ilan 1995 mortuary practices teldan mb

8/3/2019 Ilan 1995 Mortuary Practices TelDan MB

1/25

U.S. copyright law(title 17 ofU.S. code)governs the reproduction

and r e d i s t r i b u t i o n ofcopyrighted material.


2/25

The Archaeology ofDeath

in the Ancient Near East

Edited by

Stuart Campbell

Anthony Green

O Oxbow Books, and the individual authors 1995

Oxbow Monograph 51


3/25

Mortuary Practices at TelI 5 Dan in the Middle BronzeAge: a Reflection of

Canaanite Society and

DavidIlanABSTRACT

-

Tel D a n (Xe1 el-Qadi) is a 20 ha,multi-period site located at themjor source of the J m h n River. Twenty-eight years of excavation have reveuledfourmjor strata ofM& BronzeAge occupation withtombs ofdafferent types underlying the living su$mes of each stratum.No contemporaneotlsextramural necropolishm been adentaj in the surrounding c o u n t r y d . Thestratified context of theMB tombs provzdes a rare oppor-tunity to dentab diachronic patterns and processes over approximately400years.

Fourtomb types have been distinguished. Jarburials are reserved for infants u& the age of2years (withm interesting exception), cist tombsfor older, generally sub-puberty chddren (andposszbly only males), chambertombsfor post-puberty indivaduals of both sexes, and the single shaft burial contains adult interments in associationwith a chambertomb.Hence, tomb type is associated with demographic status. Consanguinity is indicuted sincem s t , if not all, the tombs underlay domestic architecture (asthey do at several otherM B andLB sites in theLe-vant). Textual evzdencepoints in thisdirection aswell). Contrary to other archaeologicalevzdencefor such daffr-ential wealthm scded ranking isnot discerned in the mortuary remains.

The motifs of rebirth and the interconnexion of death and futi li ty are inherentto many of the archaeologi-cally observablebud practices.AUtomb types suggest a simulation of thewomb; the cadaver is almst alwaysplaced ina f ixed @etal?position with the head toward the tombopening. Offringx (kzspum in the western Se-mitic texts)reflect sustenance and paraphernalia consitent with socialpersona in another, orcontinued, exktence.The general picture correlates quite well with wsnwlogy anddeus ofdeath andfrtility represented in the Uga-mtic BaalEpic and the Tale ofAqhat, aswell CIS the Bible (Genesis 3:17-19). These&CISwere still with the an-cient Israelites to theprophetschugrin (Isaiah57:5-6).

Introduction; research strategy

The archaeological remains of funerary practicescan be approached from a number of perspectives, apoint amply demonstrated by the variety of papers inthis volume. In what is still the best concise summary ofthe analytical traditions that dominate the field,Chapman and Randsborg have identified three generalresearch orientations: the chronology-typology (ornormative) approach, the social organisation a pproach, and that concerned with religious interpretation(or the rationalist-idealist approach).

Most work carried out in the rich and varied ceme-tery remains ofthe Levant in this century utilised themto define cultures, their native regions and theirdiffusion, or the diffusion of their parts and ideas,following the Childean paradigm.2 Kathleen Kenyon,relying largely on tomb assemblages from Jericho andMegiddo, was perhaps the doyenne of this approach,rigidly attributing culture change to the movement ofhuman groups, mainly from Syria and Mesopotamia,into the southern L e ~ a n t . ~Her influence was crucial indetermining the methods and fields of inquiry adopted

1 Chapman & Randsborg 198 1,l -24. 2 E.g., Child e 1956; 1957.3 E g , Kenyon 1966; 1979.

117


4/25

ARCHAEOLOGYOF DEATH IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EASTIIIN

I A O50km

y - - . - ,- - .

Fig. 1S.l . Locutionmap after C M II2 (1979, Map 2.by archaeological research from the sixties through theeighties of this century.

Re-examination of past methods has shown that theuse of funerary remains to forward strictly chronologicalor typological studies results in interpretations that arelikely to be skewed and non-repre~entational.~Ofcourse, the proper culture history approach to mortuary

contexts requires that temporal and geographical rangesbe defined for individual components of materialcu lu re , to be followed by investigation into the meaningof patterns present.

Reliance on burial contexts also gave rise to somemistaken conceptions concerning the extent of culturalhomogeneity. With more excavation of settlement sitesand the rise of contemporary ethnographic studies itbecame clear that certain burial characteristics, andparticularly the degree of variability in burial methods,were common to many, unrelated culture^.^ This4 E.g., Kendall 1963, on some pitfalls in Petrie's sequence

dating of Predynastic tombs in Egypt; Bienkowski 1989, ontypes present on the tel of Jericho but not in contemporarytombs; Hanbury-Tenison 1986, on the differences betweentomb and settlement assemblages and their interpretativeramifications.

5 Chapman & Randsborg 1981,4-6.

realisation led to the resurgence of the social approachwhich sought to understand funerary practices asindicators of social phenomena such as rank and socialpersona. Binford was perhaps the first to expound thisview on a theoretical level and to test (and to somedegree validate) hypotheses using a more positivistapproach.6 Upon this foundation, the social approachhas since become the predominant one, adoptedbyscholars who have refined, broadened and correctedBinford's earlywork.7

It would be convenient to confine our study to asingle line of inquiry, either one of typology and culturehistory, one of beliefs and ideas (the 'trationalist-idealist' approach), or one of social meanings. It seemsto me, however, that no one of these can, by itself,explain both the patterns and the variability manifest inmortuary remains, whether these be inter- or intra-cultural. Therefore, the approach adopted herecombines all three lines of inquiry, accepting the risk of

watering down the theoretical validity of each.On a more primary level, it seems expedient to

adopt, at least initially, a more inductive and moreempirical programme, as opposed to the deductivemethod favoured by most social archaeologists. Ifresearch strategies (paradigms) and underlyingassumptions are made explicit, data can more honestlyspeak for themselves, and suggest hypotheses for testingin other contexts. In real life, deduction is alwaysfounded on pre-existing, inductively derivedinformation. The present writer has not yet encountered

any theory of mortuary behaviour to account for allaspects of cross-cultural variability; Ucko's warningabout the complex nature of burial practices stands asmuch a beacon today as when it was first written.*

Four basic, perhaps self-evident, assumptionsunderlie this study and its research goals:

1. Death is a central event in human experience.2. A human being's reaction to death reflects his or

her cultural values and life experience.3. Patterns detected in the mortuary remains of the

past will reflect cultural values, held by a commu-nity and not just by an individual.4. Tomb offerings are socially selected and do not

represent a random sample.'

These assumptions, whether stated or not, areuniversal in anthropological and archaeological researchconcerned with death and mortuary practices, and arecommon to the normative, social and idealistapproaches."The last two assumptions - those dealingwith patterns in the archaeological remains of funerary

6 E.g., Binford 1971.7 Some of the more important are Brown 1971; Morris 1987;O'Shea 1984; Saxe 1970, etc.; and Tainter 1975,1978, etc.8 Ucko 1969.9 Piggot 1969, 558.10 E.g., Huntington & Metcalf 1979, 1-2; Chapman & Randsborg

1981, 1-2; Humphreys & King 1981; Bloch & Parry 1982, 1-44.

