Ancient Israel’s Stone Age

046

In the decades before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 C.E., Jews gave a new and heightened emphasis to ritual purity. In fact, purity laws may have been interpreted more strictly at this time than at any point before—or since.

A very early rabbinic text says simply, “Purity broke out among Israel.”¹ As early as this text is, however, it postdates the destruction of the Temple by about a hundred years. So it is fair to ask, How reliable is it?

Until recently this question plagued historians of the era, called the late Second Temple period, which 047extended from the first century B.C.E. until the Roman destruction in 70 C.E.: To what extent could they rely on rabbinic texts dating hundreds of years after the events they describe? Not at all, some prominent scholars insisted.

But the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has changed this understanding. The scrolls make it clear that in the period before the destruction of the Temple, ritual purity was so controversial and so important—at least in theory—that it created major divisions among Jews of the time. One of the most famous Dead Sea Scrolls (especially for BAR readers) is MMT,^a which lists a series of religious laws (called halakhot; singular, halakhah) over which the Dead Sea Scroll sect (perhaps the Essenes) disagreed with other Jews, presumably those Jews (probably the Pharisees) whose allegiance was to the Temple priesthood. For each law, MMT presents the views of the scroll community and then the opposition’s stance, in this format: We, the 048Dead Sea Scroll sect, believe this; and our opposition believes that. In this way, MMT preserves the halakhah of both the Dead Sea Scroll community and its rivals, the Temple priesthood.

What issues did these Jews argue about? What caused them to form separate groups?

Here are some of the concerns raised in MMT: If pure water in a pure vessel is poured into an impure vessel, the water in the impure vessel certainly becomes impure; but does the impurity travel up the poured stream of water so that the remaining water in the pure vessel also becomes impure (along with the formerly pure vessel)? Further, when someone purifies himself or herself in a ritual bath (Hebrew, mikveh; plural, mikva’ot), is the purification effective immediately upon the individual’s exit from the mikveh or only when the sun sets? The centrality of these kinds of questions to the Dead Sea Scroll community amply demonstrates the importance of ritual purity at the time.

As we know, however, laws on the books are often widely ignored. Was that the case with the purity laws?

To answer this question, let’s examine the archaeological evidence.

Many ritual baths have been discovered, and almost all of them date to the late Second Temple period. Most, however, have been found at sites associated with wealthy people. Does this mean that ritual purity was of concern primarily to the rich? We will return to this question.

Another interesting archaeological fact about this period: The Second Commandment, forbidding graven images, was strictly interpreted. For other periods, we have considerable archaeological evidence that Jews created images of humans and animals, even to decorate their synagogues. But archaeologists have uncovered virtually no late Second Temple period images of animals or humans in a Jewish context. This is certainly consistent with a strict application of ritual purity laws at this time.

Indeed, recent excavations have confirmed that Jews of all social and economic levels were deeply concerned with ritual purity in this period. At this time we see the rise of an important commercial enterprise: the manufacture of stone vessels. As we will see, stone vessels were considered immune from impurity, and their popularity during this short period provides strong evidence of heightened interest in ritual purity among all Jews.²

These stone utensils first appear in the archaeological record in the second half of the first century B.C.E.; they were most common in the first century C.E. The vessels—so critical to purity laws relating to the Jerusalem Temple—disappeared almost completely after the Roman destruction of the city in 70 C.E.

Granted, stone vessels were used prior to this period. These earlier utensils were generally made of hard limestone or basalt and were used for grinding and pounding. But in the late Second Temple period, a special kind of stone vessel made of chalk (a soft limestone) became very popular. The vessels were usually made of white chalk and sometimes of black (or bituminous) chalk, although black chalk was preferred for tabletops. Most of the stone came from quarries in the eastern part of Jerusalem, where white chalk is abundant. Workshops for the production of stone vessels were concentrated all over Jerusalem and its environs. Smaller vessels were often manufactured inside the quarries, while larger vessels were produced in workshops throughout the city.

