built store cities. 2 Chronicles 17: 12 reads: ‫וַיְהִי יְהוֹשָׁפָט הֹלֵךְ וְגָדֵל עַד־לְמָעְלָה וַיִּבֶן בִּיהוּדָה בִּירָנִיּוֹת וְעָרֵי‬ ‫מִסְכְּנוֹת׃‬ And Jehoshaphat was evermore becoming great and he built in Judah fortresses and store cities. The building of store cities shows the royal power and the extent of Jehoshaphat’s success and royal splendour. It seems that building store cities was the proper task of a successful king. And the Chronicler certainly portrays Jehoshaphat as such.

‫בֵּית צַדִּיק חֹסֶן רָב וּבִתְבוּאַת רָשָׁע נֶעְכָּרֶת׃‬ In the house of the righteous there is much wealth; but the income of the wicked is afflicted. Gathering and losing wealth is a matter of wisdom in this sharp contrast. It is all part of the overall scheme of Proverbs to contrast wisdom and righteousness with folly and wickedness (Fox 2009: 510).

Hezekiah is similarly said to have built stores for food products. In Chronicles 32: 27–28 there is a clear distinction between the royal treasuries—‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār)— in which items of wealth were kept, and the stores for food— ‫( מִסְכְּנָה‬miskĕnâ):

‫( מִסְכְּנָה‬miskĕnâ) The word ‫( מִסְכְּנָה‬miskĕnâ) is used only in connection with royal storage in the Old Testament. It is usually linked with the word ‫( עִיר‬ʿîr)—city—to denote a store city. Krzysztof Baranowski suggests that the word came into Canaanite from the Akkadian during the Late Bronze Age, and from there found its way into Hebrew, rather than being a loan word from Neo-Assyrian (Baranowski 2017).

‫וַיְהִי לִיחִזְקִיָּהוּ עֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד וְאֹצָרוֹת עָשָׂה־לוֹ לְכֶסֶף‬ ‫וּלְזָהָב וּלְאֶבֶן יְקָרָה וְלִבְשָׂמִים וּלְמָגִנִּים וּלְכֹל כְּלֵי חֶמְדָּה׃‬ ‫וּמִסְכְּנוֹת לִתְבוּאַת דָּגָן וְתִירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר וְאֻרָוֹת לְכָל־בְּהֵמָה וּבְהֵמָה‬ ‫וַעֲדָרִים לָאֲוֵרוֹת׃‬ Hezekiah had riches and very great honour; he made for himself treasuries for the silver, gold, valuable stones, spices, shields and all precious things; he made stores for the harvest of grain, wine and olive oil; stalls for all the cattle and pens for the flocks.

In Exodus 1: 11, the Israelites are said to have built two store cities for Pharaoh—Pithom and Rameses. In 1 Kings 9:19, in a summary of Solomon’s building activities, the word ‫( מִסְכְּנָה‬miskĕnâ) is mentioned again. After naming a few specific cities, the account then states that Solomon built store cities, chariot cities and cavalry cities. The function of these store cities is

The verses portray the wealth of Hezekiah, both in valuable items such as gold and silver, as well as in agricultural products. As such, he was a successful king. Overall, the use of the word ‫( מִסְכְּנָה‬miskĕnâ) shows royal storage of agricultural products. How these agricultural products were acquired and for what purpose is not clear from the texts. However, it was the mark of a king

This translation would require reading ֹּ‫ או ֹ ָצרָה‬referring back to the feminine Zion. 16

77

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah to have such storage places. The more frequent mention of the word in the books of Chronicles may indicate that this aspect of kingship became more important at the time of the Chronicler. We do not know to what extent it does reflect the practice during the Iron Age, Persian Period or Hellenistic Period. But based on the greater emphasis put on central, royal storage in clearly later literature, the books may indicate a move towards more centralised storage in the Persian Period.

The food should be a reserve for the land for the seven bad years that will be in the land of Egypt, so that the land will not be destroyed in the famine. The first word to relate to storage — ‫( קָבַץ‬qābaṣ) — is used most often in the Old Testament to describe the gathering of people, and only very seldom (see, for example, Micah 4: 12) in relation to agricultural products. It is not a term to designate storage, but rather of bringing together something that is dispersed. The word ‫( צָבַר‬ṣābar), on the other hand, is used in the Old Testament to describe collected wealth. But it occurs only seven times in the Old Testament, twice in the Joseph story. Only in those two instances does it relate to the storage or collection of food. The final verb in relation to the grain is ‫( שָׁמָר‬šāmār), which has a very wide spectrum of meaning in the Old Testament, including to guard, to protect, to conserve, to keep (laws), to keep (back). It is not a word that would indicate royal food storage. Similarly, the word for city is used in a variety of contexts. The word ‫( פִּקָּדוֹן‬piqqādôn), here translated as ‘reserve’, only occurs otherwise in Leviticus 5: 21–24 (English Leviticus 6: 2–5), where it refers to entrusted property in something akin to a bailment situation.

‫( מַעֲבוּס‬maʿăbûs) This is another hapax legomenon. It only occurs in Jeremiah 50: 26 and has generally been interpreted as storehouse, granary or grain pit (see Dietrich and Arnet 2013: 274; Meyer and Donner 1987–2013: 619), but also as cattle pen (Clines et al. 2001: 102). It probably refers to city storehouses, whether they were administered through the royal hierarchy or in some other way. In Jeremiah, it is used in a judgment speech against Babylon. In this context, it is the destruction of wealth that is important, not the provision of food or the relationship of the people to property. The use of the word is therefore similar to the use of ‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār) in judgment speeches. That it is food that may be stored is hardly relevant, except in the connection to the simile in which the destroyed Babylon is compared to heaps of grain.

The absence of words that are otherwise connected with royal food storage may suggest that the Joseph story does not have the same perspective on royal and temple wealth as is particularly present in the books of Kings and some of the Prophets, nor the centralised food storage that displays the power of the king, found in the books of Chronicles. The Joseph story is not a foreshadowing, reflection on, or recommendation of Israelite kingship (Seebass 2000: 9). Rather, like the Joseph story as a whole, the successful storage of food was seen as a link in a divinely ordained course of human history (Speiser 1964: 292). The emphasis is on Joseph and on what God has done through him. Maybe this overall thrust is best expressed in words put in Joseph’s mouth, when he makes himself known to his brothers (Genesis 45: 5; see also Longacre 1989: 43): ‘And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you.’

‫בֹּאוּ־לָהּ מִ‍קֵּץ פִּתְחוּ מַאֲבֻסֶיהָ סָלּוּהָ כְמוֹ־‍עֲרֵמִים וְהַחֲרִימוּהָ אַל־תְּהִי־‬ ‫לָהּ שְׁאֵרִית׃‬ Come against her from everywhere, open her granaries, pile her up like piles of grain and destroy her until no remnant is left of her. The Joseph narrative Probably the most dramatic account of royal food storage is the Joseph story in Genesis. However, very few words otherwise associated with royal storage are used in the story. Neither the word ‫( מִסְכְּנָה‬miskĕnâ) nor the word ‫( אוֹצָר‬ʾôṣār) appear. Rather, common Hebrew words are used, but in a context that makes it clear they relate to royal administration of food storage. After Joseph interprets the dream of the Pharaoh, he suggests that an administrator and overseers should be appointed to prepare for the famine. He describes their proposed task in Genesis 41: 35–36:

There is another part of the Joseph story that is not necessarily part of the main narrative thrust, but includes consideration of food storage, namely the land transactions described in Genesis 47: 13–26. In exchange for the stored grain, Joseph first takes the money, then the livestock, and lastly the land and indebtedness of the Egyptian people as payment. It may be seen as an unattached description of economic processes that occur through food storage, as a critique of royal power, or as praise of Joseph’s shrewd management practices on behalf of the Pharaoh and the Egyptian people. As E.A. Speiser points out, the account seems to keep Joseph in an entirely positive light (Speiser 1962: 353).

‫וְיִקְבְּצוּ אֶת־כָּל־אֹכֶל הַשָּׁנִים הַטֹּבֹת הַבָּאֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְיִצְבְּרוּ־בָר תַּחַת‬ ‫יַד־פַּרְעֹה אֹכֶל בֶּעָרִים וְשָׁמָרוּ׃‬ ‫וְהָיָה הָאֹכֶל לְפִקָּדוֹן לָאָרֶץ לְשֶׁבַע שְׁנֵי הָרָעָב אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶיןָ בְּאֶרֶץ‬ ‫מִצְרָיִם וְלֹא־תִכָּרֵת הָאָרֶץ בָּרָעָב׃‬ They should gather all the food of these coming good years and heap up grain under the hand of the Pharaoh as food in cities and they should keep it. 78

Chapter 8 Food storage in the Old Testament

It should therefore not be seen as a critique of royal policy. For through Joseph’s actions, the Egyptians were indeed saved and the Egyptian state ordered in a way that is close to the Egyptian ideal (Seebass 2000: 145). I would suggest that it may also be seen as an etiological story to account for the particular Egyptian landholding system. The result is a landholding system that is totally at odds with the ideal landholding concept in Israel, as portrayed by the Old Testament (Seebass 2000: 141). In the final verses of the chapter (Genesis 47: 28–31), Jacob makes Joseph swear that he will bury him with his fathers and not in Egypt. This reinforces the contrast between the land of Israel and Egypt. There, a land based on family inheritance; here, an empire based on servitude to the Pharaoh.

point to a particular, restricted useage, it may also give us indications about the possible use of such vessels for long-term storage. Even though the useage of a particular word may have varied, most of the passages can be easily reconciled to give an indication of the vessel that is referred to. Just as in later times, vessels were probably not only used for one particular purpose, but rather used flexibly. ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) There are ten references to ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) as a storage container in the Old Testament. In six of these cases, the word is paired with the expression ‫( יָיִן‬yāyin)—wine (1 Samuel 1: 24; 10: 3; 25: 18; 2 Samuel 16: 1; Jeremiah 13: 12)—or used in conjunction with references to the winemaking process (Jeremiah 48: 12). Job 38: 37 uses the image of jars to paint a picture of water being poured from heaven over the dry ground. In the remaining passages (Isaiah 22: 24; Isaiah 30: 14, Lamentations 4: 2), it is the jar’s characteristic as a ceramic vessel that is relevant. The word ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) therefore is likely to describe a ceramic jar used to contain liquids—in most cases, wine. It is noteworthy that in all the passages in 1 & 2 Samuel, the wine jars are being transported by donkeys, so that by relying only on these texts the word ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) may primarily be seen as a transport container.17

Even though the account of the land policy is not an anthropological explanation of the emergence of new social structures, it does display a sensitivity to the different social structures and their origins in possible crisis situations, which also affect the ideology and traditions of a society. Food storage can have lasting social effects and is intrinsically connected to economic and social realities. Food storage and royal administration: a summary While in much of the Bible, the keeping of treasures was seen as the proper activity of kings and the temple as an institution, more centralised food storage seems to have become more of a concern, and especially seen as the proper role of a king, in the later, post-exilic, context. We should certainly exercise some caution suggesting royal food storage during the Iron Age based on the textual record. The contrast between Egyptian and Israelite landholding practices, reflected in the texts, may also be relevant to the food storage practices in those countries. Therefore, Egyptian food storage practices, as for example the large granaries, should not be assumed to have existed in Ancient Israel or Judah. That does not mean that archaeological remains cannot be interpreted as large, even royally administered, storage facilities, but that there is little textual support for these. The texts do speak of some royal food storage, but the extent of that storage, and whether it was limited to royal estates, is not known. On the other hand, the texts suggest that at least some of the agricultural products would have been stored at the household level.

While the word ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) is also used to describe a harp, which was built from wood and in some instances maybe skins, the clear references to ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) as a ceramic vessel suggest that it was a clay jar. Lamentations 4: 2 reads: ‫בְּנֵי צִיּוֹן הַיְקָרִים הַמְסֻלָּאִים בַּפָּז אֵיכָה נֶחְשְׁבוּ לְנִבְלֵי־חֶרֶשׂ מַעֲשֵׂה‬ ‫יְדֵי יוֹצֵר‬ The sons of Zion, were they not precious to be compared with pure gold; how are they regarded as ceramic jars made by the hand of the potter? Isaiah 30: 14 refers to a jar being shattered in many pieces: ‫ׂוּשְׁבָרָהּ כְּ‍שֵׁבֶר נֵבֶל יוֹצְרִים כָּתוּת לֹא יַחְמֹל וְלֹא־יִמָּצֵא בִמְכִתָּתוֹ חֶרֶש‬ ‫לַחְתּוֹת אֵשׁ מִ‍יָּקוּד וְלַחְשֹׂף מַיִם מִ‍גֶּבֶא׃‬ It [the sin] will break like the breaking of a jar of potters, broken and he has not pity; and there will not be found among its broken pieces a sherd to pick up fire from the hearth or to clean water from the cistern.

8.4 Food storage technology: the vessels Scattered throughout the Old Testament are references to food stored in various vessels. In this section, I will investigate how the vessels might have been used and which commodities were stored in them. Some vessels are mentioned in the Old Testament only in the context of food transport or short-term storage. While that may

Kelso suggests that in the historical books ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) means wine skin, probably because in these books the term appears in connection with transporting wine (Kelso 1948: 25). An assumption that jars were not suited for transport underlies this assessment. We do, however, have evidence that jars were transported on donkeys in the Ancient Mediterranean (see Section 7.1). 17

79

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Both passages emphasize the material with which ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) was made—fired clay. It is not made from precious material such as gold, but from ordinary clay. Such ceramic jars also break relatively easily, breaking into many pieces. They are therefore used in this picture, where something whole is totally destroyed. The various secondary uses of potsherds give further colour to this picture of clay jars.

In contrast, in the story in 1 Kings 17: 7–16, a ‫( כַּד‬kad) is used to store flour. Ethnographic parallels show that flour was usually not kept for long, but was often ground daily. It was grain that was stored in large quantities. Flour would have been kept in a smaller container, ready for a few days’ use. It is therefore likely that the ‫כַּד‬ (kad) referred to here was a smaller jar. It is interesting to note that the more generic term ‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî) is used in 1 Kings 17: 10 to describe the vessel with which the widow is to fetch water. Was the word applied to different jars in different historical or geographic contexts?

Isaiah 22: 24 is part of a poetic description of Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, a court official under Hezekiah. To express his importance in the family, the Prophet says that all vessels hang from him and therefore are dependent on him, from the smallest—in this case bowls—to the largest—in this case ‫( נְבָלִים‬nĕbālîm). The ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) therefore was a large jar.

We get a further indication of the size of the jars in the story of Gideon’s victory over the Midianites (Judges 7: 16–22). Each of Gideon’s warriors is carrying a torch in a ‫( ּכַד‬kad) as they descended on the Midianites. They broke the jars so that the flaming torches could be seen. While it is not fully clear, the text seems to suggest that the men held the jars with the torches in one hand and the trumpets in the other. If that is the case, the jars must be imagined as small enough to be carried with one hand, probably with a handle, but also large enough to hold a flaming torch. It is unlikely that the word ‫( ּכַד‬kad) in this account refers to a large jar, as it would have to be carried up a hill in the dark. The passage does not give us any indication of the normal use of the ‫( ּכַד‬kad), as the use in battle is clearly an odd, exceptional one.

That conclusion is also supported by the Samaria Ostraca, where the word occurs frequently. The ostraca are administrative records of agricultural goods being paid by villages in the Samaria highlands to the palace (see Renz 1995: 79–110). The goods are usually described as ‫( נבל ין ישן‬nbl yn yšn)—a jar of old wine—or ‫נבל שמן רחץ‬ (nbl šmn rḥṣ)—a jar of fine oil. The ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) seems to have been the main unit for agricultural liquid goods. The word refers to a unit of measure as well as storage and transport container. Interestingly, only wine and oil and no other agricultural goods are mentioned in these ostraca.

A reference to ‫( ּכַד‬kad) was also found on sherds found at Kinneret (Dobbs-Allsopp 2005: 398). The inscription ‫ כד השער‬could refer to a jar of barley or the jar of the gate. Interpreters seem to prefer the latter, arguing that it indicates a standard measure, just like the lmlk jars. However, the lmlk jars are clearly not a standard measure and other jars also vary considerably in their measurement, even though the overall shape may be similar. Therefore, the concept of a standard measure is doubtful.

‫( כַּד‬kad) The word ‫( כַּד‬kad) is mentioned 20 times in the Old Testament, but in just five distinct passages. In some passages it is repeated frequently. In Genesis 24: 12–46 it occurs ten times and always relates to the jar with which water is drawn from the well. Rebekah drew water for the servant of Abraham as well as for his camels when she came to collect water at the well. In Qohelet 12: 6 it similarly refers to the water jar. The Teacher advises to remember ‘your creator’ in the days of the youth before old age. He uses a long list of metaphors to describe the old age and the end of life. One of these metaphors is:

Overall, the ‫( כַּד‬kad) was probably a medium-sized jar, smaller than the ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel). The reference was mostly applied to a water jar, though a jar for storing food, such as flour, could also be referred to as ‫( כַּד‬kad). ‫( צַּפָּחַת‬ṣappaḥat)

ַ‫וְתִשָּׁבֶר כַּד עַל־הַמַּבּוּע‬

A further storage vessel is the ‫( צַּפָּחַת‬ṣappaḥat). It is mentioned seven times in the Old Testament, occurring in three different passages. In 1 Kings 17: 7–16, oil is stored in a ‫( צַּפָּחַת‬ṣappaḥat). However, it is unclear whether this is for long-term storage or just for short-term storage during food preparation. It is used in parallel with the ‫( כַּד‬kad). Only ‘a trifle of oil’ is said to remain in the ‫( צַּפָּחַת‬ṣappaḥat). It could therefore refer to a small jug, where oil could have been kept ready for food processing, or to a large jar similar to a ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel).

[before...] the jar breaks at the spring. Just as in drawing water, the jar can break at any time, so life can end quickly. In 1 Kings 18: 34 (Hebrew; 1 Kings 18: 33 English), water jars are used to drench the sacrifice and wood of the altar with water at the contest between Baal and YHWH organized by Elijah. While there is no mention in this passage of a ‫( כַּד‬kad) being used to collect water at the well, it is clear that it is a water jar. 80

Chapter 8 Food storage in the Old Testament

Other uses of the word ‫( ַּצ ָּפחַת‬ṣappaḥat) in the Old Testament indicate that it probably refers to a small jar, a jug or even a flask. In 1 Samuel 26: 7–16, the word ‫( ַּצ ָּפחַת‬ṣappaḥat) refers to the personal water jug of King Saul that David took from beside his head as he slept. The ‫( ַּצ ָּפחַת‬ṣappaḥat) was a personal item that the king kept close even at night.

probably expect a smaller vessel from which the oil was poured on the body. Therefore, I am not that comfortable with Kelso’s suggestion that it refers to medium-sized oil jars with a spout, in which a juglet could be placed (see Kelso 1948: 16, 47). Müller’s suggestion that the word refers to a dipper juglet is preferable (Müller 1977: 183).

In 1 Kings 19: 6, Elijah wakes up to find freshly-baked bread and a ‫( צַּפָּחַת‬ṣappaḥat) of water beside him so that he could eat and drink and strengthen himself. These are for immediate consumption. It is therefore likely that the ‫( צַּפָּחַת‬ṣappaḥat) here refers to a smaller vessel.

‫( בַּקְבֻּק‬baqbuq) The word ‫( בַּקְבֻּק‬baqbuq) is used three times in the Old Testament passage and clearly denotes a ceramic vessel. It occurs twice in Jeremiah 19: 1–13, a passage in which YHWH directs Jeremiah to take a ‫( בַּקְבֻּק‬baqbuq) from the potter and break it while saying words of judgment. This tells us little about its purpose. In 1 Kings 14: 3, it is used to hold ׁ‫( דְּבַש‬dĕbaš)—honey, either from dates or bees. It indicates that it was unlikely to be a large vessel, nor would it have been a small juglet. Kelso notes that it is an onomatopoeic word that imitates the gurgling sound and therefore had a narrow neck (Kelso 1948: 17). He identifies it with the decanter, which became very common in the seventh and sixth centuries in Judah.

‫( אַגָּן‬ʾaggān) From the occurrences in the Old Testament it is unlikely that ‫( אַגָּן‬ʾaggān) referred to a storage vessel. Rather, it probably referred to bowls. In Exodus 24: 6, Moses uses such bowls to collect the blood of sacrificed young bulls. In Song of Songs 7: 2, the navel of the beloved is compared to a bowl that never lacks wine. And in Isaiah 22: 24, these bowls are seen as small vessels, when the whole family of Eliakim is described as pottery vessels from the smallest— ‫(אַגָּן‬ʾaggān)—to the largest— ‫(נֵבֶל‬nēbel).18

‫( נֹאד‬nōʾd)

However, the term ‫(אַגָּן‬ʾaggān) also occurs in an extrabiblical Hebrew Iron Age inscription (Aharoni 1981: 12– 14). Arad Ostracon I directs Eliashib, the commander of Arad, to give the Kittiyim (probably Greek mercenaries) wine and flour. The wine and flour are further specified. The last two lines of the ostracon read:

The word ‫( נֹאד‬nōʾd) occurs just six times in the Old Testament, three times in connection with the expression ‫( ָייִן‬yāyin)—wine (Joshua 9: 4; Joshua 9: 13; 1 Samuel 16: 20). Based on later Hebrew and Akkadian, the meaning of leather skin is given (for example, Dietrich and Arnet 2013: 334). Joshua 9 tells the story of the Gibeonites making a treaty with Joshua and the Israelites through deception. The Gibeonites made the Israelites believe that they had travelled from afar. Part of this deception was through the appearance of the equipment they carried on their donkeys. Joshua 9: 4 reads:

‫[ מיין הגנת תתן‬...] [...]Give [them] from the wine of the ʾaggānōt. Was this wine kept in ʾaggānōt vessels? Or was it a wine drunk in these vessels, so that somehow the name of the drinking vessels became attached to the wine? Taken together with the Biblical references, it is more likely that ‫(אַגָּן‬ʾaggān) refers to a drinking bowl.

‫וַיַּעֲשׂוּ גַם־הֵמָּה בְּעָרְמָה וַיֵּלְכוּ וַיִּצְטַיָּרוּ וַיִּקְחוּ שַׂקִּים בָּלִים לַחֲמוֹרֵיהֶם‬ ‫וְנֹאדוֹת יַיִן בָּלִים וּמְבֻקָּעִים וּמְצֹרָרִים׃‬ And then they made a deception: they walked and made a deputation and put old sacks on their donkeys and old wine skins that were torn and patched.

ְ‫( אָסוּך‬ʾāsûk) The ‫( אָסו ְּך‬ʾāsûk) is mentioned only once in the Old Testament (2 Kings 4: 2). The widow of a man from the band of prophets cries out for help in her abject poverty. All she has is an ‫( אָסו ְּך‬ʾāsûk) of oil. While the purpose of the vessel as oil storage vessel is clear, it does not make it clear whether it is large or small, for long term storage or more for short term. The verb from which the noun is derived is ‫( סו ְּך‬sûk). It was usually used to denote washing with oil. If the meaning of the noun is related to this action, we would

While ceramic vessels were mended in antiquity, it is more feasible that skin containers were patched. The words ‘torn and patched’ may also apply to the sacks as well as the skins, implying that a similar process was used to mend them both. In Judges 4: 19, the word ‫( נֹאד‬nōʾd) is used in conjunction with ‫( חָלָב‬ḥālāb)—milk. While skins would have been used to store milk for a few hours or milk products for longer periods, here Jael seems to give Sisera some milk directly from the skin. It is practically used as a serving dish.

Kelso identifies the ‫( אַגָּן‬ʾaggān) as a large krater in which wine was mixed (Kelso 1948: 15–16). He interprets Isaiah 22: 24 differently, arguing that it refers to two large vessels—the ‫( אַגָּן‬ʾaggān) and the ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel). 18

81

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah In Psalm 56: 9, God is asked to put the tears of the Psalmist in his skin. This metaphor implies that such skins were used to contain liquids. However, because the metaphor of recording is prominent in the verse, it has been suggested (for example, in the NIV) to read ‫( נֹאד‬nōʾd) as a scroll made from animal skin. In Psalm 119: 83, the Psalmist compares himself to a skin in the smoke, probably referring to the hide-smoking process.

to ceramic vessels. However, it has a range of other meanings, from weapon to temple utensil and sexual organ. While it seems to have a quite specific meaning at times, often the word seems to have a similar spectrum as the English word ‘thing’. At times, the main emphasis of the word ‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî) is to describe some pottery vessel, for example, because it can be broken (Psalm 31: 13 [English 31: 12] and Jeremiah 22: 28 and 25: 34), or the clay can be reshaped into another vessel (Jeremiah 18: 4). Sometimes the word is specifically described as pottery vessel by adding the word ׂ‫( חֶרֶש‬ḥereś)—ceramic—to the word (Leviticus 6: 21 [English 6: 28]; Leviticus 11: 33; Leviticus 14: 5; Leviticus 14: 50; Leviticus 15: 12; Numbers 5: 17; Jeremiah 32: 14) or the word ‫( יוֹצֵר‬yôṣēr)—potter— (Psalm 2: 9; Jeremiah 19: 11). In Psalm 2: 9 and Jeremiah 19: 11, the breaking of the pot is important. Leviticus 6: 21[6: 28 English] contrasts the clay pot with the bronze pot. In Leviticus 14: 5, 14: 50 and Numbers 5: 17, the clay jar holds water; in Jeremiah 32: 14, it is used to safeguard scrolls. In other passages, ‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî) is used to describe a vessel that holds some product: water (Numbers 19: 17; Ruth 2: 9; 1 Kings 17: 10; Jeremiah 14: 3), oil (2 Kings 4: 3–6), wine (Jeremiah 48: 11–12), grain (Ezekiel 4: 9), meat (Isaiah 65: 4), the harvest of different products (Jeremiah 40: 10), or some other non-specified product (Numbers 19: 15; Jeremiah 51: 34). In Isaiah 22: 24, the word ‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî) is specifically used as the generic term for ceramic vessels. But the term ‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî) does not always denote a ceramic vessel when it refers to a container. In Genesis 42: 25 and 43: 11, it is used interchangeably with the word ‫( שַׂק‬śaq)— sack—as the transport vessel for grain. The vessel mentioned in Deuteronomy 23: 25 [English 23: 24] might be a basket, as it refers to harvesting fruit. The word ‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî) may even have been used here to cover all containers that could be used to harvest fruit.19

The term ‫( נֹאד‬nōʾd) in Biblical Hebrew therefore refers to animal skins and skin containers used to store and transport liquids. The Old Testament mentions them as containers for wine and milk. ‫( שַׂק‬śaq) The word ‫( שַׂק‬śaq) occurs 61 times in the Old Testament. Nearly all of the references are to putting on sackcloth as an expression of lament or humility. But some of the verses clearly refer to sacks used to store or transport food. In Genesis 42: 25–35, grain is carried in the sacks on donkeys. In Joshua 9: 4, the people of Gibeon travel with old sacks on their donkeys to make the Israelites believe that they have travelled from afar (see discussion on nōʾd). In both cases the sacks are a transport container, not directly a storage container. ‫( סַל‬sal) The word ‫( סַל‬sal) occurs 15 times in the Old Testament, nearly always as a vessel for keeping bread. In Genesis 40: 16–18, the royal baker of Egypt tells Joseph a dream about carrying bread in a basket on his head. Otherwise the term is used in a cultic context, where ‫( ַמ ּצָה‬maṣṣâ)— unleavened bread—is kept in a basket. The identification as basket is also supported by late Hebrew useage as well as Arabic (Dietrich and Arnet 2013: 377). In Judges 6:19, Gideon puts meat in a ‫( סַל‬sal) and broth in a pot to serve the meal to the messenger of YHWH. It is therefore seen here as a serving dish. It is, however, noteworthy that Gideon also made ‫( ַמ ּצָה‬maṣṣâ); it is likely that it was also served in the basket. The ‫( סַל‬sal) is not seen as a vessel for long-term storage, but rather for carrying and serving mainly bread, but also other dry food.

The vessels: a summary The names of different food storage vessels are mentioned in the Old Testament. Most of these are ceramic vessels. While the general range of meaning of the words can be determined, there is some flexibility

‫( טֶנֶא‬ṭeneʾ)

Besides the references to containers, the range of meaning for the word ‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî) is very wide in the Old Testament. For example, in 1 Samuel, the word is used in the following instances: • together with other words to form armour-bearer (1 Samuel 14; 1 Samuel 16: 21; 1 Samuel 31) • armour (1 Samuel 17: 54; 1 Samuel 31: 9+10) • weapon (1 Samuel 8: 12; 1 Samuel 20: 40; 1 Samuel 21: 9) • supplies or the one who stays with the supplies (1 Samuel 10: 22; 1 Samuel 17: 22; 1 Samuel 25: 13; 1 Samuel 30: 24) • bag (1 Samuel 17: 40; 1 Samuel 17: 49) • sexual organs (1 Samuel 21: 6) • cultic objects (1 Samuel 6: 8; 1 Samuel 6: 15) Only once in the book of 1 Samuel does the word ‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî) refer to a food container (1 Samuel 9: 7). 19

The word ‫( טֶנֶא‬ṭeneʾ) occurs only four times in the Old Testament, and only in the book of Deuteronomy. It is probably related to an Egyptian word meaning basket (Dietrich and Arnet 2013: 198), and was probably used to harvest and carry fruit, or in the bread making process. For further discussion, see Section 8.2. ‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî) The word ‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî) is the generic term for vessel in the Old Testament, though it generally seems to refer 82

Chapter 8 Food storage in the Old Testament

Table 7. Storage vessel terms in the Old Testament. Hebrew term ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) ‫( כַּד‬kad) ‫( צַּפָּחַת‬ṣappaḥat) ‫( אַגָּן‬ʾaggān) ְ‫( אָסוּך‬ʾāsûk) ‫( בַּקְבֻּק‬baqbuq) ‫( נֹאד‬nōʾd) ‫( שַׂק‬śaq) ‫( סַל‬sal) ‫( טֶנֶא‬ṭeneʾ) ‫(כְּלִי‬kĕlî)

Possible description Large storage jar, particularly for liquids Medium-sized jar, particularly for drawing and carrying water Water bottle or medium to small jug Bowl or chalice Oil jug or jar Decanter Skin, particularly for wine and milk Sack, particularly for grain transport Bread basket Basket for breadmaking or fruit harvesting Generic term for container, but most often a large storage jar

in useage. It is not possible to associate one term with a particular vessel form or vessel function. Table 7 lists a summary of the vessels.

while ‫( ֵנבֶל‬nēbel) relates particularly to the fact that they are clay vessels? Containers and purity

8.5 Food storage, household and society

There was a concern for the purity of clay vessels, which can absorb material, as possible containers for food. Leviticus 11: 33 mentions the case in which unclean small animals fall inside a clay vessel [ׂ‫כְּלִי־חֶרֶש‬ (kĕlî-ḥereś)]. Then everything inside the clay jar will be unclean and the pot has to be broken.

With the basis of our discussion on storage containers, several passages in the Old Testament give us some insight into the possible motivated actions of household and social practices in the context of food storage. These passages cannot be easily placed in the main themes previously identified. The texts do not form a coherent picture, but allow glimpses into the worldview. We can trace quite specific practices, but also some more overarching customs and attitudes. In a varied text like the Old Testament, these views do not add up to a systematic overview, but rather are partial glimpses into varied viewpoints.

A clay vessel [ׂ‫( כְּלִי־חֶרֶש‬kĕlî-ḥereś)] that is touched by a man with a bodily discharge is unclean and has to be broken (Leviticus 15: 12). Every open container without a lid that is in the tent in which a person has died, is unclean (Numbers 19: 15). The passages are all in the contexts of wider purity concerns. The laws were not included because purity was necessarily such a high concern during food storage, but because purity concerns also affected storage vessels, as they did so many aspects of life. It remains difficult for us to definitely suggest criteria to explain why, in particular, purity laws applied to ceramic vessels in that way. Milgrom has suggested that it is the possible absorption into the matrix of clay vessel, which makes them susceptive to impurity (Milgrom 1991: 974).

Wine production and storage Jeremiah 48: 11–12 is a judgment speech on Moab in which the words ‫( ּכְלִי‬kĕlî) and ‫( ֵנבֶל‬nēbel) are used. Moab is compared with wine that is left on its dregs. Through this metaphor we gain some insight into the winemaking process that is also described in Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources, but not directly for Israel or Judah (Lundbom 2004: 265). After the grapes are trodden, the must is kept in vats or jars and left to ferment. It seems that Jeremiah refers to a winemaking process in which wine was fermented in jars and later poured into another jar for storage. That process is referred to here in terse words. Moab is compared with wine that has not been poured from jar to jar (‫ ִמ ּ‍כְלִי אֶל־ ּכֶלִי‬, mikkĕlî ʾel-kelî). The normal process has not happened. Moab has been left on its dregs, Since it was not poured into another jar, its fragrance has not changed. It is not certain whether this is positive or negative (see Lundbom 2004: 264–267). Announcing the judgment, Jeremiah says that ‘those who tip over will tip over’ (that is, pour out), will empty the vessels and break the jars. Here the parallelism of ‫ּכְלִי‬ (kĕlî) and ‫( ֵנבֶל‬nēbel) is noteworthy. Is it just a parallelism or is ‫( ּכְלִי‬kĕlî) more closely associated with any vessel,

Living in the Land One of the few passages in which vessels [‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî)] are directly mentioned in relation to food storage is Jeremiah 40: 9–10: ‫ּוַיִּשָּׁבַע לָהֶם גְּדַלְיָהוּ בֶן־אֲחִיקָם בֶּן־שָׁפָן וּלְאַנְשֵׁיהֶם לֵאמֹר אַל־תִּירְאו‬ ‫מֵ‍עֲבוֹד הַכַּשְׂדִּים שְׁבוּ בָאָרֶץ וְעִבְדוּ אֶת־מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל וְיִיטַב לָכֶם׃‬ ‫וַאֲנִי הִנְנִי יֹשֵׁב בַּמִּצְפָּה לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי הַכַּשְׂדִּים אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ אֵלֵינוּ וְאַתֶּם‬ ‫אִסְפוּ יַיִן וְקַיִץ וְשֶׁמֶן וְשִׂמוּ בִּכְלֵיכֶם וּשְׁבוּ בְּעָרֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר־תְּפַשְׂתֶּם׃‬ Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, son of Shaphan, swore to them and to their men saying: ‘Do not be afraid to serve the 83

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Chaldeans; live in the land and serve the king of Babylon and it will be well with you. See, I will live in Mizpah and stand before the face of the Chaldeans that come to us, but you harvest the wine, the summer crop and the oil and put them in your jars and live in your towns you have seized.’

2014: 250 and Staubli 2009). That exceptional, uncertain circumstances could cause people to hide food in the field or in caves, is also reflected in Judges 6: 2. In the course of telling about the days after the fall of Judah, the book of Jeremiah mentions attitudes to food storage in passing: food storage implies permanence and an expectation of peace; but when peace is not expected, hiding food stores may be a cautionary action.

Food storage here is closely connected with harvest and working the land. But the main emphasis is on living, or dwelling, in the land. To work the land, to harvest the fruit of the land, and to store it, that means living in the land. It means permanence. It means making the place a home. Gedaliah is telling the people that they shouldn’t expect to be thrown out of their houses, that life will continue. In that expectation they can store food. They should not worry that they will plant vineyards but not enjoy its fruit (Deuteronomy 28: 30). Besides wine and oil, the other commodity to be stored in jars was ‫( קַיִץ‬qayiṣ)—’summer crop’. Borowski suggests that ‫קַיִץ‬ (qayiṣ) relates to figs, pomegranates and other tree fruit (Borowski 1987: 38).

Storing on the hoof But there was no certainty even in ‘normal’ times. Whatever security one had, it might not last. The book of Proverbs recognizes this uncertainty. In a saying, it therefore reminds the listener to take care of the flock. Proverbs 27: 23–27: ‫יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע פְּנֵי צֹאנֶךָ שִׁית לִבְּךָ לַעֲדָרִים׃‬ ‫כִּי לֹא לְעוֹלָם חֹסֶן וְאִם־נֵזֶר לְדוֹר וָדוֹר ׃‬ ‫גָּלָה חָצִיר וְנִרְאָה־דֶשֶׁא וְנֶאֶסְפוּ עִשְּׂבוֹת הָרִים׃‬ ‫כְּבָשִׂים לִלְבוּשֶׁךָ וּמְחִיר שָׂדֶה עַתּוּדִים׃‬ ‫וְדֵי חֲלֵב עִזִּים לְלַחְמְךָ לְלֶחֶם בֵּיתֶךָ וְחַיִּים לְנַעֲרוֹתֶיךָ׃‬

Provision in uncertain times

Know well the face of your flock, put your attention on the herds. For not forever are riches and a crown is not for all generations. When the herbs are removed and new growth is seen and the grass of the hills is gathered in, the lambs will be for your clothes and the goats will be the price of the field. so that there will be goat milk for you to eat as food for your house and life for your maidservants.

It seems that people did not trust the peace under Gedaliah. And maybe justifiably so. For the book of Jeremiah tells how, seven months later, governor Gedaliah was killed by a former officer, Ishmael. Ishmael also wanted to kill a group of pilgrims. Jeremiah 41: 8 tells that ten pilgrims were not killed because they said that they had food stores hidden in the field: ‫וַעֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים נִמְצְאוּ־בָם וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־יִשְׁמָעֵאל אַל־תְּמִתֵנוּ כִּי־יֶשׁ־‬ ‫לָנוּ מַטְמֹנִים בַּשָּׂדֶה חִטִּים וּשְׂעֹרִים וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ וַיֶּחְדַּל וְלֹא הֱמִיתָם‬ ‫בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵיהֶם׃‬

The words used for security are ‫( חֹסֶן‬ḥōsen)—wealth— and ‫( נֵזֶר‬nēzer)—crown. They are long-term security, not like the uncertainty of the annual harvest. The verses therefore do not draw a distinction between harvest or stored food, and animals. But by pointing towards animals as a form of security that is independent from wavering social fortunes, which are reflected in riches, other forms of provision, such as stored grain, are also contrasted. Animals are food for the household when other food sources fail. It is not surprising to find such a common-sense exhortation in the wisdom literature. After all, caring for the household in the vicissitudes of life is part of leading a wise life, and advice that a parent would do well to pass to the son.

Ten men came out among them and said to Ishmael: ‘Do not kill us for we have hidden in the field wheat and barley, oil and honey’. So he desisted and did not kill them with the others. The text implies that hiding food stores in the field was not usually done. Whether the men had done it because of the uncertain situation or from some other motivation is not known. In other words: was it generally known that some people hid food in the fields, or is it an indication of the times, in which people resorted to apparently extraordinary measures? The text remains ambivalent. I would not want to draw a general conclusion that food stores were regularly hidden in the fields. Rather, I would suggest that the text supports the notion that food stores were mostly not kept in some secret location. It should also be noted that the text does not elaborate whether the stores were kept in pits, caves, or hidden by some other means. We should not hastily draw a link between the grain pits found in archaeological investigations and the hiding places described in this text (contra Staubli and Schroer

The woman of valour The book of Proverbs ends with an acrostic poem about the ‘woman of valour’ (Proverbs 31: 10–31). There is no direct mention of household food storage in this poem, but it paints a picture of a woman organizing the household that is similar to that in Egyptian wisdom literature and in the Oeconomicus by Xenophones (see 84

Chapter 8 Food storage in the Old Testament

Section 6.4). The ‘woman of valour’ is trusted by her husband, provides clothing for the house and for trade; she organizes the servant girls; she provides food for the household and the needy; she trades textiles and food; she buys and sells property. This wife that few can find is constantly active, constantly providing for the household, while her husband can concern himself with life in the city, fully confident that the requirements of the house are being taken care of.

vessels so that there is no gift to bring to the man of God. What do we have?’ The servant continued to answer Saul, saying: ‘See, in my hand there is a quarter sheqel of silver. I will give it to the man of God and he will show us the way.’ In this story there is the expectation that some gift of food is to be given to the man of God. The food to be given is ‫( לֶחֶם‬leḥem) and carried in a ‫( כְּלִי‬kĕlî). Giving silver is a solution only in the absence of any food that could be given. It has been interpreted as welcome present for a local dignitary (McCarter 1980: 176), or as payment (Schroer 1992: 63). But as Marcel Mauss has shown, the modern European distinction between gift and payment cannot be sustained in other societies (Mauss 1966). I would suggest that the gift in this instance is a sign of honour towards the donee, while at the same time the donor expects something in return, creating some obligation through gift-giving.

The description of the ‘woman of valour’ is connected with wisdom, who is personified as a woman throughout the book of Proverbs (Murphy 1998: 246; Fox 2009: 907–911). Here, Lady Wisdom, who wooed those who want to be wise, has settled down with the one who has become wise (Murphy 1998: 250). But beyond this literary figure we also have a portrait of the ideal wife. The mention of servants also clearly marks her out as a woman from a house of means. The ideal woman was expected to organize the house, to work with textiles and food, and also in some way to be involved in trade for the household. In this organization of the household, we would also expect that such an ideal wife controlled the stored food, so that she could provide for her household and give to others from that plenty (see Staubli and Schroer 2014: 250–251).

Another passage about gift-giving occurs in the context of Jesse being asked to send his son David to the court of King Saul. Jesse does not send David empty-handed. 1 Samuel 16: 20 tells: ‫ֹוַיִּקַּח יִשַׁי חֲמוֹר לֶחֶם וְנֹאד יַיִן וּגְדִי עִזִּים אֶחָד וַיִּשְׁלַח בְּיַד־דָּוִד בְּנו‬ ‫אֶל־שָׁאוּל׃‬ Jesse took a donkey of bread, a skin of wine and a goat kid and sent it by the hand of his son David to Saul.

Commentators have given a wide variety of dates for the poem, with a Persian Period date the most probable (Fox 2009: 899–902). However, it may also reflect some earlier attitudes. The ideal of the woman who controls her house may have been widespread in the Ancient Near East. And while the male perspective of the poem may be evident (Fox 2009: 912–914), the book of Proverbs may not be wrong in placing it within a passage that contains a mother’s advice.

While no vessel for the bread is mentioned, the wine is sent in a skin. The bread sent was probably however much a donkey could carry. It is an imposition of modern categories to see this gift as tax payment (contra Dietrich 2012: 267). I think it is also unlikely to see it as a contribution towards David’s stay at the court (contra Dietrich 2012: 267). It is a gift between two families, a gift to the king to show him honour and loyalty. The relationship underlined by this gift is not one between equals, for in the act of gift-giving, it is the family of Saul that is honoured.Such a distinction between donor and donee is less clear in the passage 1 Samuel 17: 17-18:

Gift-giving and loyalty Storage vessels are frequently mentioned in the books of Samuel. But they are generally mentioned in what I would describe as ‘gift giving’. Food is brought from one person or group of persons to another person or group of persons. Here, customs were described that must have been familiar to the writers.

‫וַיֹּאמֶר יִשַׁי לְדָוִד בְּנוֹ קַח־נָא לְאַחֶיךָ אֵיפַת הַקָּלִיא הַזֶּה וַעֲשָׂרָה לֶחֶם‬ ‫הַזֶּה וְהָרֵץ הַמַּחֲנֶה לְאַחֶיךָ׃‬ ‫וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת חֲרִצֵי הֶחָלָב הָאֵלֶּה תָּבִיא לְשַׂר־הָאָלֶף וְאֶת־אַחֶיךָ תִּפְקֹד‬ ‫לְשָׁלוֹם וְאֶת־עֲרֻבָּתָם תִּקָּח׃‬

Such an instance of intended gift-giving occurs when Saul and his servant are searching for donkeys and think about consulting a seer. 1 Samuel 9: 7–8: ‫וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל לְנַעֲרוֹ וְהִנֵּה נֵלֵךְ וּמַה־נָּבִיא לָאִישׁ כִּי הַלֶּחֶם אָזַל‬ ‫מִ‍כֵּלֵינוּ וּתְשׁוּרָה אֵין־לְהָבִיא לְאִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים מָה אִתָּנוּ׃‬ ‫וַיֹּסֶף הַנַּעַר לַעֲנוֹת אֶת־שָׁאוּל וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה נִמְצָא בְיָדִי רֶבַע שֶׁקֶל כָּסֶף‬ ‫וְנָתַתִּי לְאִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים וְהִגִּיד לָנוּ אֶת־דַּרְכֵּנוּ׃‬

Jesse said to his son David: ‘Take, please, to your brothers an ephah of this roasted grain and ten of this bread and hasten to the camp to your brothers. Take ten rounds of this dairy product and bring them to the leader of the troops and visit your brothers for their wellbeing and take their message.’

And Saul said to his servant: ‘See, we are going and what will we bring to the man? For the bread is gone from our

Here, measurements are given and no storage containers mentioned. An ephah has variously been estimated to 85

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah contain between 22 and 38 litres (Holland 2002: 196; Dietrich 2012: 349). However, it is unlikely that the text refers to ten pieces of bread, especially if we take into account the small loaves that were probably baked in Ancient Israel. It may represent another unit, such as a basket. We also do not know how big the pieces of dairy product (cheese?) would have been.

Unlike Jesse (1 Samuel 16: 20), Abigail sent the wine in jars rather than skins. We are not told of any other food containers. The raisins and figs were probably dried and pressed into cakes. As the story is set during sheep shearing, a setting of early spring is probably assumed (see Dalman 1928: 412 + 422), when none of the products had yet been harvested, so that they would have been stored.

