The destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem and the Babylonian Exile were a great catastrophe in the history of the Jewish Nation. What really happened during that dark, fateful age, and how did new opportunities arise from the ashes?
The continuity in the sixth century BCE
Loading...
來自 Tel Aviv University 的課程
The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem
115 個評分
從本節課中
Archaeology of the sixth century BCE
After learning of the days of the destruction and the historical role of Gedaliah son of Ahikam, you are invited to watch the lessons of the fifth module, which deals with the archaeology of the Babylonian Period. We will explore the magnificent finds from Ramat Rahel, the stamp impressions and what they can teach us about continuity or discontinuity in this period and the fate of Jerusalem and Judah following the destruction. I also recommend watching the optional videos which deal with additional interesting research topics.
與講師見面
Professor Oded Lipschits, Ph.D.Director, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology
Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures
Can we find other indications in the material culture for
continuity during the sixth century BCE?.
Well, the new discoveries at Ramat Rahel have also proven the theory that
characteristics of the well-known local pottery assemblages dating
to the end of the Iron Age into the Persian Period exhibit continuity
and therefore, attest to the existence of an unbroken tradition of
pottery production in Judah from the end of the 7th to the 5th and
to the 4th centuries BCE.
The problem of the archaeological research is that there is a time gap of 150 years
between the well-known pottery assemblages from the late Iron Age as discovered,
for example, at Lachish Level II, the City of David Stratum 10, and other sites
and the typical pottery assemblages from the Persian Period as known, for example, from
En-Gedi Stratum IV, Stratum 9 of Area G in the City of David and in other sites.
The new pottery assemblage from Ramat Rahel is one of the few known, thus far,
that clearly fills the gap and thus supports the assumption that the local
traditions of pottery production continued throughout the sixth century BCE.
This intermediate culture of the sixth century BCE was not identified until now,
and didn't get its typological and chronological definition because of its
close similarity to the pottery assemblages that preceded and followed it.
It was not identified also because of the basic assumption of scholars and
archaeologists that as life ceased to exist in Judah
during the Exilic Period in the sixth century, also pottery production,
as well as any other expression of economy and
administration, could not be developed in Judah during this period.
This assumption caused archaeologists to identify this intermediate material
culture of the sixth century BCE as representing the late Iron Age,
late seventh, early sixth century BCE, and this is so even in areas where there is
a scholarly consensus that life continued in Judah in the sixth century BCE.
The newly discovered pottery assemblage from Ramat Rahel stands as the clear
marker for this group of sixth century BCE pottery assemblage.
Similar pottery assemblages can be found at a number of central sites,
primarily in the Benjamin region, like Tell el-Ful, Stratum 3B,
several defined loci in Stratum 1 in Tell en-Nasbeh,
as well as well-defined pottery assemblages at Beitin and el-Jib.
Based on these distinctions, we can now differentiate between different
regions in Judah and the different dates during the Babylonian period.
It is clear that during the Babylonian period,
a marked change took place in the characteristics of the settled area.
The settlement center of gravity moved from Jerusalem to the close periphery, and
a new pattern of settlement was created in which the core was depleted and
the nearby periphery continued to exist almost unchanged.
The Judahite population that continued to subsist in the northern Judean highlands,
as well as in the Benjamin region, continued
to preserve its material culture, and there lies the great difficulty
posed to archaeological research in discerning this culture and defining it.
Many scholars have discerned the different fate of the Benjamin region and
the archaeological reality in it, after the destruction of Jerusalem.
The biblical description regarding the fate of this region during
the Babylonian campaign to Jerusalem, and after the destruction of the city,
together with excavation data of the main sites explored in the Benjamin region, and
the data of the surveys conducted there,
attest that the region was not destroyed together with Jerusalem.
As a historical representation of this data,
I already suggested that it was before the fall of Jerusalem when the Babylonians had
chosen Mizpah as the alternative capital of the Babylonian province, and
appointed Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, as their first governor.
The area to the south of Jerusalem, and the Repha'im Valley in its center,
probably had the same fate as the Benjamin region.
The Repha'im Valley, with its rich alluvial soil and moderately terraced
slopes, had historically been one of the prosperous agricultural districts, and
they are vital to Jerusalem, vital to the economy of the city.
The mounting archaeological data from this area,
underscored by the many agricultural installations and
small farmsteads found in and around the valley, confirms that those
periods during which the Repha'im Valley flourished agriculturally,
are the same periods during which there was construction at Ramat Rahel
from the late Iron Age to the Persian Period with no sign for destruction.
We should connect the development of the Rephai'm basin with the emergence of
Ramat Rahel as an administrative center in the region under Assyrian rule, and
with the organization of royal estates in the Kingdom of Judah
during the late eighth and the seventh century BCE,
probably after the period when Judah became an Assyrian vassal kingdom.
The Rephai'm basin appears to have been developed as a royal estate.
This explanation fits the centralized processing demonstrated
by the concentration of wine presses not associated with village infrastructure,
the process of organized decanting and shipping of the wine, and the function of
Ramat Rahel in all the periods in question as an administrative center in the region.
The administrative and economic nature of the Rephai'm Valley,
its connection to the administrative center at the Ramat Rahel, and
the ecological evidence for its continuous use until the early Hellenistic Period
are clear indications of its existence under Babylonian rule as well,
just like the Benjamin area to the north of Jerusalem.
Now, before moving to check the aspects of the sharp decline in urban life,
the destruction of many areas in the kingdom of Judah, and
many changes that occurred in the material culture, let's summarize.
What is the significance of the new finds and the new studies presented in
the last minutes for our understanding of the historical reality of the sixth
century BCE in Judah during this Exilic Period?
This will be the subject of the next unit.
[MUSIC]