In the 1980s, I led an excavation in a cave just north of Jerusalem. The cave belonged to a group known as the Hizma caves (after a village by that name), which had once served as a quarry. In our cave, we found the remains of a stone-working facility from the late Second Temple period.

The most common type of small stone vessel was the so-called measuring cup; we excavated dozens of them in the Hizma cave. Scholars initially thought these vessels were used for measuring, hence the name. But although a few of these mugs may have been used for measuring, this was simply the common household mug during the late Second Temple period. The vessels were also used for ritual washing. Then, as today, before eating, observant Jews washed their hands and said a blessing: “Blessed are you, O Yahweh, our God, ruler of the universe, who has 049sanctified us and commanded us to have clean (pure)^b hands.” These mugs come in various sizes and usually have one handle, although some of them have two. The two-handled mugs look remarkably like cups still used today for ritual hand washing before meals.

The measuring cups found in the Hizma cave had been damaged at various stages of manufacture. Discarded as valueless by the stonecutters, these vessels, and the iron knives and chisels found with them, allow us to reconstruct each step of the production process.

After a chunk of stone was detached from the rock, the carver used a mallet and chisel to give it the basic shape of a vessel. Next, the vessel was hollowed out with mallet, gouge and chisel. (Judging from the finds, many vessels must have been damaged at this stage.) Finally, the outer surface of the vessel was fashioned with a fine chisel. No effort was made to smooth the chisel marks on the side of the vessel.

Several other types of small vessels, including square bowls with ledgelike handles on the rim, were also fashioned by this method.

Some small vessels, however, such as straight-walled round bowls and small jars with lids, were made on a simple bow lathe, similar to those still used today in some traditional societies. One of the most popular products, especially in Jerusalem, was a goblet-shaped vessel without handles. Assorted plates and platters were also turned on a lathe.

Large vessels—sometimes made from stone blocks weighing almost 800 pounds—were manufactured on massive heavy-duty lathes. Some of these vessels may have been associated with the Temple; only a handful of them have been found outside Jerusalem. Or they may have been used to store ritually clean water for washing hands, as illustrated in the New Testament story of Jesus’ transformation of water into wine at Cana, in Galilee: “Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification” (John 2:6).

The largest and most diverse assortment of stone vessels has been discovered in Jerusalem—in excavations in the City of David, in the Upper City, on the Ophel south of the Temple Mount, and in tombs surrounding the city. Jerusalem was clearly the center for the production, distribution and use of stone vessels 050during the Second Temple period.

North of Jerusalem, the territory of Benjamin, where dozens of ancient settlements are known, was also rich in stone vessels. In almost all of the settlements, mikva’ot were also discovered, indicating that Jews lived there. Stone vessels have also been found in settlements east of Jerusalem, such as Bethany; south of the city; in the Galilee, at sites such as Nazareth and Capernaum; and on the Golan Heights, at sites such as Gamla.

In fact, stone vessels have been unearthed at more than 60 sites, as shown on the map on page 48. Almost no stone vessels have been found in Samaria or the Hebron hill country, however. This is to be expected, because the former region was occupied mainly by Samaritans and the latter by Idumeans, neither of whom observed the laws of ritual purity related to stone vessels. Stone vessels are rarely present in non-Jewish regions and almost never in the lands and cities beyond the reach of Jewish settlement.

Stone vessels were also absent from certain very wealthy Jewish sites, including Herodium (a redoubt of King Herod) and Sebastia (one of the capitals of the northern kingdom of Israel). This implies that the use of stone vessels—and ritual purity in general—was not a matter of fashion among wealthy Jews. Rather, it was a major concern among all classes of Jewish society.

What was it that connected these stone vessels to Jewish purity laws? Simply this: Stone vessels, unlike ceramic and glass vessels, were not subject to impurity.

