El tribunal penal internacional para la ex-Yugoslavia

Sites around Jerusalem have produced large number of chalk vessels.79 This local industry began sometime during the Herodian period, and it quickly gained popularity across all

74 _{See rough distribution map in Geva. According to the catalogs, 10 of the 14 glass shards were found in Room}

L719, while 47 of 74 pottery pieces (37 local, 10 fine ware) were found in the room. Geva, “S&A - JQE III,” 33, Fig. 1.3; Gorin-Rosen, “Glass - JQE III,” 240–256; Rosenthal-Heginbottom, “ER Fine Wares - JQE III,” 144–158; Geva and Hershkovitz, “ER Local - JQE III,” 103–114.

75

Israeli, “Glass - JQE IV,” 221.

76

Mizzi suggests that blown glass made the material cheaper and therefore more disposable, causing the use of glass to change over time. The evidence from the Burnt House may support this proposal, as the concentration of glass away from ceramic finds in other parts of the house may suggest a difference in their statuses. However, as in Building 721, roughly 7% of this assemblage could be classified as “fine” or “imported” wares. Mizzi, “Glass,” 106.

77 _{Both houses ended in conditions that may not preserve use patterns from the life of the structure, as one was}

abandoned and the other looted. In addition, as Geva and Hershkovitz note that they were unable to differentiate between pottery found on the floor and in the fill above the floor in Building 721. I assume that this problem holds for the glass and other find types. Geva, “S&A - JQE III,” 24; Geva, “S&A - JQE IV,” 37; Geva and Hershkovitz, “ER Local - JQE III,” 99, 102.

78 _{The disparity between the assemblages is fourteen shards verses approximately one hundred. This temporal}

discrepancy could be a function of the growing popularity of blown forms (supported by the almost total absence of cast forms in the Burnt House) correlated with a declining cost of glass because of the new methodologies. Israeli, “Glass – JQE IV,” 121.

79 _{For other Jerusalem sites, see the slightly dated list in Cahill: Jane Cahill, “The Chalk Assemblages of the}

Persian/Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods,” in Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985. Vol. III:

Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports, ed. Alon De Groot and Donald T. Ariel, Qedem 33 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology, 1992), 227–228. Important publications on the Jerusalem chalk vessel assemblage include the following: Ronny Reich, “Stone Vessels, Weights, and Architectural Fragments,” in Jewish

of Palestine’s Jewish regions.80

The use of these vessels became so widespread that

archaeologists now expect to find them at most late Second-Temple Jewish sites. For the most part, these vessels were considered easily-made, cheap, and accessible.81 This availability suggests that, although the elite may have had greater access to more expensive forms,

investment in this ware had little to do with status. Rather, the general consensus has been that the proliferation of chalk vessels stems from the observance of ritual purity, “a prerequisite for encountering the sacred.”82

According to rabbinic halakah, stone could not contract impurity and, therefore, presents an ideal medium for conveying those things (e.g., water, food) which could.83 Berlin connects the use of these vessels with “ethnic pride” and “religious solidarity,” Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Volume II: The Finds from Areas A, W, and X-2, ed. Hillel Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2003), 263–291; Hillel Geva, “Stone Artifacts,” in Jewish Quarter

Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Volume III: Area E and Other Studies, ed. Hillel Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2006), 218–238; Geva, “Stone - JQE IV”; Yitzhak Magen, The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period: Excavations at Hizma and the Jerusalem Temple Mount (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002); David Amit, Jon Seligman, and Irina Zilberbod, “Stone Vessel Production Caves on the Eastern Slope of Mount Scopus, Jerusalem,” in New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts, ed. Yorke M. Rowan and Jennie R. Ebeling (London: Equinox, 2008), 320–342; Shimon Gibson, “The Stone Vessel Industry at Hizma,” Israel Exploration Journal 33 (1983): 176–188.

