Archaeology and Biblical Studies 18. Gert T. M. Prinsloo University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa

Transcription

1 RBL 07/2014 Avraham Faust Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation Archaeology and Biblical Studies 18 Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, Pp. xiv Paper. $ ISBN Gert T. M. Prinsloo University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa Avraham Faust is Professor of Archaeology at the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology at Bar-Ilan University. He has published extensively on the archaeology and history of the southern Levant. The current publication is yet another illustration of his profound knowledge of and experience in the field. As the title indicates, the book has a specific focus, namely, what archaeology teaches us regarding Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period, a period described by the author as a period of desolation in the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem at the hand of the Babylonian army in the summer of 586 BCE. The book is a joy to read, as lucid introductions and helpful summaries introduce and conclude every chapter, while the last chapter summarizes the entire book and clearly states the author s main conclusions. In an introduction (1 19) Faust identifies the problem to be investigated in his book: The Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem is, no doubt, an important historical event. For scholars, this date usually marks the end of the period of the Monarchy or even the end of the Iron Age and the beginning of the exilic period. For many, this date has been regarded as a watershed. But what was the reality in Judah after the 586 B.C.E. events, in the period known alternatively as the exilic period, the Neo-Babylonian period, or simply the sixth century B.C.E.? (1 2). Faust summarizes two basic theories regarding the situation in Judah in the Neo-Babylonian period. The classic approach emphasizes the discontinuity

2 between the relatively prosperous seventh century BCE and the dismal conditions in the sixth century. Adherents of this approach (e.g., Albright, Bright, Albertz, Finkelstein, Stern) point to the dearth of archaeological data for sixth-century BCE Judah and conclude that the Babylonian invasion decimated the population and included a largescale destruction of Judean cities, towns, and villages and deportation of the Judean population. The critical approach expresses skepticism about the so-called myth of the empty land (a term coined by Barstadt) and emphasizes the cultural continuity in Judah after the events of 586 BCE. According to this view, there was not much change in Judah after the fall of Jerusalem (e.g., Lemche, Carroll, Barstadt, Lipschits, Blenkinsopp, Middlemas). Faust indicates that [t]his debate triggered the present monograph. The book s central aim is to reexamine the archaeological reality in the Neo-Babylonian period, mainly in the territories of the former (Iron Age) kingdom of Judah, in order to shed new light on this troubled period. The chapters will aim to resolve the impasse, by expanding research into new avenues and examining new data, as well as by offering new methods to examine older data (10). The lack of clear-cut archaeological assemblages dated to the sixth century (11) complicates his endeavor. There is no fossiles directeurs (12) in the form of pottery that can directly and unequivocally be linked to sixth-century Judah. The discontinuity theory regards this lack of evidence as an indication that the region was only sparsely settled; therefore, the population left only scant remains (16). The continuity theory explains the same phenomenon as an indication that the period did not have a distinct material culture that differed from the previous period (16). It is clear that the lack of detailed and specific knowledge of sixth-century B.C.E. material culture (17) is a much-debated issue that deserves detailed examination. In a study comprising eleven chapters Faust then examines this archaeological reality. In chapter 1, The End of the Iron Age in Judah: Primary Archaeological Data (21 32), he discusses archaeological data from central sites in Judah and its vicinity. He indicates that the situation in the territory of Benjamin differs from the rest of the region. In Benjamin, evidence for devastation by the Babylonians is less pronounced than in the rest of Judah. Tells in the highlands from Jerusalem southward, eastern Judah, the Shephelah, and the Philistine cities conclusively point to the widespread destruction of the region by the Babylonians in the late seventh and early sixth century BCE. Both the continuity and discontinuity schools accept that urban centers were destroyed by the Babylonians, but the continuity school holds that the same is not true for rural areas. In chapter 2, Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: A Rural Perspective (33 72), Faust addresses the situation in rural areas in detail. No ceramic fossils directeurs are available to aid archaeologists in identifying specific sixth-century BCE sites. Moreover, rural areas

3 have been much neglected by the archaeological community to date. Faust proposes that patterns of continuity and discontinuity in rural settlement (34), or what he calls the instability index, can throw new light on sixth-century BCE Judah. He analyzes archaeological evidence from a number of rural sites in Jerusalem s environs and other parts of Judah, Benjamin, eastern Judah and the Judean desert, northern Judah, southern Judah, and the Negev and concludes that there is a low level of continuity between the Iron Age and the Persian period in the rural sector in the regions that were part of the kingdom of Judah (56). It indicates that there was a break in settlement between the two periods (57). The situation is different in the Samarian foothills, with a clear indication of continuity between the two periods. Faust concludes that data from Judah reflects a break and a real crisis in the transition from the Iron Age to the Persian period (61). He therefore questions the idea that Judah was not seriously harmed during the Babylonian conquest and argues that the area suffered a major blow (71) and that the vast majority of the rural sites of the late Iron Age simply ceased to exist, and did not continue into the Persian period (71). In chapter 3, Greek Imports and the Neo-Babylonian Period (73 92), Faust asks whether Greek imports, specifically the readily datable and thoroughly studied painted Greek pottery, can possibly be used to to learn about the sixth century and to date this settlement decline with more precision (73). He indicates that Greek imports are readily available for the late Iron Age and Persian periods, but there are hardly any such vessels that are dated to the sixth century (74). The straightforward explanation for this phenomenon is that the country was devastated and did not have much to offer international trade at the time (84). Coupled with the decline of Tyre as a major economic force behind the prosperity of the Mediterranean basin in the seventh century (90), as a result of the havoc and destruction (90) caused by the Babylonian campaigns to the west and the simultaneous rise of Cartage in the western Mediterranean, Faust concludes that there was a cessation of international contacts between the Mediterranean world and most parts of the land of Israel during the sixth century (91). It confirms his observation that the situation in Judahite cities and in the countryside during the sixth century favors the notion of discontinuity due to the devastating influence of the Babylonian conquest. In chapters 4, Social and Cultural Changes in Judah: The Iron Age to the Persian Period (93 117), and 5, Settlement and Demography in Judah: The Seventh to Second Centuries B.C.E. (119 47), Faust discusses a number of indications of social and cultural changes in Judah during the sixth century. Two dominant features of late Iron Age Judah, the family tomb and the four-room house (according to Faust linked to the prevailing Judahite worldview), are virtually absent from the sixth century onward. It suggests a profound social change in the traditional (extended) family structure of the biblical bet