While the food taken to the brothers indeed just seems to be provisions, the cheese for the troop leader may be seen as a gift. I agree with David Schloen, who follows Norman Gottwald, that ‘the ‫( אֶלֶף‬ʾelep) was a family unit, namely the fighting men sent by the clan, the ‫( מִשְׁפָּחָה‬mišpāḥâ), rather than a unit of a thousand men’ (Schloen 2001: 152). In that case, the leader of the unit would have been part of the wider family, with the house of Jesse giving honour to this leader through a gift.

Not only is there a large variety of food, but the quantities are also large, especially in comparison to the gift that Nabal did not give (contra Holland 2002: 262). Nabal only spoke about bread, water and meat (1 Samuel 25: 11). Abigail showed honour and loyalty towards David by that gift. It brought the relationship between the house of a local stock-holder and the protector of the lands back into the expected constellation. While the gift certainly has symbolic value—and I think that in the story that is the main point, the actual importance for potentates as a source of food cannot be disregarded.

That gifts of food were expected to cement a relationship whereby one person lends another protection is shown through the gift that Nabal at first did not give, but Abigail subsequently brought to David. It has variously been described as tax or tribute (Schroer 1992: 106), protection money, extortion, payment or gift. I would continue to call it a gift, but a gift that in the situation was due, that could not be withheld. David, as selfproclaimed protector of the property of the area in which Nabal had his holdings, expected to be rewarded at the festive event of sheep shearing. The expectation that such a gift was due can be seen most clearly in 1 Samuel 25: 21, after David’s request for a gift had been rudely refused:

The importance of such gifts as food, not only as clear markers of loyalty, but also as sustenance, is also shown in the accounts of 2 Samuel. During the rebellion of Absalom, David was forced to flee. While he was fleeing, Ziba, the servant of Mefi-boshet, the son of Jonathan, brought him a gift of food at a time when David was not established on the throne. Ziba, through this action, clearly proclaimed loyalty to David and honoured him. He threw in his lot with David against Absalom. But the very material help for David is also made clear in the story. The gift is described in 2 Samuel 16: 1–2: ‫וְדָוִד עָבַר מְעַט מֵ‍הָרֹאשׁ וְהִנֵּה צִיבָא נַעַר מְפִי־בֹשֶׁת לִקְרָאתוֹ וְצֶמֶד‬ ‫חֲמֹרִים חֲבֻשִׁים וַעֲלֵיהֶם מָאתַיִם לֶחֶם וּמֵאָה צִמּוּקִים וּמֵאָה קַיִץ וְנֵבֶל‬ ‫יָיִן׃‬ ‫וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל־צִיבָא מָה־אֵלֶּה לָּךְ וַיֹּאמֶר צִיבָא הַחֲמוֹרִים לְבֵית־‬ ‫הַמֶּלֶךְ לִרְכֹּב וְהַלֶּחֶם וְהַקַּיִץ לֶאֱכוֹל הַנְּעָרִים ְוהַיַּיִן לִשְׁתּוֹת הַיָּעֵף‬ ‫בַּמִּדְבָּר׃‬

‫וְדָוִד אָמַר אַךְ לַשֶּׁקֶר שָׁמַרְתִּי אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר לָזֶה בַּמִּדְבָּר וְלֹא־נִפְקַד‬ ‫מִ‍כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ מְאוּמָה וַיָּשֶׁב־לִי רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה׃‬ David said: ‘Surely, in vain have I protected everything that belongs to that [man] in the desert, and not the smallest from all that belongs to him is missing, but he repaid me evil for good.’

As David went a little over the height, see, there was Ziba, the servant of Mefi-boshet, to meet him, and a yoke of saddled donkeys and on them two hundred of bread, a hundred raisin cakes, a hundred of summer fruit and a jar of wine. The king said to Ziba: ‘What do you have?’ Ziba said: ‘The donkeys are for the house of the king to ride on, the bread and the summer fruit are food for the servants, the wine drink for the tired in the desert.’

The protection of Nabal’s belongings in the desert somehow entitled David to a gift. Nabal does not recognise that; his astute wife Abigail does. And so she sends a large gift of food to David to avoid the consequences of her husband’s wilful neglect of his obligations (1 Samuel 25: 18):

Again quantities are mentioned, but only in the case of wine is a container given. While in Ziba’s response the immediate need of the king and his entourage is emphasized, in the narrative the significance of the gift as symbolic marker is more important. Here the loyalties of Ziba and Mefi-boschet are questioned. In the narrative context, the uncertainty of David’s eventual return to Jerusalem as king is heightened.

‫וַתְּמַהֵר אֲבִיגַיִל‬ ‫ַותִּקַּח מָאתַיִם לֶחֶם וּשְׁנַיִם נִבְלֵי־יַיִן וְחָמֵשׁ צֹאן עֲשׂוּיֹת‬ ‫וְחָמֵשׁ סְאִים קָלִי וּמֵאָה צִמֻּקִים וּמָאתַיִם דְּבֵלִים וַתָּשֶׂם עַל־הַחֲמֹרִים׃‬ Abigail hastened and took two hundred of bread, two jars of wine, five prepared sheep, five seah of roasted grain, a hundred raisin cakes, and two hundred fig cakes and she placed it on donkeys.

86

Chapter 8 Food storage in the Old Testament

In this time of uncertainty it was not only Ziba who showed loyalty to David through gifts of food. The local rulers east of the Jordan also gave gifts and helped David.

transport. Indeed, some fluidity between storage, transport and measurement could be read out of the texts. Much of the gifts consisted of stored food. Food storage enabled the aggregation of such quantities of food and therefore conditioned the customs to establish and maintain relationships of loyalty.

2 Samuel 17: 27–29 recounts: ‫וַיְהִי כְּ‍בוֹא דָו ִד מַחנֲָיְמָה וְשֹׁבִי בֶן־נָחָשׁ מֵ‍רַבַּת בּ ְנֵי־עַמּו ֹן וּמָכִיר ב ֶּן־‬ ‫עַמּ ִיאֵל מִ‍לֹּא דְב ָר וּב ַרְזִלַּי הַגִּלְעָדִי מֵ‍רֹגְלִים׃‬ ‫מִשְׁכָּב וְסַפּוֹת וּכְלִי יוֹצֵר וְחִטִּים וּשְׂעֹרִים וְקֶמַח וְקָלִי וּפוֹל וַעֲדָשִׁים‬ ‫וְקָלִי׃‬ ֹ‫וּדְבַשׁ וְחֶמְאָה וְצֹאן וּשְׁפוֹת בָּקָר הִגִּישׁוּ לְדָוִד וְלָעָם אֲשֶׁר־אִתּו‬ ‫לֶאֱכוֹל כִּי אָמְרוּ הָעָם רָעֵב וְעָיֵף וְצָמֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר׃‬

Food storage, household and society: a summary Just as many other agricultural practices found their way into prophetic imagery, wine storage also was used as a methaphor, giving us a glimpse into the wine-making process. Other storage processes have, unfortunately, not found it into such imaginative speech. Purity laws also mention storage incidentally, but it is difficult to gauge to what extent purity was a concern in storage practices.

It came to pass when David came to Mahanaim, (there were) Shobi, the son of Nahash from Rabbah of the Ammonites, Makir, son of Ammiel from Lo-Debar and Barzillai, the Gileadite, from Rogelim. They brought bedding, bowls, pottery vessels, wheat, barley, flour, roasted grain, beans, lentils, roasted grain, honey, curds, sheep, and cheese from cow’s milk to David and to the people with him to eat for they said: ‘The people is hungry and tired and thirsty in the desert.’

While the assocation between settlement and storage is not prominent in the Old Testament, I would suggest that it reflects an underlying attitude of living in the land. That in uncertain times other measures have to be taken, whether it be the hiding of stores or the diversification through animal husbandry, is part of the wise provision of a household.

Besides the household furnishings, the local ‘kings’ gave David and his people a wide variety of food. No quantity indications are given and containers are not mentioned. Again, the immediate need of David and his people are highlighted, but the gift is also a sign of loyalty by these rulers from across the Jordan. They were on David’s side in this power struggle. Through the gift, they honoured David.

Gifts of food played a key role to define and establish social relations in the world of the books of Samuel, a role that is not emphasized in other literature or for other time periods. While the custom does not tell us more about food storage practices, it gives an indication how and for what purposes stored food could be exchanged. It may be seen as a level between food storage for subsistence and centralised administration of food storage. The prominence of gift-giving in these books also raises the question whether the basic attitudes to the redistribution of food in Ancient Israel and Judah were closer to such implied social obligations than to ideas of state administration imposed by modern commentators through analogy with the administration of the Roman Empire or modern states.

Despite the different accounts, situations and relationships, the books of Samuel use the theme of gift-giving, indicating probable social customs and therefore providing some insight into the significance of food in that world. A similar custom is also described in 1 Kings 14:3, when Jeroboam’s wife brings bread, cake and honey to Ahija, the prophet. The ‘storage’ containers in the accounts are not used to describe storage practices, but rather as units of quantity or

87

Chapter 9

Artefact assemblages This chapter is a preparatory chapter for the subsequent archaeological analysis. It sets out basic artefact and assemblage types I use for this purpose. These may differ from other normally accepted types that were not defined for household archaeology. Because I analyse the houses in their totality, I have to list all major types, not just those directly related to food storage. This allows me to quickly discuss the archaeological examples presupposing the terminology I use as a given, rather than explaining it again for each example.

Figure 43. Bowl. Tell-Halif IV.F7.37#9. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

for both food and drink. Besides food consumption, ethnographic accounts also show bowls being used in food preparation—especially baking—for washing, milking and processing of dairy food, and for feeding and watering animals (Dalman 1935: 104–107; Dalman 1939: 270, 292, 302; Dalman 1942: 126, 214–218, 233, 246; Granqvist 1981: 67, 148). It is likely that they were used for many other domestic tasks.

9.1 Common artefact types For ease of comparison and to order a large dataset of artefacts, I defined several major types of artefacts encountered recurrently in the archaeological record of the investigated sites. These types represent the ideal form, the centre of description, to which individual artefacts can be compared. These types are defined for the purpose of functional interpretation. Nevertheless, I have chosen to largely use established names.

Open krater For the purposes of this study, I regard open kraters and closed kraters as two separate types, not two subtypes of the type krater. However, I have decided to keep the names applied to them in many archaeological reports. Open kraters are similar to bowls in shape, but usually have one to four handles (most commonly two handles). It is the size and the presence of handles which typically sets them apart from other bowls (Figure 44). Ethnographic evidence suggests that such large vessels were used to serve food to a group of people. They might also have been used for food preparation. They are also similar to vessels used for washing in Palestine (Dalman 1942: 232–234). However, usually in rural households any available bowl was used to wash hands and feet, and no particular vessel was designated for that purpose. At Tell Halif, open kraters were found in close association with textile production, suggesting that they may have been used in that process.

I only defined types for artefacts that occur in high numbers. Other artefacts are better discussed in the individual descriptions of the excavated spaces. The possible function of the artefacts is discussed, but has to be kept very brief. I use analogy to arrive at the suggested functions, but space does not permit me to lay out the full argument. Storage vessels are described in more detail in previous and subsequent chapters, so I do not discuss them in any greater detail.20 Bowl The shape, size and decoration of bowls vary considerably and have given rise to very fine-grained distinctions in the literature. For a functional analysis, such fine-grained distinctions are not feasible. Therefore, I use just one type of bowl (Figure 43). Bowls were likely to be used for many different purposes. In the archaeological record they are the most numerous pottery vessel found in a variety of settings. Throughout the ages, bowls have been most closely associated with food consumption. Ancient art shows them being used For the background discussion of the function of many types, see my previous analysis (Frank 2012). I considered the similarity of artefacts to other known objects based on form, material, usewear and location. In that study the physical examination of the artefacts allowed me to make more detailed comparisons, which the very basic descriptions for the use of chronology-building in many archaeological reports do not allow. 20

Figure 44. Open krater. Tell Halif IV.G7.46B#2. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

88

Chapter 9 Artefact assemblages

Figure 45. Closed krater. Beer-Sheba bowl type B-41. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016:600. Figure 12.42:2. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

Closed krater Figure 46. Jug. Tell Halif IV.F8.10#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

Closed kraters were more common in the Coastal Plain during the Iron Age, than in the Highlands. They had a globular body approximately 20 cm high and typically an upright neck, which is narrower than the maximum width of the krater body (Figure 45). Two handles is typical. Closed kraters would not have been as suited to food consumption as open kraters. They do have some similarities with small food storage vessels. While they might have been used for other household tasks, I suggest that they were mainly used for short-term food storage. Jug Even though there is a large variety of jugs, a typical jug has a more or less globular body and a relatively narrow neck (Figure 46). A jug normally has one handle, at times two. The rim at times is flattened opposite the handle, so that liquids can be poured from the jug. A jug is about 25 cm tall, though there is quite some variation. Jugs were undoubtedly used to hold liquids. They would have been used mainly to serve drink, as drinking jugs and for short-term storage. Jars were also used to haul water from wells and cisterns. Ethnographic and archaeological evidence suggests that larger jugs would also have been used to carry water from the water source to the house.

Figure 47. Decanter. Tell Halif IV.K8.37#54. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

Decanter The decanter is a specialised form that is also associated with a time period. It occurs more frequently in the late Iron Age. It is a vessel with a globular body, a marked carination and a narrow neck (Figure 47). It has one handle. In many respects it seems functionally similar to the jug. It has been noted, though, that decanters are more closely associated with activity areas, where wine was produced, stored, processed or consumed.

Juglet A juglet is considerably smaller than a jug and also has a more uniform form. Its body is elongated and has a rounded base (Figure 48). Juglets with a more globular body form also occur. A juglet has a narrow neck and 89

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 50. Cooking pot. Tell Halif IV.L8.44#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

Figure 48. Juglet. Tell Halif IV.K8.253#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

Cooking pot

one handle. The rim generally flares slightly. On the basis of ethnographic and use-wear analysis, juglets would have frequently been used to take liquids from larger vessels. Other likely functions are for drinking and for storing small amounts of liquids, such as perfumes or special oils. These liquids would not have been considered food.

This vessel has a characteristic ware, which is rough and friable with a large amount of grits. This ware is well suited to repeated and rapid heating and cooling. The cooking pot has a shallow, roughly globular body, a rounded base, a well-defined rim that is a little narrower than the main form, and usually two handles (Figure 50). Cooking pots that have been preserved nearly in their entirety often show a clear sooting pattern, indicating that they have been used in fire. From these and ethnographic comparison, their main purpose as cooking vessels is obvious. However, cooking pots have been found in many different locations in the archaeological context, indicating that they may have also been used for other purposes.

Flask The flask is a vessel with a globular body which does not have an equal profile, but rather is made by joining two rounded halves (Figure 49). It has a long, narrow neck, and a flared rim. It has two handles, connecting the body to the neck. Flasks have been identified as drinking vessels, probably also used particularly outside the house. Travel flasks that are very similar in appearance have also been used in Palestine (Dalman 1942: Figure. 118).

Cooking jug A cooking jug is similar in form to a cooking pot, but has a more globular body and a more defined, narrower neck with a pronounced rim (Figure 51). The ware is less friable and does not include much grits. Newer reports, where some notice has been taken of vessel function, indicate that many cooking jugs do not have the characteristic soot marks. Many of these vessels do not appear to have been used for cooking. While in some locations a distinction can be made between cooking jugs that have thicker sides and slightly rougher ware on the one hand and the red-slipped, finer cooking jugs with trefoil rim on the other, this is not always the case. The former are more likely to have soot marks and seem to be related in form and function to Philistine cooking jugs. They were probably used for cooking in many cases. The latter are less likely to have soot marks and were less frequently used for cooking. Cooking jugs not used for cooking may have been used as milk pots, as described by Dalman (Dalman 1942: 240–241). These were used to milk animals, to process milk products, but more so to store them. Particularly,

Figure 49. Flask. Beer-Sheba flask type FL-1. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016:640. Figure 12.69:1. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

90

Chapter 9 Artefact assemblages

Figure 51. Cooking jug. Tell Halif IV.F8.5#5. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

the cooking butter produced in Palestine, which could be stored for months, was kept in these. Thickened milk would have been kept only short term.

Figure 52. Storage jar. Beer-Sheba storage jar type SJ-1. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016:613. Figure 12.137:15. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

Storage jar

Ovoid jar

A storage jar is a relatively large pottery vessel with a rounded, elongated body and a narrow rim (Figure 52). The neck differs but it is commonly relatively short. Storage jars normally have two handles, though occasionally up to four or none at all. The capacity of storage jars varies considerably. In the sites discussed, capacity ranged from 7 litres to nearly 60 litres. Even small changes in shape do make a large difference in the internal volume of jars. It is unlikely that any uniform capacity measures for storage jars were set in Ancient Israel or Judah (Sergi et al. 2012). On the basis of many lines of evidence, storage jars would have been principally used to hold food, whether for shortterm or long-term storage or for transport. Their use to carry water from water source to the house and to hold water in the house for daily use has been established. The use of jars to hold agricultural products for processing, or as seed, also needs to be considered. Even though there is quite some variety in shape and ware, it is hard to associate particular storage jars with any specific food stuffs. Some residue analysis has allowed us to associate individual jars with specific contents, but this cannot be easily extended to all jars with that particular shape. Ethnographic and historical investigations have shown that jars are used for different products as required and are re-used throughout their lifetime. I have therefore not separated the different jars. However, to facilitate discussion, I define the following sub-types: ovoid jar, lmlk-type jar, carinated jar, and waisted jar.

An ovoid jar has an ovoid body, rounded base, sloping shoulder and a defined, often inward sloping neck (Figure 53). It normally has two handles, but ocasionally four. These were by far the most common jars during the Iron Age. They vary in size, shape and clay body.

Figure 53. Ovoid jar. Beth Shean. Mazar et al. 2006:Plate 35.2. The Israel Exploration Society.

91

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 54. LMLK-type jar. Tell Halif IV.F8.17C#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

Figure 55. Carinated jar. Tell Halif IV.F7.12D#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu

lmlk-type jar Even though very similar to an ovoid jar, this jar stands out through its relative uniformity in shape and clay body. It has a wider shoulder than most other ovoid jars and always has four handles (Figure 54). The neck slopes inward. Its clay body is grayish-red with many limestone inclusions, normally with a dark red slip. Some jars were stamped on one handle with the word ‘lmlk’—Hebrew, ‘belonging to the king’— as well as the picture of a flying scroll or beetle and a place name. In addition, some jars have private stamps on them. This jar was used in Judah during the eighth and early seventh century. Various hypotheses concerning its use and purpose have been formulated. Trace element analysis has found that many jars contained wine. Carinated jar This jar has a carinated shoulder at which the two handles are attached (Figure 55). It has a short neck and a rounded base. The body itself is often rather swollen or sack-like. Its clay matrix is often lighter than that of other storage jars. Waisted jar A jar with a long, concave body that ends in a pointed base. The shoulder joins the body at a sharp angle (Figure 56). It has a short neck. The jar has two handles.

Figure 56. Waisted jar. Beer-Sheba storage jar type SJ-9. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016:618. Figure 12.95:3. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

92

Chapter 9 Artefact assemblages

These jars are often relatively small. They are not very common in Ancient Israel and Judah, but have been found on sunken ships off Ashkelon, indicating that they were used for maritime transport (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016: 616). Pithos A pithos is a large jar, generally over 90 cm high (Figure 57). It has a narrow rim. At its shoulder it has two handles. Some pithoi do not have a neck. On the other hand, the collared rim pithos, also commonly called collared rim jar, has a very characteristic neck. Pithoi were used for domestic and centrally administered storage. Unlike storage jars, they are unlikely to have been used to transport goods. Holemouth jar With this term I refer to the large holemouth jar, also sometimes referred to as pithos, krater-jar, or just another storage jar in the reports (Figure 58). It has a barrel-shaped body and a ring base. It narrows slightly towards the rim, but has no neck and a wide, open rim, which is usually inward-turned and thickened. This jar has four, sometimes two handles. It has a capacity of about 40 litres. Small holemouth jar Figure 57. Pithos. Beer-Sheba storage jar type SJ-15. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016:621. Figure 12.71:4. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

This jar also has a wide rim and no neck, but it is considerably smaller and has a cylindrical body shape with a rounded or sometimes slightly pointed base (Figure 59). It has no shoulder, but the thickened rim turns inwards. The rim is sometimes ridged. It has no handles. It generally has a capacity below 10 litres. This storage jar was found in large numbers at a communal storage facility at Tel Moza. It is therefore likely that it was not just used for domestic storage. It seems to have been used for long-term, as well as short-term, storage. Spouted jar The spouted jar has a relatively small globular body, usually with a ring base. It has a narrow neck and rim. It has one or three handles. Opposite one of the handles is a spout that ends in a wide, open bowl attached to the neck of the jar (Figure 60). Any liquid in the bowl runs through the spout back into the jar. In some excavations, juglets have been found in this spout attachment. It is likely that liquids were taken out of the jar with a juglet. After the liquid had been poured from the juglet, the juglet would then be placed in the spout, so that any remaining liquid would run or drip back into the jar. The spouted jar would have been used mainly for shortterm storage, when liquids would regularly be taken out of the jar.

Figure 58. Holemouth jar. Tell Halif IV.F7.95A#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

93

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 61. Pot stand. Beer-Sheba stand type ST-2. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016:644. Figure 12.51:7. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

Pot stand A pot stand is a round, thrown ceramic piece that is open at the top and the base (Figure 61). It usually flares outwards at the top and base. There are various sizes. Some stands have fenestrated sides. They were used to support vessels with round or pointed bases. Pot stands have been found near cooking pots and jars. It is likely that they were used with both. In Egyptian art they are usually shown together with storage jars.

Figure 59. Small holemouth jar. Tell Halif IV.G7.45#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

Lamp A lamp is a small, shallow bowl with a pinched spout (Figure 62). Soot marks, experimental archaeology, ancient art and some far-afield ethnographic analogies suggest that they were indeed used as lamps. Oil or fat would be in the bowl, and a wick in the spout would be lit.

Figure 60. Spouted jar. Tell Halif IV.K8.44#1. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

Figure 62. Lamp. Tell Halif IV.F7.12B#1.. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

94

Chapter 9 Artefact assemblages

Figure 63. Pounder. Tell Halif Object 2384. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

Figure 65. Quern. Beer-Sheba. Horzog and Singer-Avitz 2016:1264. Figure 26.3:3. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

Pounder A pounder is an oval or rounded fist-sized stone with a smoothed surface that shows evidence of abrasion or pounding (Figure 63). Most pounders are made of flint, some of basalt or limestone. Some are worked. Through use-wear analysis and ethnographic analogy, their likely use to break up materials, especially food has been determined. In ethnographic studies in Iran, their use has been recorded for breaking up salt, pounding meat and pulverizing buttermilk cakes (Watson 1979: 169).

Clay loomweight A non-spherical, perforated clay ball, on average 7.5 cm wide and 4.9 cm high, with the hole in the vertical direction (Figure 66). The clay is not fired to a high temperature, but just baked. Their frequent use as loomweights has been well-established by reference to other ancient sources, through ethnographic analogy and the patterns in which many of them have been found. It has been suggested that they were also used as jar stoppers. While this might have been true on some occasions, it does not seem to have occurred frequently. The loomweights are also generally smaller than the openings of jars and jugs. I take loomweights, especially groups of loomweights, as evidence of textile production.

Grindstone This is an elongated, loaf-shaped stone with a flat surface opposite a rounded surface (Figure 64). It was made out of basalt, limestone, or beach rock. Through reference to ancient art and texts, as well as to ethnographic analogy, it has been established that these were used to grind grain. Quern Also called lower grindstone, it is a large stone with a concave, but otherwise even, surface on one side and a convex, uneven surface opposite it (Figure 65). It is made out of basalt or limestone. This was used in conjunction with a grindstone to grind grain.

Figure 64. Grindstone. Beer-Sheba. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016:1264. Figure 26.3:1. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

Figure 66. Clay loomweight. Beer-Sheba. Herzog and SingerAvitz 2016:1307. Figure 28.1:1b. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

95

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah pots or cooking jugs with soot marks, particularly if they were more numerous than other artefacts. Weaving and spinning has ethnographically been associated with food preparation areas. Therefore textile production tools, such as loomweights, spindle whorls or spatulae adjacent to an area may strengthen the identification of that area as a food preparation area. Where micro-artefacts have been examined, these may also point to cooking or other forms of food preparation. Food preparation areas may be centrally located in the house and have many other activities associated with them—or they may be on the margins or even outside the house. Archaeological and ethnographic evidence point to both situations. Food consumption

Figure 67. Spindle whorls. Beer-Sheba. Herzog and SingerAvitz 2016:1309, 1311. Figure 28.2:14, Figure 28.3:10. The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

These are areas in which artefacts associated with food consumption are numerous. These would be particularly bowls, open kraters, jugs, juglets and cups. The areas also do not have any strong evidence of food preparation or other activities. Nevertheless, cooking pots or cooking jugs could still be expected in such an area. Whether areas were set apart just to consume food is uncertain, but the archaeological record certainly shows areas in which very few other vessels were located.

Spindle whorl A spindle whorl is a small, flat or hemispherical disc with a hole at its centre (Figure 67). It may be a reused potsherd that is cut into a round shape and a hole drilled in its centre. Other, smaller, more hemispherical discs seem to have been specifically made as spindle whorls and are made out of limestone, basalt or bone. While they are different in shape, they both compare best to spindle whorls as they were still frequently used in Palestine and in other parts of the world until recently.

Living room I follow Hardin in the basic definition of a living room as the space where food consumption, domestic ritual activity, entertaining guests, socializing and sleeping occurred (Hardin 2010: 136). It is based on ethnographic evidence from Iran and Syria, in particular. But it also has similarities with the living areas (el-mastaba) described by Dalman (Dalman 1942: 124, 128). In contrast to food consumption areas, living rooms have greater variety of artefacts. While food consumption vessels, such as bowls, open kraters, jugs, juglets and cups are numerous, other vessels, such as closed kraters and various jars, would also be located here. Artefacts that are rarer, such as amphoriskoi, amphorae, cosmetic bowls, basalt bowls or those for which I have not listed a type, may also indicate a living room, as the place where goods were displayed. Artefacts that may be associated with cultic activities, such as figurines or chalices, may also indicate living rooms.

9.2 Activity areas To better compare households I define several activity area types. They reflect certain patterns seen in the archaeological remains. I arrived at these after working closely with the material from many sites, taking into account the suggestions of excavators, and ethnographic evidence. These activity area types do not presume to clearly reflect the actual spatial division in antiquity. Rather, they allow us to compare excavated materials. They are also not exclusive. For example, some excavated spaces may be quite similar to several of the types. Certainly, none of the houses investigated have all of the suggested activity area types. Food preparation A food preparation installation, such as a bread oven, a hearth or a grinding bin, is the most definite indicator of a food preparation area. It would also have cooking pots, bowls, and other pottery, as well as grindstones. Even where no such installation was found, the presence of grindstones, pounders, mortars and especially querns also indicates food preparation. I also identified an area to be used in food preparation if there were many cooking

Living rooms, in addition, may also have evidence for domestic work, such as pounders, grindstones and spindle whorls. Domestic work This area is similar to the often elevated work areas (sidde) found in Palestinian houses. It was used for 96

Chapter 9 Artefact assemblages

Stable

sleeping at night; during the day, with the mattresses moved to one side, women often used it for light household work (Dalman 1942: 125, 140). For this area, relatively few artefacts would be expected, but a greater variety. Bowls would be included among the artefacts. Tools such as pounders or spindle whorls may also be expected.

Just as in many ethnographically observed houses in the Middle East, in the agricultural setting of Ancient Israel some space in the house would have been set aside to keep animals. Archaeologists have identified areas with cobble floors and relatively close to the door as stable areas. I agree with this, but would also add the requirement that relatively few artefacts are found in this area. This would allow the stock to have sufficient space.

Food storage Some areas may be associated with bulk food storage, for example, those with a storage pit or a bin or room that has been separated to store grain. Additional evidence, such as carbonized grain, strengthens this interpretation. However, in the examples the most frequent indicator of a food storage area was the high number of storage jars, holemouth jars, small holemouth jars or pithoi. In particular, if they dominated the assemblage, food storage was assumed. The presence of cooking jugs, especially if the absence of soot marks was noted in the reports, strengthens this identification.

Agricultural production This is an area clearly associated with part of the agricultural processes, such as a wine press, olive oil press, threshing floor, or the further processing of commodities, such as a wine mixing area. It needs to be clearly differentiated from a food preparation area, where materials were prepared for the more immediate consumption of the household. The materials processed in agricultural production areas were not necessarily intended for use in the household. Archaeologically, such an area is identified if the remains are sufficiently similar to a particular agricultural production area as observed from ethnographic analogs or postulated from descriptions of ancient practice. A particular activity always has to be identified.

Goods storage This type of room was clearly identified by Kamp in Syria. In some rooms I saw similarities, especially if there was little pottery but evidence of other artefacts, such as agricultural tools, grindstones, and knives.

Craft

Fodder and fuel storage

This is an area where particular goods were made in larger quantities. An example is the making and firing of pottery. The production of lithic tools has also been identified in some areas. However, if making of the goods was closely associated with other household activities, such as seems to have been the case for much of textile production, I determined the area to have been used primarily for those household activities.

Ethnographically, areas to store animal fodder such as chaff, and fuel, such as wood and dung, have frequently been observed. Often those areas were towards the back of the house. Of course, those materials leave no or few traces in the archaeological record. Nevertheless, I identified such areas, if there were few artefacts, the area was towards the back of the house and there was a low bin or a shallow pit.

97

Chapter 10

Tell Halif: the reference site

Figure 68. Overview of the Tell Halif F7 House with activity areas marked.

10.1 The F7 House

Tell Halif sits at the border of the Shephelah, the Hebron Hills and the Coastal Plain, just north of BeerSheba and therefore also close to the Negev. Several wells surround the hill, which was occupied from the Chalcolithic Period to the Roman-Byzantine Period. The best-preserved remains are from the Iron Age II, when a well-built town occupied the tell. This town was violently destroyed at the end of the eighth century BCE.

James W. Hardin analyzed a house at Tell Halif in detail, suggesting activity areas based on walls, features, macro-artefacts and micro-artefacts (‘The F7 House’, Hardin 2010). The artefacts were largely wellpreserved, but in some places the remains of the house were disturbed by later pitting, so that—as at many sites—the picture is not complete. Hardin divided the house of five rooms into 13 activity areas (Figure 68).21

The Lahav Research Project under the direction of Joe Seger excavated at Tell Halif from 1976 onwards. Field IV was excavated from 1992 to 1999 and Field V from 2007 to 2016. In both these fields the excavation concentrated on the Iron Age II remains. With an emphasis on household archaeology during these excavations, good data was gathered that could be used to reconstruct household activities. Because of the detailed analysis I want to use these houses as the reference households for my study.

Room 1 Even though 35 storage jars were found in the house, Hardin only identified one activity area that was probably dedicated to storage. This is Activity Area A, which covered the entire Room 1, the smaller of the My consideration of the house will take into account the online report by Paul Jacobs and my own analysis, based on the report and the book by James W. Hardin (Jacobs 1999–2005; Hardin 2010). 21

98

Chapter 10 Tell Halif: the reference site

broadrooms at the back of the house. Based on the micro-artefact analysis and the presence of a poorly preserved bread oven, he suggests that the room was once used for food preparation, but by the time of the destruction of the house, was used just for storage (Hardin 2010: 131–132). Such modification of space due to changing household requirements has been observed ethnographically, but also in archaeological contexts. He also suggests that use may have changed between the seasons (Hardin 2010: 132).

relatively large juglet. The cooking pots have clear soot marks and therefore were likely to also have been used in cooking. There were also a broken spindle whorl, a horn-core, a bone spatula, two small, polished stones, and two grinding stone fragments. Based on the micro-artefacts, it is likely that food preparation, but not cooking, took place in the room. Considering also the macro-artefacts, especially the bowls and krater, Hardin concluded that the room corresponded well with a ‘living room’, where food consumption, domestic ritual activity, entertaining guests, socializing, and sleeping occurred (Hardin 2010: 136). Activity Area C may have been used more for sleeping and sitting, possibly with mats covering the area, while in Activity Area B, cultic activity and food serving may have taken place. The cooking pots may have been heated at another location and brought into this area for the consumption of food. Hardin suggests that the storage jars might have held goods intended for consumption in this area (Hardin 2010: 143).

However, Jacobs suggests that the installation was a storage pit, not the base of a bread oven (Jacobs 1999-2005: F7026). It was a circular and stone-lined installation. At its centre it was excavated to a depth of approximately 40 cm. The outside diameter was about 45 cm, but due to the thickness of the stones, the inside diameter would not have been more than 30 cm. It would, therefore, have been a quite narrow and small bin, so that Hardin’s suggestion of it being the base of a bread oven becomes attractive. Approximately 28 l may have been stored in this storage pit, if it was used as such. However, I will not include this in the storage total, as the use of this installation is uncertain.

This would indicate that the jars were used for shortterm storage, rather than long-term storage. Other explanations are possible: long-term food storage did take place together with other activities; the storage jars and pitchers were used to hold water; or the area was used for storage of household items, so that the cultic material and the vessels were not in actual use, but placed there until required. The three storage jars with narrow mouths had a total capacity of 110 litres, the holemouth jar a capacity of 29.05 litres.

Six storage jars were found in Activity Area A—four lmlk-type jars, one two-handled ovoid jar, and one carinated jar. The jars had a combined volume of 251.2 litres (41.87 litres on average). They all had narrow openings. In addition, there were two juglets, a jug, a small bowl and two cooking jugs. The juglets are consistent with a space dedicated to storage. Since no soot marks were found on the cooking jugs, I would suggest that they were probably used for the storage of smaller quantities of food, such as dairy products. Other artefact fragments, such as parts of a metal knife, of a figurine, of a grinding stone, and complete small artefacts, namely a weight stone and a ground stone, may indicate that not just food was stored in the room.

Room 3 Room 3, as James Hardin designated it, is the southern longroom. It had a packed earth floor. The destruction fire was particularly intense in this area, indicating that flammable materials occupied this space. A line of stones divided the room. Just one stone wide, it is hardly sturdy enough for a dividing wall. Nevertheless, it was used to differentiate the two Activity Areas D and E. Based on several loomweights and perforated stones, Hardin suggests that textile production was carried out in Activity Area D. A grinding stone and several weights suggest that other domestic activities could also have been carried out here.

Room 2 Room 2 was the wider of the two broadrooms at the back of the house. Hardin divided the space into two activity areas (B and C; Hardin 2010: 133–143). The floor of this room was also cobbled. While Activity Area B in the northern half of the room contained many artefacts, no artefacts were recovered from the southern half (Activity Area C). The most notable artefacts in Activity Area B are the apparently cultic pieces: two dressed stones, a fenestrated stand, the head of a pillar figurine, and possibly a flat, triangular stone. They were found together with common household vessels: two cooking pots, four bowls, an open krater, two cooking pots, three juglets, two pitchers, two lmlk-type storage jars, one smaller ovoid jar, and a large holemouth jar. One of the juglets is a small, black juglet, one a special pomegranate-shaped juglet and the third one is a

In the eastern Activity Area E, a semi-circular installation and a stone-lined bin were uncovered. Hardin does not suggest a specific use for the bin.22

Hardin gives a bin diameter of about 40 cm, but the drawings show an internal diameter of about 35 cm. Its depth was approximately 40 cm. The sides of the bin were fairly straight, so that the capacity would have been between 38 and 50 litres. 22

99

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Four storage jars, a pitcher and a jug were found in the area, as well as fragments of grinding stones and pounders.23

Activity Area H consists of a large, circular platform made of small cobble stones, and the surrounding packed mud floor. While it was covered with ash, Hardin concludes that this was probably the result of the destruction fire, rather than the regular use of fire on the platform. Only a bowl and a krater were found in this area.

Micro-artefacts analysed from Activity Area E included cereals, metal slag and red ochre. It is the latter discovery that mainly led Hardin to suggest that here also textile production might have been carried out, the ochre serving as dye pigment. Because of the high temperatures of the fire in this area, he also suggested that the storage jars may have contained oil (Hardin, personal communication). Overall, Hardin interprets the area as a multi-use area where, besides textile production, food preparation and storage also took place. To me it seems possible that the bin was used in textile production or for food storage. However, such small bins are not described in the literature on storage receptacles in Iron Age Levant. I would suggest that Activity Area E may have been used for domestic work with some food storage.

Hardin suggests on ethnographic parallels that the platform was used for food preparation, but not for cooking itself. Nevertheless, Activity Area I with a cooking facility was adjacent to Activity Area H, although it is located in a different room. Activity Area G was also in Room 4, but further to the east. It was separated from Activity Areas F and H by a wall stub, which had subsequently been robbed out. Activity Area G was not directly adjacent to any other areas in the dwelling, because later intrusive pits had disrupted the area. The floor of Activity Area G was cobbled. The only artefacts found on the floor were a small holemouth jar and a bowl. Microartefacts included cereals and fishbone. Based on the interpretation of similar areas in other Iron Age dwellings as stables, Hardin suggests that this cobbled area was indeed used as a stable. The small holemouth jar could have been used to feed animals (Hardin 2010: 150).

Room 4 Hardin called the central longroom Room 4 and divided it into three different activity areas. As parts of the room were disturbed by later pits and stone robbing, some artefacts would have been removed from the assemblage. Activity Area F is located right by the door to Room 3. There were three storage jars. Two were lmlk-type jars, one of them lying on its side on a small installation of stones, and one a carinated jar. Also found were one perforated piece of a shell, one loomweight, a stone bead, and the birdlike head of a figurine.24

Room 5 Hardin designated the northern longroom Room 5, and divided it into five activity areas. The floor of Room 5 predominately consisted of hard-packed dirt, but a narrow area along the north wall was paved with cobbles.

Overall, Hardin suggests that Activity Area F was used mainly for storage, but in close connection with adjacent Activity Area H, where food was probably prepared. The total capacity of the four storage jars in Activity Area F was approximately 125 litres.25

Activity Area I consisted of the space around and including a semi-circular installation built against the northern side of the western pillar dividing Rooms 4 and 5. Many carbonized remains were recovered from its interior, and black ash surrounded it (Hardin 2010: 153). Near the feature were two cooking pots, one krater, three bowls, one juglet, one lamp, and two storage jars (one of them a lmlk-type jar, the other probably a carinated jar). Other artefacts recovered in the area were a pierced stone, a loom weight, a piece of metal, a small bone disk, a round stone and one bead. Some slag was found among the micro-artefacts, as well as cereal remains, egg shells and fish bones. Hardin suggests that the installation was used as a hearth or cooking oven, and that Activity Area I as a whole, was for cooking and metal-working.

Unfortunately, Hardin does not list the identity of one of the storage jars, but just refers to it as being preserved in a fragmentary state (Hardin 2010: 144). However, by personal communication, we established that it was jar H7.8.30. The photo of the fragments of this jar indicates that it is an ovoid storage jar. It should be noted that later pottery was also found in H7003, the locus in which jar H7.8.30 was found, including large parts of a Roman cooking pot. One of the storage jars (H7.29A.1) has a round hole of about 4 cm diameter at the shoulder. It was intentionally cut into the jar. So far I have not found any ethnographic analogs that could aid with the functional interpretation of the jar. It could have been used for storage, and the hole could have been plugged so that liquids or granular goods could be removed. The other jars were a lmlk-type jar and a smaller ovoid jar, both with narrow mouths. 24 It seems that another storage jar was found near this location (Jacobs 1999–2005: Jar G7.9.1). It is not mentioned by Hardin (2010). Jacobs does not supply a drawing. From the picture it is clear that it is a carinated jar. 25 This figure is approximate. I assumed a volume of 20 litres for carinated jar G7.9.1, a figure at the lower end of the range for such carinated jars. The scales to the drawings given by Hardin (2010: 225) and Jacobs for storage jar G7.63D.1 were somewhat unrealistic, with Hardin’s scale being twice the size of that given by Jacobs. Neither 23

corresponded well to the scale seen in the photograph of the jar. I used approximate measurements from the photograph to calculate a scale and determined an approximate volume from the drawing based on that scale.

100

Chapter 10 Tell Halif: the reference site

Activity Areas J and K are immediately to the north of Activity Area I. Hardin also associates them with food preparation. Area J consisted of a semicircular installation built against the wall. It was made out of stones and coated with mud plaster. A small amphoriskos and a juglet were found near the installation. Many small objects, such as weights, a bead and a bulla, were found in the vicinity. Hardin suggest that the installation was used as a catch basin for ground grain, or an area to hold material such as dung or sticks for fires. For this determination he does not take into account the many small finds.

the food preparation area as they were needed. Storage jars were found in other areas also, such as the possible textile production area (Activity Area E) and the living room (Activity Area B). Even the apparently dedicated wine production and storage area was right next to a bread oven and close to other household activities. Only one room was clearly dedicated to storage (Activity Area A). Two small bins that could have been used for food storage were found in the dwelling, but in one case there is a debate whether the installation could be seen as a storage bin. That storage occurred in conjunction with other activities is also suggested by the overall patterns of storage capacity and floor area. If the jars in Activity Area M were indeed used for the production and storage of wine, at least about 1/3 of the excavated storage capacity would have been dedicated to this product, which in this case probably also was destined for trade.26

Activity Area K consisted of a limestone mortar sunk into the floor, and the area immediately surrounding it. Three large holemouth jars were found in that area, as well as a grinding stone, and a loomweight. Hardin concludes that cereals were processed in this area, both the holemouth jars and the mortar pointing to it. Activity Area M stretches along the North Wall from the door of Room 1 to the eastern limits of the excavation. Mudbricks built against the inside of the stone wall in the north were probably a high bench, rather than an additional line of the wall. Activity Area M surrounded Activity Area L, a bread oven. In this area were 12 storage jars (six lmlk-type jars, three other ovoid jars, three carinated jars), three jugs, a cooking pot, four bowls, two lamps, a funnel, and a strainer. From this area a total of 18 loomweights, two ceramic stoppers, bone tools, hammer stones and bullae were also discovered. Three jars and the strainer and funnel were tested and found positive for tartaric acid, a substance that is found in grapes. Hardin concludes that the area was used for the production and storage of wine, which was probably not used only for local household consumption. Based on the artefacts and architecture Hardin suggests that probably the entire area was roofed, although a small part of Rooms 4 or 5 may have been open to allow light to enter and smoke to escape (Hardin 2010: 160). A bread oven was found in the east of the room, surrounded by many storage jars. As there would have been little space to access the bread oven, Hardin suggests that it was not in use at the time.

The highest density of storage capacity / floor area is in this wine production area and in the food preparation Area K (Table 8). In both of these areas the storing of food was part of the overall process of turning the stored food items into useable products. The ratio of storage capacity to floor area was also relatively high in the dedicated storage room (Room 1) and Storage Area F, which was right beside a food preparation area. Because Activity Area F served as a passageway, only part of it could actually be used for storage. It is noticeable that less than 20% of the excavated storage capacity was in the dedicated storage room. The rest was distributed around the house. Calculations of food storage availability and consumption Based on the food basket for the estranged wife and the calculations by Broshi (see Chapter 2), I estimate that the approximate storage capacity required to feed one person for a week would be about 6.14 l. That would consist of 2.86 l for grain, 0.7 l for legumes, 1.4 l for dried figs, and 0.18 l for oil. In addition I included about 1.0 l for wine. That would require capacity of about 3.56 l for granular food, 1.18 l for liquids, and 1.4 l for dried fruit per person per week. Additional storage capacity would be required for seed and wastage. About 10% of grain was used as seed (Dalman 1933: 153–159). I will take account of this by deducting an amount from the total storage capacity, rather than as a weekly consumption.

Spatial analysis Cooking and food preparation were carried out mainly in the western parts of Rooms 4 and 5 (Activity Areas F, H, I, J and K). Nine storage jars were found in these areas, indicating that food for cooking was removed from these jars for immediate use. This might suggest short-term storage of food in the food preparation area, or that long-term storage was closely integrated with food preparation activities. Especially Activity Area K with its mortar and three holemouth jars indicates that food might have been kept very close to where it was later processed. Jars may also have been brought to

The word trade often evokes the conditions of market exchange with which we are familiar from recent centuries. But the systems of exchange in Ancient Judah were probably quite different. It is likely that they were more based on social relationships than we are familiar with in our world. All I want to indicate here is that the householder purposefully set aside the wine to be taken outside the household. Whether we would describe the transaction as taxes, gift or sale is not relevant to the immediate discussion. 26

101

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Table 8. Activity areas and storage capacity of the F7 House. Activity area A B C D E F G H I J K M Total Other Total

Probable main activity Food storage Living room Living room Domestic work Domestic work Food storage Stable Food preparation Food preparation Food preparation Food preparation Agricultural production Excavated areas Disturbed / nonexcavated areas Excavated plus nonexcavated areas

Approximate floor area (m2) 5.0 7.2 8.4 8.3 7.7 2.4 3.9 2.8 1.5 1.7 1.6 6.4

Approximate storage capacity (l) 251.2 139.2 0 0 215.8 125.7 5.2 0 66.8 0 121.9 489.4

Storage capacity / floor area (l / m2) 50.2 19.3 0 0 28.2 52.4 1.3 0 44.6 0 76.2 76.5

Proportion of storage capacity 17.8% 9.9% 0 0 15.3% 8.9% 0.4% 0 4.7% 0 8.6% 34.7%

56.8 19.4

1415.2

24.8

100%

76.3

18.5

As only about half of the storage capacity relates to grain, a total of 10% for seed and wastage should be sufficient. Water would have been fetched daily from a spring, well, or cistern. Some of the storage capacity in the house would have been used for water. While a set amount, such as 25 l per house, would be one way to take account of this, I decided to use a percentage, as more water would be required for more inhabitants. A figure of 5% of the total storage capacity could be appropriate. That would be 71.5 l in the case of the total storage capacity of 1415 l for this house. A total storage capacity of 1415 l or 1203 l after provision for seed, wastage and water would provide food for approximately 196 person-weeks. According to Dalman the time from storage to the beginning of the harvest would be from September to May, less than ¾ of the year (Dalman 1933: 188). For ¾ of the year (39 weeks), the house would have sufficient storage capacity for 5.0 people. If the capacity of the agricultural production area is not included, the house would have a storage capacity of 926 l, enough to store food for approximately 128 person-weeks. This would be sufficient for 3.3 persons for 39 weeks.

