Early Israel: An Egalitarian Society

045

This is going to be a difficult article to illustrate, I thought to myself as I started to write this article for BAR. How do you illustrate something that isn’t there?

This is an article about burials—or perhaps tombs would be more accurate. But they aren’t there!¹

At least not at this time and place. The time is Iron Age I and Iron Age IIA—and even early Iron Age IIB. This is essentially the Biblical period. Iron I is usually denominated the period of the Judges, from about 1200 to the first half of the tenth century B.C.E. Iron Age IIA and the beginning of the Iron Age IIB cover the rest of the tenth century (the time of the United Monarchy) as well as the ninth and even the first part of the eighth century B.C.E. So we’re really talking about 1200 B.C.E. to the beginning of the eighth century B.C.E., a period of about 450 years.

The place is (mainly) the highlands of ancient Israel, which includes the area from northern Samaria all the way south through Benjamin and Judah to the southern slopes of the Hebron hill country (but the phenomenon expands even somewhat beyond that).

At this time and in this region, archaeologists have rarely discovered a tomb. While briefly 046 mentioned by many scholars, this phenomenon has received only scant attention.² Yet the contrast is stark. In the very same region in other periods, including the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 B.C.E.) and later phases of the Iron Age (eighth–seventh centuries B.C.E.), burials are common.³ And contemporaneous Iron Age I burials have been found in other parts of the Land of Israel.⁴

The rarity of Iron Age I–IIA burials in the highlands cannot, therefore, be attributed to a differentiation between highlands and lowlands, on the one hand, nor to the time frame on the other. The “lack of burials phenomenon” is unique for the early Iron Age in the highlands. This glaring characteristic of the Iron Age highland society requires a systematic explanation.

Theoretically there are a number of possible explanations. This Iron Age highland population could have left dead bodies unattended or even intentionally exposed. This was inferred, for example, in Iron Age Britain, where burials are lacking.⁵ But in that case human bones were found scattered all over excavation areas at many sites. Not so in Israel’s Iron I–IIA. Moreover, historically, such treatment is alien to the ancient Near East in general, and to ancient Israel in particular. Other theoretical possibilities, like cremation, are also inappropriate in our case.

Israeli archaeologist Raz Kletter was the first to address the phenomenon systematically,⁶ and he clearly came up with the right answer: The Iron Age dead in this area were buried in simple inhumations located outside settlements, in open fields with no grave goods. And, by the way, archaeological excavations are not usually conducted in these areas.

Although this explanation provides an explanation as to how these ancient Israelites were buried, the more difficult question is: Why? Why did the Israelite population⁷ during the period of the settlement and most of the period of the monarchy bury their dead so simply?

Kletter himself has suggested some possibilities: This was, in his words, “a relatively poor society, without a developed class structure and consolidation of wealthy, upper classes. It does not mean complete lack of classes, only that distances between ranks were not large. Most of the people had little or no surplus to afford for grave goods, hence there are no burials with large assemblages of artifacts, nor burials of an aristocracy.”⁸

While clearly pointing in the right direction, this remains only a partial (and brief) explanation at best and cannot fully account for the phenomenon.

Kletter discusses only Iron Age I society, but the rarity of burials continues into the time of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah down to the eighth century B.C.E. (in the case of the northern kingdom of Israel, until its destruction by the Assyrians).⁹ Society in these kingdoms was not poor. Kletter’s explanation falls short of accounting for the rarity of burials in the Iron Age IIA and much of the Iron Age IIB (980–750 B.C.E.).

Moreover, grave goods, including pottery of all types, were not expensive. Even “poor” or “simple” societies (e.g., in the Neolithic) could afford them, let alone the Iron I society, which clearly possessed material surpluses.

Finally, multiple cave burials, which were typical 047 during the Late Bronze Age, could have been carried out during the Iron Age I (even in new caves) without any surplus being “wasted” and with even less work than digging graves in the ground. Such burials would easily fit a “classless” society as depicted by Kletter.

Any of the above arguments, let alone the combination of all of them, is enough to show that the lack of surplus—or the “poor” situation in the highlands—does not account for the observed phenomenon. The poverty of this society cannot, therefore, explain the phenomenon. So if “poor” burials (simple inhumations) do not reflect “poor” society, what do they reflect?