118


5/25

David Ilan

Fig.15.2. Tel Dan, topographic plan and location of excavationfiekts.

practices - provide the most fertile ground forarchaeological investigation.

In this study we have sought answers to four majortypes of question concerning the Middle Bronze Ageburial assemblages found at Tel Dan:

What patterns exist in the burial practices at TelDan? For example, the orientation and position ofthe interred; the number of interments per tomb

and per burial type; the age/sex distribution of in-terments per burial or tomb type; burial goods:How are they positioned relative to the cadaver andwhat are the frequencies of different types?What do patterns in burial practice indicate on thesocial and ideological plane? Do particular burialor tomb types, burial goods, interment methods,etc., indicate ecological circumstances, socialstatus, wealth, or a belief system? What do devia-tions from recognised patterns mean?Which patterns present at Tel Dan occur elsewhere

and which do not, and why?Where do burial practices originate? How muchcultural homogeneity and continuity exists in theNear East in the Middle Bronze Age and what doesthis homogeneity and continuity, or lack of it, re-

veal about the diffusion of ideas and/or movementof peoples?

This is a potentially massive undertaking, which, toapproach completeness. must take into account allcontemporary burial assemblages in the Levant andmuch data from beyond. It should involve statisticalanalysis and associated interpretative tools. For thepresent however, social and ideological aspects are dealt

with on a more impressionistic level and with aninterpretive scope limited largely to the material fromTel Dan. Confined though it be, this approach can beused as a means of laying down hypotheses for furtherstudy.

The present paper proceeds in the followingmanner: a brief description of Middle Bronze Age TelDan in its natural and human environment is followedby a synopsis of the basic mortuary data. A temporal andcultural framework is then offered based on material-culture analogies." This includes a discussion of the

typological development, chronological range andgeographical distribution of tomb types and burialtechniques. The concluding section will deliberate on

11 Not discussed here in detail, but cf. Ilan, in press.

119


6/25

ARCHAEOLOGYOF DEATH IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Stratum Period Area A Tombs Area B Tombs Area M Tombs Area Y Tombs

XII MB I 1 23 1 1 902b-d2 2 4244 2 1025,

3 3 a 3 3126

3050

4 4242 44356

XI MB II 4 5 5 10626 b 8096a

b 8185?78 4663 C 6 30049 349,187, d 8096b10 368,371, e

328, 367, 8186c393,4648,4652,7161

X MB IIIx MB III

Table 1S.l . The M d l eBronze Age stratigraphy ofTel Dan:A correlation ofarea phases andtombassembluges (approximate)the social and ideological implications inherent in themortuary remains.

The stratigraphy and nature ofthe MiddleBronze Age remains at Tel Dan

Tel Dan (Tel el-Qadi) is located in the north ofIsrael, in the northern reaches of the Hula valley, at thefoot of the Mt Hermon massif, which provides the snowmelt that percolates downward to form the major sourceof the Jordan River, the Dan (Fig. 15.1). The tel issituated at the headwaters of the Dan, on a lowtravertine outcropping, and today rises up to 18m(c. 200m above sea level) above the surrounding alluvialplain, itself littered profusely with rounded, often slab-shaped, basalt boulders (when these have not beenremoved as a result of cultivation). Over some twenty-seven seasons of excavation at this large (20 ha) site, sixmajor fields have been opened (Areas A+B, K, M, T,and Y, see Fig. 15.2) and four general strata of MiddleBronze Age occupation discerned.12 These stratacomprise the cumulation of finds from all areas, buttheir determination is founded chiefly on the two areaswith the most complete stratigraphic sequences, AreasA-B and Y.

The earliest MB (MB I, Stratum XII) remainsuncovered at Tel Dan consist of domestic structuresand courtyards in a settlement established inside theexisting Early Bronze Age fortifications. Several phasesof occupation were recognised in the area around theperimeter of the site, testifying to continuity anddynamism in settlement over some length of time in theearly MB I. Later in the MB I (late Stratum XII), theexisting EB fortifications (which included a massive12 Biran 1994.

stone wall with offsets and a brick superstructureabutted by a terre pise glacis) were supplementedbythe addition of a massive earthen embankment13crowned by another wall, a hallmark of the MB inCanaan and an important indicator of socialorganisation and ~omp1exity. l~

Following the construction of the embankment,settlement apparently concentrated in the more levelinterior. Only by the MB III was the interior

embankment slope utilised-

thus far most strikinglyapparent in Area B - including the practice ofintramural burial. Several explanations alone or incombination might be offered for occupation of theinterior embankment slope:

a. With population pressure mounting and house-holds extending, there was no longer enough spaceon level ground.b. The level, cultivable land inside the rampart wasneeded for crops, possibly due to population pres-

sure and possibly due to the need to assure culti-vable land in time of siege. This area could be irri-gated from the site's protected inner spring?

c. Slopes were utilised to avoid the winter floodingthat struck the basin.

Approximately five post-embankment occupationalphases have been recognised in Area B (local Phases 6lo), and at least two in Area Y (local Phases 5 and 6)(see Table 15.1). These levels also appear domestic incharacter. Unlike the MB remains excavated at Hazor,Megiddo, Kabri, Tel Ifshar, Tell el-Hayyat and Aphek,the small areas uncovered at Tel Dan have not yetrevealed obviously palatial or cultic architecture,although there is some evidence to suggest a more

13 Ibid.14 E.g., Bunimovitz 1992; Finkels tein 1992.15 cf. Kempinski 1992.

120


7/25

monumental edifice under the Iron Age cultic platformof Area T.

Since most of the MB remains were exposed along,or just inside the perimeter of the tel, most of the burialshave some discernible stratigraphic relationship withthe fortifications. MB I burials are generally under theMB earthen embankments, MB III burials surmountand penetrate the earthen embankments, and the few

MB II burials are located at the base of the interiorembankments slope (e.g., T. 4663). This arraydemonstrates the effect of excavation strategy on samplerecovery. Had excavation concentrated further towardsthe tels interior, a larger MB II burial sample wouldhave been provided. In the key area for testing thishypothesis, Area M (located near the centre of the site),only a few square metres of the MB levels were exposed.Much of this small exposure was disturbed by Iron Isilos, and Tombs 8096 and T. 8185, which thoughperhaps constructed in the late MB I or early MB II,

were mostly utilised in the MB III. These factors createda degree of disturbance which hinders determiningwhether an MB settlement existed here.

Tombs in stratigraphy; an explanationofmethod

In reworking the sequence of the Middle BronzeAge tombs at Megiddo, Kenyon was the first toillustrate the means by which subterranean tombassemblages must be associated (or disassociated) with

material from occupational strata.16 W hile her schemeinevitably required some r e ~ o r k i n g , ~Kenyonsucceeded in establishing both a stratigraphic andtypological framework for analysing Megiddosoccupational strata that is now implemented, with somealteration, in most ceramic studies of the Middle BronzeAge,18 including that carried out on the Tel Danmaterial.