A key interpretive question is whether the material excavated just above the floor should be taken to refer to that floor or to an upper storey. As Paul Jacobs, the editor of the online report, suggests, some of the material may have come from an upper storey. A key part of that consideration is the saddle quern found in the balk between areas K8 and L8. It was found sitting above remains of charred beams (see Jacobs 1999–2005: K8). While these could be interpreted as roof beams, other members of the excavation team suggest that the saddle quern was raised on a wooden installation. Judging from the elevations given in the report and personal communication from the supervisors, it was difficult to distinguish between material immediately on the floor and that from a possible second storey. I will therefore give preference to the one-storey scenario, as the patterns apparent in both scenarios stand out more clearly under this scenario (Figure 69). It should be noted that remains from a possible second storey were only found in the eastern part of the house, away from the edge of the tell. Cynthia Shafer-Elliot also examined this house (ShaferElliot 2013: 80–89), assuming that the material above the floor came from a second storey. She did not analyze the material from the possible upper floor. I think it is important to take into account all the material. Also, Shafer-Elliot did not consider the detailed spatial distribution of the material. I also see the need to revise some of her interpretations.27

10.2 The K8 House The southern house in Field IV is somewhat smaller than ‘the F7 House’ analyzed by Hardin. While the entrance and longrooms of this house have been preserved, the probable broadrooms at the back of the house have been eroded. A small room outside the entrance of the house has also been preserved. Therefore, the house cannot be analyzed in its totality, but the preserved parts provide an indication of the patterns.

I had the benefit of detailed maps of the house, showing the exact distribution of all ceramic materials and the exact location of the pottery baskets. These were prepared by Jimmy Hardin, but never used in any publication. He suggested that the material came from one floor. In my reconstruction of the single-storey scenario I largely 27

102

Chapter 10 Tell Halif: the reference site

Entrance area The house had a threshold in the SE corner, probably the main entrance to the house. The area immediately inside the entrance was cobbled. The cobbled area extended north to a pillar. On the eastern side of the pillar a thin wall, which connected to the main eastern wall, closed off the room. An oval bin was located to the west of the pillar. A wall also closed off this room towards the west, so that the room was approximately 2.80 m long (east to west) and 2.10 m wide (north to south). With Cynthia Shafer-Elliot I discern two distinct activity areas. Activity Area A covers most of the room and contains a small jar, a cooking pot, two jugs, two kraters, one bowl, one cup and a spindle whorl Shafer-Elliot suggests that the area Figure 69. Overview of the Tell Halif K8 House with activity areas marked. was used as a stable. It must then have been a fairly small stable, only fitting a few smaller animals. The cobbled floor and few facilitate the storage of jars using the depressions in the artefacts in the area support her suggestion, though it floor for placing jar bottoms’ (Jacobs 1999-2005: K8). I could also be seen as a general entrance area. The small have not come across any evidence of such a practice storage jar right by the door (capacity 13.4 litres) may from ethnographic analogy. It is therefore a suggestion have been used to collect water, as has been shown in based on archaeological data alone. While there seems to ethnographic parallels. be some correlation between cobbled floors and storage at some houses at Tell Halif, I think that it is not strong. Central area Furthermore, it would be our task to assess evidence for storage independently and then show the correlation. The area around the bin should rightly be considered a separate activity area (Activity Area B). But unlike I suggest that such a bin was most likely used for food Shafer-Elliot, I do not see this activity area as being preparation, possibly as a collection bin for grinding restricted to the entrance room, but rather spanning flour. Such grinding installations have been clearly the area between several rooms. Many artefacts identified at Tel Rehov (Fries 2004) and Tel Dor (Zorn surrounded the bin on all sides. There was at least one 2009). That interpretation is strengthened under the cooking pot inside the bin, possibly two. In total, there one-storey scenario by the saddle quern, which was were four bowls, one krater, one jug, one decanter, two found very close to the bin. The cooking pots and cooking pots, one large holemouth jar, six storage jars bowls further support this interpretation, as do the (three carinated jars, two lmlk-type jars, one ovoid jar), micro-artefacts recovered from the floor (Shaferand a saddle quern (several grinding stone fragments Elliot 2013: 82–83). Nevertheless, storage would have were also found). been a considerable secondary function of the area, possibly for immediate use of the jar contents for food Shafer-Elliot suggested that the bin and surrounding preparation. Seven storage jars with a total capacity area were used for storage (Shafer-Elliot 2013: 81). She of 259.76 l were in this area. Most of those had narrow particularly relies on a purported relationship between mouths; only one of the jars was a large holemouth jar. cobble floors and storage, based on a statement by Jacobs The much clearer separation between jars with narrow that ‘the unevenness of the floor was possibly made to mouths and those with wide mouths observed in ‘the F7 House’ was not present in the southern house. Nor were the different jars clearly associated with liquid or follow Hardin. The information from the maps also informed the granular goods. double-storey scenario. Where I thought that there was insufficient evidence (only fragments of a vessel) or I thought I had discovered a mistake in the placement, I departed from Hardin’s distribution map. I follow Shafer-Elliot’s numbering of the rooms on the ground floor, but not her naming or definition of the activity areas.

Activity Area C is adjacent and to the east of Activity Area B just discussed. It covers the eastern part of 103

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah the central longroom, which has a packed dirt floor. A large stone stood against the wall in this area. The area contained two large bowls, two cooking pots and a storage jar. With Hardin, I would interpret the area as a living room, where food was probably consumed. Shafer-Elliot came to a similar conclusion, but her activity area covered the entire room.

area. If that indicates the presence of a wooden plough, such a plough would have occupied a considerable part of the room, based on ethnographic parallels. I would suggest that the area was used for the storage of agricultural and household implements (goods storage). Shafer-Elliot suggests that it was a work area for agriculture and weaving. While the loomweight is certainly connected to weaving and the plough points to agriculture, the plough was certainly not used in the house, but just kept there for work in the field.

I defined Activity Area D as the remaining area of the central longroom between the first and third of the northern pillars. There are no distinguishing features or artefact groupings. It contains a large holemouth jar, a cooking jug and a decanter. Adjacent to a living area and food preparation area, it would have been associated with these activities and also provided access to other parts of the house. Some storage capacity was also provided by the large holemouth jar.

The south-western area Activity Area I covers the western part of the central longroom. The most significant find is the oven built against the wall and pillar in the northeastern corner of the area. It is enclosed by a semi-circle of stones. In the vicinity of the oven were found a jug, a juglet, a lamp, and a cooking pot. Based on the oven, it is likely that food preparation took place in this area. The other artefacts support this conclusion.28

The northern longroom The northern longroom of the house is also partially cobbled. It is divided from the central longroom by a row of pillars. At its eastern end there was a concentration of storage jars that must have stood on both the cobbled floor and the packed dirt floor. This is designated Activity Area E. Beside the six storage jars (three lmlk-type jars, two other ovoid jars, one carinated jar), there were also a bowl, a decanter, a spouted jar, a juglet, a cup, and parts of a pillar figurine in this area. The spouted jar and juglet point to the pouring of liquids in the area. Overall, it is likely that Activity Area E was used for storage. Concentrated in this small area was about one third of the recovered storage capacity in the house.

Since Activity Area I was located not far from Activity Area B, where food preparation is likely to have taken place, the two areas may well be part of a larger functional space. Food preparation took place in the centre of the house, while the surrounding rooms had other uses. Activity Area J covers the entire western part of the southern longroom. It has not been fully excavated, with a balk still covering part of the floor and a possible pillar. The most noteworthy feature is a cavity built into the cobbled floor. It was 33 cm x 25 cm wide and 12 cm deep (Figure 70). Two bowls were inside this feature and it was covered by a flat stone. The excavators suggest that the cavity was used for storage. If food was stored in the bowls, the quantity would have been quite small and it would have purposefully been put in a place where it was not easily accessible. Spices, sweets or dairy products can be imagined. No valuables were found in the cavity, though they could have been removed near the time of the destruction of the house.

Not much pottery was found immediately east of the wall in line with the middle pillar. I designated this area Activity Area F. In the one-storey scenario, a jug as well as several loomweights were found here. However, loomweights were also found in the vicinity of Activity Area E. Nevertheless, the loomweights may indicate possible textile working in this area. In Activity Area G, a small enclosed space in the northern longroom, three storage jars (including two lmlk-type jars), a hammer stone, a lamp and a bead were found. The storage jars were all placed against the northern wall of the building. The floor of this space was also cobbled. As there is no indication for any other activity in this space, it was most likely used for storage.

One additional bowl, a jug, a cooking pot, a lamp, two loomweights, and two storage jars were also found in this area. Shafer-Elliot suggests that the area was used for food storage (Shafer-Elliot 2013: 87). While some storage probably took place here, the area does not have the concentrated storage capacity found in other parts of the house. It is more likely to have been a general living area with some incidental storage.

The western part of the northern longroom was separated by walls on all sides, though the excavators suggest that through the southern wall there was access to the central longroom. It had a packed dirt floor. I designated it Activity Area H. In it, a large open krater, a cooking pot and a bowl were found. In addition, an iron plough point and a loomweight were also located in this

The description of the artefacts found in this area varies considerably from that of Shafer-Elliot. I included artefacts uncovered in the balk stub between excavation areas K8, K9, L8 and L9 (pottery basket IV.K9.162) in Activity Area B, as they were closer to the bin than the oven. It seems Shafer-Elliot also used several relatively small pottery fragments to conclude from these the existence of bowls and juglets. 28

104

Chapter 10 Tell Halif: the reference site

Figure 70. Feature L9008, a cavity built into the cobble floor containing two bowls. Jacobs 1999–2005:L9. Lahav Research Project: http://cobb.msstate.edu.

Additional room outside the house

Spatial analysis

To the east of the house an additional room was excavated, which was probably located outside the house itself in the courtyard. An oven was located in one corner of the room near the entrance. Pottery found in this area includes two bowls, a jug, a juglet and a cooking pot. The juglet as well as a large bone were found inside the cooking pot. It should be noted that the material found in this area was somewhat disturbed by later activity, probably during Byzantine times. In addition, Paul Jacobs allocated some material to Stratum VIA, the squatter phase after the destruction of the settlement, although this is disputed by other members of the excavation team (Jacobs 1999–2005: K7). In my reconstruction I included the material that was clearly identified as part of Stratum VIB, the level of the main Iron Age city destroyed at the end of the eighth century. In any case, it is likely that the area I designated Activity Area K was used for food preparation. It may have been something like an outside baking hut. In that case, the house had two ovens, one in the centre of the house and the other in the courtyard. Such an arrangement has been observed in traditional villages in Iran (Kramer 1982).

The house probably had additional broadrooms to the west, which have been eroded. In particular, food storage areas may have been located there. Therefore, the analysis must be based on only a partial exposure of the house. The pattern of storage is similar to that of ‘the F7 House’, particularly under the one-storey scenario (Table 9). There are two dedicated storage areas, where the storage capacity in relation to the floor area is very high. But only a portion (46%) of the actual storage capacity is located in these dedicated storage areas. The remaining storage capacity is spread throughout the house and particularly associated with food preparation. This may indicate a distinction between long-term storage, which is likely to have been concentrated in the dedicated storage areas, and short-term storage, which may have occurred near food preparation areas. It is noticeable in the K8 House that many storage jars, representing a storage capacity of nearly 260 l, were located in the indoor food preparation area, while no storage jars were present in the food preparation area in the courtyard. It may indicate that storage did not occur in spaces in the courtyard, but rather in the 105

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah house proper. Unlike traditional houses in Syria, food preparation and some food storage in the Tell Halif houses took place at the centre of the house and would have been quite visible.

The total storage capacity of 805 l (684 l after adjustments) would provide for the food storage needs of about 111 person-weeks. That would be sufficient for 2.9 people for a period of 39 weeks (3/4 of a year).

Table 9. Activity areas and storage capacity of the K8 House, one-storey scenario. Activity area

Probable main activity

Approximate floor area (m2)

Approximate storage capacity (l)

Storage capacity / floor area (l / m2)

Proportion of storage capacity

A

entrance / stable

5.1

13.5

2.7

1.7%

B

food preparation

7.5

259.8

34.4

32.3%

C

living room

2.7

38.7

14.2

4.8%

D

living room

2.6

54.4

21.3

6.8%

E

food storage

4.0

250.7

63.4

31.1%

F

domestic work

1.6

0

0

0%

G

food storage

2.7

120.6

45.0

15.0%

H

goods storage

3.5

0

0

0%

I

food preparation

4.1

0

0

0%

J

living room

7.5

67.6

9.0

8.4%

K

food preparation

4.2

0

0

0%

45.5

805.3

17.7

Total

106

Chapter 11

Archaeological Review 11.1 Site selection

11.2 Shiloh

I have chosen 12 additional Iron Age sites across the territory of Ancient Israel and Judah for my investigation of food storage practices and to discern possible patterns (Figure 71). Preservation, excavation extent and method, and reporting were critical considerations for site selection. Some excavations yielded a lot more information than others. At some sites, several houses could be considered, while at others only a single house was suitable for investigation. I included some sites that were not well preserved or reported to increase the range of sites. I compared those houses with the reference site, Tell Halif.

Shiloh (Khirbet Seilun) has some relevant Iron Age I remains, although much of the area of the tell has been disturbed by later construction or erosion (Finkelstein et al. 1993). In this review, I will discuss two pillared houses in Area C (western slopes) and silos in Area D (north-eastern slopes). The areas are not connected to each other. They are nearly on opposite sides of the tell. But by viewing them together, we can get a better idea about Iron I Shiloh. The tell was excavated by a Danish excavation in the 1930s. Excavations were renewed in the 1970s by an Israeli project, directed by Israel Finkelstein in its later stages. On the western slope of the tell, two houses which had been built into the Middle Bronze Age glacis were excavated (Figure 72). In Roman-Byzantine times some massive walls were constructed in the area, so that the houses could not be excavated completely. The construction of these walls also disturbed the remains in part. The Iron Age deposits were also relatively shallow and had been partly carried away by erosion. I will discuss the southern rooms as one house (loci 306, 312, 317, 319, 336. 611—building 312) and the northern rooms as another (loci 335, 1301, 1311, 1320—building 335). The excavators were uncertain whether passage 611 formed part of building 312 or may have been a passage between the two adjacent houses. Because locus 306 runs adjacent to both loci 611 and 312, I think that passage 611 formed part of this network of rooms. House 312 Room 312 covered the largest area of House 312. It is subdivided by three rows of pillars. Not all pillars of the northern row have been preserved. The room was partly subdivided by a wall in the west. In that area, the floor seems to have been cobbled and not a packed dirt floor. An installation built from flat slab stones was situated between two pillars of the central row of Room 312. It may have been used for cooking as it was full of ash. In this area, the earlier Danish excavation had dug a test pit, which was identified by the renewed excavations. Not far from the installation, the Danish team had found a collared rim pithoi and at least two other large storage jars. Otherwise not many objects were found in the room. The excavators assumed that some material may well have been eroded, since the deposits were quite shallow. Three ceramic vessels

Figure 71. Map of Israel and Judah with sites examined.

107

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 72. Overview of Shiloh House 312 and House 335.

were found in the renewed excavations in Room 312: two jugs and one described as pyxis. In Greek pottery terminology, a pyxis is a small, wide container with a lid. While the vessel found at Shiloh was relatively wide, it had a narrow neck. In other words, it is more similar to a juglet, even though it has a proportionally wide body and handles. Due to its form, it is unlikely to have been used as a dipper juglet. Possible uses include the storage of small amounts of liquid, such as special oils or vinegars, or as serving vessel.

Parts of seven cooking pots were also found in the room, five of these inside pit 336. The pit had a diameter of about 1.70 m and was about 0.40 m deep. It was full of ash and burnt animal bones. I accept the excavators’ suggestion that this western room (306) was something like a cellar. The living space of the house would have probably extended above this cellar. Possible roofing material was found, but any artefacts associated with that upper storey would have been eroded. Food storage would have been the main activity in this cellar, even though it is unclear what product would have been stored in the jars. Nearly all of the jars leaned against the walls of the cellar. Space for other activities would have been available in the centre of the room. And that’s where the pit and cooking pots were found. The pit may be compared with a hearth, such as the nukra in Palestine (Dalman 1935: 4, 40, Ill. 6; Dalman 1942: 195). However, the nukra was just a shallow impression with a rim around it. Other hearths, such as in the Western Iranian village of Hasanabad were of stone and roughly rectangular, about 50 cm long and 40 cm wide (Watson 1979: 123– 124). Each living room, which also served for food preparation, was equipped with a hearth. Generally, hearths seen in more recent ethnographic parallels, as well as those identified in archaeological settings, have a rim of stones and often also a stone or packed earth base. Rarely do they consist of a deep pit. A hearth at Shechem, for example, is an oval space in the middle of the room, surrounded by a stone rim with stones covering the floor of the hearth (Campbell 2002: 281). However, the ash and many cooking pots in the pit strengthen the case for food preparation. In that case

From the scarce remains it is possible to suggest possible activities in the room. Food preparation and consumption, together with some storage, were probably carried out. More finds were recorded in the western room (306, 336, 319). This room was about 1.40 m lower than the western part of Area 312. A stone wall, which also included several pillars, delineated the step between the two areas. The Danish expedition had found six complete, collared-rim pithoi against the southern wall of this room. Three complete collared-rim pithoi were found in the northern part leaning against the terrace wall that delineated the room from the upper part of the house. Parts of presumably five collared-rim pithoi were found against the outer western wall. The rim of a further such pithos was found inside the shallow pit 336. In total, probably 15 collared-rim pithoi were found leaning against the walls of the room. In addition, three storages jars were found in the room, one of them in the shallow pit 336. These ovoid jars had a height of about 50 cm. Their necks had an inner diameter of about eight centimetres. 108

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

the artefacts would suggest food preparation in a room mainly dedicated to food storage, the reverse of Room 312, where some food was stored in a room probably dominated by food preparation and other household activities. Pit 336 may also originally have been used as a storage pit before later use as a rubbish pit, with ash, animal parts and old vessels disposed there. No finds were recorded for Room 611, which was probably part of the southern house.

two lithic sickle blades. The artefacts indicate a multiuse room, in which food preparation was carried out. Immediately to the north of central Room 1301, and divided by pillars, is the narrow Room 1311. The floor of this room consisted of bedrock or flagstone. Several pottery vessels were found in it: a strainer, an intact pinched-lip jug, a jug with a sieve spout, a cooking pot, pyxides and two bowls. The bases of a collaredrim pithoi and a large closed krater leaned against the northern wall. A ‘large’ pile of carbonized raisins was found in the room. Several pounders were also found here. I suggest that the artefacts as a whole indicate storage, maybe short-term storage. The ‘pyxides’ which may in fact be similar to juglets, but more so the strainer and jug, indicate that portions would have been taken from larger vessels as required.

House 335 Of the northern house, three large rooms divided by pillars were exposed. Other rooms may have been further to the east, but were not uncovered, or further to the west. The central room (1301) was the largest. The excavators suggest that it was a courtyard. While the excavators reported no roofing material such as was found above the floor of the northern Room 1311, brick collapse was found above part of the floor. But roofing material was reported for none of the other rooms either. There is nothing to suggest that the central space 1301 was unroofed.

Storage in Shiloh houses When comparing the storage and space of the Shiloh house with the Tell Halif houses, the concentration of storage capacity in just a few areas in the Shiloh houses becomes apparent (Table 10 and Table 11).29 In both houses, over 80% of the storage capacity was located in one room, primarily in the form of the large collared-rim pithoi. The density of storage capacity is comparable to the Tell Halif houses. House 312 had more than twice the storage capacity of the northern house, but was larger. However, the possible eroded western part of House 335 might have contained more storage capacity.

In the small southern room (335) seven collared-rim pithoi and one large (height about 80 cm) ovoid jar were found against the southern wall. Two smaller (height about 50cm) ovoid jars were also found in this room, as well as parts of three jugs, three closed kraters (one of them multi-handled), a possible baking tray, a cooking pot and three vessels described as cooking pots or bowls. Unfortunately, the information in the report is insufficient to come to any conclusion about the possible function of these last three vessels. Grindstones and pounders were also found in the room, but no further information is given so that it is difficult to know what exactly is meant by those terms. While jugs and closed kraters may be associated with serving, they could also be used for short-term storage. The grindstones and pounders as well as the cooking pot and baking tray may indicate food preparation. Food storage, nevertheless, was the dominant activity in Room 335.

Two storage pits were excavated south of House 312. No details about them are given in the report. However, a total of 16 apparently similar storage pits were excavated in Area D, on the other side of the tell. They vary in diameter from 1.5 m to 1.9 m and were preserved up to 1.6 m deep. An average storage pit of 1.7 m diameter and 1.5 m depth would have a capacity of about 13600 litres. No complete vessels were found in the storage pits, but two storage pits contained large quantities of carbonized wheat, supporting the conclusion that these were used for grain storage. The capacity of one storage pit, therefore, exceeds the overall storage capacity found in any of the houses.

The large central room (1301) had a compacted chalk floor. In its north-eastern corner was a rock-hewn cistern (1320), partly screened off from the rest of the room. There was an installation built of flat stones standing on their edges against the northern pillars of the room. The report speaks of two such installations, but only one is visible on the plans. Judging from the description and photos, I would suggest that this installation can be compared to the hearths found in ethnographic parallels and identified at other sites. Other artefacts found in this room include parts of five possible cooking pots, a bowl, a closed krater, a jug with a sieve spout, a punctured, ceramic polisher, a bead, and

It should be noted that the cluster of storage pits in Area D—which was built above Middle Bronze Age fortifications—were apparently infilled to create a solid floor in the Iron Age. This suggests the possibility that the area could also have been used as an agricultural production area, for example, a threshing floor. Such I gave different designations to parts of a room which, from the excavation plans and photographs, may be interpreted as separated rooms or at least activity areas. These have been prefixed with the letter ‘A’ and combined with the adjacent room number. They are A312, A335B, A335C, A1301. 29

109

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Table 10. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of House 312. Room 312 A312 306 336 317 + 611 House 312

Probable main activity food preparation unknown food storage food preparation unknown

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l) 42.4 246 9.1 0 33.0 1462 4.6 91 21.1 0 110.3 1799

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2) 5.8 0 44.3 19.8 0 16.3

Proportion of storage capacity 13.7% 0 81.3% 5.0% 0 100%

Table 11. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of House 335. Room 335 A335B A335C 1311 1301+ A1301 1320 House 335

Probable main activity food storage unknown unknown food storage food preparation water

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l) 13.8 730 3.2 0 5.4 0 18.6 100 23.6 0 6.9 0 71.5 830

a large cluster of storage pits also indicates a larger facility beyond individual household use, indicating community strorage.

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2) 52.9 0 0 5.4 0 0 11.6

Proportion of storage capacity 87.9% 0 0 12.1% 0 0 100%

If the houses represented a family living space, they are notable for their concentration of storage capacity in certain rooms and for the use of large (collared-rim) pithoi. Nevertheless, there was some storage capacity (including in large pithoi) near food processing installations, which may suggest that vessels containing food were moved from the dedicated storage areas to food processing areas at the time when the stored food was used.

It is therefore likely that the storage capacity in the houses of Iron Age I Shiloh was supplemented by the storage pits. While the grain for immediate consumption probably would have been kept in the houses, the storage pits were probably used for longterm storage, as described in ethnographic examples. So, too, the jars and pithoi in the houses on the western slopes may only represent part of the storage capacity available to the household.

While the storage capacity was considerable, it was probably not out of range for a domestic context. The overall storage capacity was not that different from that observed at Tell Halif for domestic houses. The storage capacity per floor area is also comparable. Since silos at Shiloh may also have contributed to the overall storage capacity, the difference may be more pronounced. Nevertheless, the similarities caution against taking a group of pithoi or storage jars as immediately referring to institutional storage. If the houses indeed represent institutional storage, then they do make clear that the difference between such storage and domestic storage was not great.31

The preserved storage capacity of House 312 would be sufficient for approximately 249 person-weeks, or for about 6.4 people for 39 weeks or 3/4 of a year. In addition, the storage pits could provide long-term food storage. Therefore, if the capacity of the storage jars would only be required to store food other than grain, they would hold enough capacity to provide sufficient food for 492 person-weeks or 12.6 people for 39 weeks. The storage capacity in House 335 would provide sufficient food for 115 person-weeks or 2.9 people for 39 weeks. If grain storage capacity were provided by storage pits, the capacity would be sufficient for 227 person-weeks or 5.8 people for 39 weeks. But it has to be remembered that a pile of raisins was found not in a storage vessel, but apparently stored in some other way. Therefore, the overall capacity used for food storage in the house was greater than that provided for by the storage vessels alone.30

from the total storage capacity. The non-grain weekly storage requirements would be 3.29 l, as calculated on the basis of Broshi’s figures (Broshi 2001: 121–123). 31 It should be noted that only a limited pottery assemblage was recovered from the houses. It was heavily dominated by pithoi, storage jars and cooking pots. There were also several jugs and closed kraters, but surprisingly there was only one small bowl in the two houses. This is one of the reasons why Israel Finkelstein concludes that the two buildings were storage buildings for the sanctuary at Shiloh (Finkelstein 1993: 384–385). He also lists the following supporting evidence: • the obvious effort used to construct the buildings, as the MB Glacis was partly removed. • the outline of the buildings.

As seed stock would also have been kept in storage pits, only a deduction of 10% for wastage and water storage would be required 30

110

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

Table 12. Number of distinct rim-sherds found in loci of Giloh Building 8. Mazar 1981:31. Locus

Bowls

Kraters

8 20 22 29 31, 33 32 34 35 Total

4 1 0 2 1 1 6 0 15

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Amphorae, jugs, juglets 1 3 1 2 0 8 4 0 19

Cooking pots A 5 0 4 2 3 8 3 0 25

11.3 Giloh

Cooking pots B 2 0 1 3 2 5 5 2 20

Storage Jars

Pithoi

Total

2 0 4 5 1 7 9 0 28

7 5 1 12 3 2 25 5 60

22 9 11 26 10 31 52 7 168

locus, the state of preservation does not allow us to form an accurate picture of the presence of artefacts at the time of the destruction or abandonment of the settlement. It is therefore likely that not all vessel fragments represent entire vessels in use when the site was last occupied. In other words, if six storage jar rims were found in a locus, this does not necessarily mean that six storage jars were in use at a specific time in that locus. I therefore give four different possibilities for describing the locus and calculating storage capacity: the maximum artefact use, midway artefact use (half of artefacts in use, rounded up to full artefact), half artefact use (half of the maximum artefacts used), quarter artefact use (quarter of artefacts in use, rounded up to full artefact).32

Giloh is an Iron Age I site near Jerusalem (Mazar 1981; Mazar 1990). It was named after the modern suburb surrounding the site, and is unlikely to be the site of the Biblical town of that name. The site was largely destroyed by later erosion and 20th century military activity. However, nearly an entire house—Building 8— has been preserved. Its context within the settlement is not clear, nor are its exact boundaries ascertained. The debris covering the building was eroded so that very few restorable vessels were found. Apart from pottery very few artefacts were found. The total number of rim sherds found in each locus was given (Table 12), as well as several individual rims and vessel parts illustrated. While rim sherds indicate the type of vessels found in a locus and also the number of distinct vessels in each

To the south of Building 8 was a large courtyard. The house seems to have been accessed from this courtyard. This open courtyard was bordered by large walls on two sides and by a house on each of the other two sides. The excavators suggest that this could represent the compound of an extended family (Mazar 1981: 12). However, only Building 8 was preserved well enough for detailed archaeological investigation (Figure 73). It seems that Giloh was divided into several of these compounds.

• identification of the site with Shiloh; therefore a sanctuary should be located here. • debris covering the northern building, which contained several items, which probably were cultic in nature; therefore the sanctuary may have been close by and the debris was later dumped on top of the remains of the northern building. While these are valid points, I would argue that the public nature of the houses is not clear. There is a high proportion of storage jars in the houses, but both the features in the houses and the additional finds indicate that other activities apart from storage took place there, such as food preparation. Also, the storage capacity for the floor area is not uncharacteristic of domestic contexts. Very little of Iron Age I Shiloh has been excavated. Therefore, we do not know the conditions faced by the people who occupied the site. The construction of the houses in the MB glacis may rather indicate the best use of the local resources. It does not necessarily indicate that the houses were part of a larger concept. Similarly, the outline of the buildings, including their north-south alignment, may be due to the geography of the site. While I do not dispute that the site should be identified with Shiloh, I think it is circular reasoning to bring the storage rooms immediately into connection with the shrine, and from there argue that cultic activity dominated Shiloh. I think that even Israel Finkelstein would be more careful today than to immediately impress upon a site, nearly exclusively, its Biblical reference. Shiloh is mentioned in the Bible as the site of the sanctuary, but that should not bring us to look nearly exclusively for remains of that sanctuary. If we did not have any information from the Bible, the houses would be more likely seen as standard homes. The debris found above the northern house does include cultic material, which may have come from the sanctuary. It does indicate, as Finkelstein rightly suggests, that some cultic activity did take place upslope from the houses.

The excavators suggest that animals were kept in the courtyards. The northern part of the courtyard was Only one restorable ‘collared-rim pithos’ was uncovered at the site. This was in Area F—not in Building 8. The scale in the drawing is clearly incorrect. If the scale is 2 cm long, as indicated, the pithos would only be 46 cm high. If it were 10 cm long, the pithos would be 2.32 m high. The text mentions that it was 1.5 m high. I thought that the scale may have been 5 cm, in which case the pithos would be 1.16 m high. This makes it comparable to the pithoi found at Shiloh, even though still with a greater capacity, and accords well with the rim sizes illustrated in other figures of the excavation report. If I disregard the scale altogether and set the height of the pithos at 1.50 m, the size of its rim would still be in the range of the illustrated pithos rims; but the size and capacity of the pithos would far exceed that of jars found at Shiloh. I have therefore determined to use the scale of 5 cm, so that the pithos would have a volume of 159 litres. Based on the collared-rim pithoi found at Shiloh, I used a capacity of 120 litres per pithos, which represents the high end of the range there. 32

111

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Rim sherds from four bowls, one closed krater, one amphora, seven cooking pots, two storage jars and seven collared rim pithoi were found here. Even though no bread oven or other installation was found here, the artefacts indicate food preparation. The total storage capacity would have been between 257 l and 874 l. This represents about 13% of the total storage capacity. The pattern of some food storage in conjunction with food preparation, seen at Tell Halif, is also apparent here. To the north of the pillared rooms was Room 29, similar to a broadroom in typical four-room houses. It was probably accessed from the east from an extension of Room 8. The room contained rim sherds from two bowls, two jugs, five cooking pots, five storage jars and 12 collared-rim pithoi. The room was probably dedicated to storage. The vessels in the room provided a storage capacity between 377 l and 1525 l, representing 23% of the total storage capacity.

Figure 73. Overview of Giloh Building 8.

In the west of the house are two rooms: Room 32 in the north (back) and Room 34 in the south (front) of the house. Room 32 had a beaten earth floor. The floor was covered with ash. This is unlikely to have been the result of household activity, but rather of fire at the time of abandonment. Remains of burnt wood on the floor were identified as tamarisk, which is not a tree growing in the Judah highlands. Several restorable vessels were recovered from this locus. Rim sherds of one bowl, eight jugs or juglets, 13 cooking pots, seven storage jars and two collared-rim pithoi were found on the floor. This would represent a storage capacity between 154 l and 359 l. The restorable vessels consisted of one cooking pot and two storage jars. The artefacts and context do not allow a clear identification of the possible function of this area. It may have been used for food preparation or for storage.

excavated (Loci 20 and 21). A fill of stones between the house wall and the courtyard wall ends in a large semi-circle. The function of this installation is unclear. Potsherds from one bowl, three jugs or juglets, one storage jar and five collared-rim pithoi were found in the northern section of the courtyard. Even though storage vessels dominate the assemblage, it is unlikely that this space would have been dedicated to storage. Rather, it would have been ancillary to whatever else took place in the courtyard. The storage capacity would have been between 137 and 497 litres, which represents about 8% of the overall storage capacity. From the courtyard, the entrance led into Room 22. This was the larger of two rooms divided from each other by a row of columns. A ledge of exposed bedrock rose about 0.5 m above the floor level. This was probably used as a bench.33

In Room 34, bedrock served as the floor. No restorable vessels were recovered, but the fragments of many vessels were found here.34 Rim sherds of six bowls, four jugs or juglets, eight cooking pots, nine storage jars and 25 pithoi were found on the floor. The dominance of pithoi is immediately noticeable. I therefore suggest that this space was used for food storage. The vessels would have provided a capacity between 754 l and 3153 l. If we take the higher of those figures, the capacity density would be comparable to that of the storehouse at Tel ‘Ira, though the space and therefore overall storage capacity would be smaller. With 48% of the building’s storage capacity concentrated in this room, this would have been the main storage area.

A jug, five cooking pots, four storage jars and a collaredrim pithoi were found in Room 22. The function of this room is uncertain. The total storage capacity would have been between 17 l and 188 l. This represents about 3% of the total storage capacity. Even if we assume maximum storage capacity, the storage density is quite low (6.9 l/m2). To the east of the row of pillars was Room 8. This contained several flat querns and some pestles. The excavators suggest, on the basis of analogy with later Israelite houses, that Room 22 was unroofed, while adjacent Room 8 was covered. However, later Israelite houses were often regarded to have an open courtyard, because an oven was found in one of the rooms. As many excavators thought that ovens were always in unroofed areas, they designated a central room, in which an oven was located an open courtyard. But the connection between ovens and open courtyards can no longer be maintained. 33

This badly-preserved site shows the limits of my analysis method. However, conclusions can still be drawn from it. The text states that only few sherds were found, but the table lists the presence of many rim sherds. (Mazar 1981: 9 and 31). 34

112

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

While most storage capacity was located in two rooms that were distant from the entrance, namely Rooms 29 and 34, some storage capacity was located throughout the house and also associated with food preparation. Storage seems to have been a more back-stage activity. The dominance of pithoi and storage jars in the assemblage is very clear. Even though no complete collared-rim pithoi were found in this part of the site, their overall number and therefore the storage capacity seem comparable to that at Shiloh. However, in the case of Giloh, no pits or underground silos have been reported. The overall storage capacity also seems to have been considerably greater than for the Tell Halif houses. The maximum storage capacity of 6596 l would be sufficient to store food for 913 person-weeks, or for 23.4 people for 39 weeks. If only a quarter of the vessels were in use at any one time, this reduces to a total capacity of 1696 l. This would be sufficient to store food for 235 person weeks or for 6.0 people for 39 weeks.

longrooms of the house were partly filled in by stone walls. The central and eastern longrooms were again divided by narrow stone walls. The broadroom was also divided into two spaces by a wall. The entrance to the house was in the north-west. It is not always clear where there might have been a gap or door in these later walls. I have assumed that the northern part of the eastern longroom was accessed through a door roughly opposite the entrance door of the house. To the north, three rooms were attached to the house, only one of which had already been present in Stratum II. Right beside the entrance is Locus 107, the very northern part of the western longroom. It seems to have had a mud floor. It contained rim sherds of one bowl, two closed kraters, four cooking pots, a jug, and three storage jars.35 It is notable how many cooking pots were found in Building 109a. Nearly 30% of the rim sherds came from cooking pots. Cooking pots may have been used extensively throughout the building, or these sherds may just represent the discard from short-lived vessels, as the building was occupied over some time. Even though cooking pots were numerous throughout the building, the large number of cooking pots in Locus 107 may still indicate that this area was used for food preparation, especially as the other pottery items do not strongly indicate another function, though the area also has similarities with a domestic work area. Three storage jars provided a storage capacity of approximately 36.7 l, about 4% of the house’s storage capacity.

11.4 ‘Izbet Sartah ‘Izbet Sartah is a small Iron Age village in the foothills of the central mountains of Samaria (Finkelstein 1986). Its height is just 99 m above sea level. It overlooks the coastal plain and is close to Tel Aphek and the sources of the Yarkon River. Excavations at the site were conducted from 1976 to 1978 under the direction of M. Kochavi and Israel Finkelstein. Three strata were uncovered, all relating to the Iron Age I. According to the excavators Stratum III was probably occupied from the late 13th or early 12th century BCE to the beginning of the eleventh century. Stratum II was probably occupied for just a short period during the 11th century and Stratum I existed during the early tenth century (Finkelstein 1986:5). Architecturally, Stratum II was the best-preserved level with the greatest exposure. Several houses and 43 storage pits were excavated in Stratum II. But very few of the excavated artefacts could be directly related to the architecture. Several Stratum II artefacts were found in the storage pits. The excavators suggest that the artefacts were dumped there as the pits went out of use, rather than kept in these pits intentionally. The best association between architecture and artefacts is apparent for Stratum I. The large Stratum II house at the centre of the site was reused and slightly rebuilt during Stratum I. That’s why no Stratum II artefacts were visible in the house, while at the abandonment of Stratum I, artefacts were left behind.

The northern part of the central longroom was partitioned off from the remainder of that longroom by a wall. But there was easy access from the entrance area, with a pillar from Stratum II still exposed and in use. The area contained three bowls, five cooking pots, one cooking jug, four jugs, a storage jar, and a pithos.36 Even though the area contained many cooking pots, due to the relatively high number of serving ware found, it may also have served as a food consumption area. Due to the large pithos, a relatively large storage capacity of 116 l was found in this area. Access to the third longroom may have been possible at the northern end. The very southern end of the eastern longroom was separated from the northern parts by a narrow wall. The eastern longroom had a cobble floor. For several vessels, not just rim sherds, but other body sherds were found, but hardly any complete vessels, such as in Stratum III, were found in Building 109a. The total calculated capacity of the vessels therefore is not very accurate. I used the rim sherds to compare many vessels to several complete, or nearly complete, vessels found at the site, and assumed that the capacities would be similar. 36 I have included the pottery of Locus 121 in this description. This locus is not shown in the plans, but it is situated somewhere in the central longroom. 35

Building 109a Building 109a was a large four-room house at the centre of the site (Figure 74). It covered an area of approximately 218 m2. The internal living space was approximately 120 m2. The spaces between the pillars dividing the three 113

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 74. Overview of Building 109a at ‘Izbet Sartah.

I believe that Loci 106a and 113 were probably used as one area with a similar function. Locus 106a contained one bowl, two cooking pots, and two storage jars. Locus 113 contained a bowl, a cooking pot, two juglets, and two storage jars. For such a large area very few artefacts were found. Together with the cobble floor this points to these areas being used as a stable.

At the northern end of Locus 108a were the remains of a bread oven. Interestingly, the only room with clear indication of food preparation did not contain any cooking pots. Rather, it contained three bowls, a closed krater, two jugs, a juglet, a storage jar, and a pithos. The pottery fits more a food consumption area; however, the presence of the bread oven clearly identifies this as a food preparation area. The area also had vessels with a relatively large storage capacity. Food preparation here may have been closely integrated with food consumption and food storage. The bread oven itself was located at the intersection of many spaces.

The storage jars and juglets point towards liquid storage in this area. However, the overall storage capacity is quite small. The rims of storage jars indicate that the jars were probably quite small. Together the two loci probably provided less than 5% of the total storage capacity found in the house.

In the central section of the central longroom, which could be accessed from Locus 108a by passing the bread oven, a stone mortar was found on the floor. This was part of Locus 110. This locus only contained one cooking pot. Locus 110 was probably used for food preparation, in conjunction with Locus 108a.

Just to the south of the entrance in the western longroom is an area that has a cobble floor. This was designated Locus 105. It sits adjacent to the bread oven in Locus 108a, the southern part of the western longroom. Just a chalice and a cooking pot were found in Locus 105. While the chalice does not indicate food preparation, the proximity to the bread oven nevertheless points to the possibility that the area may have been used for food preparation. No food storage vessels were located here.

The southern part of the central room was designated Locus 109a. Several thin lines of stones on the plans indicate that there might have been some installations here, but no other information is given. Locus 109a contained a bowl, a chalice, a jug, three cooking pots, 114

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

and a storage jar. With the variety in vessels, the use of the area as a living room is possible.

I would suggest that this locus was also used for food storage, as it had a large storage capacity and also a large storage capacity per square metre.

The southern part of the western longroom is accessible from Locus 109a. As it sits on a balk, the area was divided into two loci, Locus 115 and Locus 116. This area also had a cobble floor. It contained a bowl, a closed krater, three cooking pots, two jugs, a storage jar, and a pithos. The assemblage is similar to that of entrance area Locus 107, but with fewer cooking pots and with the large pithos. I would suggest that this may therefore be seen more as a domestic work area, rather than a food preparation area. It is notable that due to the pithos a large storage capacity was available here.

Several storage pits that were associated with Stratum I were also excavated. Three of those pits were relatively close to House 109a. Pit 513 is near Locus 545. If it had an approximate depth of 1.00 m, as do many of the other pits, it would have had a capacity of approximately 2068 l (see Finkelstein 1986: 19). Grain pits 524 and 525 were further to the north. They would have had a capacity of 1419 l and 2570 l respectively. Even the smallest of these pits had a greater capacity than the entire storage capacity of the vessels found in House 109a, even though remains of several collared-rim pithoi were found in the house. It should also be noted that all grain pits excavated at ‘Izbet Sartah were outside and not in any building.

Locus 117 is the western part of the broadroom. In it was a roughly square installation, Locus 615, probably made out of stone slabs, which was just over 30 cm high. No description of it is given in the text and its presence is just noted on the plans. A similar bin was found at the western house of Area S at Lachish and is interpreted as a possible food storage bin. While one side of the bin in Locus 117 is not drawn on the plans, if it existed, the bin would have had a capacity of approximately 200 l. The locus also contained three bowls, two storage jars and a pithos. Due to the presence of the storage vessels and a possible storage installation, I conclude that this area was used for food storage.

The total storage capacity of House 109a is similar to those of the houses at Tell Halif (Table 13). It is also distributed throughout the house. Storage capacity is not concentrated. If the installation in Locus 117 is considered a food storage basin, as assumed in Table 13, then Locus 117 holds a large part of the food storage capacity. Otherwise, it would be similar to other areas I’ve identified as food storage areas, such as Loci 528 and 545. The large collared-rim pithoi provide the bulk of the food storage capacity. They have been found throughout the house, never together. The other storage jars found in House 109a are quite small with a capacity of not more than 14 l. As at the houses at Tell Halif, most of the storage capacity is either in spaces mainly used for food storage or for food preparation. Nevertheless, some storage capacity also might have been associated with other activities. A large part of the storage capacity was located in the back room and in the rooms to the north of the main house. It was therefore not in the immediate front-stage area of the house. Nevertheless, some storage capacity was near both the entrance of the house and the food preparation area at the centre of the house, so that a clear separation between front-stage and back-stage in relation to food storage cannot be made.

The eastern part of the broadroom is occupied by Locus 118 and Locus 119a. Locus 118 contained two cooking pots and one small storage jar. Locus 119a contained one bowl. These are very few artefacts for such a large area. I would suggest that this room was used for fuel or fodder storage. Three small rooms were attached to the north wall of the house. Locus 404a was the western room. It contained an open krater, a closed krater, six cooking pots and three storage jars. With so many cooking pots it may have been used for food preparation. Another suggestion would be goods storage, so that the pottery would be interpreted as being not in use, but rather in storage. As the storage jars were probably quite small, the food storage capacity provided would only have been approximately 39 l.

The storage capacity would be sufficient to store food for approximately 156 person-weeks, or 4.0 people for 39 weeks. However, the storage pits had a combined capacity of approximately 6059 l, providing more than enough grain storage capacity for the people of the house (1913 person-weeks or 49 people for 39 weeks). The jars inside the house would have been able to hold about 930 l or 254 person-weeks of supplies other than grain. This would have been sufficient for 6.5 people for 39 weeks. It may indicate that considerably more grain would have been eaten than that calculated as the

Locus 528 was the central of these northern attached rooms. It contained four bowls, a closed krater, a storage jar and a pithos. With a large storage capacity, also when considered per square metre, this locus was probably used for food storage. Locus 545 was the eastern attached room. It contained an open krater, three cooking pots, a jug, two storage jars, and a pithos.37 37

attached rooms. But no Locus 505 is visible on the plan. I therefore assumed that the artefacts recorded for Locus 505 were found in Locus 545.

The plates show only a Locus 505, not a Locus 545, for the northern

115

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Table 13. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of ‘Izbet Sartah Building 109a. Room 107 112a + 121 106a 113 105 108a 109a 110 117 119a 118 115 116 404a 528 545 / 505 House 109a

Probable main activity food preparation food consumption stable stable food preparation food preparation living room food preparation food storage fodder and fuel fodder and fuel domestic work domestic work goods storage food storage food storage

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l) 5.0 36.7 9.3 116.2 8.0 17.9 9.1 25.6 6.9 0 12.9 127.7 19.6 10.7 1.2 0 10.2 339.5 5.2 0 4.1 14 3.7 112.3 5.2 0 4.8 39 6.3 149.9 9.1 140.3 120.6 1129.8

minimum based on the Mishnaic amounts. This grain might have been kept in storage pits until required for the household.

