Kashrut and archaeology

[technomage]

Pig Husbandry in Iron Age Israel and Judah

Summary: Until recently, archaeologists assumed that Hebrew sites were identifiable by the relative lack of pig bones in the archaeological layers. New research has identified that raising pigs in Iron Age I (1300-1000 BCE) was dependent upon population demographics far more than upon cultural standards. Later layers, such as Iron Age IIB (900 BCE to the Assyrian conquest) shows considerable pig agriculture in Israel, but much lower concentrations in Judah. The evidence seems to show that at least this element of the kashrut laws was a later development, was not universal in all Hebrew speaking areas, and may have been imposed on the Northern Kingdom when the residents of the Southern Kingdom returned from the Babylonian Exile.

(nb: You do have to register at Academia.edu to access articles, but registration is free. They do send out emails about once a week, but if you dislike getting the emails you can set up a spam filter for them.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks - both for the post and the link.

 

[technomage]

Thanks - both for the post and the link.

If you'll let the young student who was inquiring know where the post is, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps I should have said: "Good thread".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See, also, here.

 

[technomage]

See, also, here.

Faust makes an interesting claim there, and I will note that his claim has been common thought for quite some time. However, it seems to me that the archaeological evidence shows that this particular cultural distinctive was not pan-Hebrew: it was specific to the kingdom of Judah. It also seems that the distinctive was not in contrast to the Philistines, as the drop in pork farming occurred after the Philistines were no longer a viable population group in the land.

However, let it be noted that my paragraph above is tentative--not a debate argument so much as what the evidence _seems_ to be suggesting. I'm still digesting the information, and realy don't have any firm conclusions formed on the issue.

 

[metis]

Pig Husbandry in Iron Age Israel and Judah

Summary: Until recently, archaeologists assumed that Hebrew sites were identifiable by the relative lack of pig bones in the archaeological layers. New research has identified that raising pigs in Iron Age I (1300-1000 BCE) was dependent upon population demographics far more than upon cultural standards. Later layers, such as Iron Age IIB (900 BCE to the Assyrian conquest) shows considerable pig agriculture in Israel, but much lower concentrations in Judah. The evidence seems to show that at least this element of the kashrut laws was a later development, was not universal in all Hebrew speaking areas, and may have been imposed on the Northern Kingdom when the residents of the Southern Kingdom returned from the Babylonian Exile.

(nb: You do have to register at Academia.edu to access articles, but registration is free. They do send out emails about once a week, but if you dislike getting the emails you can set up a spam filter for them.)

A friend of mine works during the summers at a dig n.w. of Jerusalem in the highland area, and this dig goes all the way back to the time of the Philistines. They have found many bones there, but none of pig, but further west nearer the Mediterranean they have been found.

My question to you is whether the pig bones you mention above were found in the highland area as we know that the coastal area was often controlled by groups other than us?

 

[technomage]

A friend of mine works during the summers at a dig n.w. of Jerusalem in the highland area, and this dig goes all the way back to the time of the Philistines. They have found many bones there, but none of pig, but further west nearer the Mediterranean they have been found.

My question to you is whether the pig bones you mention above were found in the highland area as we know that the coastal area was often controlled by groups other than us?

From what I have read and understood, yes, there were pig bones in the coastal areas. However, there were also pig bones in several highland areas in the Northern Kingdom, few or none in the highlands of the Southern Kingdom. (The article makes distinctions between bones from casual hunting, and bones from planned pig farming.)

But it's more complex than that. You had a dearth of pig bones in Canaanite (pre-Hebrew) layers, both coastal and highland, in Iron Age I. What's notable, however, is high concentrations of pig bones in the Iron Age IIB layers of Megiddo, Beth Shean, Tell Hamid, and Tell es-Safi. These are Hebrew occupation layers, not Philistine or Canaanite (Iron Age IIB is well after the Philistines and Canaanites had been driven out of the area).

There is, of course, very limited occupation in Iron Age IIC--this corresponds to the time during and after the Assyrian captivity, and the area was largely depopulated.

It's interesting. I'd love to hear the thoughts of other members for the data found.

 

[metis]

From what I have read and understood, yes, there were pig bones in the coastal areas. However, there were also pig bones in several highland areas in the Northern Kingdom, few or none in the highlands of the Southern Kingdom. (The article makes distinctions between bones from casual hunting, and bones from planned pig farming.)

But it's more complex than that. You had a dearth of pig bones in Canaanite (pre-Hebrew) layers, both coastal and highland, in Iron Age I. What's notable, however, is high concentrations of pig bones in the Iron Age IIB layers of Megiddo, Beth Shean, Tell Hamid, and Tell es-Safi. These are Hebrew occupation layers, not Philistine or Canaanite (Iron Age IIB is well after the Philistines and Canaanites had been driven out of the area).

There is, of course, very limited occupation in Iron Age IIC--this corresponds to the time during and after the Assyrian captivity, and the area was largely depopulated.

It's interesting. I'd love to hear the thoughts of other members for the data found.

That's interesting, and I'll have to bring this to the attention of my friend to see if this is what he understands as well. Thanks.

Another question: some archaeologists, such as Finkelstein and Silberman, theorize that the Canaanites were not a group that we displaced but actually was us, and the actual conflict was more between two different life styles with our people: more nomadic in the highland areas and more horticultural with more trade along the coast. What does you source say about this, if anything?

 

[technomage]

That's interesting, and I'll have to bring this to the attention of my friend to see if this is what he understands as well. Thanks.

