The Cemetery of Azor and Early Iron Age Burial Practices

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ben-ShlomoThe Cemetery of AzorDothan 1982, 29–33, 260–68; Brug 1985, 149–64;Gonen 1992, 124–31; Gilmour 1995, 155–63), whichinclude rock-cut tombs with a dromos and benches.The most typical examples are the five large rock-cuttombs at Tell el-Farah(S), Tombs 542, 552, 562, 532and 544 (Petrie 1930, 6–9, pls XVII–XXII, LXIV;Dothan 1982, 30), that were considered to have beenused by single families for several generations. Theyare lined in a row and are built of a stepped dromos, alarge hall with elevated benches and in two cases anadditional inner hall. The multiple burials includedsupine burials, many burial goods of Canaanite andPhilistine pottery, small finds, and in two casesanthropoid coffins. The ‘Philistine’ tomb at ‘Eitun(Edelstein and Aurant 1992) may also be similar.Note, however, that this type of tomb may also betraced to some extent in bi-lobate Late Bronze Agetombs of the southern Levant (Stiebing 1970). Thus,generally, the Philistine character of other Iron Iburials is not evident from distinct funerary practices,but rather, the relation to the Philistines is inferred,either from the geographic location (in Philistia), orfrom the Philistine vessels found in the graves, and is,thus, highly circumstantial.The social and cultural aspects of the burials atAzor can be examined according to the type of burialand the burial goods. The brick-case tombs are verypoor in burial goods, while some of the pit burials arericher, as well as the jar burials (Table 3; Fig. 20).Items buried with the deceased can reflect eitherpersonal items (such as clothes, jewellery), itemsshowing status (such as weapons) and items essentialfor ‘the well being of the spirit’ for the world beyond(see O’Shea 1984, 8–13; Baker 2006, 1). Both burialsof children and females at Azor often include manyburial gifts, such as pottery and scarabs, as well aspersonal items, such as jewellery and beads (seeTable 2). Jewellery appears with children and adults,while the finds of various pin types suggests that thebodies were buried clothed. There is not enoughinformation about scarabs, but they appear mostly inpit burials; scarabs are usually considered as amuleticobjects related to the well being of the spirit (Baker2006, 21). The burials in Burial Structure B (TombD79), reflecting a mixture in terms of age and genderof the deceased, contain all types of burial gifts.Weapons do not appear, with the exception of a bimetallicknife (Fig. 21:2), but this could be consideredas a tool too. Therefore, no clear correlationbetween burial types and social status or rank of thedeceased can be identified. If social status rather thanethnic origin is to be inferred from the burial goodsrecovered, one may suggest that there were no greatsocio-economic differences between the buriedindividuals at Azor, as most classes of objectsappear in most types of burials. An exception couldbe Tomb D63 which contains a gold item (the mouthpiece).Philistine pottery, mainly bowls, kraters and closedvessels are included in all types of burials during theIron I. Philistine jugs including ‘feeding bottles’appear; this form often appears in LHIIIC/Iron IAegean tombs as at Perati (Iakovidis 1969, pls 117,134, 138) and Cyprus (Steel 1995, 200). During theIron IIA the pit burials and burial structures containmainly Cypro-Phoenician and other juglets. ThePhilistine pottery within the burials could be interpretedas reflecting the ethnic identity of the deceasedas Philistines, but, these vessels could have beenselected as burial goods on account of their elaborateappearance, similar to the imported Cypriote andMycenaean vessels during the LBII and the Cypro-Phoenician/Black on Red vessels during the Iron IIA(Bloch-Smith 1992a, 79). According to petrographythe Philistine, as well as the non-Philistine, vesselswere locally produced and possibly local workshopsalready specialized in producing Philistine vessels, orPhilistine-imitations, to cope with the large demandof burial goods at Azor. Therefore, at this stage, theappearance of Philistine Bichrome vessels in burialsat the southern Levant cannot be considered as anindicator for a Philistine ‘ethnic’ identity of theindividuals in these burials. While distinct Aegean orPhilistine burial customs are difficult to identify inthis stage, some of the material culture from the IronI graves at Azor has certain Philistine components;whether Philistine people were indeed buried in someof these graves is still difficult to determine. Theanthropological evidence quoted from Azor, relatingto the many ‘brachicephalic’ type skulls from thegraves (especially from the brick-case tombs), whichallegedly represent foreign individuals (Dothan andDothan 1992, 115–17), should be taken with extremereservation, as most of these skulls were notexamined after the preliminary inspection, and theethnic significance of skull geometric characteristicsis also questionable (Y. Nagar, pers. comm.).Moreover, decorated, as well as non-decorated,pottery vessels from graves were possibly importantbecause of their content, which was related to certainfunerary rituals (e.g., Pitard 2002, 149). Bloch-Smithdistinguished between burial customs or ‘kits’ of thelowlands and highlands in Iron Age Palestine (1992a,143, table 9; Bloch-Smith 2002, 120–21, 124–25);such standard burial kits could represent the burialceremony rather than the status or rank of the50 Levant 2008 VOL 40 NO 1
