Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation

Abstract

Twenty years ago almost nothing was known about the Babylonian period in ancient Israel (ca. 604/586–539 BCE). Since then, there have been conferences on the subject, and many articles and even books, such as the one being reviewed here, have been published that have sought to bring greater clarity to this long neglected era.The volume under review consists of an introduction and eleven chapters: 1. “The End of the Iron Age in Judah: Primary Archaeological Data;” 2. “Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: A Rural Perspective;” 3. “Greek Imports and the Neo-Babylonian Period;” 4. “Social and Cultural Changes in Judah: The Iron Age to the Persian Period;” 5. “Settlement and Demography in Judah: The Seventh to Second Centuries B.C.E.;” 6. “The Babylonian Destruction in Context: Nebuchadnezzar and Sennacherib Compared;” 7. “Sixth-Century Judah as a Post-Collapse Society;” 8. “Consequences of Destruction: The Continuity Theory Revisited;” 9. “The Land of Benjamin Revisited;” 10. “Life in Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.;” and 11. “Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: Summary and Conclusions.” It also contains a bibliography, largely up to date to 2010, and author, site, and subject indexes. The text includes 17 text figures (primarily line art, though also a few photographs), two tables, and five graphs. The book does contain a variety of errors that should have been caught during editing/proof reading. Some examples include “sixty–century” for “sixth–century” on p. 215, n. 9; “1950, 26–27” for “1950, 226–27” on p. 226; “alphabetical scrip” for “alphabetical script” on p. 254, n. 15; and Kletter's important work on Judean pillar figurines is cited on p. 109, but is not in the bibliography (1996).The book pulls together the author's views on sixth-century Judah that have appeared in numerous articles over the last decade, and expands and updates some of them. Hence it is a useful compilation of Faust's previous work. As the introduction (and chapter 8) makes clear, it is primarily a rejoinder to what is usually called the “continuity” school of thought, which sees significant continuity in Judean society, primarily in the rural sector, following the destructive Babylonian invasion of 587–586 BCE. The more extreme proponents of the continuity school are biblical scholars, such as Barstad (e.g., 1996) and Blenkinsopp (e.g., 2002), while a far more moderate position has been adopted by the archaeologist Lipschits. Few scholars, especially archaeologists, follow the positions of Barstad and Blenkinsopp; thus the present work, arguing for “discontinuity,” is often Faust's response to critiques of his earlier studies touching on this period, especially by Lipschits in The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem (2005a). It should be noted, however, that the positions of these two scholars are not actually very far apart, as Lipschits himself has noted (2005a: 42). Their debate centers primarily on the methodology used in evaluating the data that have emerged from the survey and salvage projects available for studying the rural community in Judah from the end of the Iron Age through the Persian period. For example, both agree that large areas of Judah were devastated, including major tell sites and the rural sector, but that pockets of settlement continued in certain regions, and even among the ruins of major sites (p. 235; Lipschits 2005b: 366–67). Whereas Lipschits sees a decline in settlement occupation of 60–70 percent (depending on the region [some were hit more severely]; 2005b: 211–71), Faust sees the decline as more severe, in the range of 80–90 percent (pp. 119–47). Their main differences primarily involve the evaluation of data from the regions of Benjamin and the area south of Jerusalem between Bethlehem and Beth Zur. Because of the difficulty in identifying the remains of those survivors squatting among the ruins, or living in ephemeral habitations (such as tents), a higher figure than what Faust suggests may be advisable. Both also agree that the Babylonians were not interested in setting up a provincial system in the southern Levant; rather they stripped it bare of resources in order to rebuild Babylonia, leaving the area a devastated buffer zone against Saitic Egypt (pp. 188–94; Lipschits 2005b: 369; 2011a: 167–68).Faust argues that even those in the “continuity” school agree that there was major destruction of the main tells during the Babylonian attack. Those in the “continuity” school believe that the Babylonians largely spared the rural sector, and that society continued there much as it had before. The major focus of Faust's book is thus on tracing the fate of the less archaeologically explored rural community following the invasion (chapters 1 and 2, though he revisits aspects of this in chapters 5–7).The key point in the debate over the end of both the urban and rural sectors is that no pottery-type fossils or clean assemblages are known for