Another question: some archaeologists, such as Finkelstein and Silberman, theorize that the Canaanites were not a group that we displaced but actually was us, and the actual conflict was more between two different life styles with our people: more nomadic in the highland areas and more horticultural with more trade along the coast. What does you source say about this, if anything?

The article does not weigh in on that particular discussion at all. It does seem reasonable, considering the similarities in religion, language, material culture, and location, and I will admit that I tend to follow that theory. But there is nothing definite in the article.

In and of itself, the article simply discusses what was found in which layer. There are no definitive conclusions: while the article suggests that the data may necessitate the need to re-evaluate the history of kashrut laws and the use of pig bones to declare the culture of an archaeological site, the suggestions made are quite tentative.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Faust makes an interesting claim there, and I will note that his claim has been common thought for quite some time. However, it seems to me that the archaeological evidence shows that this particular cultural distinctive was not pan-Hebrew: it was specific to the kingdom of Judah. It also seems that the distinctive was not in contrast to the Philistines, as the drop in pork farming occurred after the Philistines were no longer a viable population group in the land.

However, let it be noted that my paragraph above is tentative--not a debate argument so much as what the evidence _seems_ to be suggesting. I'm still digesting the information, and realy don't have any firm conclusions formed on the issue.

Finklestein writes …

One may wonder why the biblical author promoted the obvious – pig avoidance – which was the reality in the highlands in the Iron Age I and in the Judahite lowlands and highlands throughout the Iron Age II. Pig taboo could have emerged in the highlands – in the north and in the south – as a result of the pastoral background of many of the Iron Age I settlers 62 and the need to create a “we”-and-“they”- boundary with the Philistines in the southern lowlands.
Equally important, in the time of the biblical authors, when pig frequencies in Philistia already diminished considerably, promotion of pig avoidance could have been directed to- ward Israelites who moved to Judah after the collapse of the Northern Kingdom in 720 B.C.E.63. In other words, it was the growing pork consumption habits in Israel in the Iron Age IIB that provoked the Judahite authors (one may assume that pig exploitation continued to be prevalent in the territory of the ex-Northern Kingdom in the 7th cent. B.C.E.). Judahite aspi- rations regarding these territories after the withdrawal of Assyria from the region could have been the reason for the continuing concern regarding pigs at that time. The biblical authors insisted that all Hebrews who dwelt in the territories of both, Israel and Judah, must acknowl- edge the rule of the Davidic Dynasty and worship in a sole Temple – in Jerusalem. The pig taboo could have been another Judahite cultural trait that was opposed to the situation in the north, and which the authors wished to impose on the entire Israelite population. [ibid]​

I see no conflict here with Faust (who, parenthetically, has a great deal more to say on the subject in subsequent chapters).

 

[technomage]

Finklestein writes …

One may wonder why the biblical author promoted the obvious – pig avoidance – which was the reality in the highlands in the Iron Age I and in the Judahite lowlands and highlands throughout the Iron Age II. Pig taboo could have emerged in the highlands – in the north and in the south – as a result of the pastoral background of many of the Iron Age I settlers 62 and the need to create a “we”-and-“they”- boundary with the Philistines in the southern lowlands.
Equally important, in the time of the biblical authors, when pig frequencies in Philistia already diminished considerably, promotion of pig avoidance could have been directed to- ward Israelites who moved to Judah after the collapse of the Northern Kingdom in 720 B.C.E.63. In other words, it was the growing pork consumption habits in Israel in the Iron Age IIB that provoked the Judahite authors (one may assume that pig exploitation continued to be prevalent in the territory of the ex-Northern Kingdom in the 7th cent. B.C.E.). Judahite aspi- rations regarding these territories after the withdrawal of Assyria from the region could have been the reason for the continuing concern regarding pigs at that time. The biblical authors insisted that all Hebrews who dwelt in the territories of both, Israel and Judah, must acknowl- edge the rule of the Davidic Dynasty and worship in a sole Temple – in Jerusalem. The pig taboo could have been another Judahite cultural trait that was opposed to the situation in the north, and which the authors wished to impose on the entire Israelite population. [ibid]​

I see no conflict here with Faust (who, parenthetically, has a great deal more to say on the subject in subsequent chapters).

Yup. The article linked above cites Finklestein as an example of the current paradigm, and then shows why this view may not be true--or, at least, may not be supported by the evidence. The conclusions in the article, tentative as they are, are in direct challenge to Finklestein's conclusions. (Indeed, if user names are to be believed, Dr. Finklestein is the one who posted it to the website.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I find most valuable in your offering is that it distinguishes between Israel and Judah. A similarly interesting distinction may well be that between Israelite and Hebrew, but that's best left to a somewhat different thread.

And, again, I think it likely that we are dealing with multiple causes manifesting themselves over time and later harmonized and imbued with theological import.

 

[technomage]

What I find most valuable in your offering is that it distinguishes between Israel and Judah. A similarly interesting distinction may well be that between Israelite and Hebrew, but that's best left to a somewhat different thread.

A distinction between Israelite and Hebrew? Admittedly, I'm using "Hebrew" to include both kingdoms without differentiating, but if you have time to start the thread, I would be very interested in hearing how you use the terms.

And, again, I think it likely that we are dealing with multiple causes manifesting themselves over time and later harmonized and imbued with theological import.

Agreed. Admittedly, I was not aware that the theological import had developed that late, but it does, indeed, agree with other assertions that the Torah was compiled during and after the Babylonian Exile.