80 _{The chalk vessel industry appears to have developed early in the Herodian period, but if Reich is correct, it}

developed out of a nascent stone industry of the Hasmonean period (Area A, Stratum 6). Geva prefers Cahill’s interpretation of this early mizzi stone industry developing from the forms of imported stone objects, but the disappearance of the mizzi industry at approximately the same time as the appearance of chalk vessels suggests Reich’s explanation is better. This fact does not mean, however, that they did not emulate imports. In addition, it does not mean that Reich’s view should be accepted wholesale: his interpretation of the stone vessel industry developing in the context of “religious regulations” does not adequately explain the wide-spread adoption of these vessels. Berlin’s description of household Judaism occurring in the absence of “halakhic or priestly concerns” may be a bit strong for the Jerusalem material (after all, many of the Upper City residents were priests) but conveys the sense that the adoption of such material was likely at the popular level and not at the hand of some regulator. Who would have had the power to induce so many to adopt such material practices? Reich, “Stone - JQE II,” 265; Cahill, “Chalk Assemblages,” 193; Geva, “Stone - JQE III,” 219–220; Berlin, “Jewish Life,” 467.

81 _{The exception is the large qalals. Magen observed a tendency to avoid decoration in cheaper forms. He explains}

the latter as an attempt to avoid adding extra costs. Magen, Stone Vessel Industry, 65.

82

Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 171.

83 _{For discussion of rabbinic halakah and stone, see Magen. While a desire to adhere to this halakah helps explain}

the widespread use of such objects, not all sects viewed stone as impervious to impurity. For example, among the Essenes, stone was susceptible to impurity via contact with oil. Magen, Stone Vessel Industry, 138–147; Hanan Eshel, “CD 12:15-17 and the Stone Vessels Found at Qumran,” in The Damascus Document: A Centenial of Discovery. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated

suggesting that such objects can act as a display of Jewish-ness.84 However, as Gibson has pointed out, chalk vessels need not always be connected to Jewish ritual practice.85

The assemblage from the Jewish Quarter Excavations has provided a rich addition to the repertoire of chalk vessels from Jerusalem. As Geva has argued, it may even provide the

temporal resolution necessary to trace the technological development of stone vessels throughout the Herodian period.86 What the current evidence has not done so far is allow a similar mapping of changes in use patterns over time. For example, the early Herodian assemblage from Building 721 is characterized by two interesting concentrations. Overall, it lacks those vessels concerned with food service, perhaps suggesting that chalk vessels were originally used among the

households of the Jerusalem elite in the context of ritual washing and the storage of liquids.87 On a smaller scale, the concentration of mug pieces in the dinging room (L711), the dining room, points the setting of dining and hand washing commonly associated with this type of vessel.88 However, the archaeological context of these finds renders any claims about changing patterns over time tenuous. Without the corresponding data from Area J, any of these patterns may be

Literature, 4-8 February 1998, ed. Joseph M. Baumgarten, Esther C. Chazon, and Avital Pinnick (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 45–52.

84 _{Berlin, “Jewish Life,” 433.}

85 _{Shimon Gibson, “Stone Vessels in the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine: A Reassessment,” in}

One Land - Many Cultures: Archaeolgoical Studies in Honor of Stanislao Loffreda OFM, ed. G. Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni, and L. Daniel Chrupcala (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2003), 300.

86 _{Geva, “Stone - JQE IV,” 156.}

87 _{On the use of the vessels and typology of the vessels, see Berlin, “Jewish Life,” 430-431. For evidence of liquids}

in the qalal, see Reich, “Stone – JQE II,” 266.

88

For a discussion of ritual hand washing and dining see, Magness, Stone and Dung, 17–23; Chaim Milikowsky, “Reflections on Hand-Washing, Hand-Purity, and Holy Scripture in Rabbinic Literature,” in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus, ed. Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 149–62.

attributed to survival bias or depositional processes.89 The only conclusion that the current data allow on changing use patterns is that, by the end of the Herodian period, the elite of Jerusalem had adopted a rich and varied corpus of chalk vessels not attested at the beginning of the period.