this relatively short period. This makes dating strata found on tells, and especially the remains found in site surveys and salvage projects, extremely problematic (pp. 14–15). Faust lists various tell sites said to have been destroyed by the Babylonians (pp. 23–32). Since there are no texts which describe the scope of the Babylonian invasion, it has generally been assumed that any site with pottery similar to Lachish Stratum II and City of David Stratum 10, followed by some sort of a gap, must have been destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. However, it is impossible to say how long the terminal Iron Age II ceramic culture persisted, and thus to date remains belonging to the sixth century. For this reason, one can never be certain if sites (especially those in areas perhaps more peripheral to Babylonian interests like the Negev and Judean wilderness) containing such material were destroyed by the Babylonians in the early sixth century, or came to an end due to attacks by other entities at some other point in that period. Indeed, as some scholars have noted, a number of excavated sites that do not continue into the Persian period do not show evidence of destruction, but rather of abandonment (Dever 2009: 31*–32*).Especially in regards to the rural sector, Faust understands this methodological problem and argues that the solution is to examine demographic trends from the end of the Iron Age through the Hellenistic period, which show a steep drop off from the Iron Age into the Persian period, and a recovery in the latter part of the Hellenistic period (chapters 2 and 5). This is something with which most archaeologists would agree. Faust argues that this decline was a direct and mostly immediate result of the invasion and destruction of the countryside by the Babylonians. Methodologically, the immediacy of the collapse of the rural sector is a more problematic stance. It is important to remember that there are no textual sources that directly support such a claim. There are no Babylonian accounts of this campaign (unlike for Sennacherib's invasion of 701 BCE), the Lachish letters are narrowly focused on activities in the Shephelah, and the focus of the biblical accounts in 2 Kings 24–25 and Jeremiah 39 and 52 is on the destruction of Jerusalem, the exile of its elite, and activities apparently undertaken in the environs of Jerusalem. The account in Jer. 7:34 reports that the Babylonians were fighting against Lachish and Azekah because they were the only fortified cities that remained. This text does not say whether other cities surrendered or were destroyed. Given the lack of texts to support his argument for immediate, kingdom-wide destruction, Faust relies on the general treatment of regions and settlements undergoing attacks and sieges as a basis for his claim (pp. 64–66, 140–43, where he documents the executions, famines, and epidemics that could accompany such an invasion). He argues that such campaigns of terror, reprisal, and plunder were a standard operating procedure for the Assyrians and Babylonians and that Nebuchadnezzar would have followed such a policy. However, this tends to undercut his position because he also argues that the Assyrians limited their destructive activity in 701 BCE predominantly to the Shephelah (chapter 6). He even argues that the following seventh century was one of relative prosperity for the rest of Judah (which is the general consensus of scholars, who see it as a period of weakness and diminished resources in much of the country). If the Assyrians did not totally destroy Judah, why did the Babylonians? Of course Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar may have had different agendas, but if they did, it is important to offer suitable explanations for them. Given the lack of textual data documenting a country-wide campaign of destruction, other scenarios are possible. For example, one might envision a more sporadic and also gradual decline in settlements during the sixth century. This could have been brought about by a combination of Babylonian destructions (perhaps focused on the Shephelah, the gateway to Jerusalem, and the environs of Jerusalem itself), attacks by other outside forces (e.g., Edomites in the Negev) which could no longer be resisted by a central government, and the abandonment of other sites due to security concerns, economic decline, and cessation of governmental support (e.g., military forts/outposts). Some sites (and the areas around them) even persisted through the Iron Age into the Persian period, such as Rogem Ganim (Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 229–31; contra pp. 45–46 n. 12) and Ramat Raḥel (Lipschits 2011b: 61–63), as attested by a series of administrative stamp impressions. Such a reconstruction may be closer to the truth (Lipschits 2005b: 69; 2011b: 67). The fact of settlement decline is not at debate here, only its mechanisms and timing.Chapters 3 and 4 do not relate closely to Faust's main thesis regarding the decline in the rural sector; instead, they provide additional