Palestine Exploration Quarterly

ISSN: 0031-0328 (Print) 1743-1301 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ypeq20

Jewish Funerary Customs During the Second Temple Period, in the Light of the Excavations at the Jericho Necropolis

Rachel Hachlili & Ann Killebrew

To cite this article: Rachel Hachlili & Ann Killebrew (1983) Jewish Funerary Customs During the Second Temple Period, in the Light of the Excavations at the Jericho Necropolis, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 115:2, 109-139, DOI: 10.1179/peq.1983.115.2.109

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/peq.1983.115.2.109

Published online: 19 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 103

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ypeq20

Download by: [University of Michigan] Date: 27 June 2016, At: 13:43 JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS DURING THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD, IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXCAVATIONS AT THE JERICHO NECROPOLIS1

RACHEL HACHLILI AND ANN KILLEBREW

INTRODUCTION The burial customs of the Second Temple Period (first century B.C. - first century A.D.) are known to us mainly from the writings of Josephus and later rabbinical sources dealing with buriallaws.2 Excavations in recent years of Second Temple period tombs in Jerusalem have also been an important source. However, only a partial and incomplete picture has emerged, due to the disturbed condition of the tombs and poor preservation of the artefacts (cf. Avigad 1962a; 1967; 1971; Rahmani 1961; 1967a; 1967b; 1977; 1978; Tzaferis 1970; Kloner 1980a; Ig80b). Additional information on Jewish burial practices of the Second Temple period has recently been uncovered during the course of salvage excavations of the large Jewish necropolis atJ ericho covering some 8 km. of the hills flanking the] ordan Valley (Fig. I). Approximately 50 tombs, containing either primary burials in wooden coffins or secondary collected bone burials, Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016

Fig. I General view of the cemetery liD PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY were excavated and approximately 75 of the robbed tombs were surveyed (Hachlili 1979a; 1980). Due to the isolated location of the area and the dry climatic conditions, the tombs and their contents, including organic matter, were extremely well preserved giving a clear and detailed picture of the burial customs of this period.

THE CEMETERY The Jericho cemetery, like all Jewish cemeteries of the Second Temple Period in Jerusalem (Rahmani 1961, 119; 1977, 22-23; Kloner 1980, 258-72) and in the Judaean Desert,3 was located outside the town's limits in accordance with Jewish law (m. Bava Bathra 2, 9) and served the population of the surrounding area.Jews observed this prohibition against burial within the city boundaries, although in later sources exceptions are mentioned (e.g. y. Nazir 17, 5 and Talmudic Encyclopedia V, 260 fr.). At Jericho, all burials, both primary and secondary, were in loculi tombs, hewn into the hillside, which served as family tombs with provision for separate burial of each individual (Fig. 2). No graves, dug into the earth, have been found (cf. Kloner 1980a, 244-46 who mentions graves that have been discovered in Jerusalem). The same general tomb plan survived throughout the Second Temple Period at Jericho as well as in Jerusalem and other places in Judaea. It consisted of a square burial chamber, often with a pit dug into its floor to enable a man to stand upright in the tomb (Kloner 1980a, 241-43). The edge of the pit formed three or four benches, on each side of the tomb. One to three loculi (kokhim) were hewn into each of the three walls, with the exception of the entrance wall. The arched loculi were c. I m. high and 2 m. long.4 The entrance to the tomb was square and closed either by a rectangular blocking stone, sometimes in the shape of a large 'stopper's or by mudbricks and small stones. Occasionally single-loculus tombs were constructed. The Jericho evidence proves conclusively that loculi tombs (kokhim) were first used and designed for primary (i.e. permanent inhumation) burials in coffins as is also indicated by the length of the kokh (c. 2 m.), i.e. the length ofa coffin. The same tomb plan continued to be used for ossuary burials. (It should be pointed out that in previous research scholars claimed that the kokh was 'intimately' connected with secondary burial. See Kutscher 1967, 279; Meyers 1971, 64-69; Avigad 1976a, 259 where he claims that: 'For Jews the use of the kokh is associated with the custom of bone collection for secondary burial.' If the loculi tomb had been designed for 70 cm. long ossuaries there would be no reason to dig a 2 m. long kokh.) Rock-cut loculi tombs were widespread in the Semitic world during the Hellenistic to Roman period, from approximately the second century B.C. until the third century A.D. (see e.g. Dura Europos: Toll 1946, 7-19; Palmyra: Gawlikowski 1970, 107-08; Nabataean:Jaussen and Savignac 1909, tomb B20, Fig. 157; tomb A3, Fig. 174; tomb B6, Fig. 183). In Egypt the loculi tomb was one of several types of burial which was particularly prevalent at Alexandria, Fayum Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 and Leontopolis (Noshi 1937, 21-22 suggests a Phoenician origin for these burials). Leonto- polis, also called the city ofOnias, was aJ ewish colony inhabited during the second century B.C. - first century A.D. (Ant. XII, 387; XIII, 62-73; XIV, 99, 131-33; War, I 31-33; VII, 420-32). The Jewish rock-cut loculi tombs consisted of a central chamber which was probably closed by the stelai found during the excavations of the necropolis (Naville 1890, 13; Griffith 189°,51-53). Eighty stelai were found with Greek inscriptions (Frey 1952, nos. 1450-530, pp. 378-81; Lewis 1964, 145 fr.). As relations are known to have existed between the Egyptian andJudaeanJewish communites (War I, 33; VII, 422-25; Ant. XII, 387; Kasher 1978, I 13-27), we suggest a connexion between the rock-cut loculi tombs of the Second Temple period inJudaea and those at Egypt, especially Leontopolis. These ties go back at least to Hasmonaean times (Ant. XIII, 63, 67; XIV, 99, 131-33; see also Tcherikover 1959,276-81). However this does not rule out the possibility of JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS I I I Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016