Stratigraphic aids such as baulk-sections and thefrequent assigning of find baskets are crucial forisolating the levels from which tombs were dug and/orbuilt and for detecting associated deposits outside suchtombs. At the risk of stating the obvious, it should beemphasised that the more extensive the sounding, theclearer the tombs surrounding context. The larger anddeeper the area excavated, the greater the number oftombs and burials exposed.

The foregoing brief account reveals two distinctadvantages that invite a diachronic analysis of theMiddle Bronze Age mortuary practices at Tel Dan. Forone thing, the site contains a largely, if not completely,continuous sequence of occupation and burial fromearly to late MB, allowing one to follow the developmentof mortuary behaviour over an extended period of time.16 Kenyon 1969.17 E.g., Mller 1970.18 E.g., Cole 1984; Kempinski 1983.

type ofburial* no. of no. ofinterred MB date-chamber tombs 4/5 10/17+ MB 1-111cist tombs 5/ 6 7/14 MB 1-111 jar burials** 22 21 MB1-111shaft burials 1 4 + MB ITotals 33 49+* The number of chamber and cist tombs and number ofburials

they contain depend on whether T.187b is called a cist orchamber tomb. The larger total for each category indicates itsinclusion.Jar burial totals include two (T.902~-d)for which no skeletalmaterial was reported.

tombs indiv idual s range

* *

Tabk 15.2. The MB burials at Tel Dan:Burial types,theiriequency, totalnumberofintermentsbytype,

and M B dute-range

Secondly, the burial assemblages are relatively smalland undisturbed, never containing more than eight

individuals. It is usually possible to determine the lastinterment and its accompanying furniture. On theminus side, it must be stated that most MB burials, andconstructed chamber tombs in particular, wereencountered in deep probes lacking the areal exposurenecessary to assess living floor context. Theirstratigraphic assignation is often problematic as well.Built cist tombs and jar burials however, are usuallyeasier to assign. A further disadvantage exists in therelatively small size of the overall sample, obviating theutility of more powerful quantitative methods such ascluster analysis.

Tomb typology and burial techniques19Burials were encountered wherever excavation

reached Middle Bronze Age levels, except in Area K,where the Middle Bronze Age mud brick arched gatewas found.20Interment was largely, and perhaps solely,subterranean and intramural, i.e., located under thefloors of dwellings and courtyards. Despite extensivesurvey in the immediate area, no adjacent extramural

cemetery has been found, though the finds fromcontemporary sites such as Jericho,21 Gi b e 0 8 andMegiddo23 indicate that the possibility should not bediscounted. The nearest known MB necropoli are foundat Hagosherim (4 km west, early MB I)24 and Kfar Szold(4 km south, mid to late MB I).25

Four basic burial types have been recognised in theMiddle Bronze Age layers at Tel Dan, (1) jar burials, (2)built cist tombs, (3) built chamber tombs and (4) a19 In the attribute tables that accompany this section all tombs

20 E.g., Biran 1981; 1993.21 Kenyon 1960; 1965.22 Pritchard 1963.23 Guy 1938.24 Covello-Paran, in press.25 Epstein 1974.

are listed from earliest to latest.

121


8/25

ARCHAEOLOGY OF DEATH IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Tomb length (m) width (m) height (m) orientation and entry burial mode

1025 2.70 1.50 1.20 E-W-entry primary, multiple,west via shaft successive

4663 4.60 2.20 2.20 NE-SW-SW entry no burialsvia shaft

8096 2.40 2.40 1.40 N-S-entry primary, multiple,south successivevia shaft ordromosno further data

roof successive

8185a 2.20 1.?O 1.45 E-W-west? no burials187 2.25 1.40 1O4 N-S -entry via primary, multiple,average 2.83 1.84 1.46

Table 15.3.Attmbutes ofbuilt chambertombs.single shaft burial.% The criteria for the distinction ofdifferent types are discussed below. Table 15.2comprises a breakdown of the different burial types andtheir respective number of interred individuals. Table15.6 is a more detailed summary of the data from alltombs.

Built chambertombs (Figs 15.3-15.8)At most Middle Bronze Age sites rock hewn caves

are the rule for multiple, successive burial of matureindividual^;^^ but Tel Dan is located on an alluvial plainwith no nearby bedrock suitable for the hewing oftombs. Indeed, the availability of solid but easily workedbedrock is the most obvious factor accounting for therelative -rarity of bllilt tombs, as opposed to rock-cuttombs in Canaan. Middle Bronze Age towns like Hazor,Tell-el-Farah (N), Aphek, Jericho and Pella haverevealed no large built tombs, the dominant mode beingthe rock-cut and pit or cist tombs. On the other hand,large built chamber tombs have been found at Megiddo

and Kabri, both of which have good bedrock, which atMegiddo at least, was also utilised for burial. Thissuggests that another explanation, beyond the mereavailability of bedrock, must be sought for the presenceof built tombs, one that may be related to culturalfactors.

These are the largest tombs and required the mosteffort to construct. Table 15.3 summarises their a t t r i butes.

The following is a typological feature summary ofthe built chamber tombs:

1. Size: The large built tombs average 2.83 m long,1.84 m wide, and 1.46 m high. Too much weightshould not be given these averages since, (a)T. 4663 is substantially longer and higher than the

26 Technically, jar burials, chamber tombs and shaft burials arealso cist tombs; the term cist refers simply to a subsurfacecavity.

27 E.g., Wright 1985, 329.

others and skews the averages, and (b) T.8096 has asort of curvilinear trapezoid plan as opposed to themore usual rectangular plan.

2. Access: The shaft entrance appears to have been thepredominant if not exclusive means of access intothe chamber tombs at Dan. The shaft entrance intoT.4663 was surprisingly insubstantial and may havebeen constructed at a later stage. The entry side ofT.8096 was in the baulk, but the other tombs atDan and tomb parallels at Megiddo2*suggest that ashaft entry can be assumed. The south side ofT.187was also in the baulk, although its interior was ex-posed, showing the chamber to be built around itsentire circumference, indicating access from theroof, making T.187 a cist tomb in this respect.T.8185 was re-used and its construction altered; noclear entry was discerned. T.1025 was excavated be-yond its entryway and the baulk was convenientlyplaced in a position that allowed the shaft to beseen quite clearly in the section. The finely con-structed entry passage ofT.8096 is thus far uniqueat Tel Dan but is found elsewhere?3. Roofing: Roofing consisted of large stone slabsplaced above walls corbelled moderately inward.T.8096 is unique so far at Dan in being constructedof a curvilinear beehive type corbelling and a ra-dial pattern roof (see Fig. 15.6). The true vault wasnot used in tomb roofing at Tel Dan - one mightassume that the abundance oflarge stone slabs occurring naturally obviatedthe need for the arduous process of vaultingin the construction of more diminutivestructures. Vaulting was utilised extensively inthe MB tombs at, for example, Tel el-DabaNand Ur31 - places where stone was less readily

28 E.g., T.3095: Loud 1948,Figs. 203-204.29 Cf. parallels in Appendix.30 van den Brink 1982.31 Woolley 1934; 1954; 1976.

122


9/25

DavidIlan

Fig. 1.5.3: ChamberTamb 4663, topplan and section.