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2) 7.3 12.5 2.2 2.8 0 9.9 0.5 0 33.3 0 3.4 30.4 0 8.1 23.8 15.4 9.4

Proportion of storage capacity 3.3% 10.3% 1.6% 2.3% 0 11.3% 0.9% 0 30.1% 0 1.2% 9.9% 0 3.5% 13.3% 12.4% 100%

Yassur-Landau 2006; Arie 2006). In Area K a courtyard house was excavated (Figure 75). It is from Level K-4, which has been linked to site Stratum VIA. The architecture of the house continues the tradition of the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze houses and therefore is distinct from the architecture in Israel and Judah during the Iron Age. Megiddo may not have been part of Israel during the Iron Age I. The house may therefore provide a contrast of different household organisation patterns in a temporally and culturally similar setting.

11.5 Megiddo The famous site of Megiddo sits at the crossroads of important international routes in the Jezreel Valley. The best-preserved and excavated domestic architecture comes from the Iron Age I (Gadot et al. 2006; Gadot and

The good preservation of the remains, and careful excavation and analysis, contribute to its usefulness as a household archaeology case study. Several skeletons were also found in the debris. These people seemed to have died at the time of the house’s destruction, giving further insight into the lives of the inhabitants. Life in the courtyard house (Building 00/K/10) came to a sudden halt when it was destroyed and burnt, possibly through an earthquake.

Figure 75. Overview of Megiddo Building 00/K/10.

116

The walls of the house were constructed of mudbricks laid on stone foundations. In most places only the stone foundations remained. Not all walls were found, as some stones were robbed in later periods and the excavations did not extend into some peripheral areas. Therefore, it is not clear where the entrance to the building was located. The southern

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

end of the house was eroded, and a later pit probably disturbed remains in Locus 00/K/22. As a result, in only six rooms of the ten rooms did the excavators find relatively undisturbed remains. In addition, one room seems to have been empty at the time of destruction.38

woman was involved in some form of food processing in the courtyard (Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2006: 595). The room in the western corner of the house has been divided into two loci by the excavators, Locus 98/K/70 on the east side and Locus 00/K/87 on the west side. The eastern part (Locus 98/K/70) is divided by a line of pillars. Near both the southern and northern walls, there were ovens on this side of the room. Three cooking pots, a cooking jug and seven storage jars were found near these ovens.40 A baking tray, three jugs, a chalice, a flask and two bowls were also found in this locus. A grinding stone, several fish bones and olive pits, two spindle whorls and a figurine were also recovered here. This area was used for food preparation—the excavators call it a kitchen (Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2006: 587).

The central courtyard of the house is surrounded by nine rooms, even though only three seem to have had access to the courtyard. At 31.9 m2 the courtyard is a large space. The western part of the courtyard had a cobble floor, while the eastern part had a beaten earth floor. In the centre was a large stone, which might have served as a pillar, with a limestone basin next to it. In the northern corner of the courtyard, there was a concentration of storage jars. Eight jars are shown on the plans, but a total of nine storage jars was reported for the locus. In this area were also some decorative pottery pieces, such as a chalice, a goblet and a jug. I would therefore regard this as a separate activity area dedicated to storage.

It seems that the western part (Locus 00/K/87) was also used for food preparation. It had a cobble floor with a hearth. In that area two bowls, two large cooking pots, two flasks, one amphoriskos, a juglet and a storage jar were found. A needle and a spindle whorl were also found.

On the eastern side of the courtyard, three to five cooking pots, most of them with soot marks, and two bowls, were found. This is also where the limestone basin was located. A grinding stone was also found in the east of the room, though further to the south. An accumulation of fish bone was also noted on the floor in the eastern part of the courtyard. There were also a number of spindle whorls. No evidence of a hearth or oven was found in the courtyard. 39

As at Tell Halif, there is evidence of a pattern of food preparation activities together with food storage and textile working. Storage is largely restricted to the eastern part. While the capacity per floor area at 9.6 l/m2 is lower than that recorded at some food preparation areas in Tell Halif houses, 11.2% of the building’s excavated storage capacity is located in this part, similar to the percentage of food storage capacity in food preparation areas noted for the F7 house at Tell Halif.

I would regard the eastern part of the courtyard as a food preparation area, probably also used for other household work. While the storage capacity per area for the whole courtyard is quite low at 7 l/m2, the small northern corner has a very high storage capacity of about 50 l/m2. If this area of the courtyard was unroofed, it would mean that some storage or at least the keeping of storage vessels did occur in an exposed place, but still within the confines of the building. The presence of some storage vessels in apparently outside space was also noted at Giloh.

Remains of three individuals were also found in this space: one child 0–5 years old; one child 5–7 years old; and one adult 20–35 years old. While the sex of the adult could not be determined, the age of the younger child may suggest that the adult was a woman. The adult seemed to have looked after the children, while also being involved in food preparation. From Locus 98/K/70 access could be gained to Rooms 00/K/05 and 00/K/30. These areas were largely eroded, so that few remains were found. In Room 00/K/05 two bowls, one platter, two spindle whorls, a burnishing stone, and some jewellery were found, as well as some fish bones, although none of the artefacts was illustrated. While the limited artefacts may indicate food consumption or a living area, the lack of preservation makes this determination difficult.

The remains of two adults were found in the courtyard. One was determined to be a woman 30–40 years old at the time of death. A single bone of an infant was also found in this area. The excavators suggest that the The information on small finds not included as pottery is dispersed through the report and cannot be related to the loci used to describe the house and the location of pottery. Therefore, small finds could only be considered to the extent that they were shown on the plans or specifically mentioned in the text. There are usually more pots recorded for a locus than are mapped. For example, four storage jars are reported for Locus 00/K/46, but only one storage jar is shown on the plans. 39 The authors note that all hearths and ovens in this house were located in clearly covered areas. This is to be expected (see Daviau 1990: 451; Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2006: 587). 38

Room 00/K/30 contained a bread oven. As this was the only artefact preserved in this room, only a tentative suggestion can be made that it was used for food preparation. The text mentions storage jars near the southern oven, but on the plans storage jars are only found near the northern oven. 40

117

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Another room directly accessible from the courtyard was Locus 98/K/46. This relatively small room not only contained a wide variety of artefacts, but also a large quantity. Seven bowls, two closed kraters, one goblet, five cooking pots, two jugs, a flask, a lamp and four storage jars were found here. Seven grinding stones, plus one saddle quern were found here. In addition, several digging sticks, a high concentration of fish bones and a figurine were excavated. The grinding stones may indicate some food preparation, but it also seems that food consumption and other household activities took place here. The storage capacity of 84 l, or 11.3 l/m2, is relatively low and would only have been incidental to other activities occurring there.

preparation, but little more can be said about this space. Also not directly accessible from the courtyard was Locus 00/K/51. Rather, this also needed to be accessed from Room 98/K/46. Room 00/K/51 contained one jug, six storage jars and a large pithos. The combined storage capacity was 192 l, more than half of this due to the pithos. At 38.5 l/m2 this space had the highest storage capacity per area. Six spindle whorls and a piece of jewellery were also found here. However, it is likely that this space was mainly used for food storage. Room 00/K/45 is to the east of the courtyard and had two doors to the courtyard. It contained four bowls, two closed kraters, a chalice, a goblet, a jug, a juglet, two flasks, a lamp, a cooking jug, and ten storage jars. There were also seven spindle whorls, three weights, four grinding stones, seeds, fish bones, two figurine pieces, and two possible stelae. The excavators suggest that food consumption and some grinding took place in this space. That it was a space for eating and gathering is also suggested by the visual reconstruction. Nevertheless, considerable storage capacity of approximately 160 l was located here.

From there, access could be gained to several other spaces. To the north-west was Locus 98/K/66. No artefacts were found in this small room, but it was covered by about 1 m of collapsed mudbricks. Therefore, it is likely that at the time of destruction this room contained only perishable materials. It may have been used to store animal fodder or dung. From this room, there was access to the large northern Room 98/K/77. The room contained two bowls, two chalices, two cooking pots, six cooking jugs, five jugs, two juglets, three flasks, one baking tray, one stand, and 21 storage jars. In addition, there were two items of jewellery, a figurine, a wall bracket, a needle, a knife, six spindle whorls, a loomweight, a ring, a rod and a grinding stone. Some fish bones were found in the north-eastern corner of the room.

I would suggest that the entrance to the house was located in this room. While there are other parts of the house for which the outside wall has not been found, the activities carried out in this room can be seen as front-stage activities. Also, there was very good access from this room to the central courtyard.

The high number of storage jars is immediately apparent. At a total capacity of 430 l, these storage jars had a large capacity, representing about 34.8% of the total storage capacity of the house. The storage capacity of 23.5 l/m2 is not particularly high for a room dedicated to food storage. Together with the other artefacts, this may indicate that the space was also used for goods storage, not just food storage. Food storage vessels were concentrated in an area against the western wall. It is noticeable that the cooking jugs were grouped together with the storage jars. On four of the five cooking jugs that were inspected, no soot could be found (Arie 2006:201–202). This finding supports the suggestion that many of these cooking jugs were not used for cooking, but probably rather for storage, maybe of dairy products. Each of the cooking jugs had a capacity of 2.1 l to 7.2 l.

In contrast, food storage and cooking seems to have taken place in back-stage rooms. About 50% of the overall storage capacity was located in the two dedicated storage rooms (Table 14). However, in the courtyard as well as in the possible entrance Room 00/K/45, the storage jars seem to have been grouped together in one area of the room. While food storage was incidental to other activities, there still seems to have been some separation from those activities. In the case of the kitchen 98/K/70, storage jars were adjacent to or part of food preparation areas. At 1240 l, the total storage capacity is comparable to that of the Tell Halif houses (1410 l and 805 l respectively), even though this courtyard house was far larger than the houses at Tell Halif. It has to be taken into account that the storage jars at Megiddo on average had a smaller capacity than those at Tell Halif. The average capacity of the Megiddo jars was 19.1 l, while the average capacity of the jars in the Tell Halif K8 house was 39.0 l. Therefore, more jars were required at Megiddo to store food. According to the plans, some of the jars seem to have been stored in groups of several rows. Such rows of storage jars also seem to be

From this storage room, Locus 00/K/22 could be accessed. It seems that this part of the house had no immediate access to the courtyard and was therefore isolated from the centre of the house. This room was probably disturbed by a later pit. A bread oven, a weight, a spindle whorl, and a burnishing stone were found here. The bread oven does indicate food 118

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

Table 14. Loci, activities and storage capacity of Megiddo Building 00/K/10. Locus 00/K/10

Probable main activity Food preparation / food storage

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l)

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2)

Proportion of storage capacity

31.9

223.5

7.00502

18.0%

98/K/70

Food preparation

14.5

138.8

9.569744

11.2%

00/K/87

Food preparation

6.9

9.5

1.374939

0.8%

00/K/22

Food preparation

8.5

0

0

0%

18.4

431.3

23.43911

34.8%

5.6

0

0

0%

98/K/77 98/K/66

Food storage / goods storage Fodder and fuel storage

98/K/46

Living room

7.5

84.9

11.32394

6.8%

00/K/51

Food storage

5

192.5

38.49891

15.5%

00/K/45

Living room

14.1

159.6

11.32036

12.9%

00/K/30

Food preparation

6.2

0

0

0%

00/K/05

Food consumption

Total

10.1

0

0

0%

128.7

1240.0

9.635037

100%

presupposed in the Mishnah. But clearly the use of such rows is not evident in the Tell Halif houses.

suggest that it was used for either cooking or storage (Mazar et al. 2006: 236). Since no bread oven or hearth were found in the house as excavated, the excavators also suggested that cooking was done in the courtyard outside (Mazar et al. 2006: 219). Installation 28652 may indeed have been used for food preparation, but just because no other cooking installation was found in the excavated parts of the house, it should not be supposed that the house itself did not contain any.

The storage capacity would be sufficient to store food for approximately 172 person-weeks, or 4.4 people for 39 weeks. More storage might have been available in the rooms that were disturbed. 11.6 Beth Shean Beth Shean is better known for its Bronze Age and Roman and Roman-Byzantine occupations. But on the western slope of the hill, the team of Amihai Mazar excavated a relatively well-preserved, large house from the Iron IIB, which was probably destroyed in 732 BCE during the Assyrian conquest (Mazar et al. 2006). This house might have covered an area of 14 m x 14 m. It was built in the traditional four-room design, but the rooms were separated by mudbrick walls and no pillars were used (Figure 76). Due to erosion, the disturbance by later building activity and some adjacent remains from later periods that were not removed, only parts of House 28636 were exposed. Outside the building was apparently a courtyard, with several small buildings or an open area to the east of the main House 28636. Right in front of the house was installation 28652, an approximately rectangular installation made out of bricks and preserved to a height of about 20 cm. It contained ash. The excavators

The open area seemed to continue east, where previously small buildings may have stood. Here, some

Figure 76. Overview of Beth Shean House 28636.

119

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah pottery was found in Locus 28610, which may have been used in conjunction with installation 28652. Three bowls, a closed krater, an amphoriskos and a cooking pot were found.

To the east of the central room were two rooms. The access to the northern room (Locus 28616) had been blocked off by a wall that had been inserted after the house was built. This wall was plastered, but it was apparent that the plaster was applied later than the plaster on the adjacent walls. The inside of the room was plastered as well. On the floor was an ash layer and a layer of soil containing concentrations of charred wheat grains, with mudbrick collapse above it. The bricks and the adjacent plaster on the walls were fired, apparently due to the hot blaze that developed in the room at the time of the destruction of the house. Combustible material in the room must have fuelled such a hot fire. It seems that the room was blocked off and used as a silo to store wheat. The entrance was either from above or at least at a higher level than the wall was preserved for (1.3 m). There was a krater inside the room (capacity 13.7 l), which might have been used to take grain out of the silo. The room had a floor area of 9.94 m2.41 If the room was filled to a height of 1.2 m it would have a capacity of 11,925 l. This dwarfs the storage capacity otherwise found in the building.

The house was entered through a wide doorway with double doors. The central hall of the house, Locus 28636, was well preserved. It contained a large amount of pottery spread around the walls, but very little in the centre. The exact location of the finds is not reported. In the northern part of the central room there were ten bowls, two closed kraters, two cooking pots, two jugs, a juglet, an amphoriskos, seven storage jars, two small holemouth jars, and two spouted jars. The large number of bowls and serving ware may indicate food consumption. But the nature of the room is further defined by two installations on opposite walls. On the western wall was installation 28648, made out of clay. Its interior dimensions were 1.05 m x 0.70 m. It was more than 20 cm high. The excavators suggest that it might have been used for the preparation of dough or other domestic activities. Against the eastern wall was installation 28649, also made out of clay. Its interior dimensions were 0.50 m x 0.80 m. A quern was found in the installation, with an upper grinding stone nearby and a further three upper grinding stones in the vicinity of the installation. The installation was probably used as a grinding installation to catch the flour of the ground grain.

The southern of the two eastern rooms was also well preserved (Locus 18601). A plastered mudbrick threshold led from the central room (Locus 28641) into this room. A stone found in the entranceway may imply that a two-wing door closed this room off. Along the south wall of the room was a low bench, above which was an olive wood plank covered with another thin layer of mud plaster. The excavators suggest that it was used as a shelf for vessels. Beside the entrance was an installation built out of stone slabs and bricks. It served as a stand for a large pithos, which was found in place. The excavators suggest that the pithos was used to hold water. Ethnographic accounts suggest that water jars were usually kept closer to the house entrance. The pithos, therefore, may have contained other liquids.

To the north of the grinding installation an agglomeration of loomweights was found suggesting the presence of a loom. The burnt remains of two wooden beams were found to the west of the looms, probably representing the wooden frame of the loom. The central room therefore was a busy multi-use area with food preparation, textile production and probably other household work and food consumption taking place here.

Other finds in Room 18601 include ten bowls, three closed kraters, four cooking pots, three jugs, 11 juglets, two lamps, three storage jars, two small holemouth jars, a basalt bowl, an alabaster pyxis, a stone cosmetic bowl, beads, and sea shells. Several juglets, the cosmetic pallet, beads and sea shells were found together with some dark ash in one space in the south-east corner of the room. This concentration does suggest that cosmetic products were kept there. Maybe even a cosmetics box was located there. Most of the other artefacts were found against the eastern wall or on the bench in the south. The high number of juglets is notable, while otherwise the assemblage is

The southern part of the central room was excavated as Locus 28641. The very south of the room was about 10 cm lower, with a step about 1.7 m to the north of the southern end. In this part of the central room there were 12 bowls, six cooking pots, four jugs, a juglet, two flasks, two lamps, 11 storage jars (including a jug-jar with a capacity 36.7 l), and one small holemouth jar. As this area is smaller and yet there are more vessels, the back part of the central room was more densely filled. While similar activities as in the front part could have taken place here, it might be here that the various vessels and tools were put out of the way, while the main working areas were further north.

The dimensions given in the report are 2.92 m x 3.95 m, which results in a floor area of 11.5 m. The floor area mentioned in my calculations is based on the exact drawings, which take into account the slightly irregular shape of the room. 41

Based on the nature and depth of the debris, the excavators suggest that this central room was roofed. 120

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

similar to that found in adjacent rooms. Apart from the cooking pots, there is no evidence of food preparation in this space. I would therefore suggest that this was a living room, where food consumption also took place. Due to the large pithos, the overall storage capacity is relatively large. I also included the internal volume of the large, closed craters in the storage capacity.

Locus 28616 would have been able to hold more grain than required for a normal household. At a nominal capacity of 11925 l, enough food could be stored here to satisfy the grain supply of 3766 person-weeks, or food for 97 people for 39 weeks. In contrast, the excavated storage jar capacity of 618.1 l would only be sufficient to hold non-cereal food for 169 person-weeks, or food enough for 4.3 people for 39 weeks.

To the west of the central room there were also rooms. In the north was Room 28638. This space was heavily eroded. While parts of the wall could be made out, so that the overall shape of the house could be determined, only fragmentary remains of a floor were found and no associated artefacts.

11.7 Yokneam Yokneam sits on the edge of the Jezreel Valley and guards a pass through the Carmel Range. Among the remains excavated from the Iron Age IIB was a nearly complete house, though partly disturbed, in the western area of the tell near the city wall (Ben-Tor et al. 1996). While the outline of Building III was well preserved and quite a quantity of Iron IIB pottery was found in the house, it was not in a well-preserved destruction layer (Figure 77). Vessels were not fully restorable. Therefore, the remains may not so much represent the last occupation, but the traces of life in the vicinity over a period of time. The following description is based mainly on rim sherds found in the building, and therefore has to be taken with some caution. Also, it was sometimes difficult to determine the vessel represented by the rim sherds alone.

Only the entrance to the southern room on the west was preserved. The room itself (Room 28647) was destroyed by a Byzantine wall. The broadroom to the south was divided into two spaces. Only the thresholds to these rooms were excavated. The rooms themselves were not exposed. Large parts of the building were not investigated. Therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn about activities carried out in the house and their relationship and the extent of storage capacity. But again we see storage alongside food preparation and in living areas (Table 15). The installation for the large pithos, possibly to hold water, is unusual in the archaeological record, but does have ethnographic parallels. The most significant find is the room that was blocked up to be used as silo. Here we have, in a private house, a confirmed grain storage facility that was able to hold a large supply of grain. The facility was not purpose-built, but rather the conversion of an existing room. It also provided the bulk of the excavated storage capacity in the building. The total combined capacity of the jars in the building was 618.1 l, or about 6% of the total assumed storage capacity of 12543.5 l, if Locus 28616 was filled to a height of 1.2 m for storage.

The doorway to the house was in the north and led to the central of the three longrooms. This room had a beaten earth floor. Not far from the entrance was a bread oven (Locus 1898). Inside the oven the sherds of a bowl, a closed krater and a storage jar were found. Surrounding the bread oven was Locus 1746, which also featured a mortar set into the ground. Here, rims of three bowls, a closed krater, three jugs and two cooking pots were found. The installations point to the space being used for food preparation. Unless the sherds of Locus 1898 fell into the bread oven from nearby, they do not represent the ordinary use of the bread oven. However, there is nothing unusual in a closed krater, bowl and storage jar being located adjacent to a bread oven.

Table 15. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Beth Shean House 28636. Room

Probable main activity

28636

Food preparation

19.5

127.5

6.5

20.6%

28641

Food preparation

12.2

202.8

16.7

32.8%

28616

Food storage

9.9

11,939.1

1201.1

2.2%

18601

Living room

10.6

274.1

25.9

44.3%

28651

unknown

15.9

0

0

0

38614

unknown

14.6

0

0

0

28647

unknown

10.5

0

0

0

28638

unknown

10.3

0

0

0

103.4

12,543.5

121.3

Total

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l)

121

Storage capacity / Proportion of floor area (l/m2) storage jar capacity

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 77. Overview of Yokneam Building III.

Loci 1716a and 2007 were also located in this central longroom. But the report does not specify what spatial area they cover. Unless these loci represent a space at a higher elevation, they probably are located towards the back of the central room. I will work with this assumption. Here, a shallow pit filled with stones was located against the south wall of the room. It is unclear whether the excavators thought that these stones filled the pit during the occupation of the house or were deposited here later on. The possible function of this pit is uncertain, though it may have been used to store dung or animal fodder.

To the west of the entrance area is Locus 1706, separated from the central room by a row of pillars which, further south, turns into a solid stone wall. This side room had a cobble floor. The excavators suggest that it was used as an animal pen, based mainly on the cobble floor. However, in this space a lot of pottery was found, suggesting that, in part at least, the space also had other uses. There were rims of 15 bowls, four closed kraters, a chalice, seven jugs, a cooking pot, a baking tray, and five storage jars. In addition, a spindle whorl was found there. While the baking tray indicates food preparation, it may simply be a continuation from adjacent Locus 1746. Dominant in this locus is the serving ware, so that food consumption or even a living room could be a possibility. Food storage would have occurred alongside this activity.42

In Loci 1716a and 2007, rims of 11 bowls, three closed kraters, one open krater, four jugs, a lamp, and seven storage jars (and additional parts of other bowls and storage jars) were found. The large number of bowls and storage jars is notable, but may only reflect the general dominance of these forms in the archaeological record. Nevertheless, I would suggest that food storage was an important part of the use of this space. If all jar rims are taken into account and the calculations for their probable capacity are correct, the room would have an overall capacity of 231 litres (31 l/m2).

While I do not discount the use of the Locus as a stable, the pottery recovered from this area suggests that it might also have been used as a living room or other domestic area. No clear floor was discerned in the western part of the back room, Locus 1707, accessed from Locus 1706. The rims of three bowls, four closed kraters, a jug, a chalice, four cooking pots, and a storage jar were found here. Based on the relatively high number of cooking pots,

Locus 1717 (including Locus 1741) was the central part of the back (broad) room of the house. Its floor could not be clearly identified. Rim sherds of nine bowls, two jugs, a cooking pot and three storage jars were found here. A spindle whorl was also found in the debris. Per floor area, the storage capacity as indicated by the jar sherds is only a little smaller than for adjacent Locus 1716a. While food storage was probably one of the uses of this area, I tend to see this more as a domestic work area.

In the reconstruction I used some of the storage jars as dividers between a living area with serving ware and a nearly empty stable area. This is a speculative arrangement, based on the observation at Tell Halif that storage jars were used as space dividers, and the use of storage chests as space dividers in ethnographic accounts (Frank 2012:213). 42

122

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

Table 16. Loci, activities and storage capacity of Yokneam Building III. Locus

Probable main activity

1746

Food preparation

6.7

1716a+2007 1717

Food storage Domestic work area

1706

Living room / stable

1707 1719b Total

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l)

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2)

Proportion of storage capacity

38.2

5.7

7.1%

7.4

231.0

31.1

42.8%

3.7

109.3

29.3

20.3%

11.8

143.2

12.1

26.6%

Food preparation

4.4

17.6

4.0

3.3%

Unknown

12.2

0

0

0

46.3

539.3

11.6

100%

I would suggest that the area was also used for food preparation.

at four houses from Level III, which was relatively wellpreserved. It dates to the end of the eighth century. Two of those houses were excavated as part of the first expedition to Tell ed-Duweir, two during the later expedition conducted by David Ussishkin (Ussishkin 2004).

.

The longroom in the east was comparatively narrow (Locus 1719b). It was accessed from the southern part of the central longroom. The eastern longroom was badly damaged by later pits and no pottery was assigned to this locus. Its possible use is unknown.

Main Street House 1088

Despite the fragmentary and uncertain nature of the evidence, the food storage patterns of Building III at Yokneam are broadly similar to those at Tell Halif, and other sites investigated. While storage capacity is spread throughout the house, there is a concentration in an area probably dedicated to food storage. Some storage capacity was also found in conjunction with food preparation. The storage capacity in possible association with a stable is unusual, but the use of Locus 1706 as a living room may be more prominent and corresponds well with Activity Area B of Tell Halif F7 house.

The two houses excavated during the first expedition are adjacent to each other and on the north side of the main street (Locus 1087) that connected the gate with the citadel in the centre of the city (Figure 78). Six rooms of House 1088 were excavated or partially excavated (1078, 1079, 1085, 1088, 1093, 1096). Room 1098 to the east of the house may also have been part of the building, but the reports contained no description of the room (apart from a small locus in a corner). The entrance was probably through Room 1088. Three steps were found adjacent to the wall. They were probably the base of some stairs leading to the upper storey. A large stone vat stood near the entrance. The floor of the room was cobbled. The room contained several bowls, a flask, a cooking pot and a stand. Storage jars located in the room were one lmlk-type jar and one large holemouth jar. Just as in many other rooms at Lachish, several arrowheads were found. A bulla with a geometric design was also found in the room.

The total reconstructed storage capacity (based on an extrapolation from jar rims) is smaller than that found at Tell Halif, but still within the general range (Table 16). The storage capacity per area (l/m2) is also somewhat smaller than at Tell Halif. The vessel capacity would be sufficient to store food for about 75 person-weeks, or for 1.9 people for 39 weeks. 11.8 Lachish

The most prominent feature in this Room 1088 is the stone vat near the entrance. Unfortunately, no details are given, so its size and shape have to be guessed from

The earliest well-published excavation in the area was at Tell ed-Duweir, a site that was identified as Lachish from ancient texts and art. Indeed, the excavation report set a new standard for its attention to detail and the sheer amount of information presented (Tufnell and Murray 1953). Some more recent excavations may have more detailed records, but this does not always find its way into the final publications.43 I chose to look

listed individually; it is not always clear whether the pots listed were found nearly complete or just a rim sherd; some artefacts, such as loomweights, are just mentioned in passing with no detail given. The descriptions of some rooms are also fairly short and the relationship between the rooms is not always clear. Still, Lachish is a site that can add to our understanding of storage in Ancient Judah. The later excavations directed by David Ussishkin continued much of the format of the earlier excavations, also only giving the find locations by room number. However, the reports did illustrate most nearlycomplete pottery found during excavations, rather than referring to the type.

Nevertheless, there are some restrictions with using the reports: no complete Iron Age houses have been excavated; the find location is just given by room number; finds are just referred to by type, not 43

123

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 78. Overview of Lachish Main Street houses.

a photograph and a plan. It had an external diameter of about 65 cm, and the depression had a diameter of about 20 cm at its base, which widened to probably more than 40 cm at the top. It was propped upright by several stones. Its height is difficult to guess. I could not find a conclusive answer for its possible function. The closest ethnographic parallel in Gustaf Dalman’s accounts is the large stone mortar, which was used in Palestine to make kibbe, a dish made from ram’s meat, onions and hulled wheat. The excavators called the feature a ‘vat’, therefore indicating that they thought liquids were held in it. Based on Lawrence Stager’s observation, Hardin suggests that a room near the entrance with a cobbled floor was often used as a stable. Since other finds at Tell ed-Duweir indicate agricultural activity, it is a possibility. The feature could then be seen as a fodder trough. Its height appears appropriate. The other artefacts in the room do not make it easy to determine a predominant function or even separate activity areas. Whether it was used for food preparation, other processing activity or stabling, storage was probably not the main activity here. Nevertheless, a lmlk-type jar and a holemouth jar were found in the room. The lmlktype jar may have been used as a water jar close to the entrance of the house, as has been observed in many ethnographical examples.

With Hardin, we may suggest that the bowls and kraters point to a living room. Storage, again, seems to have been an incidental activity. Room 1078 sits parallel to Room 1085. It also connects to entrance room, Room 1088. Here, storage vessels make up the majority of artefacts found. There were two lmlk-type jars, one holemouth jar, one small carinated jar and a stand. In addition there were two juglets, a cooking pot, a bowl, a lamp, as well as arrowheads and the head of a Judean pillar figurine. The assemblage may suggest that the room was used for storage, but for the size of the room there was little storage capacity. The storage jars were quite diverse, which may indicate that different products were stored together. To the east of the entrance room, Room 1088, was Room 1079. It did not have a cobble floor. Its ceramic assemblage consisted mainly of bowls (5), open kraters (3), juglets (3) and jugs (2). In addition there were two cooking pots, a lmlk-type jar, a holemouth jar, a small carinated jar, a stand and a lamp. The map shows a bin of some sort, but there are no details in the report. The pottery would indicate the serving of food and drink, maybe even food preparation. The jars may have been used for food preparation or serving. If they were used for storage, the room only served this purpose incidentally. Due to the diverse pottery, but the dominance of serving ware, I suggest that this area should be seen as a living room.

Adjacent Room 1085 is partly divided by pillars and a dividing wall from the other longroom, Room 1078. Its assemblage is dominated by bowls and open kraters (3 and 2), and also includes a juglet, a cooking jug, a pot stand, a lmlk-type jar and a holemouth jar. An iron arrowhead and a riveted iron knife were also found in the room. No clear dominant function is discernible.

The largest room, even though it was not well defined during the excavations, was Room 1096. Its cobbled floor can be seen clearly on the photographs. Unfortunately, 124

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

Table 17. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Lachish House 1088. Room 1088 1085 1078 1079 1096 1093 House 1088

Probable main activity stable / food preparation living room food storage living room stable unknown

Approximate floor area (m2) 10.3

Approximate storage capacity (l) 96.3

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2) 9.3

Proportion of storage capacity 21.2%

7.1 11.5 12.2 22.9 1.2 65.2

96.3 147.0 92.3 0 23.2 455.2

13.6 12.8 7.6 0 18.9 7.0

21.2% 32.3% 20.3% 0% 5.1% 100%

little was found in the room, apart from one juglet. It is likely that the area was disturbed at some point. Similarly, it might have been used for some activity that left few artefacts behind, such as stabling animals or storing animal fodder and fuel.

prominent feature was described as an oven by the excavators. However, this oven is very different from the tannur bread ovens found in other Iron Age excavations. The main chamber had an external diameter of over 90 cm. It still stood nearly 1 m high. There seem to be side chambers, or possibly a firing chamber underneath the main oven. In conjunction with the many iron finds in the room (a ploughshare, an ox goad, a chain link, arrowheads), I thought the oven may have been used for blacksmithing. However, some of the other artefacts make this less likely. The excavators describe that there were ‘numerous’ loomweights on the floor. This may indicate the presence of a loom. Evidence for weaving has often been found together with that for food preparation. There were also two bone fan handles, one of them intricately decorated. Even though only one lmlk-type jar was found in the room, three lmlk stamped handles and three private stamped handles, as well as one with an illegible stamp, were also found there. The report does not state whether any of the handles belonged to the lmlk-type jar found in the room.44

Only a small part of Room 1093 has been excavated. It is between Room 1078 and Room 1096. Only one ovoid jar has been excavated in the small space. More artefacts are probably in the unexcavated part of the room. From the small space excavated, we cannot conclude that it was a storage space. Even though only parts of the houses have been excavated, it seems that food storage was distributed throughout the different rooms of the house (Table 17). Food storage seems to have occurred alongside or in association with other activities, such as stabling, food preparation, food consumption and textile production, as well as other household tasks. A pot stand was found in most rooms. Kelso suggests that pot stands were used to hold both jars with round bases and hot cooking pots (Kelso 1948: 20). While jars with round bases were found in all the rooms, cooking pots were not. This does at least give some support to the notion that pot stands were not exclusively used with cooking pots, and therefore also with jars. However, since the number of jars far exceeds the number of pot stands, it would have not been the standard way to hold a jar.

Other unusual artefacts were a weight and a scarab. Pottery in the room consisted of four juglets, two jugs, three bowls, one open krater, a lamp, a cooking jug, a carinated jar, the lmlk-type jar, a pot stand, and one open vessel. In one corner of the room, there was a high stonelined bin. The artefacts were very varied. The variety and density of the artefacts may point to the function of the room as goods storage. However, the prominent ‘oven’ and bin seem to indicate that the room was actively used. No indication is given of the possible use of the stonelined bin. A larger bin, in Room 1084 on the opposite side of the road, contained several olive pits. It may be related to the processing or storage of olives.

While the overall size of House 1088, as excavated, is similar to the Tell Halif F7 House (76.3 m2), the storage capacity is considerably smaller. Also noticeable is that the storage capacity is more distributed for the house at Tell ed-Duweir. The excavated capacity would only be sufficient to store food for 63 person-weeks, or 1.6 people for 39 weeks.

I would suggest that the room was probably used for some craft activity, possibly blacksmithing or the dying of textiles. Otherwise, it might have been used for goods storage. If food storage did take place in the

Main Street House 1089 Only two rooms of House 1089 have been excavated. Room 1089 sits at the corner of the main street and a side street. It is the wealth of artefacts and features that make this small room difficult to interpret. Its most

If the listed artefacts provide a faithful picture of the articles present in the room at the time, the many stamped handles may indicate that these are parts of broken vessels that were no longer in use, but kept in the room for some reason. 44

125

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Table 18. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Lachish House 1089. Room 1089 1090

Probable main activity craft food preparation / storage

House 1089

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l) 9.4 69.8 3.9 132.4 13.3

202.3

room, it would have been ancillary to the main activity. It is noteworthy that a room with such a density of stamped handles is clearly not principally used for food storage or the collection of taxes, but for domestic or commercial activities.

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2) 7.4 34.3

Proportion of storage capacity 34.5% 65.5%

15.3

100%

in Level III. I have chosen to analyse the ‘Lower House’ as the best preserved of these domestic structures. This ‘Lower House’ sits at the corner of the city wall and an enclosure wall. Ussishkin suggested that the ten to 12 rooms of this ‘Lower House’ were arranged in two wings (Ussishkin 2004: 454; Figure 79). As Shafer-Elliot notes (2013: 63-64), there were no direct connections between the two wings of the ‘Lower House’ except through the front courtyard, which probably would have been accessed through a street. She therefore suggests that these wings represent two separate dwellings, maybe part of an extended family complex. I will follow the suggestion of Shafer-Elliot and treat the two wings as separate dwellings. I will however, consider also the possibility of treating the ‘Lower House’ as one dwelling.

Room 1090 was behind Room 1089, as seen from the main street. Only part of it was excavated. There were several storage jars: one lmlk-type jar and two holemouth jars, as well as a small holemouth jar. In addition, it contained three bowls, one open krater, one stand, one cooking jug and one baking tray. While the baking tray and possibly the small holemouth jar point to food prepartion, overall the assemblage does not point directly to any activity, especially since we do not know whether the storage jars were grouped together. The room may well have been used for food storage, but the overall capacity provided by the four jars is not large. In this case also, it does not seem as if a particular room was dedicated to food storage.

The western house is accessed through Locus 3609. This is a very small room (2.3 m2), and described as a courtyard (Ussishkin 2004: 486). At its centre was a round stone installation, which may have served as the foundation of a bread oven. Apparently there was no access from Locus 3609 to Room 3583, so that the rooms of the house were only accessible one from the other.

There was a lmlk-type jar in nearly each room of both main street houses. It supports the notion that lmlktype jars were common household vessels used for a variety of purposes, rather than dedicated to a specific purpose or even just for state administration. Room 1089, where stamped handles were found, does not suggest that stamped jars were used any differently.

The next room from the entrance was Locus 3533. The remains of two bread ovens were found in Room 3533,

While the storage capacity of House 1089 is considerably lower than that of the Tell Halif houses, the storage capacity per floor area is comparable (Table 18). It would therefore be expected that other parts of the house would contain more storage capacity. The excavated storage capacity would only be sufficient to store food for 28 person-weeks, not enough to provide food for one person for a major part of the year. Lower House West During the later excavations, domestic Iron Age architecture was excavated in Area S, with the best preservation

Figure 79. Overview of Lachish Lower House(s) in Area S.

126

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

but the southern oven was not well preserved.45 The two ovens may not have been in use at the same time. The room also contained a bowl, a closed krater, a cooking pot and a jug, as well as parts of an animal figurine and parts of a grinding stone. An olive pit was also found here. The area was used for food preparation. With a capacity of 9.7 litres the closed krater was quite large and might have been used for short-term food storage.

appears to be at least two courses high, so that I estimated a height of 30 cm. Based on that, the approximate capacity of this storage bin would be 227 litres, more than the capacity of all the storage jars in the western house combined (209 litres). The room also contained a juglet, a lamp and a spouted jar. If the suggestion that the bin served to store food is correct, this small room was probably mainly used for food storage.

The next room to be accessed in the house is 3569. Near the city wall to the west, a broken basin of soft limestone was found.46 In the north-east corner was a low bench. Pottery found in the room included four bowls, one closed krater, four cooking pots, one juglet, one small amphoriskos, one flask and two storage jars. Olive pits were also found. The basin (see Page 124) and the pottery may indicate food preparation, especially due to the locus’ close proximity to the bread ovens in Locus 3533. Just as in the houses at Tell Halif, there were some storage vessels in the food preparation area. The total storage capacity in Locus 3569 was 86 litres, and a storage density of 16.0 litres per m2. While this is not a high storage density compared to Tell Halif food preparation areas, it is the highest storage density in the western house of Area S. A group of 18 sheep astragali was found in this room. These were interpreted as playing pieces.47

The determination that this feature was used for storage is probably largely based on the fact that there is no other obvious function for this feature. However, features for which no obvious function can be determined are frequently excavated archaeologically. The use for food storage is conceivable for such a bin, probably similar to a pit, but above ground. The most likely commodity stored in such bins would be grain. Nevertheless, above-ground grain storage bins observed ethnographically were normally made out of mud and straw and not out of stone. There can be no definite conclusion that such stone bins were used for food storage in Ancient Judah, and its description as a storage bin must be provisional. The largest room in the house is Room 3573, built against the enclosure wall. It contained two bowls, two cooking pots, a jug, a black juglet, a lamp, four storage jars and a small holemouth jar. It also contained several grinding stones, a basalt tripod bowl, a small stone altar, three bone spatulas and several spindle whorls. A group of 29 worked astragali was found near the centre of the room. While the room had the highest concentration of storage jars, they were all relatively small, with a combined capacity of 62.5 litres. The variety of items may also indicate that the room was not just for storage, unless it was used to store goods. Rather, a range of household activities is likely to have taken place here, such as some food preparation (grinding grain) and textile processing (spinning). I would suggest that Room 3573 was mainly used as a ‘living room’ or for goods storage.

The next room to be accessed was Room 3572. The mudbrick walls of this room were preserved up to one metre high. Two bowls, a jug, two lamps and a bronze ring were found here. Most characteristic was the accumulation of about 20 loomweights. These loomweights are probably most indicative of the function of this area: textile production. While textile production is often associated with food preparation, these activities apparently were carried out in separate yet adjacent rooms. No storage capacity was found in this room. Room 5509 sat at the juncture of the enclosure wall and the city wall. The room was reused from the previous level. Built in the corner of the wall was a large rectangular stone structure resting against the foundations of an earlier tower. The excavators suggest that it was used for food storage, although no clear analogs are mentioned. While the horizontal dimensions can be read from the plan, the depth of the feature is unclear. However, from the plan it

The last room in the western house was Room 3583. In Level IV, the room at this point was accessible from the southern courtyard, but it seems that this was not possible in the Level III house. Two bowls, an open krater, and a lmlk-type storage jar were found in this locus, as well as a few fragments of grinding stones. Possibly the room is best regarded as a food consumption area, even though there are only very few artefacts in the room overall.

Ussishkin states that judging from its two bread ovens, the unit was an unroofed courtyard. He picks up the disproven assumption held by many older archaeologist that bread ovens always were outside the house. This often resulted in the circular argument that all spaces with bread ovens were courtyards, and since all excavated bread ovens were in courtyards, they were only used outside. In this case, the space was surrounded by walls that were preserved to a considerable height, so that it was certainly an enclosed space. As mentioned in the discussion on Megiddo, recent research suggests that many bread ovens were located in roofed areas. 46 There is no photo or detailed description of this basin. 47 Some pottery pieces fitted with pieces from Loci 3573 and 3583. The excavators suggest that these pottery items may have fallen from an upper storey so that the potsherds were distributed among the different loci. 45

If the western wing is seen as an independent house, it would be quite a small house at a ground floor area of 33.7 m2.48 According to a study by Avraham Faust, the occurrence of very small houses might be expected in an urban setting, together with some fairly large houses (Faust 2012). 48

127

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Table 19. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Lachish Lower House West. Room 3609 3533 3569 3572 5509 3573 3583 Total West

Probable main activity food preparation food preparation food preparation domestic work food storage living room food consumption

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l) 2.3 0 3.6 9.7 5.4 86.4 4.1 0 3.8 236.3 9.5 62.5 5.0 41.6 33.7 436.4

The overall storage capacity of 436 l (including the bin) or 209 l (excluding the bin) is relatively low even for such a small house (Table 19). If the capacity of the possible storage bin is included, the storage capacity per floor area is still comparable to that found at Tell Halif. However, if only the storage capacity of the storage vessels is taken into account, the storage capacity per floor area (6.2 l/m2) is considerably lower than that at Tell Halif, but similar to that of the House 1088 on the Lachish Main Street, excavated by the British expedition. The total capacity would be sufficient to store food for 60 person-weeks, or for 1.5 people for 39 weeks; the jar capacity would provide for just 29 person-weeks, not enough to provide food for one person for a major part of the year.

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2) 0 2.7 16.0 0 62.2 6.6 8.3 12.9

Proportion of storage capacity 0% 2.2% 19.8% 0% 54.2% 14.3% 9.5% 100%

this house (Shafer-Elliot 2013: 72–73). However, while the bowl was nearly complete, just the rim sherds of the storage jars were found, one of them being an Early Bronze sherd. I would suggest that these were just discarded potsherds, rather than indicative of vessels used there. The number of animal bones was large, but I would suggest that it points to a discard area, for which dead space under stairs would be convenient. At the western side of courtyard 3560 there was an entrance to Room 3561. Wooden doorposts (acacia and olive) stood either side of this entrance. Wooden doorposts (olive) also framed the door to adjacent Locus 3543.49 On the cobbled floor of this space, some pottery was found: one bowl, two cooking pots, a juglet, a jug, a lamp and two storage jars. Two spindle whorls, a flint sickle segment and some grinding stones or fragments of grinding stones were also found in this space. The storage jars were quite small with a combined capacity of about 22 litres. Based on the location, the cobbled floor and the relatively few artefacts, Shafer-Elliot suggests that the space was used to stable animals (Shafer-Elliot 2013: 66). I agree with that conclusion but, due to the high number of grinding stones, would suggest that other activities may also have taken place there.

Lower House East The eastern wing of the ‘Lower House’ was also analysed by Shafer-Elliot, who treated it as a separate house (Shafer-Elliot 2013: 61–73). At its southern end is the partly excavated courtyard 3560, which gives access to the two entrances to the house. Several vessels were found on the cobbled surface: two bowls, a cooking pot, two juglets, three lamps, and three storage jars. Two of these jars were lmlk-type jars. Grinding stones, a bone spatula and a carnelian pendant were also found. The excavators suggest that this space was an open courtyard. Architectural considerations point to this, though the high number of lamps may point to a more enclosed space. In any case, the space was used as part of the house, with domestic activities such as grinding grain taking place here. The storage capacity of 111 litres was considerable.

From the east of courtyard 3560 there was access to Room 3543. This room was also connected to stable area 3561. Room 3543 had a packed dirt floor. In the southern part was a bread oven; in the northern part a large group of clay loomweights was uncovered. The pottery found on the floor included four bowls, two cooking jugs, a jug, a juglet, and a storage jar. There

The small Locus 3636 is adjacent to Locus 3560. It is a small rectangular unit with walls or stones on all sides. It only measures 0.60 m by 1.40 m. The excavators suggest that this was the base for stairs to a second storey. Shafer-Elliot disputes that conclusion, pointing to the large number of animal bones, the storage jars and bowl, as well as grinding stones found in the space. She suggests that it may have been a cooking installation, as no other outside cooking installation was found for

The excavators suggest that this was an open courtyard. ShaferElliot disputes this on architectural grounds (Shafer-Elliot 2013: 65). Indeed, the wooden doorposts, a large beam (probably from the ceiling) and copious mudbrick debris found above the floor, as well as some pottery likely to have come from a second storey, all indicate that this space was roofed. If indeed Locus 3636 represented the base of some stairs, the case for a roofed space becomes even stronger. Stairs would not have stopped in midair, but connected to an upper storey. Probably the main reason that the excavators regarded this as an open courtyard was the bread oven found in the adjacent room. 49

128

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

were also some spindle whorls, grinding stones, and a model wheel (the other fitting wheel was found in Locus 3561).50

storage. The only other storage vessel in the room was the spouted jar. It had a capacity of about eight litres. Room 3582 could only be entered from living Room 3529. At the centre of the room was a pit about 1 m in diameter and 20 cm deep. This pit would have had a capacity of about 100 to 160 litres.52 The pit is quite shallow and not lined. It is therefore not like the storage pits found in later ethnographic parallels. For example, storage pits in Iran were about 1 m deep. They were usually in the house, as was the case here.