The above explanation is based on an assumed direct connection between social reality and the archaeological record, similar to ideas that were prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s, during the heyday of the “New (Processual) Archaeology.” According to this view, burials reflect social reality, and an analysis of burials will expose all segments of society. However, more recent studies have shown that this equation of behavior and social structure is not necessarily correct. While there are many instances in which burials can be used as an index of ranking, there are also many instances in which this is not the case. Archaeology does preserve a record of past behavior, but there are elements that stand between the record left by behavior and the actual social structure of the society that produced the archaeological record—and these are ideas and beliefs. In short, ideology can influence behavior, resulting in a pattern that is different from social reality.

Examples that highlight the possible difference between social reality and its supposed material representations are multiple. For example, among the Sakalawa of Madagascar, social hierarchy is expressed in burials, but due to complex symbolism, kings are buried in the “poorest” tombs.¹⁰ Hence, an analysis of Sakalawa burials will not expose their social structure.

An example closer to Israel comes from Saudi Arabia. It is described in a classic study by Peter Metcalf and Richard Huntington¹¹: “[T]he Kings of Saudi Arabia are buried with Spartan simplicity, their only monuments being rough piles of stones.” This was a result of the fact that “in some of the stricter sects of Islam a conscious effort is made to stress the ‘leveling’ aspect of death.” In short, “simple” burial does not correspond to social reality. Here the simplicity of the tomb reflects an ideology or ethos, rather than “social reality.”

In the case of Israel in the Iron Age, it is also true that simple burials do not reflect “social reality.” The society in much of this period was not poor. Nor was it unstratified. We must look elsewhere for an explanation. In short, there must have been an ideology of some sort that influenced the way the Israelites disposed of their dead. What was this ideology or belief system that led the Israelites to use simple inhumations, and to avoid more permanent types of tombs so typical in other regions and in other periods?

I believe the answer lies in an ideology of egalitarianism and simplicity. The simplest type of burial is simply a reflection of this ideology or ethos.

The best way to test this interpretation is to see whether a similar pattern is reflected in other aspects of the life of that society. Is the same ideology mirrored in other archaeological remains? I think it is.

As is well known, Israelite pottery of the Iron Age is undecorated.^{a 12} This is in contrast to the 048 situation in the Late Bronze Age and in the adjacent lowlands during the Iron Age. It is commonly recognized that pottery decoration conveys messages of various aspects of the society that produced it and that a lack of any decoration is an appropriate channel to convey a message of egalitarianism and simplicity. An illuminating parallel to such behavior, although in a completely different time and place, can be seen in James Deetz’s discussion of early American life. Deetz concludes that “Puritan attitudes toward decoration of everyday objects might have had an effect on the delftware industry in the London area in the form of reduction of the amount of decorated pottery before the restoration.”¹³ Deetz applied the same type of reasoning to explain the lack of decoration on various other Anglo-American artifacts: It was a reflection of Puritan attitudes. What we witness in Iron Age Israel is a similar situation, where an ethos is responsible for the “simple” pottery and for the extreme rarity of decoration.

Turning from the decoration on the pottery to the extent of the pottery repertoire, we find a similar situation. Much has been written recently about the continuity of pottery forms from the 049 Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age. This is true as far as forms are concerned, but the ceramic repertoire—that is, the pottery forms that are used—is extremely limited when compared to both Iron Age I lowlands and the Late Bronze Age throughout the region. My colleagues Shlomo Bunimovitz and Assaf Yasur-Landau have suggested that the “poverty and isolation reflected in the Israelite [pottery] assemblage” might “hint at ideological behavior” (emphasis in original).¹⁴ Clearly, a limited pottery repertoire can also convey a message of simplicity and egalitarianism.¹⁵

Still another indication of these characteristics is the extreme rarity of imported pottery. The rarity of imported pottery to Israelite sites reflects this same ethos of simplicity.¹⁶

The almost-total absence of temples in the Iron Age I highland villages and in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah is also very indicative. While temples are abundant all over during the Late Bronze Age, they disappear from the archaeological record in Iron Age I and II in the highlands.¹⁷ The extreme rarity of temples (probably also temple personnel, although it is likely that there were local priests) might also be a result of an egalitarian ideology that rejected overt signs of hierarchy.