Fig. 15.5: ChamberT& 4663, drawing (L.Ritmeyer).

Fig. 1.5.4: ChamberTomb 4663, artktsportrayal h k a n gthrough the tomb opening toward the back

(G. Cook). Note the benchbaring the four vessels..

Fig. 1S.6: ChamberT& 8096, topplan, sectionandartkts drawing (G.Cook).

123


10/25


4.

5.

6.

7.

Tomb length (m) width (m) height (m) orientation burial mode

23 1.75 1.05 0.45 N-S /N primary, single,flexed, left side

4244 1.60 1.24 0.50 E-W /E primary, single,flexed, right side

3004 ? ?? ?

single e),no otherdata available371c 1 o2 0.92 0.39 N-S /? multiple, successive,no other data available

/direction of head

187a ? ? ? ? single, disturbedaverage 1.46 1O7 0.67

Table 15.4. Attmbutesofbuiltc2St t d savailable. Gonen has also posited that corbelling isa stronger construction method.32

Entry passages: Where discerned, the entry passagestake the form of a linteled and posted squareopening located in one of the short walls at its mid-point, or in the case ofT.8096, somewhat off-centre.A step leads from the original tomb floor to theopening. As noted above, T.187b did not have a sideopening and was accessed from the roof.The only other constructional feature worthy ofnote is the stone bench mshelffound in T.4663 builtagainst the wall opposite the opening.

Numberofinterments: Of the four burial types, thebuilt chamber tombs contain the largest number ofinterments (with the exception of T.4663 andT.8185b). They range from 4 to 8 individuals, andgenerally contain the greatest number of burialgoods (see Tables 15.6 and 15.7).

Demographic characteristics ofinterred: Our data arenot sufficient to allow conclusions with wider a pplications. Tombs 4663 and 8186b contained few orno human remains. Only a preliminary study wasmade of the bones from T.1025, which were frag-mentary in any case. T.187 contained only malesand T.8096 held individuals of various ages andboth sexes. These insubstantial data will be consid-ered later.

Builtcist tombs (Figs 15.9-15.10)The cist tombs are smaller versions of the larger

chamber tombs. In both cases a pit was first excavatedunder the living surface, followed by the construction ofa roofed stone tomb. However, the cist tomb was enteredvia the roof, while the chamber tomb included a sideentry. As noted above, T.187b is, from the standpoint ofentry, a cist tomb. Table 15.4 summarises the mainattributes ofcist tombs.

Several patterns are apparent with reference to cisttombs:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Cist tombs tend to be more square in plan and to besmaller than chamber tombs. It is worth noting that

a similar tendency exists in rock-cut tombs (of allperiods) where curvilinear tombs tend to be smallerthan rectangular ones.33 Being less solid, the con-struction ofcist tombs also tends to be more easilydisturbed.By definition, access to the cist burial is via theroof; no dromos or shaft is present (T.187 is re-ferred to as a chamber tomb because of its size).However, in most cases 0.4244 is the exception), atleast one of the short sides is open, i.e., lacking astone lining. This may be the outcome of expedi-ence or have some ideological importance.One interment is the usual number, the exceptionbeing T.371, which contained four burials in thecist (two successive jar burials were placed over theroof of the tomb).Correlating to the smaller number of interments,cist tombs tend to contain fewer burial goods (seeTable 15.7).Cist tombs are generally reserved for juveniles from3-12 years of age.

S h a f t r i a l (Fig. 15.8)Shaft burial T.3126 is clearly associated with

chamber tomb T.1025 (Fig. 15.8), the shaft probablycomprising the original access to the chamber tombfrom a surface about 0.5 m above. When the massiveearthen embankment was deposited over the remains ofthe previous occupation and tomb shaft, a new shaft(Shaft 3090), approximately 2.30 m deep, was dug out.The question is whether the 3126 burials date to theshallow, pre-embankment shaft or the deeper post-embankment shaft. At least four individuals with burialgoods were interred here; the uppermost was flexed andrelatively intact. The configuration of flexed positionand burial goods rules out the simple disposal of refuse.

~ ~~

32 Gonen 1992c, 159-160. 33 Wright 1985,325.


11/25

Davd IlanI I I

1 .

I

I ml

Fig. 1S.7: Chamber/ctit Tomb 187a and187b,sections andtopplans ofdifeentphases.

196.50 . . . . 4359, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '.', ..-......... . - . ' . . ; '

4i!!1

Fig. 1S.8: ChamberT& 1025, Shaft3090 andshafi Tomb 3126, section, topp h nandarttits drawing (G.SohrG,G.Cook).

T371

Fig. 15.1O:Czit T m b 371, (twophuses, b andC),surmountedbyjarburiul, T& 371a.


12/25


orientation(direction of direction of

Tomb* lengtwwidth (m) mouth) head burial mode902b 0.74 x 0.62 ? (?> ? fragmentary, surrounding circle of stones902c 0.55 x 0.40 ? 0) ? no bones902d 0.42 x 0.36 NW-SE(NW) - no bones4242a 0.40 x 0.32 E-W (W) ? fragmentary4356 1.38 x 1.28 upright primary, surrounding circle of stones1062 0.81 x 0.48 E-W (W) mouth primary, flexed, left side?3050 0.42 x 0.37 N - S O mouth primary, highly flexed, left side371a 0.55 x 0.40 E-W (E) mouth primary, flexed on right side367 0.59 x 0.34 N-S0 mouth fragmentary368 0.48 x 0.45 E-W (E) mouth primary, flexed on right side (pithos)328a 0.90 x 0.60 N-S (S) mouth fragmentary, surrounded by a ring of328b 0.68 x 0.45 SE-NW (SE) ? fragmentary4 6 4 8 1.28 x 0.78 NE-SW (NE) mouth primary, two burials, flexed, one supine4652 0.56 x 0.43 N-S (S) mouth? primary, filled with lentils

8186d not available NW-SE (NW) mouth primary, jar was semi upright7161 not available N-S (S) ? fragmentary

this table.

349 0.75 x 0.50 N-S (?) ? fragmentary, two burials (jar and pithos)

393 0.48 x 0.34 SE-NW(NW) ? fragmentarystones

(pithos)

* Jar burials are in store jars unless otherwise specified. Several burials, those with insufficient data available, have not been included in

Table1S.S. A t t h t e s of jarburialsJarbumitls (Fig. 15.11)

Jar burials are the most ubiquitous type ofinterment in the Middle Bronze Age levels of Tel Dan,as they are throughout the Levant. Their primaryattributes are summarised inTa ble 15.5.