4 av prevalent among the middle and upper classes of Judahite society (99) during the Iron Age; it can only be explained by a cultural break (100). The preexilic bêt ʼāb (extended family) is replaced by the bêt ʼābôt (a much larger demographic group) in the Persian period (see 106 7). The spatial implication of the mišpāḥâ of the monarchy (i.e., a territory occupied by a family group) disappears in the Persian period. Pillar figurines, frequently found in Judah of the eighth to the early sixth centuries, are absent from Jewish sites of the Persian period. A linguistic change from Standard to Late Biblical Hebrew occurred during the course of the sixth century. Thus Faust concludes that [s]ocially, culturally, and to a large extent religiously, there were drastic changes during the transition from the Iron Age to the Persian period (116). It is confirmed by estimates of the Judahite population from the seventh to the second centuries. Surveys suggest that the relative prosperity of the seventh century was followed by a major decline, and then a gradual recovery (147). The devastating influence of the Neo-Babylonian destruction cannot be excluded as reason for the sharp drop in Judahite settlement and demography during the sixth century. In chapter 6, The Babylonian Destruction in Context: Nebuchadnezzar and Sennacherib Compared (149 66), Faust argues that Sennacherib s campaign of 701 BCE, whose consequences for Judah were viewed as disastrous by practically all scholars, and rightly so, did not leave a mark which was even close to the consequences of the 586 B.C.E. war (166). In this context it is very difficult to speak of continuity and prosperity in Judah after the Babylonian campaigns (166). In chapter 7, Sixth-Century Judah as a Postcollapse Society (167 80), he indicates that sixth-century Judah conforms to the criteria of a so-called post-collapse society, where he defines collapse (following Tainter) as a rapid, significant, loss of an established level of socio-political complexity (168). The destruction of Judah was not a myth of empty land created by biblical writers. There was indeed a huge demographic and economic decline in the sixth century throughout the region (180). In chapter 8, Consequences of Destruction: The Continuity Theory Revisited ( ), Faust thus argues that the biblically derived conception of an empty land, to which the exiles returned in the Persian period (181), is not, as proponents of the continuity theory argue, a myth. Their claim that the traditional view regards the land as totally empty (207) is biased and unfair. Of course there were people in the land and the population was not exiled in its entirety. But the catastrophe was great, and the consequences grave. Nothing seems to have continued as before (207). In chapter 9, The Land of Benjamin Revisited (209 31), Faust questions the scholarly consensus that the region of Benjamin was not devastated during the Babylonian campaigns (209). He revisits archaeological evidence from various urban and rural settlements in the region and indicates that rural areas show more pronounced signs of

5 decline during the sixth century, while there is evidence for the continuation of central sites in Benjamin (229). However, [m]inimal Persion period remains were observed in most sites, indicating a major decline in the sixth century (229). The common view of prosperity in Benjamin throughout the sixth century is only a scholarly construct, originating in the Bible s hints that the region was an area of refuge and the new center of the remaining population (231). Archaeological evidence suggests that rural areas were abandoned, while the urban sector was not directly destroyed at the time of the Babylonian campaigns but was gradually abandoned after Gedaliah s assassination (231). By and large this region also attests to the devastating influence of the Babylonian campaigns. Chapter 10, Life in Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E. (233 42) then attempts to reconstruct life on the micro-scale in the sixth century (233) and concludes that inhabitants of Neo-Babylonian Judah were scattered from Benjamin in the north to the Negev in the south, but were very limited in number (241). The economy was simple, not far above subsistence level, and probably only included limited regional exchange (242). In chapter 11, Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: Summary and Conclusions (243 54), Faust neatly summarizes the previous chapters and concludes that the overall picture in Judah in the sixth century indicates that the continuity school s reconstructions are based on assertions rather than on data and that their writing is also based on misunderstanding of the archaeological literature and, in other instances, an uncritical reading of it (248). He asserts that, [w]hile many issues are still open and await further study, we can be certain that life did not continue as before in sixth-century Judah (249). The logical structure of the book and the clear and concise conclusions in the last chapter ensure that Faust s overall approach is balanced and convincing. I recommend the book as an important voice in the current debate on the interpretation and integration of literary and archaeological data in reconstructing ancient Israel s historical, religious, social, economic, and cultural context(s).