The excavators suggest that this was an open courtyard, probably based on the presence of the bread oven. However, the floor was sealed by collapsed debris and as indicated above, it is likely that this area was also covered.51 The bread oven strongly indicates that this area was used for food preparation. The other artefacts support this. In particular, the close spatial association between food preparation and textile production can be observed again. Here, food preparation was probably concentrated in the south-west of the room around the bread oven, while textile production probably took place more towards the north, where the loomweights were found. Storage capacity in the room was 47 litres.

The pottery found in the room consisted of one bowl, four cooking jugs, one black juglet, two holemouth jars, and seven storage jars. Five of these storage jars were lmlk-type jars; two had lmlk stamps on the handles. While the presence of lmlk-type jars in domestic settings is very common, this is another example of jars with stamped handles also occurring in such a setting.53

In the north-east of the eastern house was Room 3529, which was accessed from Room 3543. The most notable feature was an installation built against the northern enclosure wall and the eastern house wall, in the form of two semi-circles of small stones. Shafer-Elliot suggests that the installation was used for cooking, based on the presence of two cooking pots (Shafer-Elliot 2013: 69). But cooking pots were also found in other areas where cooking had probably not been carried out. One of the cooking pots is also more similar to the cooking jug type I defined. There is no other evidence that the installation may have been used for cooking, so that its probable use must remain uncertain.

The many storage jars and associated large storage capacity point to the room being used for storage. This is also confirmed by the carbonized grain and carbonized figs found among the pottery. The carbonized grain and figs also are evidence of the commodities being kept in jars. The cooking jugs may have been used to store dairy products. Grinding stones and a part of a basalt bowl were also found in the room. However, the main function of the room was storage. Over 60% of the house’s storage capacity was located in the room, even if the capacity of the pit is not taken into account. Storage capacity in the Lower House East is concentrated in storage room 3582, with lmlk-type jars providing about 35% of the house’s capacity (Table 20). The remaining storage capacity was mainly located in food preparation locations, one of them probably being an outside courtyard. Storage Room 3582 was located at the back of the house, so that one had to access all other rooms before reaching this location. The division in the house is a good example of front-stage rooms, such as food preparation areas and the living room, in contrast to back-stage rooms, such as the storage room. The overall storage capacity was 13.9 l/m2, lower than that found at Tell Halif with 17.7 to 24.8 l/m2. The overall storage capacity of 627 l (which includes the pit in Room 3582) was also lower, but still within the range of the smaller house, which had a capacity of 805 l. The storage capacity would be sufficient for food for 87 person-weeks, or for 2.2 people for 39 weeks.

Apart from the cooking pot and the cooking jug, six bowls, one closed krater, two juglets, a lamp, and a spouted jar were found in Room 3529. In addition, a wide range of small finds come from this room: a bronze needle, a bronze anklet, a bronze fibula, a bronze disk, an iron knife, a flint sickle segment, a bead, several astragali and more. There also were pieces of wood joined in an angle, possibly from furniture. A textile fragment was also found. While this may indicate a goods storage room, I think that ShaferElliot has correctly suggested that these artefacts are most indicative of a ‘living room’, maybe in this case even similar to the sitting rooms in Syria, where the dowry was also kept, as described by Kathryn Kamp (see Section 5.4). The large number of bowls also points to food consumption. The closed krater was quite large and had a capacity of 14.7 l. It may have been used for The information concerning the grinding stones may not be complete, as there is some discrepancy between tables and figures (for example, Table 28.15 refers to grinding stone 8232/52 in locus 3543 as illustrated in Figure 28.6:7. but there is no such illustration in Figure 28.6). 51 Shafer-Elliot also rejects Ussishkin’s interpretation of this area as an unroofed courtyard (Shafer-Elliot 2013: 67). 50

As the sides were probably not straight, I assumed a capacity of 110 litres. 53 The count of holemouth jars also includes one vessel described as a krater. However, just the rim of this krater has been found. While I have not seen the original, the drawing seemed more indicative of a holemouth jar than a closed krater. 52

129

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Table 20. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Lachish Lower House East. Room 3560 3636 3561 3543 3529 3582 Total

Probable main activity food preparation stairs stable food preparation living room food storage

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l) 9.7 111.3 0.7 0 7.6 22.0 8.1 47.2 9.7 22.5 9.3 424.2 45.1 627.1

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2) 11.5 0 2.9 5.8 2.1 45.6 13.9

Proportion of storage capacity 17.7% 0% 3.5% 7.5% 3.6% 67.6% 100%

Figure 80. Overview of Beer-Sheba Western Quarter.

Based on the combined storage capacity of the western and eastern house of 1048 litres at the most, there might be a case to argue that they should indeed be viewed as two wings of the same house.

found and some areas were disturbed so that walls could not always be traced (Figure 80).54

11.9 Beer-Sheba

House 75 probably had two front rooms, three longrooms and two back rooms. The only clear access from the street was to ‘courtyard’ area 36. It is likely

House 75

Beer-Sheba is at the northern edge of the Negev Desert. Its excavations from 1969 to 1975 were directed by Yohanan Aharoni. Excavations in 1976, 1993, 1994, and 1995 were directed by Ze’ev Herzog. In the 1969 and 1970 seasons a domestic area, the Western Quarter, was excavated (Beit-Arieh 1973 in Aharoni 1973; see also Singer Avitz 2011 and Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016). Several houses in relatively good condition were excavated in Stratum II, which was dated to the late eighth century BCE. I want to consider these houses in the Western Quarter.

The basic outline of the houses was clear: they had relatively small front rooms or courtyards facing the street, then behind that they had parallel longrooms. Two of these rooms were divided by pillars. The back broadrooms were incorporated into the casemate wall. It is apparent that the casemate wall was built first to a clearly determined, regular pattern and then houses were added on the inside. While it is clear that the rooms divided by pillars formed part of the same unit, it is not clear whether longrooms enclosed by walls on all sides belonged to any of the houses on either side. The houses could have had three longrooms or just two. Avi Faust has argued that some of the rooms did not form part of any of the houses, but rather a corridor to reach the wall (see Singer-Avitz 2011:282). But Lily Singer-Avitz has shown that these would not provide a good passageway and did seem to have been used for domestic activities (see Singer-Avitz 2011: 282). 54

It is sometimes difficult to determine which rooms together formed a unit, as doorways were not always 130

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

that from here there was access to the adjacent front Room 94. But whether there was indeed a doorway between Rooms 36 and 94 is not clear. Rather Area 36 may have formed part of House 25 to its south. I follow Beit-Arieh (Beit Arieh 1973: 32-33), mainly because there is no other viable access to Room 94 and also because there does not seem to be a doorway to the south from Room 36.

capacity alone is considerably larger than the entire storage capacity of all the vessels in the house. It is not certain that this storage compartment contained food. It may have been used to store animal fodder, or fuel such as dung or branches. Nevertheless, a similarly enclosed compartment in Beth Shean clearly did contain wheat, so that the possibility of such food storage has to be considered.

Entrance Room 36 had a cobble floor. In the northeastern corner was a bread oven. The room contained an open krater, a juglet, and a cooking pot, as well as a spatula. The area was most likely used for food preparation.

From entrance Room 36 there may have been access to front Room 94. Room 94 had a cobble floor. Along the south wall, right next to where any entrance from Room 36 would be located, stairs led up eastwards towards the street. These would have given access to a second storey or to the roof. The excavators suggest that the upper portion of the stairs was probably wooden and therefore no trace of it was found.

Straight ahead from Room 36 was Room 28, a longroom enclosed by walls on all sides.55 Along its long, northern wall were a number of vessels: a bowl, three cooking pots, a cooking jug, five juglets, an amphora, a small holemouth jar, a holemouth jar, a storage jar, and a lamp. Also in the room were two loomweights, a grinding stone, two spatulae, and a curved bone. Many of the artefacts were close to Room 36.

In the north-western corner of the room, a bread oven was located. Other artefacts found in Room 94 include three cooking jugs, two cooking pots, three pounders and a fragment of a zoomorphic figurine. The artefacts, including the pounders, point to food preparation in the area.

The artefacts may therefore be considered part of the food preparation area focused on Room 36. While the classification of the pottery located close to Room 36 is known (two jars of some type, a bowl, a lamp and three cooking pots), the exact artefacts are not given (see Singer-Avitz 2011: 285). Nevertheless, some storage capacity is clearly associated with the food preparation area in the east of Room 28.

Initially, there was access from Room 94 to Room 77, one of the longrooms. But this doorway was later blocked and there was only direct access to Room 75 from front Room 94. Whether this doorway to Room 75 was new or was part of the original construction of the house, is unclear. Room 75 was divided from Room 77 by pillars. The space between these pillars was partly filled in by later mudbrick walls.

Towards the back (west) of Room 28 two jars and a cooking pot or cooking jug were found. It is unclear where some of the other artefacts and the juglets were located. In the absence of more detailed information, this western part of Room 28 is probably best considered a small storage area. The overall storage capacity of Room 28 is about 68 l, or 12% of the total storage capacity of vessels found in the house.

While there was a jar near the doorway to front Room 94, most of the pottery was located towards the back of the room, near the openings to Room 77 and to the casemate room. The following pottery was found: eight bowls, a cooking pot, three jugs, three juglets, a decanter, five holemouth jars, two small holemouth jars, a spouted jar, three storage jars (including a small juglike jar), a large pithos, and four lamps. A stone mortar and ten loomweights were also found in the room. While loomweights were found throughout the houses, such a concentration was only found in Room 75. As loomweights were usually unfired, their preservation was not always good. I therefore tentatively posited the presence of a loom in Room 75. The large number of serving vessels (bowls and jugs) may point to this area being used for food consumption, while the many storage vessel may indicate food storage. Serving vessels were more located to the middle of the room against the northern division to Room 77, while the storage vessels were located further back (west) in the room. While Room 75 could be considered an area where household goods were stored, I agree with Singer-Avitz that in

From Room 28 there is access to back Room 383 in the casemate wall. Just inside the door three bowls and a jug were found. 56 The large, southern part of Room 383 was partitioned off by a thin partition one brick wide. It seems that the southern part of the room was used as an enclosed storage compartment. If we assume that this compartment was filled to a height of about 1 metre, it would have an approximate capacity of 3760 l. This The assumed division between Rooms 36 and 28 was destroyed by building activity during the Roman Period. Therefore no doorway between the rooms was found. 56 The text also mentions a cooking pot, but this is not listed in the plates, which for other loci list all macro-artefacts, even if they are not illustrated (Beit Arieh 1973: 33; Aharoni 1973: Plate 68). 55

131

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Table 21. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Beer-Sheba House 75. Room 36 28 383 94 75 77 63 House 75 Total

Probable main activity food preparation food preparation / storage storage food preparation living room food preparation unknown

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l) 4.9 0 11.7 68.6 5.6 6.6 10.8 7.9 6.8 54.2

0 0 468.5 15.0 24.4 576.5

this central room many activities were taking place; it was a living room (Singer-Avitz 2011:286). In this case, textile production, food consumption and storage took place in this central room. If we disregard the possible storage compartment in casemate Room 383, over 80% of the storage capacity would have been located in this room. Having such a concentration of storage capacity in a living area is a quite different pattern from that encountered at Tell Halif, where storage was largely concentrated among separate storage areas and in conjunction with food preparation, and only a small capacity in relation to living rooms.

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2) 0 5.9

Proportion of storage capacity 0 11.9%

0 0 43.5 1.9 3.6 10.6

0 0 81.3% 2.6% 4.2% 100%

a stable. Access to this room could only be gained by passing through several other rooms; many vessels stood in the way to access the room. While Room 77 may have been used to store fuel or animal fodder, the relative scarcity of artefacts may also indicate other activities, and the only positive indication is for limited food preparation. It is clear that the original access to casemate Room 63 was from Room 77, and that later that access was closed and a new doorway opened from Room 75. This new access broke the clear, initial pattern of the casemate rooms. Room 63 had a plastered floor. It contained two bowls, two cooking jugs, a cooking pot, a jug, a juglet, a lamp, a bronze ring, an iron nail, a bead, and a spatula. While some of this pottery has been characterised as serving ware, and therefore may be related to food consumption, the overall quantity of pottery is quite small. I would therefore conclude that the most likely activity carried out in this area is unknown.

It seems that the opening from Room 75 to Room 77 was in the west. Room 77 had a cobble floor. It may once have served as a central room, as there had been access from the front room and to the casemate room. At the time of the destruction of the house, it served more as a side room. It contained two jugs, two juglets, a small holemouth jar, a relatively small storage jar, a cooking pot, a cooking jug, an open krater, a grindstone, two pounders, three loomweights, fragments of a bronze fish hook, and another worked stone. The cooking jug was encased in a layer of unfired clay in which it clearly had been heated. This layer of clay gave the cooking jug further insulation. While the additional clay layer may have served to heat the cooking jug more slowly and may be the result of a specific cooking technique, the heat retention around a cooking pot reminded me of the process of making thickened milk or yoghurt.57

With a total ground floor area of approximately 54 m2, House 75 is similar in size to those excavated at Tell Halif. The overall storage capacity of 576 l is slightly lower than that calculated for houses at Tell Halif, and therefore the storage capacity / floor area is similarly smaller (Table 21). However, if the storage compartment in Room 383 is taken to have been used for food storage, House 75 would have a great storage capacity (4340 l). But neither this, nor the number of storage vessels, should make us conclude that the building was mainly used for storage or industry beyond the domestic realm (contra Beit-Arieh 1973: 34). The number of storage vessels in other clearly domestic situations is considerably higher.

The artefacts tend to imply that food preparation, but not necessarily actual cooking, was carried out in this room. As these side rooms contain relatively few artefacts, especially in relation to their size, Singer-Avitz suggests that they were used as stables or as storage areas for animal fodder or fuel (Singer-Avitz 2011: 287). However, it is unlikely that Room 77 was used as

If the compartment is not taken into account, the house would have a storage capacity to hold food for 80 personweeks, or 2.0 people for 39 weeks. If the compartment is taken into account and it was filled with grain, more grain than required for a household could be stored (over 1300 person-weeks). The storage jars would then be sufficient to hold other food requirements for 158 person-weeks, or 4.0 people for 39 weeks.

Gustaf Dalman describes this process with the use of cloth to slow the cooling (Dalman 1939: 294), and I also know such a method with more modern implements from my Turkish neighbours. 57

132

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

The pattern of food storage is quite different from Tell Halif houses. The largest part of storage capacity was closely connected to the central living room, in which a wide variety of activities seem to have occurred.

found in this room. But a stone and mud installation was built against one of the pillars. Unfortunately, it was partly destroyed by later, Roman activity. Crude clay was also found nearby. The clay’s composition was similar to the clay used for the storage jars found in the storehouses. The excavators suggest that the stone and mud installation was used as a kiln and the whole area used as potter’s workshop.

House 76 To the north of House 75 was House 76. Its boundaries are not clear. Did it have three front rooms and three longrooms or just two front rooms and two longrooms? It is recessed from the street to a width of three spaces, but there is no doorway between the northern rooms and the rooms to the south. There is also no clear entranceway from the street to the southern rooms. Because the northern rooms were partly destroyed by the foundations of a Roman bath house, little information could obtained from them, so that I will limit my analysis to the southern part of the house, but with the understanding that the house may have had more rooms.

From Room 76 there was access to the casemate rooms. Room 66 contained many artefacts: seven bowls, two open kraters, a cooking jug, five juglets, a storage jar, two small holemouth jars, a pendant, a total of six weights (bronze and stone weights), two spatulae, two astragalus bones, a loomweight, a grinding stone and a mother of pearl fragment. The excavators suggest that this was a food storage room (Beit Arieh 1973:35). This is also supported by the presence of some barley and wheat grains. But I think the variety of artefacts and the relatively few storage jars point to another use. The number of serving vessels such as bowls is quite high, possibly indicating food consumption. Together with the jewellery and other implements it could be considered a living room, in which several activities took part. The number of weights is exceptional for the houses I have explored, possibly suggesting some commercial activity. An interpretation as a craft area would be guided by the identification of Room 78 as a pottery workshop. That some food-related activity nevertheless also took place here is indicated by the grain.

There may have been access from the street to House 76 through front Room 93. Along with the adjacent front room, Room 93 had been enlarged at one point. The only find recorded for Room 93 was a closed krater with the inscription ‘q d ŝ’ (Beit-Arieh 1973: 34). If that reading is correct, it would indicate that the krater, its contents or its use were somehow considered sacred. A similarly inscribed bowl from Tell Beit Mirsim was argued to have been used by priests to carry home sacrificial meat for consumption (Dobbs-Allsopp et al. 2005: 136). No other indication for food consumption was found in Room 93, nor is there any other indication of cultic activity, so that the possible use of the room remains puzzling.

The pottery found in adjacent casemate Room 57 consisted of three bowls, two cooking jugs, and three juglets. It is essentially a continuation of the assemblage found in adjacent Room 66. The two rooms should be considered together. Based on the overall pattern of the building, I would suggest some craft activity.

To the north of Room 93 was Room 99. The only artefact recorded for Room 99 was a large iron ploughshare found on the floor. It seems that agricultural tools were kept in this room or that it was used for goods storage more generally.

Singer-Avitz has noted the unique distribution of artefacts in Building 76, particularly the few artefacts found in the central rooms, with a large number of artefacts, particularly bowls in the casemate rooms (Singer-Avitz 2011: 289). I would add the very small storage capacity in the house, a total of just 41 l (Table 22). That would be just sufficient capacity to store food for 6 person-weeks. This would make the house a clear outlier for the houses I have examined. Singer-Avitz suggests that this was the house of potter, working in his place of residence. As pottery was often a seasonal activity, the occupants of the house could still have been involved in agriculture. Unless the northern rooms contained many storage vessels and the food preparation area in Room 124 was part of this house, I do not see the building functioning as a domestic unit. In that case, Building 76 may form part of a household that was not located in this house; or it may have been occupied through some communal or administrative arrangements.

An obvious doorway led from Room 93 to Room 76, one of the longrooms of the house. Artefacts found in Room 76 included an open krater, two cooking jugs, a cooking pot, two jugs, a juglet and a small storage jar, as well as three worked stones, an iron nail and a loomweight. No description of the worked stones is given, but they might have been grinding stones or pounders. Together with the cooking jugs and cooking pot they may point to food preparation. But such an identification is not unequivocal. As there are no bowls apart from the krater, it is unlikely that the area was used for food consumption, and there are no clear indicators that this might be considered a work area. The other longroom, Room 78, is accessed from Room 76. In part it has a cobbled floor. Only one jug was 133

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Table 22. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Beer-Sheba House 76. Room 93 99 76 78 66 57 House 76 Total

Probable main activity unknown goods storage food preparation craft craft craft

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l) 5.5 0 6.4 0 13.6 17.2 9.1 0 5.7 24.0 1.6 0 42.0 41.3

House 25

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2) 0 0 1.3 0 4.2 0 1.0

Proportion of storage capacity 0 0 41.8% 0 58.2% 0 100%

nail, a pounder, another worked stone, a bracelet, beads, and a metal fragment. The many bowls, open kraters, jugs and juglets point towards serving ware and food consumption. Together with the many other artefacts, this indicates a living room. The room also contained many storage vessels. Even though the storage vessels may have been concentrated in one part, it seems that, as in Room 75, storage was integrated with other functions in this, the central room of the building.

Building 25 in the south of the row of three houses was not as well preserved as the other houses. It is not clear whether it was two or three rooms wide. As the southern rooms are not complete, and no access between them and the northern rooms has been found, I will consider the house as only two rooms wide, but keep in mind that it may have been larger. The area in which the front rooms would have been located was disturbed, so that only a few walls were found and no artefacts were recovered. The front rooms would have covered an area of approximately 9.5 m2. The location of an entrance from the street is not known.

From Room 48, there was probably access to the back part of the northern longroom, Room 22. It seems that Room 22 was also, at least partially, cobbled. It contained six bowls, two cooking pots, a juglet, a large jug, a holemouth jar, a small holemouth jar, a storage jar, a lamp, three clay loomweights, a pounder, another worked stone and a curved bone. The artefacts are very similar to those of adjacent Room 48 so that Room 22 may be seen as a continuation of the adjacent room. The storage capacity per area was slightly higher than in the adjacent room, but still within a similar range.

From the front rooms there was probably access to Room 25, one part of a longroom. It had a cobbled floor. Artefacts found in Room 25 include a cooking jug, four cooking pots, a closed krater, a bowl, two juglets, a storage jar, a pillar figurine, a model couch, a miniature oil lamp, a loomweight and an iron axe. Based on the many cooking pots, I would suggest the use of the area was food preparation. The pillar figurine, model couch and miniature oil lamp suggest some cultic activity, but this could have occurred in conjunction with other domestic activities.

Room 46 was the casemate room. It was partly disturbed by later construction, but still two bowls, two lamps, a storage jar, a stone bowl and a loomweight were recovered from it. This room also continues with similar artefacts as in Room 48 and does not have any strong indication of other activities. Apart from the presence of a group of loomweights in Room 75 of Building 75, loomweights were scattered throughout the houses at Beer-Sheba and no clear pattern could be discerned.

From the front rooms there was probably also access to the largest of the longrooms, Room 48. It also had a cobbled floor. Artefacts recovered are: 11 bowls, three open kraters, two cooking jugs, a small amphora, five juglets, three small holemouth jars, three holemouth jars, two storage jars, a button, a weight, a stone loomweight, a clay loomweight, a clay stopper, an iron

It seems that Rooms 48, 22, and 46 formed a general living area. It is in this area that the main recovered food storage capacity is located (Table 23). If we had a

Table 23. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Beer-Sheba House 25. Room front 25 48 22 46 House 25 Total

Probable main activity unknown food preparation living living living

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l) 9.5 0 6.4 18.3 18.5 175.6 4.0 58.4 5.2 20.8 43.6 273.1

134

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2) 0 2.9 9.5 14.7 4.0 6.3

Proportion of storage capacity 0 6.7% 64.3% 21.4% 7.6% 100%

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

Figure 81. Overview of Khirbat Abu Shawan buildings.

more complete picture of the house, we might be able to say more confidently how the storage capacity was distributed.

Building 200 was on the south-eastern side of the compound (Figure 82). The entrance was in the southeast. The entrance area was designated Locus 213, but no finds were listed. To the west of the entrance was a small room (Locus 212) that contained remains of a closed krater and a pithos.58

The overall food storage capacity of Building 25 is considerably lower than that of comparable houses at Tell Halif, or even of Building 75. It would be just sufficient to hold food for 38 person-weeks, or for not more than one person for less than a year. At 6.3 l/m2, the overall storage capacity per floor area is lower than at Tell Halif and most other houses examined. Further capacity may have been located in other spaces. The storage capacity is, however, considerably larger than that found in the excavated rooms of Building 76.

Locus 212 also contained a bench on one side of the room. Both the closed krater and the pithos were quite large, so that they provided ample storage capacity. Since no artefacts indicating any other use of the space were found, its most likely use was for storage. The entrance area into the central room of the building has been designated Locus 203. Two bowls were found here. In the central room itself, designated Locus 202, a small holemouth jar was found. A further bowl was found in the doorway to the back room, designated Locus 204. The sparse finds make it impossible to suggest any particular activity area, though this central area is unlikely to have been used primarily for storage.

The common pattern at Beer-Sheba, as evidenced by Buildings 75 and 25, is the location of the majority of storage capacity in the central room, which seems to have functioned as a sort of living room. Only small dedicated food storage areas have been identified. While some storage capacity was associated with food preparation, this was small in comparison to the capacity in living rooms.

From this central area there was access to side Room 201. Six small holemouth jars were found here with an approximate combined capacity of 55 l. A grinding stone was also found here. I agree with the excavators’ suggestion that this area was most probably used for storage. It is unusual to find exclusively small holemouth jars in an area. A nearly homogenous assemblage of a far greater number of such small holemouth jars was

11.10 Khirbat Abu Shawan Khirbat Abu Shawan is the site of an Iron Age II farmstead south-west of Jerusalem. It sits on a hill across from the Iron Age I settlement of Giloh, Nahal Giloh separating the two sites. Khirbat Abu Shawan was excavated in 1995 as part of a salvage excavation during construction on the road near the village of El-Walaja (Baruch 2007). The farmstead consisted of a compound enclosed by a wall and includes two houses, a cave and a wine press, all in use during the Iron Age II (Figure 81).

Based on the shape of the rim, the pithoi at Khirbat Abu Shawan were similar to those found at Tel ‘Ira and, to an extent, to the one found at Beth Shean. These were large pithoi with a capacity of over 100 l. By close comparison of the rim shape, I suggest that the pithos found in Locus 212 was probably most similar to that illustrated in Figure 77.1 from Tel ‘Ira (Beit-Arieh 1999). 58

135

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 82. Overview of Khirbat Abu Shawan Building 200.

found at Tel Moza, which was interpreted as a shared community storage facility or a redistributive storage facility in a complex economic system (Greenhut and De Groot 2009: 224). The storage at Khirbat Abu Shawan was on a far smaller scale and more domestic in nature.

cooking installation or grinding stones were found, I suggest that this area was probably used for food preparation. The two pithoi also provided a large storage capacity of approximately 300 l—over 50% of the total recovered storage capacity in the compound.

The back room was divided into Locus 214 and Locus 205. No pottery was illustrated from Locus 214. But an installation consisting of two parts was found there: a round pit about 0.4 m deep covered by a round stone slab with a hole in its centre; and an oval pit about 0.3 m deep. Both pits were treated with gray plaster and the excavators suggest that the installation was probably used in olive oil production. While there is no further evidence for this use, I agree that this interpretation is a possibility. For Locus 205 only a bowl was reported. This may have been used in conjunction with the industrial installation further west.

The floor and interior of the large room in the west of Building 300 were largely destroyed by a later lime kiln. A basin was found in Locus 353, apparently of a similar ceramic matrix as other pottery. In shape it is similar to a mortarium. It is unclear what the locus might have been used for, especially as no other artefacts were found there. Outside the building, close to the northern wall, two bowls were found. This was designated Locus 350. Some Iron Age pottery was also found in a small cave nearby. The excavator suggests that it was used for storage. However, the only illustrated pottery fragments are those of an open krater, a bowl, a juglet and a lamp. None of these finds directly indicate storage. It is, nevertheless, likely that the cave formed part of the complex.

Building 300 is about 40 m northwest of Building 200 (Figure 83). It was partially destroyed by a later lime pit, which disturbed the larger, western part of the building.

Also nearby was a large wine press. Its plastered collecting vat had a capacity of about 1900 l. Three juglets were found there, as well as rims of a platter, a cooking pot, an open krater and a pithos.

Locus 354 is outside the entrance to both Locus 352 and the larger, central part of the building. It may have been a courtyard. If there were any walls, they have not survived. Five bowls, one closed and one open krater were found in Locus 354. Due to the large number of serving vessels, this area may well have been used for food consumption.

The farmstead is a good example of how a household could extend across several buildings and installations. The excavator suggests that Building 200 was used as an agricultural production area and storeroom, while Building 300 with tableware was used as a dwelling. I concur with that suggestion. However, it needs to be noted that the larger part of the storage capacity,

From Locus 354 there is access to separate Locus 352, a small room on the side of the building. It contained remains of two open kraters, one closed krater, two cooking pots, a lamp and two pithoi. Even though no 136

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

Figure 83. Overview of Khirbat Abu Shawan Building 300.

represented by the pithoi in Locus 352, was located in Building 300 in conjunction with food preparation (Table 24). While more space may have been dedicated to storage in Building 200, that does not mean that the capacity was higher there.

house at Tell Halif, but still within range. It is, however, just a fraction of the capacity of the wine press vat. The storage capacity of 550 l would hold sufficient food for 76 person-weeks, or 2.0 people for 39 weeks. 11.11 Mount of Olives Cave

It is also noteworthy that only small holemouth jars and large pithoi were found at the farmstead. There was no standard storage jar. This is in sharp contrast with most domestic dwellings otherwise studied.

In 2002 and 2003, a dwelling cave on the slopes of the Mount of Olives was excavated (Feig 2011). It overlooks the Temple Mount. On the basis of the pottery found there, it was dated to the late eighth or the seventh century BCE. The natural cave had been enlarged and walls built against the walls and towards its opening, so that it formed a rectangle, about 7.25 m by 7.50 m (Figure 84). In the south-western corner was a round, stone-built installation. After the ceiling partially collapsed in this corner, retaining walls were built. An additional small room was also built just outside the entrance.

Due to the disturbed nature of the site and possible slow abandonment process, it is unclear to what extent the recovered artefacts reflect a particular living situation at the site. The pottery could have accumulated over years, or largely have been removed by later processes. The total storage capacity of approximately 550 l therefore is not a certainty. It is smaller than that of any

Table 24. Loci, activities and storage capacity of Khirbat Abu Shawan buildings. Locus 212 203 202 204 201 214 205 354 352 353 Total

Probable main activity food storage unknown unknown unknown food storage agricultural production agricultural production food consumption food preparation unknown

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l) 6.2 183.8 1.4 0 12.1 10.2 1.8 0 5.4 55.1 7.2 0

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2) 29.4 0 0.8 0 10.2 0

Proportion of storage capacity 33.4% 0 1.9% 0 10.0% 0

6.1

0

0

0

6.1 4.2 30.8 81.4

0 300.5 0 549.6

0 72.3 0 6.8

0 54.7% 0 100%

137

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Some pottery was also found in Locus 440, which was to the east of Wall 8. It appears it was an area between the wall of the room and the cave walls. Here, remains of eight bowls, an open krater, two cooking pots, a decanter, two juglets, a lamp and a storage jar were found. While serving ware clearly predominates, this was found in a very small space with apparently no floor, so that it is more likely to have been used for goods storage or for refuse. I was unable to locate the find spots of a storage jar and a small holemouth jar illustrated in the figures.60 Figure 84. Overview of Mount of Olives Cave.

Due to the pottery found at the site, the excavators suggested that this was a dwelling cave on the Jericho to Jerusalem road. Unfortunately, no exact activity areas could be determined. Only very little pottery was found inside the main room, possibly indicating that it had been cleaned out in antiquity. Most of the pottery was located in the small additional room just outside the entrance and in a space just to the east of eastern wall.59 As a result, very little can be said about activity areas in the dwelling. The main room of the cave dwelling contained a storage jar and two bowls, as well as an open krater in the installation (Loci 410, 431, 443, 446). The small room outside the entrance seems to have been added later (Loci 432, 439). It is about 1.9 m by 1.9 m wide. It contained six bowls, three cooking pots, a closed krater, a pot stand, an amphora, two lamps, a storage jar, a holemouth jar and a small holemouth jar. The pottery may indicate food preparation or food consumption, but there are no other supporting artefacts. The space is quite small, so that based on ethnographic parallels it might resemble a food preparation area.

It is uncertain whether the artefacts represent the remains of a single occupation and therefore represent the remains of one household. I could also not confidently identify any activity areas. The artefacts recovered particularly from the main room seem to be just a small remainder of the probable assemblage. Despite these limitations, some tentative conclusions can be drawn from this site. The overall storage capacity indicated by the recovered sherds was approximately 243 l. This is less than the storage capacity at the Tell Halif houses. But it nevertheless indicates that a considerable, if not the major, storage capacity required even for such a humble dwelling as this was provided by storage jars. Different types of jars were used, one beside the other. There is no evidence of a separate food storage area. Rather, the jars were found alongside other vessels. Remains of storage vessels providing 39% of the total storage capacity, for example, were excavated in an area, which could well have been used for food preparation. The excavated storage capacity could hold enough food for 34 personweeks, less than required for one person for a year. The high number of bowls in comparison to some other houses used in this study is remarkable, but not unusual in the context of other excavations. Since many archaeologists have excavated at such sites, it is not surprising that they saw the greater numbers of storage jars at better-preserved sites as evidence for buildings dedicated to storage.

A large krater was also found just outside the door (Locus 435).

The report is in Hebrew with an English summary. My understanding of the site is therefore not complete and may even be partially incorrect. Many of the jars were drawn by the references given, mainly to Zimhoni 1990.

The storage jar illustrated under Figure 11.2 apparently was found in Locus 441, but there was no other mention of Locus 441 in the report. The small holemouth jar illustrated under Figure 11.5 had no information on the find location, even though it was found whole.

59

60

138

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

11.12 Tel Batash (Timnah) Tel Batash is at the western edge of the northern Shephelah of Judah and has generally been identified with the town of Timnah (Mazar et al. 2001). Excavations were carried out from 1979 for 12 seasons, under the direction of Amihai Mazar and George Kelm. Considerable remains were uncovered from Stratum II, which has been dated to the seventh century BCE. It is uncertain whether Timnah belonged to Judah at this stage. Pottery that supports an association with Ekron and also with Judah has been uncovered. The excavators suggest that the town came under the influence of Ekron after the Assyrian campaign in 701, but then was annexed by Judah later in the seventh century BCE (Mazar et al. 2001: 281–282). Regardless of whether it was a Philistine town with a Judahite population, or a Judahite town with a Philistine population, aspects of Judahite patterns can be expected.

Figure 85. Overview of Tel Batash Building 743.

Four complete buildings from Stratum II were excavated. They all had been destroyed by a violent conflagration and therefore contained well-preserved artefacts in situ. The report also contains the exact find spots of the artefacts so that their spatial distribution is known and inferences can be made about activity areas. I analyse two of the buildings.

Just inside the door was entrance area 779. From there, steps led up to the second storey of the house. Seven bowls, four cooking jugs and three jugs were found here. Among the other artefacts was a cooking pot, an iron blade, a stand and a bottle. One of the jugs was quite large and had a capacity of over 10 litres. It might have been used for storage. But the most likely use of the area may have been for food preeparation or consumption. Why this would have taken place at the entrance at a busy thoroughfare is uncertain.

Building 743 Building 743 consisted of four rooms, two longrooms near the front of the house and two smaller rooms in the broad space at the back of the house (Figure 85). The excavators also separated the northern and southern parts of the longrooms and assigned a separate locus to the area near the entrance. The area immediately outside the door was also excavated and yielded some interesting artefacts.

Area 190 lies between the entrance area and the southern part of the longroom and also further eastward towards the eastern longroom. The only artefacts recovered were a small storage jar and a small bottle. It is likely that the area mainly served as a thoroughfare, providing access to different parts of the house.

Area 781 is just outside the door, probably in a courtyard of the house. Beside a jug and cooking jug, a large jar was found in that area. The jar was deliberately cut at the shoulder and dozens of holes were perforated through its body before firing. It therefore was a large strainer. Many functions have been suggested for the strainer, but the excavators think that the most likely uses were incense burning or dairy product processing (Mazar et al. 2001: 140). In that case, all three vessels may have been used for dairy products. The area was probably an outside working area. No storage took place here.

The area with the most artefacts was clearly area 743, the southern part of the western longroom. The most characteristic features were an agglomeration of loomweights against the western wall, indicating the presence of a loom, and a large vat close to the pillars. Other artefacts include 11 bowls, five juglets, a jug, two bottles, a cup, a decanter, a cooking pot, a funnel, a pot stand, three large closed kraters, six storage jars, as well as a bronze bell, a bronze blade, an iron blade, a pestle and a mortar. Due to the variety of artefacts, it is unlikely that the area was used just for one purpose. 139

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Nevertheless, the loom points to textile production, and several of the other artefacts, such as the vat, could also have been used for this purpose. Possibly, food preparation took also place here, together with some incidental food storage.

The other back room (Room 746) also contained many artefacts: ten bowls, a closed krater, two jugs, a bottle, a juglet, a cooking jug, a holemouth jar and storage jars (3). One of these jars was quite small; two were large carinated jars. The closed krater had a capacity of over six litres and could also have been used for storage. While the many bowls and other smaller vessels may indicate food consumption, the jars also provided considerable storage capacity. It is also possible that the room was used as storage for household items. It is noticeable that in the eastern part of the house, only this room had a considerable number of artefacts. It seems that most of the regular activity on the ground floor of this house was restricted to the western part of the house.

The eastern longroom has a cobble floor. At its northern end (Room 181) not many artefacts were found. In Room 181 only a bottle, a cup, an iron blade and stone disc (weight) were uncovered. While the assemblage does not give many clues about possible uses, the lack of artefacts, the cobbled floor and the location in the house indicate that this area was used as a stable. Even though no physical division was found between the northern and southern parts of the eastern longroom, it is noticeable that many more artefacts were found in the southern part (Room 745). It contained four storage jars, one large closed krater, one small open krater, two iron blades and a grinding stone. The storage jars were spread throughout the room. While storage jars predominate in the room, it is likely that the space was also used for other purposes. Based on ethnographic parallels, it may have been used for the storage of animal fodder and food.

The overall storage capacity at the house is smaller than at the Tell Halif houses, even though the Tell Halif houses have not been completely excavated (Table 25). Since the house is similar in size, it has a lower ratio of storage capacity to floor area than the Tell Halif houses. It is noticeable that there is no clearly defined area for food storage, with the storage capacity spread among the rooms. There is no concentration of storage jars as was noticed at Tell Halif. However, similar to the houses at Tell Halif, many of the storage jars (46% of the capacity) were near the centre of the house in an area where other activities also took place. It seems that storage was integrated with other activities.

The back part of the house is divided into two parts. The western room (Room 778) is accessed from central Room 743. This back room also had a packed dirt floor. It contained five bowls, three cooking pots, a cooking jug, a pot stand, a small holemouth jar, two juglets, a closed krater, a bottle, a cup, a grinding stone, a bone spatula, a scarab and several beads. Even though the grinding stone was over 50 cm long, no quern or lower grinding stone was found. Based on the ceramics, it is also likely that food preparation took place in the room. The small holemouth jar probably was not used for long-term storage. The decorative items indicate that people in the room not only concerned themselves with utilitarian tasks.

The storage capacity of 593 l would hold sufficient food for 82 person-weeks, or 2.1 people for 39 weeks. Building 950 Building 950 is a large house with a somewhat unconventional layout (Figure 86). A row of pillars divided the two main rooms, which were probably near the back of the house. To one side of these rooms was an olive press. A side room was parallel to these main

Table 25. Activity areas and storage capacity of Tel Batash Building 743. Activity area

Probable main activity

Storage capacity / floor area (l / m2)

Proportion of storage capacity

781

domestic work

1.4

0

0

0%

779

food preparation / consumption

3.9

10.4

2.7

1.77%

190

thoroughfare

2.19

7.2

3.4

1.2%

food preparation / domestic work

743

12.6

274.6

21.8

46.3%

181

stable

6.2

0

0

0%

745

fodder storage / food storage

9.8

159.3

16.3

26.9%

778

food preparation

8.9

13.6

1.5

2.3%

746

food consumption / goods storage

8.1

127.7

15.7

21.5%

52.9

592.9

11.2

100%

Total

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l)

140

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

Just a large cooking pot and an iron blade were found on the floor. In particular the bread oven, but also the other artefacts, point to food preparation for this space. It might have been something like a separate baking hut attached to the house. From entrance Room 958 there was also acces to the large central Room 950. To the west, a row of pillars divided it from another longroom. To the east, a wall divided it from Room 982, with a large opening giving access from the central room. At the back of the room was olive oil press Area 965. The areas within Area 950 were further divided up. The southern part of the central room Figure 86. Overview of Tel Batash Building 950. immediately to the north of the olive oil press was designated rooms. The house had several rooms at the front. No Room 946. The pit in the centre of the room was back rooms were found, so that the full extent of the reported separately as Pit 978. I divided the main area house is not known. into Area 950East and Area 950West. In Area 950 East, three bowls, three cooking pots, one cooking jug, one The entrance area, Area 968, is part of a larger room. jug, four carinated storage jars, three small waisted Part of that room could not be excavated. Area 968 has jars, a stone mortar, and an iron rod were found. Due a floor area of about 1.4 m by 2.1 m. It contained a bowl, to the cooking pots and mortar, I would conclude that a juglet, a large storage jar and a small storage jar. The this was a food preparation area. It had ample storage small jar did not have any handles. The capacity of the capacity with 159 l. I have included the capacity of the larger jar at just over 50 l was about ten times greater closed krater in that total. With a capacity of 39 l, it was than that of the small jar. Based on ethnographic bigger than any of the storage jars in that locus. parallels, the storage jars might well have been used for storing water. This would have been used principally as Area 950West is the area to the north and east of the an entrance area and, together with Area 958, also for northern-most pillar. It included one bowl, two closed domestic work. kraters, a lamp, two carinated storage jars, three ovoid storage jars, a small holemouth jar, a further small The other part of the entrance room, Area 958, was storage jar, a bead, an iron rod and a stone roof roller. further to the south. It contained two bowls, three large Remains of two jugs, an amphora and an ovoid jar were closed kraters, a jug, a carinated storage jar and a stone found here, but since only small fragments were found, mortar. The closed kraters were quite large and might they probably were not part of the original assemblage. have been used for food storage, whether long-term or Two of the ovoid jars were similar to lmlk-type jars. A short-term. With such a variety in pottery, and some group of 26 loomweights was also found in a niche in domestic tools, it could be seen as a domestic work area. the northern wall. Even though this locus was close to a bread oven, this grouping of storage jars and household From Area 958 there was access to side Room 959. In this items indicates that this space was used for storage, space, two bowls, three juglets and a stone stopper were probably both food and goods storage. At 86 l/m2 this found. It might have been used for food consumption, as area has a high storage capacity per square metre. serving ware was located here. The few artefacts might also indicate that the space was used for fodder and At the centre of the room is Pit 978.61 It contained four fuel storage or as a stable. The text does not mention bowls, a juglet, a lamp, a cooking pot, and a storage jar whether the space had a cobble floor. similar to a lmlk-type jar. The pottery would indicate The space to the west of Area 959 was either not well preserved or not excavated. It led to a small, enclosed space with a large bread oven at its centre, Area 909.

It is not shown on the plans and no description of it is provided, but its location can be estimated by the location of several artefacts shown on the plans. 61

141

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah food consumption, but the location in a pit is peculiar. The pottery may have been moved into the pit from a nearby area.

grindstone, and a quern. The mortarium, stone basin, grindstone, and quern indicate food preparation. No cooking pots were found, so it is unlikely that cooking took place here, but rather grinding and other activities to prepare food prior to cooking. Interestingly, several of the storage jars, both with small openings and large, were found close to the grindstone and quern. As seen in other houses, weaving was spatially related to food preparation.

I also divided Area 946 into Area 946East and Area 946West, with apparently an area containing little pottery separating the two sides. Area 946East was just north of the olive oil press. A large amount of pottery was found here. It contained four bowls, a closed krater, a decanter, two jugs, a juglet, two cooking pots, an amphora, two holemouth jars, two small holemouth jars, five storage jars (two lmlk-type jars, two carinated jars), a bone arrow, a worked bone, and a weight. A further lmlk-handle was also found here. With so many storage jars in a small place, this area was probably also used for food storage.

At the back of the central room is olive oil press Area 965. Two stones with impressions for pressing the olives were found either side of a vat. Several artefacts were found inside this vat and around the press: a jug, a cooking pot, a stand, two storage jars, a small weight, and an iron chisel. The identification as olive oil press is secure. The vessels found in and near the press may have been used in the pressing process or kept there while the press was out of use. It is, however, unlikely that the two storage jars would have been sufficient to contain the oil produced in the press. A further jug and stone roller were found in the space east of the press, Area 981, which apparently was not well preserved.

A bread oven stood on the south side of the northern pillar of the central room. This was part of Area 946West, though the oven borders directly on Area 950. A cooking pot, two decanters, a jug and two storage jars were found in Area 946West. Based on the bread oven, this area was probably used for food preparation. Some storage capacity was part of this food preparation area. East of the central room was Area 982. It contained eight bowls, one cup, one closed krater, one decanter, one small holemouth jar, three storage jars (one small, two large lmlk-type jars), one stand, a weight, a pendant, a stone mortar, and a bead. While the many bowls point to food consumption, due to the variety of other artefacts, I consider this space to be more a living room. The storage jars provided some storage capacity, but not as much as the food storage areas identified in the central room.

Storage capacity was spread throughout the house (Table 26). Nevertheless, there was a clear concentration of storage capacity in two areas identified as food storage areas (950West and 946East). These were not separate storage rooms, but rather corners of the central room, which seemed to be dedicated to storage. Considerable storage capacity was also located in food preparation areas. The storage jars near the olive oil press provided a capacity of only approximately 62 l. It is, therefore, likely that jars for storing olive oil were also located in other parts of the house or that some of the produce left the household.

The western longroom was accessible from the central room and divided from it by a line of pillars. The excavators separated the northern and southern parts of this western room. Area 957 in the north contained relatively few artefacts: a bowl, a juglet, a cooking pot, a small holemouth jar, and a stone roller. Such an assemblage gives little indication as to the possible uses of the space. Spaces to the south and east were used for food preparation, and so may have this space.

House 950 was considerably larger than House 743 and had a greater storage capacity. Its overall storage capacity per square metre was the same as House 743. The storage capacity of House 950 was similar to that of the Tell Halif houses. Similar to the K8 house, House 950 had an oven at the centre of the house and another one in a separate hut near the entrance. Considerable storage capacity was located near the central oven in both houses.