Jar burials show several salient characteristics:

1. The orientation of jar burials is mainly, but notalways, dictated by the orientation of architecture.This is highlighted by the fact that they are fre-quently placed next to, and aligned with, walls.Since most of the MB architecture at Tel Dan wasfound in Areas A and B, and Y, respectively on thetels southern and eastern flanks, the dominant ori-entation of jar burials, (and the built tombs aswell), is either north-south or east-west. Althoughphotographs or drawings may suggest otherwise, Fig. 1S.11. Schematic illustration of ajar bumal,very few jars were intentionally placed under walls. usually containing the remains of an infantmfoetusWhere it seems so, there is frequently an interven- (drawnbyN. Zeeui).ing floor level sealing the jar burial beneath the

2.

foundations of the wall. In other cases jar burialswere inserted from the floor surface obliquely at, orunder, the foundations of walls and not just beforethe walls construction.The jars neck and shoulder was usually broken andremoved to enable insertion of the corpse. Thisopening was sometimes covered by a large fragmentfrom another jar.

3.

4.

5.

Where the osteological remains are sufficiently wellpreserved, burials are observed to be primary.Where the osteological remains are sufficiently well

preserved, the cadaver was interred in a flexed orcontracted position (to varying degrees at bothknees and hips).Where the osteological remains are sufficiently wellpreserved, the head of the deceased is almost alwaysplaced at the jars opening.

126


13/25


14/25


15/25

The geographical and temporal range ofMiddle Bronze Age tomb and burial typesfound at Tel Dan

None of the burial types found in the Middle BronzeAge levels at Tel Dan are unique to that site, nor do anycategorically represent the earliest occurrence of a type.This section shall briefly outline the geographical andchronological range of each burial or tomb type, in anattempt to show general and readily observable patterns ofdistribution.34These patterns help to place the MB tombsfrom Tel Dan in their regional and temporal context.Cist tombs and jar burials appear in the very earliestMB I levels and continue into the terminal MB III andbeyond. Built chamber tombs first appear in the mid orlate MB I and continue into the LB II at Dan.35The shaftburial dates also to the later MB I. However, the firstappearance of the latter two types may be earlier as well -our small MB I sample precludes judgment. In brief, all

the types seem to coexist over at least a great part of theMiddle Bronze Age, and may do so for the periodsentirety.

Built chamber tombs do not have true prototypes inEarly Bronze or Intermediate Bronze Age Canaan. Theyfirst occurred in Mesopotamia in the Early Dynasticperiod reaching Syria by ED III at the latest, spreading tocoastal Syria (i.e. Ugarit), the Egyptian delta (broughtthere by an Asiatic population originating perhaps inSyria%),and Canaan proper, only in the MB I.37Tel DanT.1025 is thus one of the earliest examples of the type.However, built chamber tombs never became common inCanaan, where rock-cut tombs were the standard.Subsequently, sometime in the sixteenth or fifteenthcentury BC, the form reached Cyprus.38Chamber tombsin Mesopotamia (and in the Nile delta) tended to havevaulted roofing as opposed to the slab roofing found inCanaan and Syria. This variance should be seen asreflecting the availability of raw materials; lack of stonerequired the solution of mud-brick vaulting.

Unlike large chamber tombs, cist tombs do havelocal predecessors in the previous period (the

Intermediate Bronze Age), though not in the Early BronzeAge.39However, they are the exception in a period whenshaft, cave and dolmen tombs are the rule, as they werein the Early BronzeAge? This may indicate either linearcontinuity from the IB to the MB I, or a commoninspiration and/or source for a technique that reached34

353637

3839

40

Selected parallels from Canaan, Syria, Mesopotamia andEgypt are listed in the Appendix.E.g., Biran 1994; Gilmour, in this volume.Bietak 1984,474-475.See parallels in Appendix; and cf. van den Brink1982,72.E.g., Pelon 1973. .One must also consider the possibility that the megalithicdolmens- found mostly in Jordan (cf. Prag, in this volume),the Golan Heights, the Hula valley and in the hills of Sa-maria, the Galilee and the Carmel - served as the inspirationor prototype for the cist tomb and perhaps for the chambertomb as well.Prag 1974, 100-102; Richard 1987,33.

Canaan at different times. In either case, the concept ofthe cist tomb is closely related to that of the largerchamber tomb and both have their antecedents in thenorthern Levant and Mesopotamia of the thirdmillennium BC? This was not merely the transmission ofan idea from the north, but the mortuary practice of apeople that originated there. This point is expanded onbelow.

Shaft burial is another widespread phenomenm inthe Levant of the third and second millennia BC, thoughthe idea of the shaft does not always seem to have acommon source. Some forms of shaft burial were an endin themselves- a sort of deeper pit burial (e.g., at Sukasand S e l e n k h i ~ e ~ ~ )not associated with other burial forms.Others were probably associated with another, usuallychamber, burial located next to them (e.g., at Ur, Tel el-Daba and T.3126 at Dan). The former is a phenomenonwhich may be conceptually related to the typical rock-carved shaft tombs of the Intermediate Bronze Age. The

fact that shaft tombs were also a norm of the Early BronzeAge in one form or another precludes the possibility ofsaying whether any aspect of the typeoriginates outside ofCanaan, though the principle has great antiquity inMesopotamia as well.

The absence of simple, shallow pit (or non-constructed) burials at Dan is an anomaly since thetechnique was employed at many contemporary urbansites both in Canaan and beyond, e.g., at H a ~ o r ? ~Tell es-Saliheyeh4 and Alalakh? However, not too much shouldbe made of this dearth since the MB domestic levels

uncovered at Dan are restricted.With the exception of the Pottery Neolithic jarburials? subfloor jar burials do not appear regularly inthe Levant until the M B . Much like the chamber and cistburials, the practice of subfloor burial in ceramic vesselscan be demonstrated to have first appeared inMesopotamia in the late fourth or early third millenniumBC, becoming quite usual in third- and second-millennium Mesopotamia and Syria:7 reaching thesouthern Levant in the early second millennium BC. Inthe former regions the vessel containing, or more

frequently covering, the cadaver was most often a h a t e ror a cooking pot.# At certain Mesopotamian sites infantswere interred under floors without the use of a ceramiccontainer, e.g., at Chagar Bazar Levels 2-3

4142

4344

45464748

See the parallels in Appendix.Cf. the shaft burial analogues in Appendix.

Yadin et al. 1960,77-85.von der Osten 1956,40-43, Pls. 20-23.Woolley 1955,215-222.Cf. Gopher & Greenberg 1987.E.g., Dornemann 1979,138.Burial in an open vessel is ususual in Canaan, but occurs, e.g.,at Hazor (in an oven: Yadin et al. 1960, 77, Pl. XXVIII:9) andperhaps at Tel Dan, T.902d (if it is a burial).

