Family Burial, Family Structure, and The Urbanization of Herodian Jerusalem

Abstract

FAMILY BURIAL, FAMILY STRUCTURE, AND FHE URBANIZATION OF HERODIAN JERUSALEM EYAL REGEVEpigmpktc. arcitaeolo^uaL and lu.stonial dala indiiale ihat most uf the population in Herodian Jerusalem was btiried injamih caves. In .several cases, however. Diaspora Jews and prosehte.s were buried together, replacing Ihe family by an alternative reference group oj other immigrants or proselytes. Furthennore, the Qumran sectarians, and perhaps also some early Christians and pharisaic ha\-erim, chose to withdraw from their families and lo be buried in the sphere of the seet. Tlti.s dislinctive burial practice restdts from the ideological ten.sion between the sect and ihejatnily (ofthe .sectarian metnber). Analysis ofthe number of niches in jo6 burial caves (pre.sumably familial caves) in light ofthe .skeletal remains from some of these caves leads to a tentative reconstruction of the family structure in Herodian Jerusalem. iVIo.st prevalent were the nuclear and the .miall extended families, ivhereas hamuhuv were disltnclively rare. It seems that the average family became smaller dttring the Herodian period. It is suggested thai this process was due to the tirbanization of Jerusalem, and ihat the change in family .structure accelerated the growth of individualism in Jerusalem society.More than ;jO() burial ('a\'es (tlic \'ast tTiajoriiy ol'tliem wiili nichcsj, htiiidrt'ds of ossuary inscripiion.s, and countless skeletons from Herodian Jerusalem (37 B.CK. 70 f:.E.) and its environs, cspet iaily in Jericho, have been discovered. The niches were used to hold ihe body for about a year, after which the bones ofthe deceased were transferred to a stone ossuan, which was slored iit a ca\'e or in a niche. In certain cases, the names of tlie deceased arc incisetl on scores of these ossuaries. Althongh many scholars belie\'e that the burial ca\'es were family-Rnl)in i()()7, 145 53), this assumption has never been investigated in depth. Furthermore, no attempt has yet been made to use these eaves and the finds in them to learn about families in Jerusalem or about Jertisalem society in general. N(.)vv, with the a\'ailahility of research studies or lexicons of ossuaiy itiscriptions (Misga\' 199K Rahtnani 1994), we should attempt to corroborate it by means of the epigraphic ex'idence of tomb inscriptions and the archaeological finds in the caves themsel\-es. 'IVue, it is no simple matier lo reach social conclusions from the archaeological e\-idetiee. especially since many of the eaves were disco\-ercd looted or damaged atid therefore the fttids were only partial. Nevertheless, I \\f)iild like to extract as much information as possible frotn the finds, because stud\'ing the connection between burial attd ihc family is of great importance U) titiderslanfling the social liistor\' ot the period. Death is mei'ely the contintiatioti tif lile, while the family is the most basic so( ial framework, and studying it is essential to an understanding of any human society. The relationship between burial and the family ean teach us something about family l...

Lithology and the distribution of Early Roman-era tombs in Jerusalem’s necropolis

“…This large number of tombs has been archaeologically dated to the last 150 years before the destruction of the city by the Romans in 70 CE. The diverse archaeological finds provide a strong record for analysing the data, verifying, and comparing them to the written sources; thereby obtaining an understanding of the Jewish life and burial customs during the late Hellenistic (Hasmonean) and Early Roman (Herodian) periods (Berlin, 2005;Hachlili, 2005;Kloner and Zissu, 2007;Regev, 2004Regev, , 2006. Thus, the study of the distribution of tombs surrounding the city provided valuable knowledge of adjoining agricultural systems, quarries, roads, and villages within a radius of 5 km from this major urban centre (Avigad, 1967;Baruch, 1998).…”