Area 960/920, the southern part of the western room, contained many artefacts. Two rows of loomweights were found against the wall, indicating the presence of a loom. A few loomweights were found about 1 m distant, but may still be considered part of this loom (total 21 loomweights). The area also contained five bowls, a closed krater, a jug, two juglets, a mortarium (called a vat in the report), one small holemouth jar, one large holemouth jar, four storage jars (two carinated jars and two small jars), a small weight, a large perforated stone weight, a bronze handle, a stone basin, a stone roller, a

The storage capacity of 1096 l would hold sufficient food for 152 person-weeks, or 3.9 people for 39 weeks. 11.13 Tel ‘Ira Tel ‘Ira is located in the Arad–Beer-Sheba Valley. It was also mainly occupied during the Iron II, the Hellenistic, the Roman, and the Roman-Byzantine times, with the earliest occupation in the Early Bronze Age (Beit-Arieh 1999). 142

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

Table 26. Activity areas and storage capacity of Tel Batash Building 950. Activity area

Probable main activity

Approximate floor area (m2)

Approximate storage capacity (l)

Storage capacity / floor area (l / m2)

Proportion of storage capacity

968

domestic work

2.9

56.7

19.7

5.2%

958

domestic work

12.3

71.7

5.8

6.5%

959

fodder and fuel storage

8.1

0

0

0%

909

food preparation

4.5

0

0

0%

950East

food preparation

4.3

159.3

37.4

14.5%

950West

food storage / goods storage

2.7

234.4

86.8

21.4%

978

food consumption

1.1

51.6

45.6

4.7%

946East

food storage

3.9

235.8

60.7

21.5%

946West

food preparation

3.7

28.9

7.9

2.6%

982

living room

10.8

105.4

9.8

9.6

957

food preparation

7.2

1.2

0.2

0.1%

960, 920

food preparation

10.4

88.3

8.5

8.1%

965

agricultural installation

9.4

62.2

6.6

5.7%

981

unknown

5.0

0

0

0%

other areas

unknown

11.9

0

0

0

98.2

1095.6

11.2

100%

Total

The storehouse The largest area excavated relating to the Iron Age is Area E, in the vicinity of the Iron Age gate. There were no clearly domestic structures excavated in this area, but a building that clearly served as a storehouse. I want to use it as an example of storage practice that contrasts with household storage examined at other sites. On the basis of pottery, the storeroom was dated to Stratum VII—the early seventh century BCE. The storeroom was lower Figure 87. Overview of the Tel ‘Ira storehouse. than the gate area and connected to it by seven between 122 to 176 litres each. The total combined steps. It therefore may have been partly underground. The storeroom has an area of about 27 m2. It consists of capacity of these pithoi was 4484 litres, or 92% of the a large rectangular area and an adjacent smaller area storage capacity. In addition, there were 15 smallerseparated by a trough and a pillar (Figure 87). sized storage jars with a calculated capacity of from 8 to 45 litres, and a total combined capacity of 403 There were 31 large pithoi or parts of pithoi found litres, or 8% of the storage capacity. These jars were in the room.62 These had a calculated capacity of similar in capacity and shape to the jars found at the Tell Halif houses, while the pithoi were considerably 62 The text mentions just 30 pithoi (Beit-Arieh 1999: 87), but 31 pithoi are illustrated on the plates and shown in the basic reconstruction. larger. 143

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Table 27. Loci and storage capacity of the Tel ‘Ira storehouse. Locus 175+563 192+538 535 572 Total

Approximate floor area (m2) 11.1 9.6 1.8 4.8 27.3

Approximate storage capacity (l) 2334.47 1467.28 0 1087.05 4888.80

The large rectangular space (loci 175 + 192 + 475) has a floor area of about 20 m2. Most of the pithoi (24) and storage jars (12) were found in this large space.63 While the pithoi and jars would have covered much of the space, they would not have been so tightly packed as to leave no other room. Five jugs, a cooking pot, a bowl, a rattle, and an alabaster bowl were also found in this area. In addition, there is a large stone mortar set into the floor. But these finds do not detract from the conclusion that this area was primarily used for storage, and particularly storage that went beyond household requirements. The storage capacity per floor area is, at 184 l/m2, about three times as high as the capacity in the densest storage area in the Tell Halif houses (63.4 l/m2 for storage area, 76.5 l/ m2 for wine production and storage area).

Storage capacity / floor area (l/m2) 210.96 153.09 0 227.08 179.26

Proportion of storage capacity 47.8 30.0 0 22.2 100

•• the storage vessels were kept quite densely so that the storage capacity per floor area was 179 l/ m2, not only far denser than the storage capacity of the Tell Halif houses as a whole, but also of the dedicated storage areas in those houses; •• while there are some vessels that may be ancillary to storage, these were far outnumbered by storage vessels, and the floor was largely covered by storage vessels; •• storage vessels were mostly large pithoi, not the common storage jars seen at Tell Halif and most other sites during the Iron Age II. The fact that the storeroom was lower than the general surface level is also noticeable. It may indicate the ‘cool storerooms’ for wine (Oeconomicus IX: 3), or indeed be a feature of its use beyond the household level.

The side area, on the other hand, showed a somewhat different pattern. The western part, close to the large, rectangular space (Locus 572) also contained seven pithoi and three jars. It has a high density storage capacity of 227 l/m2. The eastern part (Locus 535) did not contain any pithoi or jars, but just four bowls, two cooking pots and a jug. It seems that some parts of the storeroom were dedicated not to storage itself, but to activities ancillary to storage.

Area L casemate rooms No domestic house was fully excavated at Tel ‘Ira, but several casemate rooms were excavated in Area L (Figure 88). They have been dated to the late seventh century and early sixth century BCE. A direct comparison with the assemblage found in the storeroom can therefore

The storehouse has a large storage capacity, as well as a high storage capacity per floor area (Table 27). This dedicated storeroom can be distinguished from the Tell Halif houses by the following characteristics: •• total storage capacity of 4889 litres exceeds that of any household;

Even though Loci 538 and 563 are not shown on the plan, I assume that the two vessels listed for these loci, also came from this space, as is indicated by the reconstruction. Locus 475 is shown, but has no finds associated with it. Nevertheless, the presence of jars is clearly shown in the reconstruction in the area designated as Locus 475. It seems that finds for this area were allocated to Locus 192. 63

Figure 88. Overview of Tel ‘Ira Area L casemate rooms.

144

Chapter 11 Archaeological Review

not be made. Also, the rooms probably do not belong to one house, but may be the back rooms of several different houses. Nevertheless, I will treat the five rooms similarly to one house as they have quite different assemblages and layouts. The conclusions from this exercise will have to be used with caution and only tentatively.

shown at Tell Halif, some storage often took place in conjunction with food preparation. Again, the storage capacity could only be estimated, as not all jars were drawn. On the basis of the jars found in the room, I estimated the capacity at 160 l. The holemouth jar with a capacity of over 50 l is notable. With a ratio of 17 l/ m2, the storage capacity per floor area is relatively low.

The entrance to Room 1579 was found in the west, and it is uncertain whether there was any access from Rooms 1580 or 1582. The room contained six bowls (only two shown in plates), four cooking pots or cooking jugs (only one cooking jug shown in plates), five jugs (only two shown in plates), five storage jars (only two shown in plates), two oil lamps (only one shown in plates), several iron tools including parts of a plough (only two shown in plates), two spindle whorls (not shown in plates) and a pestle (shown in plates, but not mentioned in the text). Based on the number of iron tools, the presence of few other indicators of its possible use and the mixed assemblage, I would suggest that the room might have been used for goods storage, such as agricultural implements. Since several of the storage jars are not illustrated, it is impossible to determine the storage capacity, but I estimated it at 132 litres. In comparison to the other rooms, this room has little storage capacity—on a per floor area basis it is also quite low at approximately 12 l/m2.

Room 1584 was divided by a wall. I will assume that the two parts of the room were connected. The western part was accessed from the south and was labelled Locus 1585. At its northern end, there was a stonelined installation, but it is not shown on the plan. The installation contained several iron tools, such as a ploughshare and a hoe. There were also three bowls (four shown in plates), two storage jars, three jugs (two shown in plates), one juglet, a stone pendant, a sickle and a large loomweight. A bread oven also was in the northern part of the room. Apart from the bread oven, this area seems to have been used for goods storage, particularly agricultural tools. The excavators also reach this conclusion. The southern part of Locus 1585 had a cobble floor. It contained a cooking pot, a cooking jug, two jugs (none shown in plates), two juglets (none shown in plates), a storage jar (none shown in plates), and three iron tools (two shown in plates). In addition, the plates also show a bowl, which is not mentioned in the text. In conjunction with the rest of the room, these artefacts do not detract from its use as goods storage.

The location of the access to Room 1580 is not clear. Just a bowl, an open krater, a large decanter, a lamp, and a rattle were found there, as well as fragments of a female figurine. These sparse finds do not give much indication of possible activities taking place there. While the figurine fragments may be taken as indicative of cultic activity, such a conclusion cannot be made as clearly as, for example, in the F7 House at Tell Halif. Indeed, other activities often seemed to predominate, even where such possibly cultic artefacts have been found.

The eastern part of the room was labelled Locus 1588, but material with Locus number 1584 also seems to have come from here. A low bench was in the south of the room, and its most likely access was from Locus 1585. It had a dirt floor. There were six jugs (four shown on plates), four juglets, one decanter (not shown in plates), one closed krater, three cooking pots (two shown in plates), three bowls, one small bottle, a Cypriot amphora and eight jars (three shown in plates). There were also two metal implements (not shown in plates). Due to the many storage jars, it is likely that the room was used for food storage. The high, closed krater (capacity 2.7 l) and the amphora (capacity 7.2 l) may also have been used for storage. One of the cooking pots is very large and has a capacity of 10.8 l, so that it, too, might have been used as a storage vessel. The other items do not detract from the interpretation as a food storage area. But it is interesting that a Cypriote amphora was used in a separate storage room, not in some more visible area of the house. Since not all storage jars were illustrated, the size of several jars had to be estimated (using the medium-sized jar found in the room), resulting in a total storage capacity of 259 l for Locus 1588/1584. The storage capacity per floor area is then 55 l/m2 (not including the large cooking pot). This is similar to the dedicated storage areas at

Room 1582 seems to have its main access from the south. A bread oven and a large stone were found on the floor of the room. Four bowls (just two shown in plates), a large open krater, two cooking pots (just one cooking jug shown in plates), four jugs and decanters (just two shown in plates), and four jars (just two shown in plates, one holemouth jar and one ovoid storage jar). In addition, there were an iron needle, three small iron tools and a small basalt weight. Significantly, an agglomeration of about 50 loomweights were found against the western wall. The excavators suggest that this space was a storeroom or a workshop for spinning and weaving. I interpret the finds differently. The bread oven, the flat stone and the large open krater all point to food preparation. The cooking pots or cooking jugs and other finds support this conclusion. Importantly, weaving was often carried out near food preparation. Absent are, however, grinding stones. As has been 145

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Tell Halif and some food processing areas that had large adjacent storage capacity.

food preparation (27%). The total storage capacity of 589 l is relatively small in comparison with the Tell Halif houses. It would be sufficient to provide for 82 personweeks, or for 2.1 people for 39 weeks. But we have to take into account that the rooms probably did not form one complete household, and that further storage capacity relating to these households has not been preserved.

Even though these casemate rooms may not have been part of the same household, a variety of possible activities probably did take place in them, so that most of the different household tasks were performed in one or other of the rooms (Table 28). Most of the storage capacity in these rooms was concentrated in the dedicated food storage room (44%), although there was some capacity in other rooms, especially in the room also used for

The food storage pattern displayed in this household are far closer to the patterns observed in the Tell Halif houses than that found in the storeroom at Tel ‘Ira.

Table 28. Rooms, activities and storage capacity of Tel ‘Ira Area L casemate rooms. Room

Probable main activity

Storage capacity / floor area (l / m2)

Proportion of storage capacity

1579

goods storage

11.0

132.1

12.0

22.4%

1580

unknown

15.3

0

0

0%

1582

food preparation

9.3

160.4

17.2

27.2%

1585

goods storage

3.6

38.3

10.6

6.5%

1584

food storage

4.7

258.6

55.0

43.9%

43.9

589.3

13.4

100%

Total

Approximate floor Approximate area (m2) storage capacity (l)

146

Chapter 12

Patterns of food storage 12.1 Statistical analysis of archaeological examples Statistical analysis can provide high-level overviews and the impetus to look in more detail at possible patterns of food storage. This statistical analysis does not automatically show the patterns, but rather arranges information so that patterns can be more easily discerned, and shows aspects of those patterns that have to be more closely considered and explained. This also allows me to assess whether the reference site of Tell Halif is adequate as a type site and to what extent it differs from other sites.64 Initially, I analyse the data on the basis of the individual buildings, then later group the data differently to consider more detailed questions. I have not included the storehouse at Tel ‘Ira. This was reviewed as an example to contrast with household storage. It needs to be stated that in archaeology, statistical analysis can rarely ever be the sole analysis, particularly if possible patterns are to be discerned. The conversion of archaeological data to numerical data is generally too skewed and inaccurate to rely on numerical analysis alone. It is a tool that allows for closer consideration of the data, especially if the statistical analysis gives hints as to where further investigation is warranted.

Figure 89. Boxplot of sample overall building storage capacity.

value (Figure 89). The upper area of the box is far larger, indicating a wider spread in the third quartile. The following bar graph gives another visual overview of the same data (Figure 90). It shows that the clear outlier is Beth Shean House 2636. This outlier is due mainly to the large bin capacity of Room 28616, the room with the sealed entrance used as a silo. Bins and pits identified at other sites do not influence the overall storage capacity to such an extent. Giloh also was identified as an outlier, but on this graphic does not seem conspicuously different from the other data.66

Household storage capacity Overall storage capacity and vessel storage capacity Some basic statistical overviews can provide a sense of the data we are dealing with. A boxplot, for example, can show the spread of the data and any outliers. It shows the median as a solid bar, and the data between the first and third quartiles are shown in the box. The whiskers show the maximum and minimum values, with outliers identified as circles. The default boxplot function in R identified two outliers at the upper end of the range.65

Tel Batash Building 743 represents the median, while the mean of 1410 l is very close to the overall storage capacity found at the Tell Halif F7 House. If the two high-end outliers are eliminated, the mean of 707 l sits somewhere between Lachish Lower House East and the The dataset used for Giloh was the median range— half the number of rim sherds found in a locus rounded up to the nearest integer. This assumed that not all rim sherds found at Giloh were in use at the same time, particularly not at the time when, for some reason, the building was abandoned. This treatment of the site varies from others. At better-preserved sites, the vessels taken into account were only those which quite clearly formed part of the destruction. At more poorly-preserved sites, all diagnostic sherds that clearly established the form of a vessel and were found to be part of a locus clearly associated with a certain stratum, were taken into account. This difference of approach was partly related to the nature of the excavation, in particular the exposed nature of the Giloh site, and to the large number of rim sherds reported for Giloh in contrast to other sites.

The median of 592.9 l was near the lower end of the box, indicating that many data fall around or below this

66

For statistical calculations and plotting I used the programme Microsoft Excel for some simple analysis, and the programme R for some more specific analysis. R is the standard open-source statistical programme used particularly in academia, but also more widely for data analysis. 65 Outliers are identified if they are outside 1.5 x IQR, where IQR is the Inter Quartile Range, the difference between the first and third quartiles. 64

147

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 90. Overall storage capacity of buildings in sample.

Tell Halif K8 House, moving closer to the Tell Halif K8 House, if the low-end outlier of Beer-Sheba House 76 is also eliminated.

One observation, which becomes even clearer if only the vessel storage capacity is compared, is that Iron Age I sites all have above-average storage capacity (Figure 91).

Figure 91. Vessel storage capacity of buildings in sample.

148

Chapter 12 Patterns of food storage

Only the Tell Halif F7 House and Tel Batash Building 950 had a similar vessel storage capacity to the Iron Age I buildings. Giloh clearly has a far greater vessel storage capacity than buildings at any of the other sites. This may be due to preservation, excavation reporting and data calculation. But it also needs to be kept in mind that no grain pits were found in Giloh, while at Shiloh and ‘Izbet Sartah, two other Iron Age I sites, many outside storage pits were found. Storage pits relating to the Iron Age I have also been found at Megiddo, though not in close association with Building 00/K/10.

Iron Age II houses is not clear. While most other examined Iron Age II houses were located in Judah rather than in the northern kingdom of Israel, no storeroom was identified at Yokneam, also a northern site. Location in a different political entity is not the only explanation. House 75 at Beer-Sheba might also have had part of one room partitioned off for food storage. But the use of this space for food storage was not as clear as for the storeroom at Beth Shean. Other smaller, possible inside storage bins were also identified at the Tell Halif F7 house, the Lachish Lower House West and ‘Izbet Sartah House 109a.

Another explanation for the high storage capacity at Giloh would be if the building were to be regarded as a storehouse, rather than as a domestic building. This is unlikely. Even though a high proportion of storage jars and pithoi were found at Giloh, other pottery and household items were also found at the site. Giloh was regarded by the excavators as a small agricultural settlement, and Building 8 as a domestic unit. Walls seem to divide the Iron Age I site into several complexes, which may have housed the extended family or ‫בית אב‬ (Mazar 1981: 12).

Floor area and storage capacity The fact that Iron Age I sites in the sample had a relatively high vessel storage capacity may also be partly explained by their large floor areas. There is a positive correlation between floor area and vessel storage capacity (Figure 92). The large house-size for the Iron Age I may also be due to sampling bias. Smaller houses were found at ‘Izbet Sartah, for example. House 916 had a floor area of 53 m2. I did not examine House 916 due to its poor preservation.67

The data showing higher storage capacity in Iron Age I houses compared to Iron Age II houses, especially if storage pits are taken into account, accord well with the high-level observations and proposals on the differences between Iron Age I and Iron Age II noted in other studies. The greater use of storage pits in the Iron Age I and their scarcity during the Iron Age II is explained, for example, as a move to a more central administration (Greenhut 2006) or as part of the process of sedentarization (Finkelstein 1986: 126). The data of this study indicate that the storage capacity provided by storage pits did not get transferred to storage capacity in the house, but rather that there was less domestic storage capacity in general. In other words, the data do not support the notion that jars fully replaced storage pits as storage location. Rather, it is more likely that the storage capacity previously provided by storage pits was provided outside the household during the Iron Age II, for example by storehouses found at several sites.

The sample for Iron Age II houses is more varied, showing a larger spread of house floor area. However, the small floor area of many houses in the data set is not necessarily related to the floor area of the original house, but rather to the extent to which the house was excavated. While the correlation may appear approximately linear, the data can also be interpreted as a step change. Houses with a floor area below approximately 45 m2 had a vessel storage capacity of approximately 200 l, while those over approximately 45 m2 had a vessel storage capacity of 500 l or more. However, as some of the lower figures represent only parts of houses, a linear interpretation may better explain the data. The average (mean) vessel storage capacity per floor area was 11.5 l/m2, or 10.7 l/m2 if the outliers Giloh and BeerSheba House 76 were eliminated.68

Beth Shean House 28636 would have a similar overall storage capacity to that provided by Iron Age I storage pits due to the storeroom, in which grain was kept in bulk. Beth Shean House 28636 possibly continued the storage practices of Iron Age I sites, but with a different technology, a technology that also made the provision of storage more private than in Iron Age I. Nevertheless, it has to be kept in mind that the storeroom of Beth Shean House 28636 does not seem to have been originally planned, but was later converted to that use.

While the architectural outline of House 916 was relatively well preserved, the presence of many walls and pillars had to be assumed from the short sections of walls and pillars that were found. The artefacts reported for this house were quite sparse and all of them located in one room, Room 916. A few solitary artefacts were also found outside the house. A functional analysis of the house would not have been possible. The vessel storage capacity was approximately 70 l. However, I decided not to include this figure as I felt it would have distorted the data set due to the poor preservation of artefacts. Storage pits were found adjacent to House 916. 68 The trend line for Iron Age IIb houses is shown in Figure 92 with the equation of y=7.9x + 66.6. The equation for the trend line for the whole data set would be 14.1x – 140.3. A trend line for the data set without the outliers Giloh and Beer-Sheba would be as y=9.8x + 44.5. 67

The possible reason for the difference in storage practices between Beth Shean House 28636 and other 149

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 92. Floor area and vessel storage capacity of buildings in sample.

An approximate figure of 10 l/m2 can be established from these data. This is not a constant. There is far too much variability in the data to be confident about such a clear correlation between floor area and vessel storage capacity. In ethnographically-observed examples, there is also no clear correlation between inhabitants or wealth and the size of a house. (see Kamp 1987; Kamp 2000). While a certain relationship was observed amongst these factors, household circumstances vary considerably. Therefore, no direct relationship between floor area and vessel storage capacity in archaeological households should be expected; nor is it suggested by the data, but rather is an approximate correlation. Generally, more storage capacity should be expected in larger houses. This probably reflects the higher number of inhabitants living in these larger houses. I wanted to provide the figure for those who are more confident in arriving at exact figures based on a small sample, and to give an idea of the extent to which house floor area and vessel storage capacity are related.

regard, it may be closer to the average for all Iron Age houses, since the Iron Age I is under-represented in the sample. At 18 l/m2, the Tell Halif F7 House also has a considerably higher vessel storage capacity per floor area than calculated for any other sites except for Giloh. Its overall storage capacity of 18.5 l/m2 is similarly higher than that of most other sites, increasing to an even higher figure of 24.9 l/m2, if only the excavated floor area and not the assumed total floor area is used. The Tell Halif K8 House might be slightly more suited as a type house on the basis of the storage capacity. Its vessel storage capacity of 805.3 l is close to the average (mean) vessel storage capacity of 814.9 l. However, its storage capacity per floor area of 17.7 l/ m2 is also considerably above the average. If the finds are distributed across two storeys, its storage capacity per floor area is 11.0 l/m2, and therefore much closer to the average. But in none of the other houses is a second storey taken into account, even though some houses clearly had an upper storey (Tel Batash House 743, Beer-Sheba House 75 and House 76, and Shiloh House 312, at least partially).

The data on household storage capacity indicate that the Tell Halif F7 House is not very typical. Only the overall storage capacities of Shiloh House 312, Giloh and Beth Shean House 28636 are larger than the storage capacity of the Tell Halif F7 House. And only the vessel storage capacities of Shiloh House 312 and Giloh are higher than its vessel storage capacity. The in-house storage capacities are in some regard more comparable to those of Iron Age I houses. In that

Beer-Sheba House 75 is close to the average with an overall storage capacity (and vessel storage capacity) of 576.5 l, and a storage capacity per floor area of 10.6 l/m2. 150

Chapter 12 Patterns of food storage

Figure 93. Dedicated storerooms in houses in sample.

Storeroom number and size

room or elsewhere in the house. Houses, therefore, did not have many areas dedicated to food storage.

Storeroom number

The number of storerooms and areas dedicated to food storage also varied with the size of the house and the total number of rooms (Table 29). Houses with more rooms were more likely to have more storage areas. However, the correlation was not particularly strong (Table 29). Other matters, not just the number of rooms available in a house, influenced the number of areas set apart for food storage in a house. It seems that even measures such as the overall floor area of the house were more closely related to the number of storerooms and number of individual food storage areas used in a house (Figure 94). This higher correlation coefficient may be partly due to the more fine-grained nature of the floor area metric. The correlation of the total number of rooms in a house to the total floor area was, however, far higher than any correlation between

I identified a dedicated food storage area in most houses. Only in two examples did I not clearly identify such an area. One was the Mount of Olives Cave and the other, Beer-Sheba House 76. Both these homes were quite different from the other houses: the Mount of Olives Cave had only one large room, and small spaces at the margins; House 76 may not have been the home of a household, but rather a work area outside the household, or at least a household that did not store food in the home. While many (13 out of 21) buildings had at least one room dedicated to food storage, six had clearly identifiable food storage areas, but no separate food storage room (Figure 93). Indeed, this seems to have been the pattern at Beer-Sheba and Tel Batash.69 Houses each had up to three dedicated food storage rooms—the average was one dedicated food storage room per house, 0.5 food storage areas not located in storage rooms per house, and a total of 1.5 food storage areas per house, whether located in a food storage

Table 29. Correlation coefficients in relation to storerooms in sample. Correlation Total rooms – storerooms Total rooms – food storage areas Floor area – vessel storage capacity Floor area – food storage areas Floor area – storerooms Floor area – rooms

For both Beer-Sheba and Tel Batash, I had sufficient information to locate artefacts in space within rooms. The information was not limited to the identification of the room from which artefacts were recovered, as for some other sites. This allowed me to identify parts of rooms which were probably used for food storage. Conclusions are affected by reporting and preservation of artefacts. 69

151

Pearson correlation coefficient 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.61 0.62 0.71

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 94. House floor area v Number of food storage areas.

the house and food storage (Table 29). In other words, the architectural considerations in building a house had a larger impact on the design of the house than the actual use made of that architectural space. The architecture is used according to the needs and realities of the inhabitants. Proportion of storage capacity located in storerooms While the activity most often associated with a room was food preparation, food storage was in second place (Figure 95). Out of the total 127 rooms in the sample, 20 seem to have been dedicated to food storage. In addition, there were several rooms (Storage mixed), in which dedicated food storage areas were identified, among other uses.

Figure 95. Room types identified in sample

These figures might give the impression that all houses (except special cases) had a dedicated food storage area, and larger houses maybe two or three where the food for the household was stored. But the reality was a lot more varied. On average the food storage capacity that was available in food storage areas was just 52% of the overall storage capacity of the houses.70 70

Only about half of food storage capacity was located in food storage areas. The remainder of the food was stored capacity available in storage areas for each house and calculating the average (mean) of those proportions. For the houses in Beer-Sheba and Megiddo Building 00/K/10 this required calculating the storage capacity of identifiable storage areas which were noted in the description, but otherwise not calculated. The figure includes the indoor bulk grain storeroom at Beth Shean House 28636, which provided 95% of the storage capacity of that house, as well the Mount of Olives Cave and BeerSheba House 76, where no storage areas were identified.

This figure was calculated by taking the proportion of storage

152

Chapter 12 Patterns of food storage

in other areas of the house and associated with other household activities. Eight houses had between 40% and 60% of their storage capacity located in food storage areas (Figure 96). Shiloh House 335 had all of its storage capacity located in storerooms. That house had two separate storerooms. But one of these storerooms was immediately adjacent to a food preparation area and only separated from it by some pillars. Beth Shean House 28636 had 95% of its storage capacity located in the bulk grain storeroom. Its vessel storage capacity was otherwise distributed throughout the entire house, both in a living room and in food preparation areas. Shiloh House 312 also had a high proportion of its storage capacity (81%) located in a storeroom, with more storage capacity in connection with food preparation. Iron Age I houses tended to have more of their storage capacity located in food storage areas than Iron Age II houses. There was no notable difference between houses from the Iron Age IIb and the Iron Age IIc. The Tell Halif F7 House had only 27% of its storage capacity in food storage areas. But that is due to the large food storage capacity in Activity Area M. Following Hardin, I identified this as an agricultural production area. If those vessels were used more for trade than household consumption, they possibly should not be taken into account, so that the overall storage capacity of the house would be lower and 41% of the food storage capacity would be located in food storage areas. If Activity Area M were to be identified as a food storage area, 61% of the food storage capacity would be located in food storage areas. The Tell Halif K8 House had 43% of its food storage capacity located in food storage areas. The Tell Halif K8 House is therefore closer to the average, particularly for Iron Age II houses.

Figure 96. Histogram of the proportion of overall storage capacity located in food storage areas.

Figure 97. Boxplot of room size of various room types in sample.

153

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Size of storerooms

has an average vessel capacity of over 50 l. However, the storehouse at Tel ‘Ira has an average vessel capacity of 106 l (not shown in figure).

It seems that storerooms were not significantly different in size from any other rooms. In contrast, rooms that had some dedicated storage areas amongst other activity areas tended to be somewhat larger. Figure 97 is a boxplot of the different types of rooms identified in the sample, showing the distribution of the size in square metres for each type of room. While rooms in which agricultural production was carried out tended to be larger, and goods storage rooms smaller, food storage rooms did not stand out. While this may be due to the larger number of rooms identified as storerooms in contrast to the small sample for agricultural production and goods storage spaces identified, the many ‘normal-sized’ food storage rooms nevertheless mark them out as quite ordinary. From the statistical viewpoint at least, this is an indication that food storage rooms were not different from other rooms and may not have been planned as separate architectural units. Rather, a room in a house may be used as a food storage room as the current circumstances of the household may have required.

All the sites with such large average vessel capacity had considerable numbers of large pithoi. House 312 at Shiloh, for example, contained remains of 18 large pithoi and of three ovoid storage jars. The capacity of the pithoi was calculated as being approximately 70 l to 116 l, and the capacity of the storage jars, 13.5 l to 21.1 l. As no drawing was available for many of the pithoi, an estimate was used, generally 100 l. The pithoi in House 335 were larger, but there were fewer of them in comparison with other storage jars. The difficulties with calculating the vessel capacity at Giloh are outlined in the archaeological review of the site (see 11.3). The pithoi at the Tel ‘Ira storehouse had a capacity of between 129.6 l and 198.4 l, with an average capacity of 144 l. They were, therefore, considerably larger than the pithoi found at Shiloh. Pithoi were also found at the Iron Age I sites ‘Izbet Sartah and Megiddo, and the Iron Age II sites of Khirbat Abu Shawan, Beer-Sheba and Beth Shean. It is the large number of small ovoid storage jars that pushes the average vessel capacity at ‘Izbet Sartah so low. At Megiddo Building 00/K/10, just one pithos was found, while the many ovoid storage jars found there were quite small. At Khirbat Abu Shawan, the result is influenced by the considerable number of small holemouth jars, while at both Beth Shean House 28636 and Beer-Sheba House 75, just one pithos was found.

Storage vessel capacity and number The average vessel capacity varies considerably across the different houses (Figure 98). The three Iron Age I houses at Giloh and Shiloh all have an average vessel capacity of over 80 l, while none of the Iron Age II houses

Figure 98. Average vessel capacity in sampled houses.

154

Chapter 12 Patterns of food storage

While collared-rim pithoi are restricted to the Iron Age I, pithoi were also used in the Iron Age II. The rim shape of Iron Age II pithoi differs markedly from that of Iron Age I pithoi. Pithoi are clearly less common during the Iron Age II. While one pithos was found at each of Beth Shean House 28636 and Beer-Sheba House 75, the presence of several pithoi at the farmstead of Khirbat Abu Shawan suggests that they may have been a vessel type more closely associated with rural life, apart from their use in non-domestic storehouses. More data would be required on Iron Age II rural houses to determine whether the use of pithoi was typical for rural households. The use of such large pithoi may therefore indicate more generally a rural/urban divide. Even in the Iron Age I urban Megiddo Building 00/K/10, just one pithos (a collared-rim pithos) was found. However, in other Iron Age I areas at Megiddo, pithoi were found in larger numbers (Arie 2006: 215216). I have not come across an analysis of the context in which they were found to determine whether they were found in a domestic setting.

all these houses, a considerable number of smaller jars, including ovoid jars and waisted jars, were also found, reflecting the smaller average storage vessel size. The house with the smallest average storage vessel size was Beer-Sheba House 76. It had only two ovoid storage jars (17.2 l and 11.8 l capacity) and two small holemouth jars (8.2 l and 4.0 l capacity). These are not exceptionally small vessels, but the total absence of any larger storage vessels is remarkable. In BeerSheba House 25, storage jars were marginally larger. In contrast, Beer-Sheba House 75 contained several larger storage jars, including some lmlk-type jars and a pithos. In Beth Shean House 28636, most of the storage jars had a capacity of between 10 l and 20 l. These were ovoid storage jars. Jars of a similar capacity and broadly comparable shape were also found in larger numbers at Megiddo Building 00/K/10. The smaller storage jars at Tel Batash had a characteristic sack shape not seen frequently at other sites. Despite that variety of vessels found in households, the overall vessel storage capacity of Iron Age II households is better explained by the number of storage vessels present in a house rather than by the average size of storage vessels (Figure 99). For the whole data set, including Iron Age I sites, the difference in overall vessel storage capacity is better explained by vessel size.

Another group of houses with relatively large average vessel storage capacities (between 33.7 l and 38.2 l) consists of the houses at Tell Halif and Lachish Main Street, where the assemblage is quite similar.71 At these houses lmlk-type storage jars are dominant. These lmlktype jars have a capacity between 38 l and 55 l, with most of them towards the higher end of that spectrum.

Above, I noted a correlation between the vessel storage capacity of the houses and the floor area (Pearson coefficient 0.57). It should be noted that this is largely determined by the number of vessels in a given house. The Pearson coefficient between the floor area of the houses and the number of vessels in those houses is 0.72 (the same coefficient for the whole data set and just for Iron Age II houses). While it may seem obvious that more storage vessels would be found in a greater floor area, such a relationship cannot be presumed. For example, the floor area of Shiloh House 312 is 110 m2, not much smaller than the floor area of Megiddo Building 00/K/10 (129 m2). And yet, only 21 storage vessels were found in Shiloh House 312, compared with the 61 storage vessels found in Megiddo Building 00/K/10. Nevertheless, the storage capacity of Shiloh House 312 was higher (1799 l) than that of Megiddo Building 00/K/10 (1240 l). These two Iron Age I houses illustrate the contrasting means through which storage capacity can be provided. For the whole data set, and in particular for Iron Age II houses, the increase of storage capacity in larger houses through a higher number of storage vessels can be noted. While the number of storage vessels per floor area did increase from the Iron Age I to the Iron Age II, the size of those storage vessels was considerably smaller so that there was less storage capacity in Iron Age II households.

The presence of several smaller jars, particularly carinated jars, lowered the average vessel capacity at these houses. lmlk-type jars were used throughout the houses. At the Lachish Main Street House 1089 stamped jars were in use alongside non-stamped jars. No stamped jars were found in the Tell Halif houses, though stamped jars were found in similar contexts at Tell Halif, mixed with other lmlk-type jars that did not have stamped handles. While lmlk-type jars appear to clearly have been common household vessels, we also need to be aware that stamped jars were integrated into the household. They were not totally separated for ‘administrative’ purposes. They did form part of household food storage and exchange. lmlk-type jars were also found in the houses in Lachish Area S, Tel Batash Buildings 743 and 950, and Beer-Sheba House 75. Rosette-stamped jars, which are regarded as a development of lmlk-type jars (Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: 96–97), were also found at Tel Batash. In The Lachish Main Street houses were excavated by the first expedition to Lachish. In the report of that expedition pottery types were listed, but the individual vessels found in a locus were not illustrated (Tufnell 1953). The LMLK-type jar illustrated, type 484, had a capacity of 54.7 l, which is large when compared to vessels from Tell Halif or Lachish Area S. I do not include ‘Izbet Sartah Building 109a in this group, as its average vessel capacity is determined by the particular mix of pithoi and storage jars. 71

155

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah

Figure 99. Overall vessel storage capacity v number of storage vessels in house.

Conclusions

in the houses was not located in dedicated food storage areas, but rather spread throughout the house and often associated with other activities.

Statistical analysis allowed me to gain an overview of the data and at the same time encouraged a more detailed analysis. A clear difference between Iron Age I and Iron Age II houses and storage practices is shown by the evidence. In part, this difference may be explained by the larger houses that form part of the Iron Age I data compared to the many smaller houses from the Iron Age II. Nevertheless, the difference is also at least partly due to a change in storage practices. If the many grain pits, which could not be taken into account in this analysis, are also considered, the difference between Iron Age I and Iron Age II storage practices becomes even more marked.

Even though some general patterns were observable, the variety of storage practices is also shown. The different use of space, of storage practices and different storage vessels, becomes clear through a closer consideration of the data.72 The Tell Halif houses had a higher total storage capacity and overall vessel storage capacity, as well as a higher vessel storage capacity per square metre, than most other houses. The average vessel size was also quite high. To a degree, they sit between Iron Age I and Iron Age II houses and therefore may be seen as representative of the Iron Age as a whole, but they are quite different from other Iron Age II houses, to which they are nevertheless comparable.

Other houses that stand out as outliers are Beth Shean House 28636 with its large bulk grain storeroom, and Beer-Sheba House 76 with its uncharacteristically small storage capacity. The statistical comparison supports my previous suggestion that Beer-Sheba House 76 should not be seen as the home of a household, or at least that it was not a domestic unit in which members of a household had to support themselves.

12.2 Visual analysis of archaeological examples An analysis of the data based on mainly visual considerations is crucial in a discipline like archaeology, to discern patterns. It is also a corrective and an

Larger houses tended to have a larger storage capacity but, even more so, they tended to have more storage vessels, particularly in the Iron Age II. This may indicate that larger houses had more inhabitants.

The objection may be raised that I did not use any statistical tools for multivariate analysis to sort the houses into more definite groups. However, I am just dealing with a limited number of variables, and through the various two-way comparisons it is easier to see how variables differ across the sample. Keeping the analysis relatively simple allowed me to concentrate on a few of the main characteristics raised by the data. 72

The statistical analysis also made clear that a considerable proportion of the vessel storage capacity 156

Chapter 12 Patterns of food storage

addition to numerically-based analysis and allows me to get a more complete picture. The visual analysis does take into account numbers and evidence beyond the immediate visual, such as the material of artefacts. It does not rely only on the visual reconstructions, but also on other evidence used, such as maps, determination of activity areas and artefact classification.

Shawan. These might equally well be labelled back-stage locations, at which the stored food was out of view. At ‘Izbet Sartah, several rooms annexed to the front of the house were apparently used for food storage. Storage practices were complex and varied. The different locations of storerooms would support the suggestion based on statistical considerations that storerooms were often not planned or designated during the construction of a house, but rather that available space was used according to the preferences and needs of the household. Those preferences would have included ideology, habit, memory, inter-personal negotiation and short-term, practical needs. In some houses, a preference for having some food storage rooms in marginal spaces, away from the centre of the household, can be discerned.

Location of food storage Even though just over 50% of the vessel storage capacity of houses is in dedicated food storage areas, I want to look at these areas first to get an overview of the spatial distribution of food storage. Food storage rooms are often located in one of the back rooms, equivalent to a part of the broadroom of a standard four-room house. Although such a layout is far from universal, it was noted at the Tell Halif F7 House, Shiloh House 312, Giloh, ‘Izbet Sartah, the Area S houses at Lachish, and possibly the Tel ‘Ira Area L casemate rooms. Megiddo Building 00/K/10 was a courtyard house, but—at least if my interpretation of the location of the building entrance is correct—the storage rooms were also towards the back of the house. The Tell Halif K8 House, Shiloh House 355, the Lachish Main Street houses, and Beth Shean House 28636 did not have excavated back rooms, so that I was not able to determine whether they might have been used as storerooms. In the investigated houses at Yokneam, Beer-Sheba, Tel Batash, and Khirbat Abu-Shawan, the back room was apparently not used as a storeroom. At the first three sites, the main storage capacity was more centrally located, often closely integrated with other functions.

A quite different pattern is apparent in the houses at Beer-Sheba and Tel Batash. No dedicated food storage room was identified in these houses, apart from possible bulk storage Room 383 in Beer-Sheba House 75. In these houses, storage capacity was provided mostly in the central room of the house. At Tel Batash House 950, I identified separate food storage areas in the central room, which also served for food preparation, food consumption and goods storage. At Tel Batash House 743, I was not able to clearly identify a food storage area, but thought that Locus 745 served for both food storage and animal fodder storage. Storage capacity was also available in Locus 743, which was mainly dedicated to food preparation and textile production. At Beer-Sheba, most storage capacity was located in the central rooms of the houses. Even though storage jars seemed to cluster in parts of those central rooms, I did not firmly identify any food storage areas in these rooms, apart from a small area in Room 28 in BeerSheba House 75. This pattern has also been recognised by Singer-Avitz for Beer-Sheba (Singer-Avitz 2011).

The location of food storage in back rooms supports the notion that storage was a back-stage activity, that the stored food was largely kept out of the centre of household life and the view of visitors. However, several considerations limit the idea of associating the location of storerooms at the back of the house with back-stage activities. First, a considerable proportion of food storage capacity was located in central rooms, even though these rooms were not dedicated to food storage. In some houses, the storage capacity located more at the centre of the house far exceeded that in dedicated storage rooms more at the margins. Second, I have also identified living rooms, domestic work areas, food preparation areas, food consumption and agricultural production areas in the back rooms of houses. Some of these activities would clearly be front-stage activities, at the centre of household life and probably visible to visitors. Third, storage rooms were also located in other rooms that probably were not at the centre of the house, but nevertheless were not architecturally back rooms. Such storage rooms were in use at the Tell Halif K8 House, Shiloh House 335, Giloh, Megiddo Building 00/K/10, Beth Shean House 28636, ‘Izbet Sartah, and Khirbat Abu

While such a pattern may be seen as characteristic of the late Iron Age, a separate, apparently domestic, food storage room was excavated in the Tel ‘Ira Area L casemate rooms, which were occupied in the late seventh and early sixth centuries BCE. Beer-Sheba Stratum II is dated to the late eighth century, as are Tell Halif Stratum VIb and Lachish Level III, the strata associated with the examined houses. While at Tell Halif there is evidence for large storage capacity at the centre of the houses, also integrated with other activities, at Lachish Lower House East (Area S), storage capacity was clearly concentrated in one food storage room at the back of the house. There clearly is a difference between houses with most storage capacity in dedicated, marginal rooms, particularly represented by the Iron Age I houses at 157

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Shiloh and Giloh, and the houses with more centrally located storage, particularly those at Tel Batash and Beer-Sheba. But the reason for that difference cannot be explained only by reference to time and therefore different societal conditions. For during the late Iron Age, there were also houses in Judah that had spatial distribution patterns of storage capacity that aligned partially with those noted in the Iron Age I. Similarly, houses from the Iron Age I also had some storage capacity more centrally located. For example, I identified a dedicated food storage area in the central courtyard of Megiddo Building 00/K/10.

storage capacity was located in areas I identified as food preparation activity areas. In the two Tel Batash houses examined, most of the storage capacity was either in or adjacent to food preparation areas that were near the centre of the house. Neither house had separate food storerooms, but I did identify separate food storage areas in some of the rooms. While in the Beer-Sheba House 75 and House 25 many storage vessels were located near the centre of the house—in contrast to the Tel Batash houses— that’s not where food preparation was mainly located. Nevertheless, some storage vessels were also located in food preparation areas in all three houses examined at Beer-Sheba.

The Tell Halif houses arguably did have a typical spatial distribution of food storage capacity: a significant proportion of food storage vessels was located in the centre of the house, where other activities were also carried out; there was also storage capacity in dedicated storage areas and storerooms more at the margins of the house. The Tell Halif houses represented a characteristic mix of these storage practices, rather than the more extreme concentration of storage capacity in a few specific areas.

No storage vessels were located in rooms attached to the front of a house in which a bread oven was used for food preparation. Such spaces were found at BeerSheba House 75, Tell Halif K8 House, Lachish Lower House West (although a closed krater was located in Room 3533) and Tel Batash House 950. These spaces were probably somewhat similar to the baking huts found in Palestine and Jordan or the outside kitchens in Cyprus, where the smoke-generating activity of bread-baking was located away from the centre of the household. Such rooms at the front of the house were not used for food storage. It should be noted that even though some fireplace or oven was located in the front room of Lachish Main Street House 1089, this was not a standard bread oven. The room was also not as small as the other baking huts attached to the front of houses. The storage jars located in that room therefore do not detract from my observation.

Integration of food storage with other activities Much of the storage capacity in the houses was located in areas which I did not identify as being primarily storerooms or food storage areas. Even storerooms were often adjacent and connected to other activity areas. With what activities, then, was food storage apparently most integrated? As mentioned frequently in the archaeological review, some food storage was integrated with food preparation in all houses. Even in Shiloh House 335, where all food storage capacity is located in storerooms, food storage was spatially closely associated with food preparation: storage Room 1311 is separated only by columns from the food preparation area in Room 1301.

The close integration between food storage and food preparation is expected. In the food preparation areas, the stored foodstuffs undergo the next step in a process that leads to eventual food consumption. In modern terms we would say that in the kitchen the provisions get used. It has to be noted that the clearly identifiable storage vessels found in the food preparation areas were not smaller (or larger) than those located elsewhere in the household (except the pithoi found at Beth Shean Building 28636 and Megiddo Building 00/K/10, which were not located in food preparation areas). Food seems not to have been moved from large storage vessels into smaller ones to be used in cooking. Rather, storage jars seem to have been moved from storerooms or food storage areas to the food preparation areas, where the food could then be accessed as required. Of course, we cannot eliminate the possibility that storage jars were kept more or less stationary, and the contents shifted from one jar to another. It is the textual and pictorial evidence of jars being frequently moved (although not in normal household tasks) that leads me to suspect that the moving of jars was also common in the household. Food stored in bulk storage facilities, such

In Shiloh House 312, most of the storage jars were located in the separate Storeroom 306, but several pithoi and storage jars were found near the food preparation area in Room 312. In Megiddo Building 00/K/10, several storage jars were found in the preserved food preparation areas 98/K70 and 00/K/87. The central courtyard 00/K/10 also seems to have had a food storage area and a food preparation area. In the other Iron Age I houses examined—at Giloh and ‘Izbet Sartah—some food storage capacity was present in food preparation areas. This pattern of at least some integration between food storage and food preparation continues in the Iron Age II. In the Tell Halif K8 House, and at Khirbat Abu Shawan and the Mount of Olives Cave, most of the

158

Chapter 12 Patterns of food storage

as bins, would have to be moved to vessels located in the food preparation area for further processing. I did not identify any bulk storage facilities in food preparation areas.

to separate a food preparation area (Frank 2012: 213). However, I did not find further evidence of the use of storage jars as space dividers. Most reports did not allow me to accurately pinpoint the location of artefacts in space. More accurate plans were provided in some reports and photographs also allowed me to get an impression of location of vessels in space. In many cases, the vessels seemed to be spread randomly across the space with little order discernible. They even seemed to obstruct doorways, for example at Beer-Sheba and Beth Shean. The most discernible order was the location of storage jars next to walls, for example in Shiloh, Megiddo, Tell Halif and the Tel ‘Ira storehouse. These storage jars, therefore, probably leaned upright next to walls. They were out of the way, but accessible.