129


16/25


17/25


18/25


dating from the second half of the third to the first half ofthe second millennium BC.49

A significant element of morphological continuityfrom the third to second millennium BC is embodied bythe rock-cut tomb type common throughout the countrywherever bedrock is available (though not at Tel Dan).But, as we have seen, most of the different burial

techniques practiced at Tel Dan have antecedents inSyria-Mesopotamia.SO Certainly one must heed Uckosadmonition that burial practices can and do changerapidly without clearly manifest reasons. But burial isan intimate and personal practice that strongly reflectsthe value system and ideology of individuals and societies.The evidence from the ancient Near East suggests that, inthat area at least, it was also the most resilient of culturalexpressions, and as such, slow to change. In MB Canaanprevious practices continue, while newly introducedtechniques can be demonstrated to have external origin^.'^

Many other aspects ofMB material culture have alsobeen determined to originate in Syria / Mesopotamia:Freestanding earthen embankment fortifications,tripartite city gates, casemate walls, the Hofhaus,etc.53Thequestion has always been by what mechanism thesephenomena were transmitted. Given the supplement ofnew mortuary practices and the continuity of traditionalones, together with other evidence pointing to large scalecultural transference, we are directed to readopt someaspects of an earlier and once dominant model positingthat peqple actually migrated from Syria-Mesopotamia toCanaan? This, of course, is not to advocate a pure Syro-Mesopotamian origin for the Canaanite culture of theMiddle Bronze Age. Nor are the crucial roles of trade andindependent invention belittled. Our stance does contrastto those that explain MB culture change as directed solelyby independent invention or by the transmission of ideasand commodities via trade? What burial practicessuggest is that an amalgam of endogenous and exogenouscultural forces was in play.

From a broader perspective, when the archaeologicalconditions are right, funerary practices can be a powerfultool for understanding processes of information transfer

and culture change, a tool that is often neglected.

Social Implications and SpiritualMeanings

This examination of the Middle Bronze Age burialremains from Tel Dan has been carried out under theassumption that mortuary practices reflect a societys

49 Mallowan 1936, 15.50 Cf. also Carter & Parker, in this volume.51 Ucko 1969.52 Cf. Steele, in this volume, for a similar phenomenon in early53 E.g., Kaplan 1971.54 E.g., Kenyon 1966; Albright 1973;Dever 1976.55 E.g., Gerstenblith 1983; Tubb 1983.56 Ilan 1994.

Iron Age Cyprus.

social organisation and cultural values. On the one hand,an attempt has been made to discern societal phenomenasuch as ranking, social persona, and kinship affiliation,while on the other hand ritual behaviour in itscosmological context was sought out. Ceremonialbehaviour, religious beliefs and social systems are clearlyinterrelated and should not be disassociated. As

Huntington and Metcalf have put it, Close attention tothe combined symbolic and sociological context of thecorpse yields the most profound explanations regardingthe meaning of death and life in almost any society.57Butin prehistoric contexts (or, rather, protohistoric in the caseof Middle-Bronze-Age Canaan), it is difficult to arrive atan understanding of ancient concepts of death wholly onan artifactual basis?* For this reason, most recentscholarship tends to lean heavily toward the socialorientation - usually with little emphasis on religion.59Huntington and Metcalf adopt an integrated approach,but their work deals with contemporary, observablesocieties.@

The shortcomings of the sample outlined in theintroduction have obviated the utility of most quantitativemethods,6l as they have for most other burial assemblagesin Canaan. And yet some patterns are manifest, even inthis small assemblage, and require explanation, ifonly intentative terms. Moreover, textual sources from relatedcultural contexts, particularly from second-millenniumBC Ugarit and Mari, shed light on mortuary ideology.Thus, some provisional conclusions can be suggestedregarding both social organisation and the perception of

death amongst the inhabitants of Middle-Bronze-Age TelDan.62

Social implications

Introduction; nzortuarypractices andsocud evolution in theM& BronzeAgeAn increase in social complexity from the IB through

the MB III is observable at Dan and throughout Canaan.This process is reflected in the settlement in

575859

6061

62

63

Huntington & Metcalf 1979, 17.Cf. Jacobsen & Cullen 1981.Cf., e.g., the studies contained in Saxe 1970; Binford 1971;Tainter 1978; Chapman, Kinnes & Randsborg 1981; and forCanaan specifically, Shay 1983; Palumbo 1987.Huntington & Metcalf 1979.Many are detailed by Tainter 1978; and in Chapman, Kinnes& Randsborg 1981.In the following sections the ethnographic record is drawnupon to shore up an idea or to suggest alternative interpreta-tions. For the sake of brevity only selected examples are notedin the appropriate context. This is done with some reserva-tion, keeping in mind Uckos (1969) warning concerning themultiplicity of possible explanations for mortuary variabilityin the archaeological record and the problems of samplingerror. Since Uckos contribution, subsequent research hasidentified a greater degree of commonality in mortuary prac-tices and better founded explanations for variability havebeen forwarded (e.g., by Binford 1971; Tainter 1978; OShea1984; Morris 1987).Broshi & Gophna 1986.

132


19/25

architecture, in the magnitude of trade contacts, and inancient literature such as the Execration Texts? Anothermanifestation of MB social evolution is found in themortuary remains. At Dan, and apparently at every otherMB I site with burial remains, early MB I built (cist)tombs contain single burials, while later MB I and MB II-III built tombs contain multiple successive burials. Thesechanges seem to have accompanied a transition from the

pastoralist and small-scale cultivation modes ofsubsistence of the Intermediate and early Middle BronzeAge, to a dominant mode of settled agriculture, lite-controlled redistributive economies, and urbanism of theMB proper? Thus, burial methods provide a generalgauge of cultural and social continuity with the IB,although the lack of secondary burial in the MB contrastssharply with that practices frequency in the IB.&

On discerning status and rankin mortuarypacticesThe four basic burial types

-

jar burials,cist tombs,chamber tombs and shaft burials, contemporaneous atleast from the late MB I on -correspond with the averagenumber of dimensional distinctions in burial calculatedby Binford for settled agriculturists in his study of themortuary practices of different subsistence t y p e d 7 WhileBinfords conclusions with regard to social persona andranking in societies of varying complexity have derivedsupport from other scholars work6* subsequent studieshave suggested that status differences based on age and sexmust be considered separately from ascribed or

genealogical rankzng differences which are notsimultaneously ordered on the basis of age andPeebles and Kus distinction of the subordinate (i.e., ageand sex) dimension from the superordinate dimension (i.e.,attributes which crosscut age and sex distinctions andwhich are determined by class or genealogy), has beenuseful in the present study. A breakdown of burialpractices in relation to demographic data in particularreveals certain status groups based on age and sex.

Demographicstatusm e la t e s to tumb types (see Table 15.6)Most chumber tomb interments (N= 17) show a rangeof age and sex, excluding infants, implying that they arefamily vaults.70The exception is T.187b which containedonly males, mostly adult; but this may be an aberrantsample in what is still a family tomb. Conversely, it mayrepresent a differentiation of social personae; severalstudies have shown that sex can be a determinant of

64

656667686970

E.g., Mazar 1968; Dever 1987. For the archaeologicalcorrelations of a ranked society, including burial characteris

-tics, cf. Peebles & Kus 1977.Cf. Dever 1987, 159-160; Ilan 1994.Cf. Prag 1974,101; Richard 1987,38; Dever 1987.Binford 197l .E.g., Ucko 1969,270; Saxe 1970.Peebles & Kus 1977,43l .Cf. the chamber tombs of Ugarit: Salles, in this volume,

burial location.71 In view of what appears to be adominance of males in the cist tombs (see immediatelybelow), it is worth recalling that T.187b is technically alarge cist tomb- it has no side entry.Cist tombs seem to have contained only children orjuveniles aged 2 to 12 years (N= 7, or 58% of the total juvenile population identified). The only sexedindividuals were male (N= 4). Here we might speculatethat these were individuals that had not yet experienced arite of passageY2 such as circumcision, or otherinitiation ceremony.\With one exception,jar h d contained only infants- generally less than 2 years of age but a few possibly asold as 3. These embody perhaps the most obviousevidence for status of the subordinate dimension - at Danand throughout the Levant. While in some societiesinfants lack status completelyY3 the patterns observed in jar burials (and especially the accompanying offerings)indicate that infants maintained a social persona of some

kind, albeit an ephemeralIt can be seen from Table 15.6 that very few skeletons

were sexed, 8 out of a sample of48+ individuals; only 2female skeletonswere identified, both from T.8096. Whilethe sample may be unrepresentative, it is worth notingthat in Area B, where most of the burial material wasexcavated and most of the sexed individuals originated,not one female skeleton was identified. This however, maybe an accident of excavation.