Laws of ritual purity and impurity are of Biblical origin (Leviticus 11:33 ff.). During the Second Temple period, however, the rules were greatly expanded. Most of the purity laws relate to rites in the Temple. But the territory of the Temple was at least metaphorically expanded beyond the Temple confines, and ritual cleanliness was not limited to the bounds of the Temple but spread through the Jewish community. The laws affected ordinary people.

It made sense to purchase a vessel that could not become unclean, for once a vessel became ritually unclean, it had to be taken out of use. An impure pottery vessel, for example, had to be broken.

The rule that stone vessels are not subject to impurity is never stated explicitly but, like many Jewish religious laws, is implied by various statements in the rabbinic canon. Thus the Mishnah, the compilation of Jewish oral law, states: “All the utensils that were in the Temple required immersion [purification], except the altar of gold and the altar of bronze, for they were reckoned as like to the ground.”³ This implies that any object that is like the ground—made of earth—is not subject to impurity. In the Mishnah, this view is attributed to Rabbi Eliezer; other rabbis gave different explanations, however.

Elsewhere in the Mishnah, we find references to different kinds of vessels that were not susceptible to ritual impurity: cattle-dung vessels, stone vessels and earthen vessels.⁴ All these vessels were made of materials 051originating in the earth. Dung vessels were made of a mixture of animal dung and clay, which was dried in the sun. They were used mainly for the storage of dry materials, such as wheat, barley and lentils. Earthen vessels were defined as having been made of unfired clay. Because stone vessels were also unfired, allowing the stone to remain in its natural state, they were grouped with earthen vessels.

Other laws stress the importance of stone vessels for the purification of water. Water stored in a stone vessel could be made ritually clean on a festival or on the Sabbath, but water kept in a pottery vessel could not be made clean, since the instant the water became unclean, it imparted this uncleanness to the vessel as well, thus preventing the purification of the water it contained.

Although the rabbinic texts do not tell us why stone vessels are not subject to impurity, two reasons suggest themselves: One is a matter of principle; the other, a matter of availability. First, stone and earthen vessels may have been preferred simply because they came from the earth and remained in their natural state; they were not fired. Second, glass, metal and pottery vessels, which were often imported from the “lands of the gentiles,” were expensive compared with vessels made 052from dung, earth or stone. The designation of these cheaper vessels as ritually pure allowed all strata of society, not just the wealthy classes in Jerusalem, to maintain a high degree of ritual purity, especially in their dealings with the Temple. This led to the increased use of stone vessels by all who were observant. Stone was used to make imitations of those luxury vessels, found in upper-class Jerusalem homes, that were liable to become ritually unclean.

The increased observance of purity laws was not the only reason that stonecutting expanded in this period. Indeed, stone came to be used for many popular objects unrelated to purity laws, including square tables supported by one column-shaped leg and round tables with a three-footed wooden support.

The demand for ossuaries also contributed to the brisk trade in stone. These stone boxes, used for the secondary burial of bones after the flesh had decayed, remained in use for about as long as the stone vessels. (The origins of this burial custom are somewhat obscure and cannot be treated here, however.)

Nevertheless, one significant reason for the sudden growth of the stone industry was the increased emphasis on ritual purity in the late Second Temple period.

After the Roman destruction of the Temple, the numbers of stone vessels diminished drastically.

But stone vessels did not go entirely out of use. A few were found in caves occupied by the rebels of the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, the so-called Bar-Kokhba Revolt (132–135 C.E.). These Jews must have continued to observe the laws of ritual purity practiced before the destruction of the Temple, as they anticipated its speedy rebuilding. For the most part, however, purity laws connected with Temple rituals lapsed after its destruction, and the stone vessel industry eventually disappeared.

In the decades before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 C.E., Jews gave a new and heightened emphasis to ritual purity. In fact, purity laws may have been interpreted more strictly at this time than at any point before—or since. A very early rabbinic text says simply, “Purity broke out among Israel.”1 As early as this text is, however, it postdates the destruction of the Temple by about a hundred years. So it is fair to ask, How reliable is it? Until recently this question plagued historians of the era, called the late Second Temple […]