Storage vessels were also frequently located in spaces I identify as living rooms, the multi-purpose areas in which many household activities—but probably not cooking—took place, and which would have been highly visible. While living rooms with some storage capacity were not common in the Iron Age I, I did identify some at ‘Izbet Sartah and Megiddo. At Beth Shean, the presence of a large pithos in the living room provided considerable storage capacity, but the vessels found in living rooms at Tell Halif, Lachish, Yokneam, and Tel Batash were smaller, as was the overall storage capacity located there. In contrast, at Beer-Sheba House 75 and House 25, most of the storage vessels were located in the central living room (including a large pithos in House 75).

The storage jars were ordered in neat rows only in Megiddo Building 00/K/10 and—to a lesser extent— the Tel ‘Ira storehouse. The impression of neat rows of storage jars, which we get from the Mishnah, therefore does not seem to be applicable to ordinary houses in the Iron Age. In official storehouses such order may have been more common. But in domestic dwellings a different order seems to have prevailed, maybe grouping relevant items together so that they were conveniently located. Such storage may also reflect the relatively low overall number of storage jars in many of the buildings. In Megiddo Building 00/K/10, there were 61; in the Tel ‘Ira storehouse, 46 storage jars compared with an average of 22 storage jars. More storage jars might require a better order to keep oversight.73

The different patterns noted at Beer-Sheba are obvious. It seems that in most houses a few jars were also located in the busy spaces of the living rooms. Whether these jars were used for food storage or some other purpose is, of course, not known. But at Beer-Sheba jars were concentrated in the central rooms, where apparently little food preparation took place, but where food storage was also not the dominant activity. While at Tel Batash there were also many food storage vessels located at the centre of the house, here this centre was also used for food preparation. Some food storage capacity has also been integrated with goods storage. The large storage room at Megiddo Building 00/K/10 was apparently used for both food storage and goods storage. At Tel Batash House 950, the variety of artefacts also led me to conclude that Activity Area 950West was used for both food storage and goods storage. In Tel Batash House 743 and the Tel ‘Ira casemate rooms, considerable storage capacity was also located in rooms identified as goods storage rooms. While at Tel ‘Ira several storage jars were found in a room with a plough-point, both at Tell Halif and BeerSheba House 76 the room with a plough-point did not contain any storage jars.

The Tell Halif houses did represent something close to a typical pattern in their integration of food storage with other activities. Food storage was closely associated with food preparation, with some storage vessels in the living room areas. Based on the location of storage jars at Tell Halif, a regular interchange of jars between food storage areas and food preparation areas for immediate use of the contents seems likely. Food storage equipment Pottery Ceramic storage jars are clearly the most common indication of food storage in the Iron Age, and were

While stables at Tell Halif, ‘Izbet Sartah and Lachish had very little food storage capacity and were not adjacent to any storage area, in Yokneam and Tel Batash House 743, food storage capacity was also encountered next to possible stables. I suggested that the large storage jars were used as space dividers to separate the stable from a living room in the case of Yokneam. This suggestion is based on the analogy with the use of storage chests in Palestinian houses, and my observations at Tell Halif Field V that storage jars were apparently used

As a brief observation, such user-orientated, rather than symmetrical, ordering of items in space, including stored food, can still be observed today in many houses, in contrast, for example, to warehouses. It is not often that items are neatly arranged in rows (maybe more so in Switzerland), unless large numbers of an item— such as books—are kept in a house. Such user-orientated order also became obvious to me when I was working briefly as an archaeologist in Christchurch in 2013 after the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury (NZ) earthquakes. Often houses had been built in a fairly standard layout, but later alterations changed them into a new, user-orientated order. 73

159

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah prominently represented in the examined sample. The changes in ceramics forms and styles have been discussed in many publications and are at the heart of most excavation reports in the Middle East (see Amiran 1969). Indeed, it was the preoccupation with tracking the changes in ceramics that diverted interest from many other pertinent archaeological questions. I have also discussed briefly the size of storage vessels in the statistical analysis, further highlighting changes of storage vessels across time.

addition, there were two spouted jars. The spouted jar was in a food preparation area and close to the grinding installations. A similarly varied assemblage can be seen at many other Iron Age II sites. Even in the small Mount of Olives Cave a wide variety of storage jars were found. There were three ovoid jars—one was compared by the excavator to the rosette jars from Tel Batash—one large holemouth jar, one small holemouth jar and one amphora. No separation between various types was discernible.

In this section I am looking at the use of different storage vessels within the household. During the Iron Age I, collared-rim jars were prominent at many sites. But smaller ovoid storage jars were also used (internal volume 7 l to 21 l). At Shiloh, pithoi and storage jars were used together, but at Giloh a slightly greater proportion of pithoi to storage jars can be observed in the storerooms in comparison with other areas. While all areas identified as storerooms at ‘Izbet Sartah contained a pithos, they also contained smaller storage jars, and a variety of ceramic vessels were also spread throughout the rest of the house. Different storage vessels might have been used to store different products. Here it must be noted that the pithoi provided a far greater storage capacity than the smaller storage jars. At ‘Izbet Sartah, for example, the six pithoi had a combined storage capacity of 654 l, while the 21 storage jars had a combined storage capacity of 271 l.

At Tell Halif, Lachish, and Beer-Sheba, the presence of large holemouth jars is notable. They were outnumbered by ovoid jars, but seem to be quite characteristic of the late Iron Age IIb in southern Judah. Similar vessels were present at Tel Batash and Tel ‘Ira, but in very low numbers. In the Tell Halif F7 House, three holemouth jars surrounded a grinding installation in a semi-circle, and the excavators associated these jars with the grinding installation, suggesting that grain or other dry goods were kept in these jars and immediately ground. The jars may even have served to separate this food preparation area from the wine processing area to the east. One further holemouth jar was found among other pottery in the living room, near cultic items. The holemouth jars found in the Tell Halif K8 House were close to the food preparation area, but could not immediately be associated with a grinding installation. At Beer-Sheba, holemouth jars were mixed with other jars throughout the buildings. In Room 28, part of House 75, the excavators report a brick installation with a concave depression at its centre. They assume that this was the base for the holemouth jar found nearby. Why such a base would have been used with a holemouth jar, which did have a ring base and therefore would stand upright on a level surface, is not explained. At Lachish, holemouth jars were also spread throughout the houses. It is noticeable that in Lachish Main Street House 1088 both a holemouth jar and a lmlk-type jar were found together in pairs in most rooms. This might just be a random distribution, but could also indicate that they were regarded as complimentary. In Lachish Lower House East, holemouth jars were found together with other jars in the storeroom.

With its many smaller storage jars and one solitary collared-rim pithos, Megiddo Building 00/K/10 is quite a different from the other Iron Age I houses. While these storage jars were all two-handled ovoid jars, there were differences in shape and size. Their capacity ranged from 8 l to 35 l. The different storage jars were spread throughout the house and I could not see any spatial division between the different forms. At Megiddo, I also included a large jug (capacity 17 l) and a large closed krater (capacity 11 l) among the storage vessels. These have a larger capacity than some of the storage jars. I also noted some cooking jugs in the lines of storage vessels, implying that these cooking jugs were used for storage. However, I did not include the cooking jugs in the figures calculating the storage capacity of the building. During the Iron Age II, there was a far greater diversity in storage vessel style and form, even within a house. Beth Shean House 28636 is an example. The solitary pithos was clearly different from the other vessels: it was located in a special installation. But the other storage vessels were distributed throughout the house. There were many small holemouth jars and large, closed kraters in the living room. The storage jars had a capacity of between 7 l and 37.5 l. Most of these were ovoid jars, but there were also three carinated jars, one waisted jar and one jug-jar (capacity 37 l). In

At Tel ‘Ira, the solitary holemouth jar was in a food preparation area, which also included a bread oven. In Tel Batash House 950, one holemouth jar was found in a food preparation area directly beside a quern and grinding stone, while the other was together with many other vessels in a food storage area. In Tel Batash House 743, one holemouth jar was adjacent to a vat or mortarium in a food preparation area, while the other was among a range of vessels in a storage area.

160

Chapter 12 Patterns of food storage

A case can be made that holemouth jars were often associated with food preparation and particularly grinding, more so than other storage jars. But they would have been used to store foodstuffs not only for immediate consumption, but also for long-term storage. Their use also varied between households. There is probably not sufficient evidence to exactly determine their most likely contents. Due to their association with grinding, Hardin’s conclusions that holemouth jars most probably contained cereals is sound (Hardin 2010: 156). However, the flexibility in the use of storage jars found in the historical records should caution us to expect a wide variety of goods to be stored in different jars.

designed for the short-term storage of liquids. While at Beth Shean spouted jars were found in a food preparation area, at the Tell Halif K8 House and Lachish Lower House West spouted jars were found in food storage areas. In Beer-Sheba House 75, a spouted jar was found in a living room among pottery that indicated food consumption. The use of spouted jars for shortterm storage rather than long-term storage is therefore not clear. A similar caveat may even apply to closed kraters. Some of these had a storage capacity far higher than the average storage jar. For example, one krater at Tel Batash had an internal volume of nearly 40 l, while several had a capacity of 13 l. Closed kraters could therefore also have been used for food storage. But many other uses are also possible. At Tel Batash, closed kraters were found throughout the houses, but particularly in food preparation and food storage areas. At Lachish Area S, one large krater was found in a storeroom, while the others were spread throughout the houses. At BeerSheba, closed kraters were also found in a variety of contexts. At ‘Izbet Sartah and Megiddo Building 00/K/10, they were found throughout the house. While short-term food storage is a likely use for these vessels, they probably had a variety of uses.

It is more difficult to associate the more dominant ovoid jars with any particular use. The style and size of these jars differs from site to site and across time. However, they are normally the dominant type in these houses. At Tell Halif and Lachish, the dominant ovoid jars were lmlk-type jars. At the Tell Halif F7 House, these could be clearly associated with wine production and storage, partly through trace element analysis. However, it is likely that lmlk-type jars were also used for other purposes at that house. At the Tell Halif K8 House and the houses at Lachish, such an association with wine could not be discerned. There was no such clear context of wine production and no trace element analysis was carried out for any of the other houses. It is interesting to note that a wine production or storage facility was found in Stratum II at Lachish (see Zimhoni 2004: 1709–1802). Most of the jars at this facility were the rosette stamped jars, probably the successors to lmlk-type jars. There were also two lmlk-type jars. But in addition, several smaller jars and carinated jars were found, indicating that, even in a non-domestic facility, a range of storage jars types was used to store wine. At Beer-Sheba, lmlk-type jars were not dominant. Smaller ovoid jars, carinated jars and holemouth jars were more common. These also occurred at Lachish and Tel Halif, but in comparatively lower numbers. Yokneam is notable for its relative uniformity of storage jar forms, though their sizes may well have varied.

A special case is the farmstead Khirbat Abu Shawan, where only pithoi and small holemouth jars were found, but no standard storage jar. There were also several closed kraters. Most of the small holemouth jars were found together in one room, which I considered a storeroom. This would indicate that the small holemouth jars might have been used for long-term storage. Zvi Greenhut suggests that the many small holemouth jars found at Tel Moza would have been used for storage (Greenhut and De Groot 2009: 224). At the other houses they occurred in, they were spread throughout the house both in storage areas and in other activity areas. Only in Beer-Sheba House 25 did more than two small holemouth jars occur together (Room 48). In the Tell Halif F7 House, a small holemouth jar was found in the area Hardin identified as a stable. It had a capacity of approximately 5.2 l. A comparison of the stables identified in the examples shows that one or two smaller jars of some type with a capacity of less than 20 l were found in all stables.74 They may have been used for fodder.

Carinated jars found at Tell Halif differed from the dominant lmlk-type jars not only in form and size, but also because of their distinct clay matrix. Nevertheless, I could not identify any particular association with any activity. There were even three carinated jars in the vicinity of the wine production and storage area of the Tell Halif F7 House, among the lmlk-type jars. Despite their different appearance, matrix and apparent usewear, they may have stored similar materials as other jars. At Tel Batash, carinated jars were frequent, though here they had a more baggy shape characteristic of the coastal area. Similar jars also were common at Tel ‘Ira.

A decorated Cypriot krater (capacity 7.2 l), similar to an amphora, from the Tel ‘Ira casemate rooms, should At Yokneam I suggested that Room 1706 was used as stable and living room with storage jars used as dividers. In this room many other vessels were also found. At ‘Izbet Sartah, a total of four jars was found in the very large stable area listed as two separate loci in the report. 74

It may be supposed that the spouted jar has a clear association with food preparation. After all, it seems 161

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah receive some mention: it stood alongside storage jars in a storeroom at the Tel ‘Ira casemate rooms. It seems that such a special vessel was not set apart or put on display but used for storage.

that storage pits were probably part of royal or urbancentred storage installations that went beyond the household level (Greenhut and De Groot 2009: 222–225). Based on ethnographic accounts, storage pits were probably used to hold grain long-term, to be used later in the season, or for possible leaner years after a successful harvest. Once a storage pit had been opened, the grain would have been emptied into smaller containers quickly. These smaller containers, for example jars or baskets, were then kept in houses for immediate consumption of the grain.

Sacks, skins, baskets Due to their perishable nature, no sacks, skins, or baskets survived in the examined sites. Indeed, they are very rare in the archaeological record. However, evidence from art and texts, as well as ethnographic analogy suggest that they would have been used in Ancient Israel and Judah to store food both long-term and short-term. That we have only a partial picture of food storage in all of the examined houses is clear. My analysis therefore always retains an element of uncertainty. In particular, the total amount of food stored was likely to have been larger than the storage capacity calculated. The only evidence from the examples for storage in such containers is the pile of carbonized raisins found in Shiloh House 335 (Room 1311).

Indoor storage pits I have identified pits in the Tell Halif F7 House and the Lachish Lower House East as storage pits. A similar pit was also found in Shiloh House 312, but there the presence of ash and several cooking pots suggested a possible use for food preparation. The pit at the Tell Halif F7 House was about 40 cm deep and had a diameter of 40 cm. The pit at Lachish was about 20 cm deep and had diameter of 100 cm. The pit at Shiloh was about 40 cm deep and had a diameter of 170 cm. The suggestion that these pits were used for storage is based on the analogy with storage pits in Iran. But there the pits were deeper (about 1 m) and bell-shaped. The pits in the houses in this sample were shallower. Their identification as storage pits is therefore not certain and, at Shiloh, evidence points to another possible use. However, sufficient parallels exist to make the use of these pits as storage pits a possibility, especially if there is no indication of any other uses. If they were used as storage pits, they probably contained granular goods which were placed in other vessels before they were used in the household.

Outdoor storage pits Previous research on food storage focused strongly on these outdoor storage pits. Even though only few pits with clear grain remains have been found, experimental archaeology and ethnographic analogy have established that these pits were most likely used for bulk grain storage. They are a marker of the Iron Age I, but not very common in the Iron Age II. They re-occur more frequently in the Persian Period (Currid 1986: 201–202). At the sites I examined, storage pits were associated only with the houses at Shiloh and ‘Izbet Sartah. There are many more Iron Age I sites with a large number of storage pits, but the preservation of the houses and artefacts, or their reporting, was not sufficient to include the sites in this study.

A very small storage pit was also found at the Tell Halif K8 House. Two bowls were found in this pit. As indicated in the archaeological review, this small pit probably served for the safekeeping of more valuable items. These could be food items such as spices.

It is difficult to clearly associate storage pits with particular houses. It is possible that storage pits in the Iron Age I were not directly associated with just one household, but rather used at a communal level (which probably would have operated on a kinship basis). It is, therefore, difficult to estimate how much of the storage capacity would have been available for households. It is more useful to look at storage pits at a community level, as Rosen has done (Rosen 1986). But such an approach faces large uncertainty, because the layout of the entire community and the exact number and size of storage pits is difficult to ascertain. Later disturbance and the need for large-scale excavation make such a task difficult.

Another possible small pit was found in Activity Area A of the Tell Halif F7 House, the storeroom. While Hardin suggests that it was the base of a bread oven, Jacobs identifies the stone-lined pit circle as a storage pit. It would be a small, but relatively deep, pit. With a capacity of 28 l it would hold less than many storage jars. It would therefore function differently from the larger pits, if it was indeed used for storage. Storage bins Possible storage bins were found at ‘Izbet Sartah and Lachish (Lower House West). These were made from stone slabs and were roughly rectangular.

For some Iron Age II storage pit fields, such as at Tel enNasbeh and Tel Moza, the excavators have suggested 162

Chapter 12 Patterns of food storage

Household Storage Capacity

The bin at ‘Izbet Sartah had internal dimensions of approximately 80 cm x 80 cm; that at Lachish, 70 cm x 100 cm. I estimated a height of about 30 cm. The identification of these features as storage bins is not clear, as I do not know of any direct ethnographic analogies. However, it is feasible, as a bin would provide similar storage conditions to a shallow pit. It would not be as secure as later storage chests, but would nevertheless afford protection and containment of foodstuffs.

The statistical analysis has shown that Iron Age I houses had a significantly higher storage capacity than Iron Age II houses, particularly if storage pits are taken into account. This is also in line with the studies of Currid and Greenhut and De Groot which, based on an analysis of storage pits and storehouses, conclude that grain storage in particular moved from shared community storage during the Iron Age I to more redistributive storage in the Iron Age II (Currid 1986, Greenhut 2006, Greenhut and De Groot 2009).

Bulk storeroom

Based on the Mishnaic food basket for a wife living apart from her husband, and the analysis by Broshi, I provided an approximate figure of the number of people that could be supported by storage capacity found in a house. The storage capacity in Iron Age II houses was generally sufficient to support the requirements of 1.0 to 5.0 people for 39 weeks. Without doubt, some food was stored in sacks, baskets, skins, hung from the roof or in bulk. Taking these forms of food storage into account, it is nevertheless unlikely that the overall storage capacity would be sufficient for a large household. The storage capacity in Iron Age I houses and storage pits, in contrast, could easily provide for larger families. For example, I suggested that at Shiloh the vessel storage capacity would have been sufficient for 12.4 and 5.75 people respectively over 39 weeks, if grain storage was largely concentrated in storage pits.

The bulk storeroom at Beth Shean House 28636 could be positively identified by the carbonized grain, the apparent heat of the fire and the closed doorway. Such preservation is rare. I do not know of any other such storerooms identified so clearly in a domestic setting. Currid has identified properties of storehouses which do indicate bulk storage (Currid 1986: 48–127). Such bulk storage might have been more common at storage facilities beyond the household level. At Beer-Sheba a casemate room was partitioned and might have also been used for storage, but no clear evidence, such as carbonized grain, was found for this. Such storage spaces may have remained undetected in other houses because no direct evidence has been preserved. The bulk storeroom at Beth Shean does not seem to have been purpose-built, but was converted to this use later on. Depending on the level to which it was filled, it would have been able to hold quantities of grain that probably would have filled the requirements beyond those of the immediate household. The household occupying this house might have received grain from other households and distributed it again to those or other households in some levy, tax, or patron system.

If, during the Iron Age II, food was stored not only in the house but in facilities such as storehouses that were controlled beyond the household level, then the storage capacity in the houses would have to be sufficient for only a part of the household food requirements. The other part of household food requirements would have been stored in larger facilities and released to households, whether through an allowance, gift or purchase. Based on the limited storage capacity in houses, I would suggest that some food would have been stored outside the household and then brought into the household for consumption, in some cases possibly more than half of household food requirements.

The bulk storeroom might also be seen as the inside equivalent of the Iron Age I storage pits, where longterm and surplus grain was stored. I calculated the storage capacity of the room as about 12,000 l (at a fill level of 1.2m), which is about six times the indicative storage capacity of a pit of 2,000 l. The size of the bulk storeroom might have been dictated more by the existing architecture rather than the standard amount of grain stored.

It is possible that only certain foods were stored outside the household, such as grain. Grain pits were prominent in the Iron Age I, but not generally found at a community or household level in the Iron Age II. Several Iron Age II grain storehouses and grain storage facilities have been uncovered. As the most important food in Ancient Israel and Judah, it would also have been the most likely to come under more centralised control. But I would suggest that other commodities, such as wine and oil, were also kept in large storage facilities and distributed to households.

12.3 Food storage in household life This section moves beyond an analysis of the particular archaeological examples. Taking into account the relevant literature, ancient texts and ethnographic examples, it looks at some of the patterns in relation to household food storage. 163

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah It is likely that, in the Iron Age I, households operated at a subsistence level, storing all food produced by the household in the house or in nearby storage pits that may have been communally organized. Some limited exchange no doubt operated with food being sold, bought, gifted and supplied, to fulfil obligations. But there was sufficient storage capacity in or near the house to store all food produced by the household and needed for consumption. In the Iron Age II that was not the case. Food was stored away from the household and its immediate vicinity.

In a market model, farmers would have concentrated on one commodity and traded that to purchase other commodities. There is certainly evidence for some trade for specialised food, such as dates and fish. It also seems that some settlements concentrated principally on the production of certain commodities (Greenhut and De Groot 2009: 223). Such a model may also make sense of a some particular houses examined: the small household represented by the Mount of Olives Cave might have belonged to a labourer, who bought food from wages or otherwise was provided food in exchange for labour; House 28636 at Beth Shean might have been in an area that produced a grain surplus and therefore kept grain in the house to exchange for other food; the Tell Halif F7 House might have belonged to a household producing wine, exchanging that for other goods as required. However, the market model does not easily fit the overall pattern. Based on archaeological evidence some transactions are very unlikely. For example, with bread ovens and grinding equipment in most houses, it is clear that food was processed in the household. Grain would not have been sold to later buy bread. If the archaeological examples I examined are at all representative of the Iron Age II, grain would not only have been redistributed through market transactions. Much of the evidence for market trading could also support other narratives of the systems of exchange in Ancient Israel and Judah. It is likely that at least aspects of other exchange systems also affected distribution of goods and therefore food storage.

The storehouses or other storage beyond the household level may be regarded as community storage, or the Iron Age II equivalent of the Iron Age I storage pits, with little change in social conditions. The change in storage practice would then mainly have been technological. Rather than excavating pits in or surrounding the settlement, storehouses were built, which enabled shared storage. However, Iron Age II houses did not lack just storage pits in the immediate vicinity, but also had less vessel storage capacity. It was not just grain storage that was reduced. The analysis of Greenhut also points to a system of more redistributive storage to an urban centre in the Iron Age II (Greenhut 2006).75 It is likely that not only technology changed, but also social factors and, together with that, household organization. How this redistributive storage to an urban centre was structured is less certain. The data I explored cannot provide an unequivocal answer. Possible options are market trading, taxing and distribution by the royal administration, contributions and receipts of food to and from superior households in a patrimonial hierarchy, the cultivation of land for the royal household or for superior households, control of surplus and taxes through city elders, or full control of production and consumption by an administration.

While the Biblical texts clearly make reference to taxes to the king, the exact system of those taxes is less clear. To explain the data of this study, the tax model would have to involve redistribution of tax revenue to the general population. It is this redistribution which is more problematic in this model, but clearly required due to the limited household storage capacities. Some redistribution might have occurred through the feeding and compensation of corvée labour, or through direct giving to households as signs of royal largesse. While taxes were part of the Israelite and Judahite monarchies, I would suggest that they were not the only means of redistribution, nor necessarily levied at an individual or household level.

Pfälzner defines redistributive storage (Pfälzner 2002: 261, cited by Greenhut and De Groot 2009: 224): ‘The mode of redistributive storage is part of a complex economic system, based on the gathering of agrarian or other economic products through a political or religious institution and the storing of these products in one central storehouse or a system of storehouses. The stored goods are used by the central institution as seed-grain, as payment for workers, as trading goods or as a means of supplying other central institutions of the system. The central institutions responsible for the storage can be political or religious institutions and in both cases are a fundamental part of a centralized administrative system.’ I would argue that redistributive storage certainly need not be part of an administrative system in the modern sense of the word. Rather, the system it is part of may be based far more on personal relationships, notions of loyalty and custom. While the system may extract products from farmers to a central institution, in the case of Iron Age II Israel and Judah, I propose that there must have been some redistribution to the farmers, whether of the same product or different product. Farmers may have received products from the central storage facility in exchange for labour, but possibly also based on some other relationship. Farmers must have been able to sufficiently rely on receiving product from central storage facility to store only part of household requirements in the house. 75

A patrimonial approach would be able to explain more of the evidence. Produce might have been provided to some superior household, for example that of a ‘prince’ or other ‘son’ or ‘servant’ of the king, who had control over the storehouses in a city and who represented the city at the household of the king. Villages might be seen as further ‘daughters’ of a city and therefore also belonging to the household of the ‘prince’. The ‘prince’ would have paid taxes or other contributions to the household of the king. He would also distribute food to subsidiary households in the city, and the villages. In that way, food could be stored beyond the household 164

Chapter 12 Patterns of food storage

level, while also enforcing dependencies between households. ‘Princes’ may well have been members of established local elites (Maeir and Shai 2016).

of the food stored domestically from the Iron Age I to the Iron Age II should not detract from the underlying subsistence economy that still formed the basis of life.76

A different version of the two previous models would be the contribution to the royal administration or hierarchically superior households through the cultivation of land rather than through produce. Farmers had to contribute labour to work the land and harvest the crop, which belonged to the king or to the local ‘prince’. This produce from such land would then be stored in storehouses, possibly together with taxes, and then partially redistributed to the farmers. The food stored in houses would then represent the harvest from the farmer’s own land or the portion a farmer can keep from land he worked, which was not his own.

The household controlled a considerable part of its food itself. Food storage was an essential part of household life and provided for the family. Texts and Archaeology Texts help us to understand the motivations and symbols to interpret the archaeological data and give us a wider context. Household storage equipment Of all the storage equipment mentioned in texts, storage jars are the most visible in archaeological excavations. Their variety of uses is clear from the texts. Wine, oil, water, grain, flour, meat, dried fruit, and honey are all mentioned in relation to different storage jars. It shows the variable use of storage jars. While some jars may have been used more frequently for particular products, it is difficult to clearly associate a named storage jar with a particular product. There is a close association between ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) and wine, and between ‫( כַּד‬kad) and water, but the jars were not used exclusively for that product. The named jars cannot be assigned to certain forms. Storage jar forms changed considerably across the Iron Age and from site to site, and yet some words were used in a variety of books, which are likely to come out of a range of settings. For example, the word ‫( נֵבֶל‬nēbel) is unlikely to have as its referent the exact same form in the books of 1 Samuel, Isaiah and Jeremiah. The basic shape of a storage jar would have remained the same, but it is questionable whether we can pinpoint the archaeological storage jar type across that history to which each book referred. That’s why an equation between names occurring in texts and particular archaeological types is difficult. On the other hand, the association between the ‫בַּקְבֻּק‬ (baqbuq) and the decanter may be more certain due to the limited appearance in both texts and archaeological strata from late Judah.

Control of municipal affairs, including the storage and distribution of food and payment of taxes to the king, could have been held by elders (see de Vaux 1961: 69). The obligation on individual households to supply produce to the town’s storage facility distinguishes this from community storage. The produce at this storage facility would also be out of the direct control of individual households. The process by which food would have been distributed to the households is less clear, but must be seen as relying more on custom than on favour as would be the case under a royal administration model. Full control of production and consumption, in which all produce would be provided to an administration and then distributed to individual households, possibly in exchange of labour, is similar to the Egyptian system that probably was in place at the artisan village of Deir el-Medina. But the textual evidence does not point to such a system in Israel or Judah. The large storage capacity in the houses also suggests that not all production was centrally administered. This view of redistributive storage is the one least supported by the evidence. The other explanations outlined make better sense of the data, but require a wide set of considerations for their evaluation. It is important to point out that the data not only support a system of redistributive storage, but also a strong component of domestic storage during the Iron Age II. Some households stored a large proportion of their food requirements in the house. Considerable space in houses was dedicated to food storage. Food storage also was integrated with a range of other activities and, through that, it was ever present to the inhabitants. Such large storage capacity in Iron Age houses does suggest that a significant amount of food was produced by the household and was stored in the house without intermediate storage outside the house. Much of the food supply of households was probably never exchanged and never redistributed. A decrease

Overall, the product most commonly associated with jars in the texts and art is wine. That is probably based on the frequent use of jars to store wine, but may also be a nearly formulaic association. Wine was not just one food product among many. Rather, it was valued highly and celebrated in antiquity (McGovern 2003; McGovern Tel Batash House 743, which represented the median of the examined data set, had a storage capacity of 593 l (504 after deductions for seed, wastage and water), or enough for 2.1 people for 39 weeks. If some food stores were held in perishable containers (let’s suggest an additional 20%) and some food was received from outside storage (let’s suggest 1/3 of the total consumed food stores), this could increase to 907 l, sufficient for 3.8 people for 39 weeks or 2.8 people for 52 weeks. 76

165

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah 2009). But wine was also transported and kept in skins. While we don’t know how common wine skins were, and what proportion of the product might have been stored in them, the frequent association between jars and wine make it likely that jars were the dominant storage vessels. Long-term storage of oil, in contrast, is always associated with jars. No other storage containers are suggested for oil storage. However, it seems that jars of many different sizes and styles were used for oil. Both Hesiod and Ezekiel mention grain stored in jars but, overall, grain is associated more with bulk storage, particularly as it relates to royal storage. Grain was also transported in sacks.

chests would have been in food preparation areas; some food storage areas would have provided sufficient space for such chests. I identified two storage bins made from stone slabs. The term ‫( מְּגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ) may refer to these or similar bins. However, at a capacity of around 200 l, they could not have provided sufficient grain storage for a family, but would have been just one storage location among many in the household. Others suggest that the word ‫( מְּגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ) originally referred to storage pits rather than any above-ground equipment (Petterson 2015: 79). Later usage did not associate any of the terms with storage pits. However, one of the words later used for other grain storage facility may have originally referred to a feature with the same function. Gustaf Dalman, for example, suggests that the Arab word hābie moved from describing a storage jar to describing a storage chest in Southern Palestine, because the storage of grain moved from storage jars to storage chests over the years (Dalman 1933: 203–204). Similarly, a word describing a grain pit may have later been used to describe above-ground storage. It is, however, noteworthy that the grain storage pits so characteristic of the Iron Age I and the Persian Period have not been more clearly reflected in the Biblical text.

Jars were used not only for storage inside the house, but also for transport and—despite their variety in size—as an indicative unit of measurement and, through that, enabled exchange. That fluidity between exchange and household storage is well-illustrated in the Mishnah: detailed rules specify the separation between tithed and non-tithed product. The origin and destination of products were sometimes not known and therefore an overall satisfactory solution according to the law had to be found. It is unlikely that in the Iron Age, households were that concerned with separating products based on tithing, origin and destination, but the Mishnah does show the extent to which storage and exchange were integrated in a household that used jars for both storage and exchange.

I suggest that the terms ‫( אָסָם‬ʾāsām) and ‫( מֶזֶו‬mezew) might describe the storerooms or food storage areas identified in most houses. Food was stored in these areas in jars, bins, pits and also sacks, skins and baskets, which were not preserved in the archaeological record. Having these storerooms filled with a great quantity of varied products meant having plenty. The use of these words in the Biblical text is more associated with plenty than grain in particular. The term ‫מְּגוּרָה‬ (mĕgûrâ), on the other hand, can be more closely associated with grain. As grain was the staple food, the term ‫( מְּגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ) may, nevertheless, refer more broadly to the space or equipment in which grain was stored; it might, nevertheless, have also been used for other food storage. Even though only a portion of the storage capacity in the archaeological examples was located in storerooms, such storerooms may have been seen as the main place where food was stored. Storage may have been distributed throughout the house, but storerooms were the main location associated with the stores that assured plenty.

It is more difficult to associate the grain storage facilities mentioned in the Old Testament with particular archaeological features. Based on later usage, ‫( אָסָם‬ʾāsām) has been described as ‘barn’ or ‘grain store, and ‫( מְּגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ) as ‘grain storage bin’. But in the archaeological record there are only few bulk grain stores in the domestic sphere. Even then they were rooms that were converted for storage, rather than spaces specifically built for grain storage. They were not separate buildings, but rather rooms in the main structure. No clay or wooden storage bins have survived in the archaeological record. Clay bins would have been more likely to have been preserved. While the lack of clay bins may partly be explained by excavation practices, even in recent projects with more detailed excavation and recording techniques, none have been found. The storage chest ‫( מְּגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ) mentioned in the Mishnah is compared to a basket or box. There may be a hint that at that time the ‫( מְּגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ) could have been a wooden storage chest. The Cypriot model chests may suggest that wooden storage bins could have been used. Little evidence of such bins would have been preserved in the archaeological record. If they were the main household grain storage equipment, my conclusions about storage capacity and use of space would need to be revised. Due to space considerations, it is unlikely that any such

Significance of food storage in the household Full storerooms are seen as something positive in the Old Testament. They are a sign of blessing, a sign of security and a sign of wisdom. YHWH’s favour rested on those who had sufficient food for the family, or even more than the household needed (Leviticus 26: 10). In 166

Chapter 12 Patterns of food storage

the New Testament, in contrast, striving for security by focusing on having a large supply of stored food and goods is seen as something that detracts from God.

is not directly mentioned in the Old Testament or any of the later associated literature. However, the praise of the good wife in Proverbs 31: 10–31 paints a picture of a woman who controls the house well and would also have had responsibility over food storage in the house. Given that Egyptian literature also reflects such an understanding, we might at least consider it as an ideal that the able woman would run the household. Based partly on ethnographic considerations, Carol Meyers suggests that women controlled household space in the agrarian houses of Ancient Israel and Judah (Meyers 2007; Meyers 2002: 25; Meyers 2016: 429). The close association between food storage and food preparation in the archaeological record supports the notion that the two activities were seen as interrelated. And there is evidence that women did control food preparation space (Meyers 2002; Meyers 2007). It is unlikely that the arrangements in Ancient Israel and Judah were as formalized as portrayed by Xenophones for a Greek country estate. On the other hand, the Old Testament does not depict the mistrust between husband and wife that Hesiod mentions.

While stored food was important, it was kept at the margins of houses and brought to the centre for food preparation. The storage of food was not ostentatious, but rather a background against which life was lived. Having sufficient food was normal, but not guaranteed. It was what the household worked towards, but all the striving did not always guarantee a successful outcome. Therefore, the scarcity of food was something to be feared, and could be seen as judgment. Ancient Israel and Judah had an agricultural economy. The food supply was dependent on the harvest of several crops. Rather than continuous output, there were particular times when the harvest was gathered in, at which a year of plenty or scarcity could be foreseen. Many of the Biblical passages reflect the joy and relief that anyone involved in small-scale agriculture still feels today when the harvest is finally in a safe and dry place, when the work is done for another season. I have mainly experienced it in relation to the hay harvest, a product not gathered in Ancient Israel and Judah, but the sensation would be similar. The disappointment is great if something destroys that hard work—if, for example, the harvested goods are damaged by water leakage. It is this precariousness of stored products that is alluded to in some of the texts. But it always has to be seen in the context of the whole agricultural cycle.

The strict order of storage jars and other containers mentioned in the Mishnah and the Oeconomicus does not occur in the Old Testament. The archaeological examples also indicate a user-orientated ordering of storage jar and space, rather than the systematic order through the use of rows. Royal and household storage Throughout the Old Testament from Leviticus to Haggai, the theme of blessing and household storage are linked. It is indeed household storage, not royal storage, which is the focus here. While it is a sign of judgment against a nation that its royal storehouses are plundered, these mainly seem to be an indication of wealth, of gold and silver, rather than food. The blessing over Israel and Judah—while bestowed on the land—was experienced through having a full harvest in the individual house.

The Old Testament does not express any concern about the control of stored food in the household. Once food is stored in the house, only disaster can take it away. There is no exhortation to watch the stores carefully, so that they would last for the whole year. However, the stories of Elijah and the widow whose jar of flour was not used up and whose jug of oil did not run dry (1 Kings 17: 7–24), and of Elisha and the widow who filled empty jars with oil (2 Kings 4: 1–7), show that particularly in poor families such an exhaustion of supplies did occur. The possibility that the stores were to last indefinitely would be a wish come true.

Several kings are said to have built storehouses but, with the exception of 1 Kings 9: 19, describing the building activities of Solomon, all the passages are in the books of Chronicles, indicating that royal control over food storage became more of a concern in later periods. The texts indicate a move to more centralised storage from the Persian Period. However, the continuation of the theme of blessing and household storage in Haggai indicates that even in the Persian Period, household storage remained—at least ideologically—an important aspect of food supply. The control over resources may have been seen as an important characteristic of a king during the time of the Chronicler, so that this function of kings was attributed to those in Israel’s history. The reference to such storehouses certainly increases the appearances of the riches the king possessed. Earlier

The concern of the Mishnah that the male head of the household should control the house, including the stores, to ensure the ritual purity of the household, is not shared by the Old Testament. While it was a man’s responsibility to have oversight of the household, the text does not mention nor contemplate the attention to detail envisaged in the Mishnah. The cooperation between a husband and wife explained in the Oeconomicus by Xenophones, with the husband responsible for bringing stores into the house and the wife in charge of the stores once they are in the house, 167

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah texts focus mainly on royal or temple treasuries, which would probably have been used to store valuable materials rather than food. Their plundering by foreign powers represented more a loss of prestige and wealth than of the necessities of life. These continue to be important in Chronicles. I would caution against using this textual evidence and the archaeological examples of storehouses to conclude the existence of a tax system similar to that of a modern state but based on food items. Royal control over these storehouses may have been more indirect.77

framework. Reconstructions of such a framework are contested. The conclusions from a household storage perspective cannot determine what such a framework may have looked like. But they can give support to its existence and certain pointers to its possible shape. It is likely that nearly all the food was initially produced by households, but that some food left the care of households before being redistributed to them. In the 20th century West Bank, there continued to be a focus on household storage, even though many families earned part of their income outside the household. Similarly in Ancient Israel and Judah, the primary focus in relation to food security may have been the stores kept in the house, even though part of the food supply would have come from outside the house.

However, my archaeological analysis indicated a move from nearly exclusive household storage to more redistributive storage from the Iron Age I to the Iron Age II. Do the Biblical texts and archaeological data give us a diverging picture of the role of household storage? The sources can certainly be construed that way, and one or the other regarded as unreliable. However, if we regard them as complementary evidence to reconstruct ancient households, we get a more nuanced picture of the lifeways of these people.78

In 1 & 2 Samuel, we see local rulers having access to food beyond the immediate requirements of a single household. Stored food was redistributed, not through some administration, but rather through the recognition of a person. It is likely that in this period a transition was made to more formalised redistributive systems. Such a conclusion would link the text well to the archaeological evidence.

Household storage remained important in the Iron Age II and beyond.79 The food stored was mainly that produced by the household through its agricultural activities. That is what the texts express and what is largely supported by the archaeological data. However, the archaeological data also suggest that there was another layer of redistributive food storage. This is not directly reflected in the texts. But the texts give indications of an overall governing and redistributive

Ethnographic comparison I used ethnographic analogy to understand food storage in Iron Age houses. A comparison, therefore, has to be careful not to fall into circular reasoning. Storage equipment The most striking difference between the storage equipment of Ancient Israel and Judah and that used in the 20th century in the region is the presence of dried-mud storage chests. No evidence of such chests has been found in the archaeological record. Gustaf Dalman suggests that the ‫( מְּגוּרָה‬mĕgûrâ) mentioned in the Mishnah was similar to the storage chests found in Palestine, but cautions that no such chests have been found in excavations (Dalman 1933: 202). Staubli and Schroer also equate the storage chests found throughout the Middle East today with the ‫מְּגוּרָה‬ (mĕgûrâ) (Staubli and Schroer 2014: 250). Based on the archaeological record as excavated to date, it is likely that no dried-mud or clay storage chests were used in Ancient Israel and Judah.80 Whether some other storage

Even though some form of taxation probably existed in Ancient Israel, the language in the Old Testament was not specific and well developed (Snell 1992: 339). Even the clearest reference in 1 Samuel 8: 15–17 does not give a clear description of how such taxes were levied. And there is doubt whether the Israelite and Judahite kings exercised such powers (Snell 1992: 339). Maeir and Shai also suggest that, rather than direct taxes to the king, clan-based payments by the local elite were passed on to the capital, Jerusalem or Samaria (Maeir and Shai 2016: 327–328). 78 The Biblical texts may be seen as having no connection to the Iron Age at all. Any changes in the texts would then be seen as reflecting changes in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. However, it is unlikely that the conditions of the Iron Age II would be so absent from the texts. Texts narrating the story of the early monarchy (1 & 2 Samuel) would fit a dominance of household storage with a change to more redistributive storage. That is, the order of the Biblical narrative would still have to be preserved, but any connection to Iron Age archaeological remains denied. I have not examined archaeological remains of the Persian and Hellenistic Periods to consider whether this movement in the texts could be detected in a change of archaeological remains. Similarly, the archaeology may be seen as unreliable. Sites are not well preserved. Technology may have been used, such as wooden storage chests or bulk storage, that did not leave a trace in the archaeological record, so that the projected move to more redistributive storage may not have taken place, but rather is a result of the incompleteness of the data. 79 Schloen suggests that the Assyrian conquests drastically changed social structures and resulted in a weakening of kinship structures and increased centralization (Schloen 2016: 449). I could not detect any significant change in storage practice (apart from the change in ceramic form and style) between the Iron Age IIb and the Iron Age IIc. 77

Amit Dagan discusses the existence of ‘Negebite pottery’ or ‘handmade vessels’, as he calls them (Dagan 2011). These vessels were coil-built rather than wheel-thrown, made from coarse ware and fired at very low temperatures. Dagan suggests that they were common in rural settlements, but hardly noted in excavation reports due to an emphasis on tell sites and dating. They have, nevertheless, been noted first by Lawrence and Woolley in 1914 and since studied and reported. Many of these ‘handmade vessels’ imitate, or at least are similar to, larger wheel-thrown ceramic vessels, such as large bowls, kraters, mortaria, and holemouth jars. Such handmade vessels 80

168

Chapter 12 Patterns of food storage

chests, for example made out of wood, were used, is uncertain.

It may be possible to make such economic distinctions between households based on house size and the location of food storage capacity for the Iron Age as well. In his examination of house sizes in various Iron Age cities, Avi Faust has argued for a relationship between house size and wealth (Faust 2012). He also argues that wealthier households had more members. The location and extent of food storage may be used as a further indication to assess the relative wealth of households.81

Conversely, the number of storage jars in the archaeological examples was higher than in comparable 20th century houses. For example, for the house in Marjayoun, Dalman mentions one storage jar each for olive oil and grape molasses, and several water jars (Dalman 1942: 121–125). The house in el-malha had four storage jars (Dalman 1942: 112–113). In all his house descriptions, Dalman never mentions more than half a dozen storage jars, while the analysed archaeological houses had an average of 22 storage jars. Few storage jars are mentioned in the ethnographic accounts in Syria and Iran. In Cyprus, large pithoi were used for wine and oil. These pithoi were considerably larger than the pithoi or storage jars used during the Iron Age. Fewer of them were therefore required in Cypriot houses. Storage jars were used in Egypt for grain storage.

In ethnographic examples from Iran and Jordan, food storage sometimes was associated with living or domestic work areas. These were close to the centre of households. In the examined archaeological examples, living rooms, when identified, were often used for food storage, though the storage capacity located there was usually less than in other parts of the houses. The Beer-Sheba houses are an exception: most of the storage capacity was located in the central living rooms. The examples do not provide a correlation between food storage in living rooms and house size. Rather, increased storage in living rooms seems to be specific to particular sites or houses. Food storage did not just occur back-stage, out of sight, or next to the bread oven, but also pervaded most aspects of living.

While the Muslim injunction against alcoholic beverages may partly account for the use of fewer storage jars, different storage practices seem to have prevailed. In the Iron Age not only more food, but also a greater variety of food, was probably kept in storage jars or pithoi than in 20th century traditional households. It is likely that grain was also kept in storage jars during the Iron Age.

Storage chests were used as space dividers in Palestine. No clear evidence of the use of storage equipment as space dividers could be found in the examined archaeological examples (but see Frank 2012: 213). At many sites, the location of storage jars was not sufficiently detailed in reports to assess whether storage jars might have been used as space dividers. However, storage jars would not have been very high, so that they would not have given the degree of separation that storage chests provided. It seems that in the Iron Age, more walls (including thin walls) were used to separate spaces, sometimes provisionally.

Location of food storage In many ethnographic examples, food was primarily stored in distinctive food storage areas or even storerooms, with some provisions always kept in the food preparation area. However, in smaller houses in Palestine, often belonging to poorer households, there was little separation between food storage and food preparation. These small houses often had only one main room. The grain chest was right beside the food preparation area in that main room. Similar arrangements have also been observed in small houses in Iran.

The Mount of Olives Cave had a high proportion of its relatively small storage capacity located in the food preparation area. This was in a side room, not the main room. Since the main room may have been disturbed, storage capacity there, as well as remains of other activities, were not found. Tel Batash House 743 also had much of its storage capacity located in the central food preparation area. It had a floor area of 53 m2. While much of the storage capacity of Tel Batash House 950 was also located in the central room, distinctive food storage areas were apparent which were adjacent to, but separate from, food preparation areas. Tel Batash House 950 had a floor area of 98 m2. Tel Batash House 950 may have been the home not only of a more populous household, but also a wealthier one. 81

have survived in the archaeological record and are mentioned in some archaeological reports. It would be likely then that fragments of storage chests would have also survived.