From the foregoing discussion it seems that at leastthree, and probably four, status categories are apparent;

infant, juvenile male, adult male, female. The reality isprobably more complex.

Ascmbed rankingContrary to what one might expect from other

indicators of social complexity at Tel Dan and in MiddleBronze Age Canaan, the evidence for class division orascribed ranking in the mortuary assemblage of Tel Danis meager.S h f i hmd T.3126, associated with chamber T.1025,does show some attribute affinity with servant burials atUr and Tell ed-Dabca,75 but the social implicationsinherent in a servant interpretation, based on so littlereal evidence, require a cautious approach. Whether itrepresents an extension of the kinship affiliationsuggested for chamber tombs, another status category, or

71 E.g., Ucko 1969, 270-271; Binford 1971; Randsborg 1975;Huntington & Metcalf 1979, 98-118. We have been unable toidentify what the social personae may have been in T.187b; tomention just one possible criterion of social identity, no eas-ily identifiable prestige items, such as weapons, were pres-

ent. The infrequency of metal finds, for example, could beaccounted for by plunder in antiquity, or by interpreting allthe excavated tombs as representing lower-ranked individu-als.

72 Van Gennep 1960.

74 Cf. Steele, in this volume.75 Cf. Appendix.

73 E.g., Ucko 1969,270-271.

133


20/25

ARCHAEOLOGY OF DEATH

an imported practice later abandoned, one cannot say; notevery case of extra-tomb burial need be considered anindication of status differentiation. Practicalcircumstances may have prevented a family from openingits tomb. If, for example, two deaths occurred within ashort time, and the first corpse had not yet decayedsufficiently to allow opening the tomb, the family may

have preferred to inter the remains directly over or next toit.76 A straightforward kinship explanation seemspreferable for the shaft burial.

The position of burial does not seem to have anydiscernible social significance. Orientation, degree offlexure, and side of inhumation all seem to vary across thesex and age dimensions identified above (and see Table15.6). The possible exception is the upper burial ofT.l87b, that of a robust adult male in a supine positionwith legs flexed to the right. In his analysis of the largepopulation of Intermediate Bronze Age burials at Jericho,Palumbo has suggested that this position characterises theburial ofa higher ranking indi~idual:~but the evidenceand the statistical manipulations are not unequivocal.

There is no reliable indication of wealthdifferentiation that cross-cuts demographic indices.Wright has suggested that the lack of built tombs inCanaan may testify to a more egalitarian society thanthat of Mesopotamia or, for example, that of Ugarit?However, tomb contents, and those from Tel Dan inparticular, give no indication that even the largest builttombs belong to wealthier or higher status individualsthan do those of rock-hewn tombs. If the effort-expenditure principle is appli~able;~a rock-hewn tombcan involve at least as substantial an investment of labouras a built tomb. Indeed, the richest MB tombs known, theMB III tombs of Tell el-Ajjul, are rock-hewn, as are therich tombs of Jericho and many of those at Megiddo.

In the realm ofburial offerings, none of the Tel Dantombs contain much in the way of prestige items such asmetal objects, jewellery and inscribed seals (many ofwhich were probably looted in antiquity). The richesttombs are chamber tombs, which invariably contain theoldest and the greatest number of individuals. Almost allthe metalwork (including weapons), and jewelleryrecovered from funerary contexts came from the chambertombs. Greater wealth associated with older, moreaccomplished (and therefore higher ranked) individuais isto be expected, even in an egalitarian society.80

Two daggers were found in chamber tombs (1025and 8096), one of which certainly, and the other probably,contained adult male individuals in consanguine contexts.Both are dated to the earlier MB (MB I and early MB IIrespectively). These individuals most likely maintained awarrior status of some kind (in the social but not

76 Cf. Woolley 1976, 33.77 Palumbo 1987,.78 Wright 1985,329.79 Binford 1971;Tainter 1978, 125.80 Cf. Peebles & Kus 1977,431.

IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

necessarily occupational sense) though not interred insingle warrior burials of the classic type!

The burial goods associated with cist tombs aresimilar in number and type to those of the jar burials - afew ceramic vessels and little else. Looking at infant-containing jar burials, where the sample is larger, littlevariation in pattern is evident at Dan, or in other

contemporary Levantine mortuary contexts. The presenceor absence ofa juglet or scarab is insufficient evidence fordetermining the existence of rankIt would seem that thedegree of conformity present in infant inhumation at Danshould be interpreted as an indication that the norms ofinfant burial cut across any differences in rank or wealththat may have existed in Canaanite society.

While the tomb sample from Dan is too small towarrant the drawing of firm conclusions, contemporarytombs at Jericho, more numerous, much richer and lessdisturbed on the whole, give the impression of a fairlystandardised repertoire for grave-offerings, which heldgood for many families.82At Jericho, the richness of atomb seems to be contingent on the length of time it wasin use and the number of individuals interred more thananything else.83In the ethnographic record, the frequentlack of correlation between an individuals wealth and thewealth of his or her burial goods demonstrates the risk ofmaking correlative assumptions? Even more to the pointis Tainters observation that in a study of93 societies, only5% used grave-goods to symbolise status or wealthdifference^.^^

KinshipaffiliationWhile the variety in burial method indicates the

existence of different social statuses or social personae inthe Canaanite society of Tel Dan, it is still likely that mostor all burials were kin-affiliated, including tombscontaining only males or only children, and jar burialsplaced on or next to built tombs. This hypothesis drawssupport from the fact that burial was executed under theliving surfaces and within the confines of domesticstructures or their appendages. The home and the burialsit contained can be assumed to have belonged to the samefamily (cf. the tombhouse unit relationship proposed bySalles for the intramural chamber tombs at Ugarit%). Asimilar model has been proposed for the age-selecteddistribution of interments in the contemporary burials, ofthe Larsa period, at Ur, where vaults were constructed forthe adults of the family under the chapels or courtyards ofmany houses, youths buried in coffins outside the tomb

81

8283

84

8586

Philip, in this volume.

Kenyon 1960; 1965.Perhaps the only conclusion that can really be drawn fromYasur-Landaus (1993) analysis.E.g., Ucko 1969. The Merina ofMadagascar (Bloch 1982,213-214) provide one of the best examples ofthis lackofcorrela-tion; even commoners build large subterranean tombs thatare far grander and richer than the ir flimsy houses.Tainters 1978, 121.Salles 1987; and in th is volume.