Ben-ShlomoThe Cemetery of Azordeceased within the society (as suggested by Baker forMB–LB Ashkelon (2006, 1–2)).Temporal differences could be responsible for someof the variability in the cemetery at Azor, and mayinclude the earlier appearance of the brick-caseburials. These were better organized, maintainingthe same orientation, and were also more spaceconsuming. Possibly, in a later stage, there was nospace for such burials in the cemetery. Note, though,that in most cases these early brick-case burials were‘respected’ and not cut by the later pit burials. Asequence in which a well ordered assemblage oftombs is superimposed by a less ordered one wasnoted also at Tell es-Sa’idiyeh (Tubb 1988, 61) andTel Nami East (Zioni 2005, 31). The difference in thetype of burial pottery forms used for the Iron I andIron IIA burials at Azor should also be noted. Whilethe Iron I burials include many bowls, kraters andjars, the Iron IIA burials do not have jars but mostlyclosed forms as jugs, pyxides and juglets. This distinctchange in burial goods could testify to differences infunerary rituals, such as the use of small containersinstead of open vessels with provisions for the deadand/or for a funerary rite. Such changes in funeraryrituals could suggest differences in ethnic identityand/or religious beliefs of the buried individuals.However, as other aspects of the burials do notchange, such as the position and direction of thebody, this option seems less likely. Note also, thatdue to limitation of space used for burials the placingof larger pottery vessels as jars and kraters becomesvery difficult; thus, one could suggest that the shifttowards the usage of small juglets as burial goods inthis case resulted also from space constraints.When all parameters are taken into account itseems that there was a certain flexibility in burialpractices at Azor (see Table 3), possibly in similarityto other LBIIB and early Iron Age cemeteries, suchas the cemetery of Tell es-Sa’idiyeh, Tel Zeror and TelNami. This is attested by the variability of burialpractices, which are not necessarily correlated byvariability in burial goods. The brick-case tombs,found at Azor, are empty of finds while those at Telles-Sa’idiyeh have burial goods; the jar burials arefound with burial goods at Azor (as well as at KfarYehoshua and other sites), and are often empty offinds at Tel Zeror, Tell es-Sa’idiyeh and Tel Nami (seealso Zioni 2005, 67–68).ConclusionsThe results from the excavations at the cemetery ofAzor are important as they represent a very poorlyknownperiod in the southern Levant in terms offunerary contexts: the late Iron I–Iron IIA (11th–9thcenturies BC). Moreover, they reflect an interestingvariability in burial customs. The cemetery wasrelated to the Philistines, on account of its geographicallocation, possibly some burial customs, butmainly according to the type of burial goods. Yet, asshown, the appearance of these goods, especiallyPhilistine Bichrome vessels, cannot, by itself, indicatethe ethnic identity of the deceased, especially as thesevessels appear in such otherwise diverse burial typesin the southern Levant. It is suggested that thevariability of burial customs at Azor may reflect thelocal southern Levantine customs existing duringthe late LBII and Iron I, possibly related todifferences in Egyptian influence and to the rise oflocal ethnic entities. Yet, the same evidence couldreflect a situation where a fixed code of treatment ofthe dead had not yet developed in this period, leavinga free hand for various local, ethnic or even clanbasedburial traditions. During the Iron IIB–C, whenthe multi-chambered bench tombs become verycommon (e.g., Loffreda 1968; Bloch-Smith 1992a,42–52, 137; Bloch-Smith 1992b, 216–19; Bloch-Smith2002, 128–29), there is more uniformity in burialpractices, possibly related to new religious orideological factors. Thus, the continuation of theLBII more ‘lenient’ burial customs during the IronI–IIA stands in contrast to the relative uniformityand normative nature of burial customs of thesubsequent Iron IIB–C in Palestine.The Iron I material culture at Azor, which includessome Philistine components, is possibly ‘projected’onto a situation of the local variability of burialcustoms of the time, but whether some gravesrepresent actual burials of Philistine individuals isnot yet clear. The isolated examples of cremationburials cannot indicate distinct connections withAegean or Cypriote funerary traditions, while thejar burials seem to be a phenomenon more characteristicof the Levant in this period. The onlypossible evidence of types of tombs reflecting foreigninfluence in Iron I Philistia are, so far, the tombs fromTell Farah (S). Hopefully, the evidence from Azorwill help to fill, at least partly, the gap existing in ourknowledge of burial practices in Israel from the Iron Iand Iron IIA periods. As more archaeological data,in the form of excavated cemeteries, becomes availablefrom these periods, especially relating to sites inPhilistia, perhaps the various characteristics of theburial practices will be better understood in theirchronological, cultural, ethnic and socio-economiccontext.Levant 2008 VOL 40 NO 1 51
Page 1 and 2: The Cemetery of Azor and Early Iron
Page 3 and 4: Ben-ShlomoThe Cemetery of AzorTable
Page 6 and 7: Ben-ShlomoThe Cemetery of AzorFigur
Page 12 and 13: Ben-ShlomoThe Cemetery of Azoritsel
Page 20 and 21: Ben-ShlomoThe Cemetery of Azorcemet
Page 24 and 25: Ben-ShlomoThe Cemetery of AzorAckno
Page 26: Ben-ShlomoThe Cemetery of AzorYadin

The Cemetery of Azor and Early Iron Age Burial Practices

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?