The common Israelite domestic structure of this period is known as the four-room house. Although a few examples can be found in adjacent areas, the vast majority are within Israel. An egalitarian ideology is clearly reflected in the plan of the four-room house, as can be seen in an analysis of the movement within this house.^b Each room is easily accessible; there is no hierarchy in the structuring of the rooms. Once in the central room, a person could go directly to the desired space. If a “better” space was reserved for a superior person, this is not reflected in the spatial arrangements.

Finally, we note a phenomenon that has been little discussed: the lack of royal inscriptions in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Israel and Judah have been excavated to a much greater extent than any other polity in the region. And, as might be expected, they yield more finds of almost any type, including inscriptions, than any other state in the region. But when one examines the quantity of royal inscriptions, the situation changes dramatically. Although not abundant anywhere, every state in the region has yielded some royal inscriptions—except Israel and Judah.¹⁸ This is not likely to be simply an accident of archaeological preservation—the luck of the spade—and the large number of excavations suggests that this is a representative sample. It is likely that a few royal inscriptions will be found in the future, but their relative quantity (in comparison with the area exposed) will always be minimal when compared with other states (unless many dozens are suddenly found in Israel and Judah). The absence of royal inscriptions is also an indication that Israel and Judah did not generally approve of this genre, thus limiting the king’s ability to “show off,” in line with the above-mentioned ideology.

All these factors point in the same direction. The Israelite population had an ideology of egalitarianism and simplicity. It is this ideology that is probably responsible for the fact that burials are so rare at this time and in this place.

This same ethos of simplicity and egalitarianism—what some have characterized as a primitive democracy—was noticed by a number of scholars from various schools of thought, in works written generations ago up to the present day, and by scholars as prominent as William Foxwell Albright, Frank Moore Cross and William Dever.¹⁹ As Dever has put it:

“[T]here does appear to be a kind of primitive democracy reflected in the settlements and the remains of their material culture.”²⁰

This is an echo of a sentiment earlier articulated by Cross:

“[T]here is a strong … patriarchal-egalitarian anti-feudal polemic in early Israel, which appears to be authentic, grounded in history.”²¹

Similar views have been expressed by Ephraim Speiser, Norman Gottwald, George E. Mendenhall, Robert Gordis, James L. Kelso, Gerhard Lenski and many others.²² While many of these studies—especially the earlier ones—were naïve and simplistic, it is clear that something in the data drove all these scholars to the same conclusion—that ancient Israel had an egalitarian ethos. I must stress that ancient Israel was not an egalitarian society—no society is truly egalitarian, and Iron II Israel was quite hierarchical—but, like some other societies, it had an egalitarian ideology. Keep in mind the above example from Saudi Arabia, which 062 shows how ideology comes between human behavior (and the archaeological record) and “real” social structure.

The rarity of Israelite burials is a unique phenomenon of that society, as burials are identified in other regions at that time and in the very same region in other periods. This is not simply a representation of social reality but seems to have resulted from an ideology of simplicity and egalitarianism. A similar ideology seems to explain additional facets of Israelite material culture, as discussed above. It is likely that when facing societies in which burials had an immense social meaning, the Israelites chose not to use such burials.²³ In this way the particular trait (burial practice) seems to converge with the general (egalitarian ideology), both of which were used to differentiate the new settlers in the highlands from their contemporaneous “others,” forming part of Israel’s 063 self-definition in the Iron Age.

In the Iron Age IIB–C, the Judahite tomb—a typical burial cave that was used by extended families over generations—became dominant. The reasons behind the adoption of this new type of burial by large segments of Judahite society will be discussed in a future article.²⁴

This is going to be a difficult article to illustrate, I thought to myself as I started to write this article for BAR. How do you illustrate something that isn’t there? This is an article about burials—or perhaps tombs would be more accurate. But they aren’t there!1 At least not at this time and place. The time is Iron Age I and Iron Age IIA—and even early Iron Age IIB. This is essentially the Biblical period. Iron I is usually denominated the period of the Judges, from about 1200 to the first half of the tenth century B.C.E. Iron […]