Fig. 2. General plan ofloculi tomb I 12 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

Fig. 3. Reconstruction of chamber A in monumental tomb as it appeared to us when the tomb was opened. Drawn by A. Cleja

a Phoenician origin which was responsible for its appearance in the Hellenistic and Semitic world both in Egypt (Noshi 1937, 22) and at the Marissa tombs (Peters and Thiersch 1905, 15-35. For a summary of theories on the origin of the loculi tombs see Kloner 1980a, 228-3 I). In addition to the single chamber rock-cut loculi tombs, one unusual monumental tomb was discovered on a hill in the Jericho cemetery (Fig. 3; Hachlili I979b). It consisted of a large open courtyard with benches on the north, south and east sides, and to the west a two-chamber loculi tomb had been dug into the hillside. To the north a miqva (ritual bath) is an integral part of the courtyard,6 and the aqueduct running along the top of the hills through the cemetery from Ein Duc (Na~aran) to ancient Jericho and the Hasmonaean and Herodian palaces (Netzer, 1977, I), brought water to it. Jewish sources also mention aqueducts running through Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 cemeteries (Sema~ot 14, I in Zlotnick 1966,85,165; m. Yadayim 4,7; b.Horayot 13b, b.Megillah 29a). InJ erusalem a similar case is known but here the aqueduct passes through the cemetery in close proximity to the tombs and even at times cu ts in to them (for a thorough discussion of aqueducts inJ ewish cemeteries, see Patrich 1980). The courtyard of the monumental tomb was probably used for mourning and memorial services similar to the 'eulogy place' or 'house' (Netzer 1978, 58) mentioned in Jewish sources (b. Bava Bathra loob; see also Klein 1908, 51-52; Safrai 1976, 779). Similar courtyards with benches are known from the other contemporary Jerusalem monumental tombs but are usually smaller in size (Kloner 1980a, 2 10, 244). Courtyards with benches dating to the third century A.D. are also found at the Beth She ~arimJ ewish cemetery and probably served a similar purpose (Avigad 1976a, 41-45, 81-82, Figs. 23-24, 35,61, PI. xxx: I). Comparable in plan, but differing JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS 113 in function, are the triclinia in the N abataean cemetery at Petra (Horsfield 1938, 31-39, PIs 64:2, 66, 67:2, 71, 73) which served as a gathering place for commemorative meals on the anniversary of the dead (but see Goodenough 1956, 16g-72 who suggests that the Jews held similar feasts, an opinion which has been refuted by Lieberman 1965, 509, 511). Jewish rock-cut tombs of this period were not known to be decorated.7 However, in the Jericho necropolis a wall pain ting was discovered in the mon umen tal tomb depicting a vine trellis and grapes with birds perched on its branches eating grapes (Fig. 3,4; Hachlili 1982). The wall painting, unique in Jewish funerary art, can be compared to contemporary wall paintings found in Herodian villas and palaces throughout Judaea. These frescoes usually consist of geometric, floral and occasionally architectural motifs 0erusalem: Avigad 1976b, colourpl.; Broshi 1972,106, PIs 7, 8;Jericho: Netzer 1974, PIs 1,2; Masada: Yadin 1966,46,48, 49, 82). The closest contemporary parallel to the Jericho tomb wall painting vine trellis motif is found in the Nabataean 'Painted House' at Siq el-Bared in Petra (Horsfield 1938,21-22; Glueck 1956,13-23). The Jericho wall painting is one of the earliest occurrences (first century A.D.) of the vine trellis motifinJewish funerary art of the Second Temple period. It appears only rarely in Jewish funerary art: twice, on an ossuary and sarcophagus, and once on the pediment of a tomb. In the Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016