169

Chapter 13

Conclusion The conclusion draws together the various strands of evidence into a coherent narrative, based on an evaluation of the analysis. It expresses in more general terms the results of very specific and focused investigation into particular sites, texts and analogies. As such, it does not constantly refer to peculiarities of the data, but rather considers the overarching findings. The conclusion requires decisions and judgments on certain matters that are not certain and could well be interpreted in other ways. The narrative is therefore dependent on the previous chapters, in which the background, detail and qualifications to this narrative are discussed.

In agriculture the yield is always uncertain. Weather conditions affect the growth and harvest of the crops. Pests may decimate the plants. But even if the crops were successfully harvested and processed for storage, the food supply was not secure. Pests could affect the stored goods. Moisture and other storage defects may spoil the food. War and unrest may eliminate all the resources the people had worked for. Even with good preparation and conscientious work, the food supply was not assured. A good harvest and successful storage were seen as a blessing. In an uncertain world, it required the blessing of God to make the work of human hands prosper. In a sense, the Old Testament portrays storerooms as an extension of the land, which was made fruitful and abundant by God. Land and storerooms represented God’s provision for his people.

The first part of this conclusion is an encyclopaedialike summary of household food storage. The second part considers the possible relevance of this study for history writing. The third part suggests the possible relevance of the study for Biblical Studies.

Agriculture and food storage were closely integrated in Old Testament thought. They would also have been closely integrated in agricultural practice. Storage is one of the steps between the work in the field culminating in the harvest, and the consumption of the food. Seed for such annual plants as wheat, barley and sesame also had to be stored for several months before it was sown in the field.

13.1 Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Ancient Israel and Judah were agrarian societies. Most of the food supply was harvest-based. Field and tree crops were tended and grown in seasonal rhythms and mostly harvested once a year. After some processing of the food, it was then stored for consumption throughout the year. Animals were also kept, and provided some security as they were available for slaughter throughout the year, though good stock management meant that particular times were more favourable for the slaughter of animals. Milk production also varied with the seasons, so that dairy products were preserved and kept for later consumption. Food storage, therefore, was an important aspect of ensuring food supply throughout the year.

The main social unit to grow and harvest plants, to store the produce and then to consume it, was the household; in Ancient Israel and Judah, probably the ‘house of the father’—the ‫( בית אב‬byt ʾb) (Schloen 2001: 150–151; Schloen 2016: 448). It was the household headed by the ‘father’, the married man. Apart from his wife (wives) and unmarried children, further descendants and their wives, as well as other relatives and servants, may have lived in this house. A household usually concentrated on one dwelling, but may have occupied several in some cases.

Preparing the land, planting, tending and then harvesting the crops, all required continual labour and investment in the land. The maintenance of storage facilities, together with houses, further bound the people to the land. Having most food stored in one place requires people to stay in that place. But more than the difference between nomadic and settled life, food storage also meant people made a particular place their home. Food storage was part of having roots in one place and feeling sufficiently secure to live here long-term (Jeremiah 40: 9–10).82

The main products to be stored in a household were grains—such as wheat, barley and sesame, legumes— such as lentils, beans and chickpeas, wine, olive oil, dried fruit—such as figs, grapes (raisins and sultanas) and dates, other fruit products—such as syrup, and spices. Dairy products, such as cooking butter and dried balls of buttermilk, were also stored long-term. Grain, especially wheat, was the staple food, and also the product occupying the greatest storage capacity.

Nomads and semi-nomads also often store some food. They also have a distinct way of making a land their home. Their storage is,

however, considerably less; their interaction with land and places is therefore different from settled populations.

82

170

Chapter 13 Conclusion

The most common storage container was the ceramic storage jar.83 It was produced in a variety of forms and styles. These forms and styles changed across time, but also from site to site. In the Iron Age I the dominant jar was the collared-rim pithos, which had a capacity of between 70 litres and 116 litres. Smaller storage jars with a capacity of 13 litres to 22 litres were used alongside these pithoi. At urban sites outside the core zone of early Israel, for example at Megiddo, smaller jars were dominant, with a capacity of between 8 litres to 35 litres. Other vessels may have also been used for storage during the Iron Age I.

Underground storage pits were used for bulk grain storage. Most of these were outside. They were round, stone-lined and had a diameter between 1 metre and 2.5 metres. The depth probably also varied somewhere between 1 metre and 2.5 metres. During the Iron Age I, such storage pits were commonly located within settlements near houses. They are not as frequent during the Iron Age II and not directly associated with houses, but rather found in clusters as communal or centrally administered storage installations. Once these storage pits were sealed, the grain could be stored for several years, even though the storage in pits affects the taste of the grain (Dalman 1933: 195). However, the entire contents had to be removed once they were opened. They were therefore used for longterm storage, with the grain moved to the house for short-term storage, or for seed storage.

The variety of storage jars increases in the Iron Age II. Ovoid storage jars with a narrow neck were present in all houses, but came in many different sizes. Jars without a neck, but rather a wide, open rim (‘holemouth jars’), were used alongside these jars. Small, straight-sided jars with an open rim (‘small holemouth jars’) became more common. Large pithoi without a neck, but with a narrow opening, were used at rural sites and nondomestic storehouses. With a capacity of about 130 to 200 litres these pithoi were larger than the Iron Age I collared-rim pithoi, but not as widely used. Small jars with a spout, in which a juglet could be placed so that any liquids would drip back into the jar, were also used. In addition, some large jugs and kraters as well as smaller jugs that looked similar to cooking pots were probably also used for storage.

Smaller, shallower storage pits were sometimes located inside houses. They may have also been used for the storage of cereals or other granular goods. Rectangular bins lined with stone slabs, which were located inside houses but above ground, could have served a similar purpose. Grain was also stored in bulk, heaped on the ground in storerooms. This was probably the dominant grain storage form in large, non-domestic households, but it also occurred in family houses. By sealing off a room with mudbricks, a large space was created that could be filled with grain in bulk. Such an area would need to be dry and well-protected from pests.

In the Iron Age II, large storage jars were apparently mass-produced in Judah. The jars were made out of clay similar to that sourced from the Shephelah, and had a characteristic shape (capacity 35 litres to 55 litres). Because some of them bore a stamp with the word lmlk (belonging to the king) on the handle, they are called lmlk-type storage jars. They were used in public and domestic settings in the late eighth century BCE. Similar jars with a rosette stamp on the handle were used from the seventh century onwards. Many theories are advanced on their purpose, but it is important to note that these jars were used for household storage alongside other vessels.

Even though they have not been preserved in the archaeological record, sacks, baskets, skins and wooden chests were probably also used for storage. Sacks and wooden chests would be mostly associated with grain storage, baskets with fruit and fruit products, skins for dairy products and wine. Nevertheless, wine was probably more commonly stored long-term in jars. Most houses had one or several storerooms or some dedicated storage areas in rooms partly used for other purposes. Storerooms were generally at the margins of the house, for example in a back room. Storage areas in other rooms could be more central. These storerooms contained a concentration of storage jars and sometimes other storage equipment, such as a pit or bin. Further storage jars were usually also located in other activity areas. In some houses most of the storage capacity was in rooms other than storerooms.

It is not possible to associate any particular shape or style of jar with specific foods. Rather, jars held different foods according to household requirements. Throughout their life, jars that were no longer suitable for one product, would have been used to store other products. Some association can, however, be established between lmlk-type jars and wine storage and between large holemouth jars and cereal storage.

Storage jars were often located near food preparation areas, for example near ovens, hearths or grinding installations, where grain was ground to flour or other crops were ground to meal. The storage jars in these food preparation areas were generally not smaller than those located in storerooms. Storage jars were probably

At some rural sites, low-quality clay vessels have been found that are similar to ceramic vessels, but were not wheel-made and had not been fired at high temperatures. 83

171

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah moved from storerooms to food preparation areas as required.

While much of the food supply would still have been produced by households, part of the food supply would then have been handed over to a more central control and later partly redistributed to households. This would also have involved some trade, so that certain households (or entire regions of households) produced a commodity in excess of household requirements and, in exchange, obtained other commodities for the household. The exact process by which such trade and redistribution occurred cannot be ascertained from the household perspective. Food was bought and sold, taxed and provided for services. But in Ancient Israel and Judah, those practices were part of linkages and relationships that made them quite different from our modern concepts. For example, before the early monarchy food was ‘gifted’ to local rulers or strongmen to express loyalty and recognize the influence of the leader and his family (1 & 2 Samuel). Such a local ruler would then distribute food to his followers. Similarly, during the Iron Age II, supplies may have been given to a local ‘prince’, under whose control food was stored, some being sent to the household of the king, some traded with other areas, and some redistributed to the households. Our knowledge of food storage needs to be set within a greater historical narrative of Ancient Israel and Judah, for which there are currently many competing accounts.

A few storage jars were also often located in living rooms, where much of the housework—but not cooking—took place, valuable items were kept and guests were received. At times, storage jars were also kept in goods storage areas, where household goods and agricultural equipment was kept. Women controlled the allocation of space in the house and more particularly in food preparation areas. With the close integration of food storage and food preparation in houses, women were responsible for and had control over a large part of the food supply in households. The ideal wife organized the household well and used the stored food to feed her family and guests. A variety of storage jars and other storage equipment were often located together, rather than just one type of jar concentrated in certain areas or rooms. Different products were probably stored together. These jars were normally not put in rows, but rather placed against walls in irregular groups, or next to installations such as ovens. Storage jars were kept in a user-orientated order, rather than any systematic arrangement. In some large-scale storage facilities, in contrast, rows have been observed.

The value placed on stored food in the household, together with the successful harvest, did continue in the Iron Age II. Much of the food continued to be produced, controlled and stored in the house. That’s why having the harvest safely stored in the house was indeed a blessing, something that the people who lived there encountered every day as they went about their daily life.

Generally, the larger the floor area of a house, the more storage jars were located in it. Larger houses may indicate more inhabitants, but possibly also a wealthier household. Larger houses, however, did not use larger storage jars. Rather, it was the higher number of jars that also resulted in a higher storage capacity. While it depended significantly on the individual household, an approximate value of 10 litres of vessel storage capacity per square metre has been observed.

13.2 Household food storage and history Household archaeology

The many large storage jars in Iron Age I houses provided a far greater indoors storage capacity than was common in the Iron Age II. In addition, several storage pits often surrounded Iron Age I houses. The storage capacity in and around Iron Age I houses was sufficient to store food for large families (five to 12 people). During the Iron Age I, the food for households would have been produced by the household and stored in and around the house. But during the Iron Age II, the storage capacity in houses would not have been sufficient to feed a large family. There were also no nearby storage pits to store grain. Instead, in several Iron Age II cities, excavations have revealed storehouses where grain was probably stored. While most of the food in Iron Age II houses would have still been stored in the house, food used in the household would also have needed to be obtained through some exchange mechanism.

This investigation from a household perspective also provides input into reconstructing the history of Ancient Israel and Judah. It provides evidence that needs to be taken into account in any explanations of the social world of those times. But at a preliminary level, I hope that it also provides lessons for archaeological investigation and interpretation. The households investigated had considerable storage capacity, but none had storage capacity in excess of household requirements. Houses contained anything from six to 61 storage vessels. If a locus is found with 20 storage vessels, this could well be part of a small household. It should not be interpreted as a central storage facility, unless there are other factors that point to such use. The temptation to consider a storage space as being royal storage space is particularly present if 172

Chapter 13 Conclusion

an archaeologist has not excavated in well-preserved contexts before and is suddenly faced with a wellpreserved storeroom.

to any formation of meta-narratives. Such storage practices also imply that a redistributive system, with all of its political and economic complexities, existed in Ancient Israel and Judah. That is not a new conclusion. Many other commentators have reached it without a detailed study of household storage. Scholars who stress the continuation of agrarian lifeways in the Iron Age II—I include myself among them—need to acknowledge the extent of redistributive storage and therefore the importance of exchange systems. I did not expect the evidence to be that clear. On the other hand, there is little evidence for full central control of food production or supply, whether royal or otherwise. Any account of monarchical Israel and Judah has to balance central and household control of food supply. Such a balance might also extend to other areas of social life.

Rather, storage is an expected household activity. Lack of storage capacity in an excavated house should be noted and may indicate that such a house is exceptional. It is likely that such a house was not a domestic unit, or alternatively was occupied by a household not engaged in agriculture. Preservation and reporting vary considerably between sites. Comparison is, therefore, not straightforward, requiring constant judgment and decisions on what should be taken into account. While each site is unique, a commitment to more comprehensive reporting by excavators would facilitate site comparisons. This requires detailed location data, restoration of as many artefacts as possible and their illustration. Newer excavations have moved beyond the dominant question of dating to allow better household archaeology analysis. However, excavation and reporting could be improved considerably to arrive at a more detailed interpretation of household activities. That does include micro-artefact analysis, methodical soil sampling and trace analysis. Unfortunately, I did not have such data available in this study (except partially for the Tell Halif F7 House).

Many approaches to the history of Ancient Israel and Judah strike that balance, or at least could accommodate such a balance, if issues of food supply were addressed. I would, however, caution against a close analogy between the administration of a modern state and the ‘administration’ in Ancient Israel and Judah. Redistributive storage does not necessarily imply a state bureaucracy similar to that of modern states, nor a market economy divorced from personal relationships.

While activity area analysis is common in household archaeology, the detailed approaches of archaeologists differ. I hope that with more work being done in this area, discussions can proceed that lead to better identification of activity areas. This does require constant reference to ethnographic examples. Further experimental archaeology would also assist with interpretation of activity areas. The interpretation of artefacts will require constant reference to these sources so that they do not become fixed abstracts.

The results of this study also do not address the perceived conflict between text and archaeology, which is debated by historians of Ancient Israel. While there is some divergence concerning food storage between the Old Testament and some archaeological conclusions, this is more one of emphasis. For in this field of study the sources can be seen to stand beside each other and to complement each other. In the Old Testament, we do find evidence for some of the motivated actions that left their mark in the archaeological record. Of course, as historians, we would always wish for a more comprehensive description of the society of Ancient Israel, but that was not the purpose of the Old Testament.

The study also showed the lack of well-preserved and well-published small, rural sites. Knowledge of such sites is important to achieve a better overview of ancient lifeways and the organisation of society. As these sites are often shallow, preservation is a concern. Excavation, therefore, has to be even be more detailed to obtain maximum information from such disturbed contexts.

Overarching investigations into the economic realities of Ancient Israel and Judah can set the results of this study in context. Such investigations require the consideration of multiple lines of evidence. In their scope they need to go beyond this study, but would also require judgments and evaluations that are far more dependent on the context of the investigators than the current study.

History of Ancient Israel and Judah This study cannot resolve the major debates about the history of Ancient Israel and Judah (see page 18). That is not its aim. But it provides further evidence, which should be taken into account in the different reconstructions of past events. My conclusion of increased redistributive storage in the Iron Age II in comparison with the Iron Age I is particularly pertinent

My study does emphasize the difference between the Iron Age I and the Iron Age II. It is less conclusive about the possible distinction in storage practices between later periods (Iron Age IIa-IIc). I was not able to conclude how the change from Iron Age I to the Iron Age II 173

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah ocurred, but the accounts in the books of Samuel may point the way in describing a possible social change.

can be archaeologically illustrated. God’s blessing to his people through the provision of food was not only concerned with the fertility of the fields and flocks, but also with the continued availability of stored produce. In this, the Bible reflects agrarian lifeways, which remained dominant throughout the societies that shaped its literature (even though I only traced them archaeologically to the end of the Iron Age). Such a background of agrarian lifeways has been used by interpreters for centuries, but must always be reaffirmed.84

A household view of food storage can contribute to, but not determine, our understanding of some phenomena, such as the significance of the lmlk jars. I have shown the common use of lmlk jars in household storage. These jars seem to have been fully integrated into household activities, at least in some households. They cannot be regarded as solely related to royal activities, for example to the storage of products from royal estates. I can be more conclusive about the contribution of the study to our understanding of household life in Ancient Israel and Judah. This was a stated aim of the study.

The ideal of self-sufficiency and the importance of food harvested from the field and stored in the house continued in the Old Testament, even at times when part of the food supply would have been obtained through redistributive means.85 Through the continuation of a traditional theme based in earlier social realities, one aspect of current social reality was imbued with greater theological importance. A similar stress on past understandings of social reality may also have shaped views in other areas of life. For example, was the emphasis on tribes in the Old Testament always reflective of social reality or rather a continuation of past themes that still had some relevance, but not the former dominance?

Throughout the Iron Age, agricultural lifeways continued to shape household practices. Sufficient food had to be grown for the household. The household was concerned with the production of food. The harvest and subsequent storage of the processed food products were seasonal highlights in household life. But particularly in the Iron Age II, the household was also concerned with the exchange of food, other goods and services beyond the household. This meant that the household had to produce surplus agricultural commodities, had to make goods for exchange, such as textiles, wooden implements or ceramics, or had to provide labour outside the household, such as military service or agricultural work on land not controlled by the household. This was not just subsistence farming. Making labour available to ensure additional food supplies would have made household life more complex. But it also eased the reliance on a few particular plots of land and might have allowed the household to cope better in lean years.

If we view much of the population of Ancient Israel and Judah during the monarchies as dependent on both the land and a redistributive system, the calls for justice by the prophets (especially Amos and Micah) can be read in such a context. Justice not only required access to land, but also to opportunities for obtaining centrally stored food, whether through labour, exchange of goods, or patron or kin relationships. These were not just issues of moral right and wrong, but rather more immediately of providing sufficient food for the family. Justice was an issue of life and death. Households required a successful harvest and secure storage as well as access to an equitable redistributive system to survive.

The location of stored food inside the house points to strong domestic control over food, separate from direct shared control by other households or some ‘higher authority’. Households were at least partially autonomous in relation to food supply, even though community storage in the Iron Age I and redistributive storage in the Iron Age II point to a dependence on and cooperation with wider society.

The Iron Age II may also be the period in which social conditions stimulated a greater focus on personal Such an awareness of agrarian lifeways in Biblical interpretation is probably more needed among ‘lay’ readers, who have not been taught the importance of this context. This is particularly so in an increasingly urban society in which these agrarian lifeways are foreign. The physical remains of these lifeways provide a connection to that context. Potsherds from a storage jar are an illustrative link to the Biblical concept of blessing, which otherwise may appear somewhat unreal in our world. 85 The Deutoronomistic history books mainly focus on the king and the Jerusalem elite. That’s why royal imagery is so important, including a stress on royal wealth. However, many other books are concerned with more agrarian lifeways. But the books of the Bible hardly seem to address the agents of redistribution in that society, unless in judgment. The link between the royal and the ‘peasant’ householder seems to be of relatively little concern in the Old Testament. I would therefore question the description of the Bible as being mainly concerned with the ‘urban elite’. 84

The constant presence of food storage among many other household activities points to a constant awareness of food security and the relative precariousness of food supply. The strong association of food storage with food preparation may indicate at least partial control by women over the household food supply, contributing to our understanding of gender roles in the household. 13.3 Household food storage and Biblical Studies This study provides a more expansive view of the Biblical concept of blessing and sets it in a context that 174

Chapter 13 Conclusion

wealth and the security offered by that wealth.86 Such a focus on personal wealth is implied in the apocryphal books that exhort listeners to give alms to the poor so that the giver would attain more lasting treasures. The theme is continued in the New Testament, which encourages listeners to store treasures in heaven and not on earth.

It is the anxiety to find food for the next day that is given as the cause for hoarding supplies, not just greed. Listeners are exhorted to focus on heavenly treasures first and trust that God will provide earthly requirements. In general, this study aims to learn more about the daily life of people in Biblical times. A greater knowledge of household life allows us to better understand the concerns and cares, the hopes and fears, the situation of those people, to whom some of the words of the Bible were first directed and whose lives formed the backdrop to its narratives.

While increased market-based exchange may partially explain such a shift, it should not be overstated. The New Testament, in particular, makes it clear that a successful harvest fills the ‘barns’. Such wealth is based on agriculture and the vagaries of harvest yield.

From the late Iron Age and the Persian Period, more finds of weights and then coins point to a greater importance of market activities and personal wealth (Schloen 2016:449). 86

175

References cited Aharoni, Yoḥanan 1973. Beer-Sheba I : Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology. 1981. Arad inscription. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Allen, P S. 1989. Dhali: A Traditional Community in Transition, in L. E. Stager and A. M. Walker (eds.) American Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus 1973-1980: 425–446. Chicago: Oriental Institute Communications 24. Amiran, Ruth 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Massada. Arie, Eran 2006. The Iron Age I Pottery: Levels K-5 and K-4 and an Intra-Site Spatial Analysis Of The Pottery From Stratum Via, in Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin and Baruch Halpern (eds.) Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Season: 199–298. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Artzy, Michal 1987. On the storage of olive oil in antiquity, in M. Heltzer and D. Eitam (eds.) Olive Oil in Antiquity. Israel and neighbouring countries: 1–4. Haifa: Conference 1987. Ascher, R. 1961. Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17:317–325. Ayoub, A. 1985. Les moyen de conservation des produits agricoles dans le nord-ouest de la Jourdanie actuelle, in Marceau Gast, François Sigaut and Corinne Beutler (eds.) Les techniques de conservation de grains à long terme: 155–169. Paris: Ėditions du Centre Nacional de la Recherche Scientifique. Baadsgaard, Aubrey 2008. A Taste of Women’s Sociality: Cooking as Cooperative Labor in Iron Age Syro-Palestine, in Beth Alpert Nakhai (ed.) The World of Women in the Ancient and Classical Near East: 13–44. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Baesens, B., C. Mues, D. Martens, and J. Vanthienen 2009. 50 Years of Data Mining and OR: Upcoming Trends and Challenges. The Journal of the Operational Research Society 60:S16–23. Baldissini, S., A.M. Manferdini, and M.E. Masci 2009. An information system for the integration, management and visualization of 3D reality based archaeological models from different operators. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences Volume XXXVIII-5/W1. Trent: The International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Baranowski, Krzysztof 2017. The Biblical Hebrew ‘Store Cities’ and an Amarna gloss. Vetus Testamentum LXVII.4:519-527.

Bartl, Karin 2004. Vorratshaltung. Die spätepipaläolithische und frühneolithische Entwicklung im westlichen Vorderasien. Voraussetzungen, typolotische Varianz und sozioökonomische Implikationen im Zeitraum zwischen 12,000 und 7,600 BP. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production Production, Subsistence and Environment 10,2003. Berlin: ex oriente. Baruch, Yuval 2007. A farmstead from the end of the Iron Age and installations at the foot of Khirbat Abu Shawan. ‘Atiqot 56:25–44.72–74. Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq 1973. The Western Quarter, in Yohanan Aharoni (ed.) Beer-Sheba I : Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons: 31–37. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology. Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq (ed.) 1999. Tel ‘Ira: A stronghold in the Biblical Negev. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Ben-Arieh, Sara 2004. Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit-Mirsim. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Ben-Tor, Amnon, Y. Portugali, Miriam Avissar, Anabel Zarzecki-Peleg, Shlomit Cohen-Anidjar, Doron BenAmi, and Ariella Livneh 1996. Yoqneʿam : Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977-1988). Qedem Reports. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Biewers, Michèle 1997. L’habitat traditionnel à ‘Aima: enquête ethnoarchéologique dans un village jordanien. Oxford: British Archaeology Reports, International Series. Bishop Moore, Megan 2006. Philosophy and practice in writing a history of ancient Israel. New York: T&T Clark. Bock, Darrell L. 1994. Luke. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Baker Books. Boring, M. Eugene 2006. Mark: a commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Borowski, Oded 1987. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. 2002 reprint. 2003 Daily Life in Biblical Times. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Brody, Aaron J. 2009. ‘Those who Add House to House’: Household Archaeology and the Use of Domestic Space in an Iron II Residential Compound at Tell en-Nasbeh, in J. David Schloen (ed.) Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager: 45–56. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 176

References cited

Broshi, Magen 2001. Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 36. London: Sheffield Academic Press. Butzer, Karl W. 1990. A Human Ecosystem Framework for Archaeology, in E.F. Moran (ed.) The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to Practice: 91–130. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Campbell, Edward F. 2002. Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balatah. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Carr, David 2008. Narrative Explanation and its Malcontents. History and Theory 47:19-30. Chesson, Meredith S. 2012. Homemaking in the Bronze Age, in Bradley J. Parker and Catherine P. Foster (eds.) New Perspectives in Household Archaeology: 45–79. Winona Lake, IL: Eisenbrauns. Clines, David J. A. et alii 2001. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Volume V. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Clarke, David L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen. Cogan, Mordechai and Haym Tadmor 1988. II Kings: a new translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday. Crenshaw, James L. 1995. Joel. New York: Doubleday. Currid, John D. 1986. Archaeological Investigations into the grain storage practices of Iron Age Palestine. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago. Dagan, Amit 2011. Negebite Pottery beyond the Negev. Tel Aviv 38:208–219. Dalman, Gustaf 1928a. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina; Jahreslauf und Tageslauf; 1. Hälfte: Herbst und Winter. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann. 1928b. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Band I: Jahreslauf und Tageslauf, 2. Hälfte: Sommer und Frühling. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann. 1932. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Band II: Der Ackerbau. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann. 1933. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Band III: Von der Ernte zum Mehl: Ernten, Dreschen, Worfeln, Sieben, Verwahren, Mahlen. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann. 1935. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Band IV: Brot, Öl und Wein. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann. 1937. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Band V: Webstoff, Spinnen, Weben, Kleidung. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann.

1939. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Band VI: Zeltleben, Vieh- und Milchwirtschaft, Jagd, Fischfang. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann. 1942. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Band VII: Das Haus, Hühnerzucht, Taubenzucht, Bienenzucht. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann. 2001. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Band VIII: Das häusliche Leben, Geburt, Heirat, Tod. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Daviau, P.M. Michele 1990. Artifact Distribution and Functional Analysis in Palestinian Domestic Architecture of the Second Millenium B.C. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Davies, Norman de Garis 1917. The Tomb of Nakht at Thebes. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 1933. The Tomb of Nefer-hotep at Thebes. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 1943. The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Depla, Annette 1994. Women in Ancient Egyptian Wisdom Literature, Léonie J. Archer, Susan Fischler and Maria Wyke (eds.) Women in Ancient Societies: An Illusion of the Night. New York: Routledge. Dietrich, Walter 2012. Samuel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W., J.J.M. Roberts, C.L. Seow, and R.E. Whitaker 2005. Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance. New Haven: Yale University Press. Drennan, Robert 2009. Statistics for Archaeologists: a common sense approach. New York: Springer. Dubach, Manuel 2009. Trunkenheit im Alten Testament: Begrifflichkeit— Zeugnisse—Wertung. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 184. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Edwards, James R. 2015. The Gospel according to Luke. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. Ellis, Susan 2007. Traditional Households in Egypt and Pottery Use at En-Gedi, in Yizhar Hirschfeld (ed.) En-Gedi Excavations II. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Evelyn-White, Hugh G. 1914. Hesiod. Works and Days. accessed 20 September 2014. http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hesiod/works.htm. Faust, Avraham 2012. The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II. Winona Lakes, IN: Eisenbrauns. Feig, Urit 2011. An Iron Age II dwelling cave on the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 67:41–60,86–87. Finkelstein, Israel 1986. ‘Izbet Sartah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Haʽayin. Oxford: B.A.R. 177

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Finkelstein, Israel, Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Ledermann 1993. Shiloh: the archaeology of a biblical site. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Fischer, Peter M. 2013. Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley: Volume III— the Iron Age. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1999. Fermented Cereals: a global perspective. Downloaded 27 October 2016 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/ x2184e/x2184e00.htm#con Foster, Catherine P. and Bradley J. Parker 2012. Introduction: Household Archaeology in the Near East and Beyond, in Bradley J. Parker and Catherine P. Foster (eds.) New Perspectives on Household Archaeology: 1-12. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Ford, James A. 1954. Comment on A.C. Spaulding, ‘Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types’. American Antiquity 19-4:390–391. Ford, James A. and Julian H. Steward 1954. On the Concept of Types. American Anthropologist 56-1:42–57. Fox, Michael V. 2009. Proverbs 10–31: A new translation with introduction and commentary. New Haven: Yale University Press. France, R. T. 2007. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans. Frank, Timotheus D. 2012. Hearth and Home: Life in and around a ‘kitchen’ from Ancient Judah as excavated at Tell Halif. Master thesis. Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures, Mississippi State University. Fries, Timothy 2004. Plaster Food Production Installations of the Iron Age II at Tel Rehov. ASOR Newsletter 54(3):16–17. Gadot, Yuval, Mario Martin, Noga Blockmann and Eran Arie 2006. Area K(Levels K-5 and K-4, The 1998-2002 Seasons), in Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin and Baruch Halpern(eds.) Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Season: 87–103. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Gadot, Yuval and Assaf Yasur-Landau 2006. Beyond Finds: Reconstructing Life in the Courtyard Building of Level K-4, in Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin and Baruch Halpern (eds.) Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Season: 583–600. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Grabbe, Lester L. 2011. Enquire of the former age: ancient historiography and writing the history of Israel. London: T&T Clark. Garret, Duane A. 1997. Hosea, Joel. Nashville: Broadman and Holman.

Granqvist, Hilma 1981. Portrait of a Palestinian Village. edited by Karen Seger. London: Third World Centre for Research and Publication. Green, Joel B. 1997. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. Greenhut, Zvi 2006. Production, Storage and Distribution of Grain in Israel during the Iron Age and Their Linkage to Socio-Economic Organization in Israel. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Greenhut, Zvi and Alon de Groot 2009. Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza: The Bronze and Iron Age settlements and later occupations. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Guggenheimer, Heinrich W. (ed.) 2000a. The Jerusalem Talmud. First Order: Zeraim. Tractate Berakhot. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. 2000b. The Jerusalem Talmud. First Order: Zeraim. Tractates Peah and Demay. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. 2002. The Jerusalem Talmud. First Order: Zeraim. Tractates Terumot and Ma’serot. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. 2003. The Jerusalem Talmud. First Order: Zeraim. Tractates Ma’aser Seni, Hallah, ‘Orlah, and Bikkurim. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. Hagner, Donald A. 1993. Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 33a. Dallas, TX: Word Books. Hardin, James Walker 2010. Households and the use of domestic space at Tell Halif: an archaeology of destruction. Winona Lakes, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Hardin, James Walker and Dale Lynn Holt 2017. The archaeological virtuoso:filling the epistemic void in archaeological theory with a conception of the expert practitioner. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State. Hendon, Julia A. 2000. Having and Holding: Storage, Memory, Knowledge and Social Relations. American Anthropologist 102(1):42–53. Herzog, Ze’ev and Lily Singer-Avitz 2016. Beer-Sheba III: the early Iron IIa enclosed settlement and the late Iron IIA-Iron IIB cities. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Hobbs, T.R. 1985. 2 Kings. Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 13. Waco, TX: Word Books. Hodel-Hoenes, Sigrid. 2000 Life and Death in Ancient Egypt: Scenes from Private tombs in New Kingdom Thebes. Translated from German by David Warburton. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Holland, Martin 2002. Das erste Buch Samuel. Wuppertal: Brockhaus. 178

References cited

Homan, Michael M. 2004. Beer and Its Drinkers: An Ancient Near Eastern Love Story. Near Eastern Archaeology 67(2):84–95. Hopkins, David C. 1985. The Highlands of Canaan. Agricultural Life in the Early Iron Age. Decatur, GA: Almond Press. Jacobs, Paul 1999–2005. Digmaster: Excavations in Field IV, Tell Halif. Mississippi State: Cobb Institute of Archaeology. Accessed from 1 June 2014 – 12 July 2018. http:// www.cobb.msstate.edu/dignew/FieldIV/START. HTM Joblonkay, Darren 2014. From Deep Structure to Discursive Formation: Advances in Knowledge Discovery from Archaeological Data Warehouses Utilizing the CRANE Framework. Paper Presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research, San Diego. Junker, Hermann 1940. Giza IV: Grabungen auf dem Friedhof des Alten Reiches bei den Pyramiden von Giza. Die Mastaba des K’jmenh (Kai-em-anch). Wien: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky. 1943. Giza VI: Grabungen auf dem Friedhof des Alten Reiches bei den Pyramiden von Giza. Die Mastabas des Nfr (Nefer), Kdfjj (Kedfi), K’hjf (Kahjef)und die westlich anschließenden Grabanlagen. Wien: Hölder-PichlerTempsky. Kamp, Kathryn A. 1987. Affluence and Image: Ethnoarchaeology in a Syrian Village. Journal of Field Archaeology 14(3):283–296. 1993. Towards an Archaeology of Architecture: Clues from a Modern Syrian Village. Journal of Anthropological Research 49(4):293–317. 2000. From Village to Tell: Household Ethnoarchaeology in Syria. Near Eastern Archaeology 63(2):84–93. Karageorghis, Vassos 1996. The coroplastic art of ancient Cyprus Vol. VI: The cypro-archaic period monsters, animals and miscellanea. Nicosia: Leventis Foundation. Karageorghis, Vassos, Gloria S. Merker, and Joan R. Mertens 2004. The Cesnola Collection: Terracottas. (CD). New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Katz, Hayah and Avraham Faust 2011. Distribution and Use of Storage Vessels in the Kingdom of Judah, in Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Naʾaman (eds.) The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin: 175–184. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Keel, Othmar and Thomas Staubli 2001. Im Schatten deiner Flügel: Tiere in der Bibel und im Alten Orient. Freiburg (Switzerland): Universitätsverlag. Kelso, James L. 1948. The ceramic vocubulary of the Old Testament. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Kent, Susan 1984. Analyzing Activity Areas. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. King, Philip J., and Lawrence E. Stager 2001. Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Köhler, Ludwig 1945. Kleine Lichter: fünfzig Bibelstellen erklärt. Zürich: Zwingli-Bücherei. Kramer, Carol 1982. Village Ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in Archaeological Perspective. New York: Academic. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lexiconcordance 2014. Lexicon-Concordance Online Bible: Key Word Studies: Translations Definitions Meanings & Etymology. incorporates Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament. http://lexiconcordance.com (accessed 20 July 2014 to 20 July 2015). Lichtheim, Miriam 1978. Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume II: The New Kingdom. Berkeley: University of California Press. Longacre, Robert E. 1989. Joseph: a story of divine providence. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Lundbom, Jack R. 2004. Jeremiah 21-36: a new translation with introduction and commentary. New York: Doubleday. Lutfiyya, A. M. 1966. Baytin, A Jordanian Village: A Study of Social Institutions and Social Change in a Folk Community. The Hague: Mouton. McCarter, P. Kyle 1980. I Samuel: a new translation with introduction and commentary. New York: Doubleday. McComiskey, Thomas Edward 1992. The Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel and Amos. Grand Rapids: Baker. MacDonald, Nathan 2008. What Did the Ancient Israelites Eat? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. McDowell, A.G. 1999. Village Life in Ancient Egypt: Laundry Lists and Love Songs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McGovern, Patrick E. 2003. Ancient Wine. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2009. Uncorking the Past: the quest for wine, beer and other alcoholic beverages. Berkeley: University of California Press. Maeir, Aren M. and Itzhaq Shai 2016. Reassessing the Character of the Judahite Kingdom: Archaeological Evidence for NonCentralized, Kinship-Based Components, in Saar 179

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Ganor, Igor Kreimerman, Katharina Streit, and Madeleine Mumcuoglu (eds.) From Sha‘ar Hagolan to Shaaraim Essays in Honor of Prof. Yosef Garfinkel: 323– 340. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Marfoe, L. 1979. The Integrative Transformation: Patterns of Sociopolitical Organizations in Southern Syria. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 234: 1-42. Matthews, Wendy 2012. Defining Households: Micro-Contextual Analysis of Early Neolithic Households in the Zagros, Iran, in Bradley J. Parker and Catherine P. Foster (eds.) New Perspectives on Household Archaeology: 183-216. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Mauss, Marcel 1966. Die Gabe. Translation by Eva Moldenhauer of the original title Essai sur le don. 1950. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Mayerson, Philip 1992. The Gaza ‘Wine’ Jar (Gazition) and the ‘Lost’ Ashkelon Jar (Askalonion). Israel Exploration Journal 42:76–80. Mazar, Amihai 1981. Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site near Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 31:1–36. 1990. Iron Age I and II Towers at Giloh and the Israelite Settlement. Israel Exploration Journal 40:77–101. Mazar, Amihai and Nava Panitz-Cohen 2007. It is the Land of Honey: Beekeeping at Tel Rehov. Near Eastern Archaeology 70:202–219. Mazar, Amihai, Nava Panitz-Cohen, and Nachum Applbaum 2001. The Finds from the First Millenium BCE. Timnah (Tel Batash) Final Reports. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology/Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Mazar, Amihai, Baruch Brandl, Nitzan Amitai-Preiss, Nava Panitz-Cohen, and Uri Baruch 2006. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean, 1989-1996. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society. Mazar, Eilat 2001. The Phoenicians in Achziv, the southern cemetery. Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterranéa 7. Barcelona: Universidad Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona. 2004. The Phoenician Family Tomb N. 1 at the northern cemetery of Achziv (10th to 6th centuries BCE). Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterranéa 10. Barcelona: Universidad Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona. Meyer, Rudolf and Herbert Donner (eds.) 1987–2013. Wilhelm Gesenius: Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. Meyers, Carol 2002. Having Their Space and Eating There Too: Bread Production and Female Power in Ancient Israelite Households. Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women’s Studies & Gender Issues 5:14–44.

2007. From Field Crops to Food: Attributing Gender and Meaning to Bread Production in Iron Age Israel, in D.R. Edwards and C.T. McCollough (eds.) The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the ‘Other’ in Antiquity. Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers: 67–84. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Meyers, Carol 2016. Women’s Lives. in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Ancient Israel, edited by Susan Niditch, pp. 415–432. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Meyers, Carol L and Eric M. Meyers 1987. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. New York: Doubleday. Milgrom, Jacob 2001. The Anchor Bible: Leviticus 23–27; A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday. Miller, Maxwell 1993. Reading the Bible Historically: The Historian’s Approach, in Stephen R. Haynes and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.) To Each its own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticism and their Application: 17–34. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press. Mills, C. Wright 1959. The Sociological Imagination. 2000 reprint. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Most, Glenn W. 2006. Hesiod. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Müller, U. 1977. Keramik. in Kurt Galling (ed.) Biblisches Reallexikon (BRL2):168–185. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Murphy, Roland E. 1998. Word Biblical Commentary Volume 22: Proverbs. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Myres, John L. 1914. Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from Cyprus. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Neusner, Jacob 1983. Judaism in Society: The Evidence of the Yerushalmi. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Newberrry, Percy E. 1893. Beni Hasan: Part II. Archaeological Survey of Egypt. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Nishimura, Yoko 2012. The Life of the Majority: A Reconstruction of Household Activities and Residential Neighborhoods at the Late-Third-Millennium Urban Settlement at Titriş Höyük in Northern Mesopotamia, in Bradley J. Parker and Catherine P. Foster (eds.) New Perspectives on Household Archaeology: 347-372. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Noth, Martin 1965. Leviticus: a Commentary. Translated by J.E. Anderson from the German Das dritte Buch Mose, Leviticus. London: SCM Press. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Magda H. 1913. Griechische Sitten und Gebräuche auf Cypern; mit Berücksichtigung von Naturkunde und Volkswirtschaft 180

References cited

sowie der Fortschritte unter Englischer Herrschaft. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Özbal, Rana 2012. The Challenge of Identifying Households at Tell Kurdu (Turkey), in by Bradley J. Parker and Catherine P. Foster (eds.) New Perspectives on Household Archaeology:321-346. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Ostrom, Elinor 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Paz, Yitzhak 2016. Stone Tools, in Ze’ev Herzog and Lily Singer-Avitz (eds.) Beer-Sheba III: The Early Iron Age IIA enclosed settlement and the Late Iron IIA – IIB cities: 1258–1285. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Pellauer, David 2007. Ricoeur: a Guide for the Perplexed. London; New York: Continuum. Petersen, David L. 1985. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 : A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: CSM Press. Petterson, Anthony R. 2015. Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Pfälzner, Peter 2002. Modes of Storage and the Devleopment of Economic Szstems in the Early Jezireh-Period, in L. al-Gailani-Werr, John Curtis, Harriet Martin, Augusta McMahon, Joan Oates, and Julian Reade (eds.) On Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Hounour of his 75th Birtday:259–286. London: NABU Publications. Pomeroy, Sarah B. 1994. Xenophon. Oeconomicus. A Social and Historical Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pluckhahn, Thomas J. 2010. Household Archaeology in the Southeastern United States: History, Trends and Challenges. Journal of Archaeological Research 18:331–385. Rainey, Anson F. 1983. Wine from the Royal Vineyards. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 245:57–62. Rainville, L. 2012. Household Matters: Techniques for Understanding Assyrian Houses, in Bradley J. Parker and Catherine P. Foster (eds.) New Perspectives on Household Archaeology: 139–164. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Renz, Johannes 1995. Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Reynolds, Peter J. 1979. A general report of underground grain storage experiments at the Butser Ancient Farm Research Project, in Marceau Gast and François Sigaut (eds.) Les techniques de conservation des grains à long terme:

70–88. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Ricœur, Paul 2004. Memory, history, forgetting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rosch, Eleanor 1977. Human Categorisation. In Advances in CrossCultural Psychology, Volume 1. edited by N. Warren. New York: Academic Press. Rosen, Baruch 1986. Subsistence economy of Stratum II, in Israel Finkelstein (ed.) ‘Izbet Sartah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Haʽayin: 156–185. Oxford: B.A.R. Rosenfeld, Azri und Harry Wechsler 2000. Pattern Recognition: Historical Perspective and Future Direction. International Journal of imaging systems and technology 11:101–116. Routledge, Bruce 2013. Household Archaeology in the Levant. in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 370:207– 219. Sallade, J. K. 1989. Ethnoarchaeological Investigations, 1976, in L. E. Stager and A. M. Walker (eds.) American Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus 1973-1980: 407–424. Oriental Institute Communications 24. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Säve-Söderbergh, Torgny 1957. Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs. Oxford: University Press. Schloen, J. David 2001. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, ID: Eisenbrauns. 2016. Economy and Society in Iron Age Israel and Judah: an archaeological perspective, in Susan Niditch (ed.) The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Ancient Israel: 433–453. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Schroer, Silvia 1992. Die Samuelbücher. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. Seebass, Horst 2000. Josephgeschichte. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Sergi, Omer, Avshalom Karasik, Yuval Gadot and Oded Lipschits 2012. The Royal Judahite Storage Jar: a computergenerated typology and its archaeological and historical implications. Tel Aviv 39:64–92. Shafer-Elliott, Cynthia 2013. Food in Ancient Judah : Domestic Cooking in the Time of the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Equinox. Singer-Avitz, Lily 2011. Household activities at Tel Beersheba, in Assaf Yasur-Landau, Jennie R. Ebeling and Laura B. Mazow (eds.) Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond: 275–301. Boston: Brill. 181

Household food storage in Ancient Israel and Judah Singleton, Vernon L. 1996. An Enologist’s Commentary on Ancient Wines, in Patrick E. McGovern, Stuart J. Fleming and Solomon H. Katz (eds.) The Origins and Ancient History of Wine: 67–77. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach. Sinos, S. 1986. Types of Rural Dwellings in Cyprus, in V. Karageorghis (ed.) Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident ‘: 520–533. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Republic of Cyprus. Snell, Daniel C. 1992. Taxes and Taxation, in David Noel Freedman, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf and John David Pleins (eds.) The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 6:338–340. New York: Doubleday. Souvatzi, Stella 2012. Between the Individual and the Collective: Household as a Social Process in Neolithic Greece, in Bradley J. Parker and Catherine P. Foster (eds.) New Perspectives on Household Archaeology:15–44. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Spaulding, Albert C. 1953. Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types. American Antiquity 18-4:305–313. Spaulding, Albert C. 1954. Reply to Comment on A.C. Spaulding, ‘Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types’. American Antiquity 19-4:391–393 Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor 1964. Genesis. New York: Doubleday. Stager, Lawrence 1985. The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260:1–35. Staubli, Thomas 2009. Nahrungszubereitung, in Frank Crüsemann (ed.) Sozialgeschichtliches Wörterbuch zur Bibel. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Staubli, Thomas and Silvia Schroer 2014. Menschenbilder der Bibel. Ostfildern: Patmos. Trigger, Bruce G. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tufnell, Olga, and Margaret Alice Murray 1953. Lachish (Tell Ed Duweir) III. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ullah, Isaac 2012. Particles of the Past: Microarchaeological Spatial Analysis of Ancient House Floors, in Bradley J. Parker and Catherine P. Foster (eds.) New Perspectives on Household Archaeology: 139–164. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Ussishkin, David 2004. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. de Vaux, Roland 1961. Ancient Israel: its life and institutions. Translated by John McHugh. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. Watson, Patty Jo 1979. Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran. Viking Fund Publication in Anthropology 57. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 1986. Archaeological Interpretation, 1985, in David J. Meltzer, Don D. Fowler and Jeremy A. Sabloff (eds.) American Archaeology Past and Future. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Weber, Max 1904. Die ‘Objektivität‘ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 19:22–87. Winlock, Herbert E. 1955. Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt: from the tomb of Meket-Re at Thebes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wylie, Alison 2002. Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Zapassky, Elena and Baruch Rosen 2006. 3-D Computer Modelling of Pottery Vessels: The Case of Level K-4, in Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin and Baruch Halpern Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Season: 601–617. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Zimhoni, Orna 1999. Two ceramic assemblages from Lachish Levels III and II. Tel Aviv 17:3–52. 2004. The Pottery of Levels III and II, in David Ussishkin (ed.) The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994): 1789–1906. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Zimmerli, Walther 1969. Ezechiel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Zorn, J. R. 2009. The Daily Grind at Tel Dor: A Trough and Basin from an Iron Age I Kitchen. Eretz Israel 29: 267-280.

182