documentation on the collapse of the elite, largely urban, sector of Judean society. While these discussions are useful, it is important to remember that the collapse of this sector of society is not part of the core debate between the “continuity” and “discontinuity” schools. All agree that much of the Judean elite was either carried off to Babylonia, or killed during the invasion or as a part of Babylonian reprisals (Jer. 52:10). In chapter 3 Faust emphasizes the lack of Greek pottery dateable to the sixth century in the southern Levant. However, such a decline is entirely expected. When not used by Greeks settled in the area, such pottery would have been used by local elites (pp. 86–87). Since the Babylonian attacks removed or killed a large number of these elites, it is not surprising that the number of imports of such luxury goods dwindled. This lack of imported luxury goods only points to the collapse of the elite buyers' market and the date of that collapse; it says nothing about the state of Judean society (or southern Levantine society in general) outside of that elite orbit, nor provides a firm date for the decline of the non-elite segment of that society.Chapter 4 is devoted to Faust's discussion of Judean tombs. Only a few from the Iron Age seem to have continued in use through the sixth century, and the form was abandoned at some point in the Persian period. However, as Faust himself notes, these were the tombs of the Judean upper class (pp. 94–95). Since this is exactly the group that was exiled, it is to be expected that the use of this type of would decline in the sixth century. were not the tombs of the Judean (p. The decline in use of this type says nothing about in regards to the rural as Faust notes, would have been in largely (p. It is not evidence of a general decline, but only of a decline in the elite segment of society (p. chapter 4 by the decline in use of the (pp. It is that this type to be used during the Persian period. However, the evidence from suggests that such continued to be at at the of the Babylonian period, and could have in use into the century on in the Persian period are which makes dating the of this form Faust also that the of such as and over at two (pp. (pp. that a in is in the abandonment of the type (and Judean may actually say more about the on Judah of those from the exile than on what was in Judah during the the lack of figurines in as to their in Iron Age says nothing about the of the following the Babylonian invasion (pp. only that the of the biblical that were for the had the of material culture of the Babylonian period is be if their in the Persian period is due to in Judah, by the those from or a of both the of Iron Age following the Babylonian see Jer. and chapter 4 by the from to by the and argues that the most in which such a could is during a period a has been He suggests that the demographic collapse during the sixth century such a Since the up the of the elite of ancient Judah, it is that they their form of would have in any chapter Faust the data from and salvage projects in more in order to a of demographic trends in Judah from the end of the Iron Age through the Persian period and in the Hellenistic period. As noted his a more decline than that by but the two agree that there was a steep drop there is a methodological Faust that survey data for the Persian period settlement and because sites in this period, which contain were not at the He does however, follow his methodological standard for the Iron In other the settlement survey data for the Iron Age a for that period as and it is impossible to actually how many of those sites were settled at a it is impossible to the drop in only to the between noted in chapter Faust to the state of Judah the invasion of 701 BCE and the Babylonian of 586 BCE in order to its greater the attack. He argues that the seventh century for Judah was largely by and in the However, it is to the of settled area and in the Shephelah in other of the The areas which did such as the Negev and Judean were there have for the of the sixth-century Judah in the of other of the by Faust as of such as a lack of a lack of and which sees the as a are a result of the exile of the Judean elite (pp. This is not the is how did this collapse non-elite of This on the of Judean society. For example, the of in some significant on elites a more significant rural sector collapse than in a society where are less Faust to a certain of in Judean society, and that the collapse of the central in Jerusalem the of to support (pp. However, this of should be either in sources or the (which it is rather than which might have been into the the of the “continuity” It is a useful review of the debate and into some of the more extreme views of the of continuity following the Babylonian Faust that of the “continuity” school up an in order to their for some of continuity seem more Faust to be As his views and those of Lipschits are often very Faust in the as the more extreme of the “continuity” it up a greater between the two than actually