134


21/25

Da vd Ilanentrances, and infants in jars or bowls under the floors.87Much of the ethnographic data show that chamber tombscontaining multiple successive burials are kin-oriented.*

Social implicationsofmortuarypractices; summaryThe dimensions of social persona that have been

elicited here are sex, age, kin-affiliation and warriorstatus. No unequivocal evidence has been recognised forascribed ranking or differential wealth. This picturecontrasts to existing indicators of social complexity (suchas settlement patterns, craft specialisation, evidence forlite-controlled trade, public architecture, fortificationsand differing modes of domestic architecture), at Dan andother sites, which suggest a higher degree of socialstratification.@

Why do the mortuary data not support hypotheticalexpectations for the distinguishing of rank and wealth?Three factors may be influencing our perceptions- (a) asmall sample limited to a subfloor domestic context; an asyet unidentified extra-mural cemetery, or an undetectedburial ground within the tel, may have served higher (orlower) ranking individuals;% (b) site formation processessuch as poor preservation and plunder; and (C)ideologicalprecepts which act as social leveling mechanisms. Alarger-scale study that includes more sites with largersamples is required to clarifjr the social implications ofmortuary practices in the Middle Bronze Age.

Cosmology

Having demonstrated that certain mortuary practicescross-cut the dimensions of sex and age, and having notedthe lack of evidence for ascribed ranking or wealthdifferentiation in the MB burials at Dan, otherexplanations must be sought for these practices. Thesystem of religious beliefs is a potentially fruitful area ofinquiry, and one that better explains, for example,patterns of burial position and the nature of burial

offerings. Not surprisingly, concepts of rebirth, fertilityand perhaps an afterlife, are manifest and intertwined inthe MB funerary practices at Tel Dan.

Simulationofwomb andbirth in m t u a r ypracticesillustrated by the following features:

a. Almost all skeletons were contracted to some

degree (i.e., bent at the knees and waist) - a posi-

The idea of return to the womb and rebirth may be

87 Woolley 1976,33-35.88 Cf., e.g., the case of the Merina of Madagascar: Bloch 1971;

Bloch& Parry 1982.89 Cf. Dever 1987, 163-165; Ilan 1994.90 Cf. Yasur-Landau 1993 for such an interpretation for the MB

necropolis of Jericho.

tion that ubiquitously simulates that of the foetusand of sleep in the ethnographic material.In chamber and jar burials, the head of the de-ceased was most often placed closest to the tomb orjar opening, the position which best facilitates nataldelivery and that in which most newborns breach.The configurations of chamber tombs, jar burials

and rock-cut tombs (the latter not yet found at TelDan), can be interpreted as simulating the femalereproductive organs: burial chamber/jar = womb;entry = cervix, corridor, shaft or dromos = birthcanal. Ethnographic evidence provides severalparallels in this respect:2 and a similar interpreta-tion has been offered for the tomb configurations ofancient Egypt.93 Keel has suggested a concept ofreturn-to-the-womb for a particular type of Iron-Age tomb headrest. He introduces evidence fromboth Scripture (Psalm 139:8-15; Job 1:21) and ico-nographic material from Mesopotamia assupport?

The mtiliityf;.mtion ofdeathAugmenting the birth motif is the concept ofdeaths

fertility function. The Ugaritic Baal Epic (IB:II:30-37)depicts the murder of Mot (god of death) by Anath interms of the grain harvest:5 while in the Ugaritic poemThe Birth of the Gods Good and Fair, the death god isdescribed as a grapevine being pruned and bound? Theconnexion between death and agricultural fertility haslong been recognised and was already documentedethnographically by Frazer in The Golden Bough? Inancient Near Eastern mythology the deawfertilityconnexion has been noted by, among others, Astour?* Inaddition, although the mortuary practices of ancientEgypt have not been dealt with here, the chief god of theEgyptian netherworld, Osiris, is a classic case in point; hewas also the fertility godpar e ~ c e h . ~

In the most rudimentary way, death was probablyperceived as a debt owed to the earth (and to whatever

deity personified the earth and its fertility); bodies werereturned to the earth to ensure its fertility.lo0 Genesis3:17-19 should be understood in the same vein:91 Examples of this are abundant; cf., e.g., the practices of the

Zulu: Ngubane 1976, cited by Block& Parry 1982,24-25.92 Cf. once again the Zulu (as n. 9 3 , where the interment ritual

comprises the process of being born into another world. TheBara of Madagascar adopt a variation on this theme, includ-ing a number of mortuary rituals with overt sexual symbol-ism, starting with the sexual act and culminating in the birthof the deceased into the world of the ancestors. In thi s casehowever, the tomb itself is the next world and the world of the

living the womb (Huntington &Metcalf 1979, 115-1 16.93 E.g., Romer 1982, 167.94 Keel 1987.95 Pritchard 1969, 140.96 Gordon 1949,59.97 Frazer 1890,351,357-372.98 Astour 1967,228-249; 1980,230-231.99 E.g., Frankfort 1948,28, 103.100 Here too, numerous examples exist in contemporary

ethnographic records to substantiate the ubiquity of the idea

135


22/25


23/25

Conclusion

The patterns that assert themselves in mortuarypractices must be addressed systematically, no matterwhat the size or quality of the data base underconsideration. It is essential firstly to confront problemsof stratigraphy, typology and chronology in order to laysolid foundations for any further work But to confine theinvestigation of ancient burial remains to these goals is toneglect those questions which have greater significancefor understanding human behaviour and the evolution ofhuman society. The investigation which proceeds beyondthe normative topics of stratigraphy, typology andchronology enters an even wider realm of speculation andfalse trails. The methods used and the conclusions drawnin this study can perhaps serve as guidelines to be refinedor discarded in a more comprehensive and wider sampledanalysis of Middle-Bronze-Age funerary practices.

It is probably true that most ancient tombs of theNear East have been plundered, or excavated withinadequate methods. Those of us who deal with thearchaeology of death must shun the antiquities trade; itbrazenly perpetuates the demand for antiquities suppliedby the rampant plunder of tombs. One also hopes thatwhat little remains in the way of mortuary data -including that excavated but never reported - will beexcavated, recorded and published with the care andattention befitting its explanatory potential.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Avraham Biran, director of the NelsonGlueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union College,Jerusalem, and director of the Tel Dan Expedition, and RichardScheuer, a generous and enthusiastic benefactor, for their supportand encouragement.

137


24/25


25/25

DavzdIlunAdult jar burials are rare. Some exceptions are: Hazor Tombs 8,19,23 from Area C (Yadin etal 1960, 81).Multiple burials in one jar like T.4648: Hazor Area C, T.25 andT.26 (Yadin et al 1960, 85); Tel el-Dab'a (van den BrinkLocation of jar burials next to walls and in corners: Hazor and Telel-Dab'a (see above); Tel Mevorakh Stratum XII1 (Stern

1984, 46-47, Fig. 27).)

1982, 19-20).

ilan 1995 mortuary practices teldan mb

Documents