For example, he Lipschits as that there was no in Judean following the Babylonian and that the Babylonians to Israel (pp. However, it is that Lipschits is primarily arguing that the Babylonians were interested in the area of not of Judah, during their of Jerusalem and to support the chapter Faust to the consensus which has emerged that the area of Benjamin was largely spared by the Babylonians. He this chapter by that it is not for the general of his the collapse of Judean society. This is a claim Benjamin was part of Judah and to the biblical text was the of following the Babylonian If society there to some that does have some on his views regarding the lack of continuity in the sixth main in this chapter is Faust's of the material from Stratum 2 found in n. on pp. The with Faust's of the site relate both to the and for a The of Stratum 2 is found the site and consists of large and (and two more of such with even though more there are other remains as The remains a less settlement than in the previous Stratum 3. The of the Iron Age II Stratum 3 settlement was leaving only the to the is contra who did not how the local the form the Iron Age II and that there was an the of Stratum 2 are over part of that and a significant that its had also The for such a especially together with the other data is the period of Babylonian a would have suitable Faust suggests that it is that the Babylonians a and that Stratum 2 must have been at some other point during the Iron However, the reconstruction of a Iron Age into a administrative is only if one a that the immediate area was in The very use of the a that is not the area under is less than Jerusalem in 586 BCE was about as also the dating of Stratum 2 to the This noted that two of the in one with to sixth-century the other to those of the century. Faust argues that of Stratum 2 at some were destroyed at the of the sixth century, and apparently one was over years The far solution that is by this is that the with the to the sixth century the date the was while the with the pottery the period of use Because large are much less to in it is not surprising that such were in use much (and such for is on If the was used only for it is not surprising that in were not from especially the and used at the Only the in are The range of the in the two thus a Babylonian his chapter on Greek pottery (chapter Faust himself the of a of imported Greek pottery from the sixth to at (p. This is significant for two it the at the If Greek imports had in the southern because there were no longer elites to what are such at The is that there was an elite class there to use them. Of the of Greek pottery also the that there was a settlement at in the sixth to which in provides an of continuity from the Iron Age into the Persian period (p. The pottery found at the site is not by Faust with this type of may be as early as the sixth century and is present in the of the with this type of known from Israel from to the at that Such pottery has also been found in and perhaps some sort of thus has both to the and the at a to the southern had mostly of the and the of their to the Babylonian period was undertaken by this with and of some have the dating and of the an number have (e.g., Faust himself is about whether he a sixth-century date for these of governmental found almost in the area of but he to in that (p. He does not that over percent of these from that it was the most important for the of In other the that these was most at and the area it could was largely limited to the area of Jerusalem and to the As have the of these stamp in and Benjamin at with the of and five to the early Persian period, but see Lipschits 2011b: at not only to the continued in the Persian period, but also that it continued to have a in the administrative system of the area not is the material found at the site with including remains and of as many as ceramic were found on the tell The of such the settlement that those in were following not local Judean It is to a other than the Babylonian period such could have There are also two with was a containing a type of in the other was a on an in The most dating for these remains is also the Babylonian one the available including a with and the of with elite or administrative such as Greek and and with and the dating by the in Greek and and as a a In to Faust's was a administrative of the sixth and It was not Jerusalem its but it was a of the material has for Faust's of the general in As both Faust (pp. and Lipschits there was decline and abandonment in Faust the of this decline to the period the of which he to 586 and that this should be the (p. this Faust archaeologists for to texts (e.g., Jer. for data to support continuity in Benjamin much of the sixth century, but Faust also the biblical text as the basis for his He the general biblical of a Babylonian invasion to the decline in rural of the campaign could such a claim be such texts and the the o

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 42 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.