Fig. 4. Detail from north wall of the fresco

8 114 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY latter examples the motifis stylized and symmetrical, in contrast to the flowing and naturalistic style of the Jericho painting. The vine trellis in the Jericho painting seems to be a decorative motifwithout any symbolic meaning. It not only appears in contemporary funerary art but also as a decorative motif on architectural elements (Avi-Yonah 1948, 15g-61). It is therefore difficult to accept the interpretation of this motif in funerary art as a symbol of afterlife as has been proposed by various scholars (Ingholt 1932,8, n. 17; Ory 1939,41; Goodenough 1956,163-72). The Jericho tomb painting was probably inspired by the Graeco-Roman tomb frescoes prevalent at this time. It was most likely executed at the beginning of the first century A.D. just after the hewing of the tomb had been completed and was for the benefit of the visitors to the tomb (see also Toll 1946, 20 who states that the tombs at Dura Europos were undecorated due to the fact that no visitors came to the tombs and thus decoration was unnecessary). The appearance of the wall painting and occasionally of graffiti indicates that the tombs were probably visited by family members. The practice of grave marking in the Jericho cemetery is attested by the discovery of a charcoal drawing of a neftI on a tomb wall and a three-dimensional stone neftI found on the surface of one of the hills of the cemetery (Hachlili 1981). The drawing depicts three columns Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016

Fig. 5. DrawingofnefiJappearingon a tomb wall JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS 115 and part of a fourth, each column consisting of a fluted shaft on a raised rectangular base, with an Ionic capital surmounted by a pyramid, with palm trees filling the space in between. The stone neftI consists of the upper part of a fluted column, topped by a thicker, vertically fluted ring, which in turn is capped by a cone decorated with lozenge-shaped geometric forms (Fig. 5; for complete discussion of the neftI and its parallels in the Semitic world, i.e. Nabataean and Palmyran funerary art, see Hachlili 1981; Avigad 1954, 6g--71; Gawlikowski 1970,22-30,34, Fig. 12; Horsfield 1938,39, PI. Lxvn:2; Rahmani 1967a, 66, Fig. 4).

BURIAL TYPES Two distinctly different types of burials emerged during the excavations in the cemetery: primary and secondary burials. These two burial types can be distinguished not only typologi- cally but also chronologically and stratigraphically: primary burial in wooden coffins (type I) and secondary burial of collected bones either placed in individual ossuaries (type 2a) or piled in heaps (type 2b).

Type I: Primary Burial. Primary burial in wooden coffins is the earliest type of burial in the Jericho cemetery. The coffins were placed in the rock-cut loculi tombs, each loculus holding one wooden coffin (with the exception of one loculus which held two coffins, one containing a woman and the other her child). The dead were evidently brought to the cemetery inside the coffins (y. Berakoth 3, 6b and Nazir 7, 56c describe coffin-bearers). The coffin itself just fitted through the entrance of the tombs, but it was necessary to remove the gabled lid in order to push the coffin through the entrance. Once inside the tomb, the lid was secured to the coffin. The coffins were put in the loculi and only when they were filled would others be placed on the benches. There is only one occurrence of a coffin being found in the pit (Fig. 6). The coffins are in the form ofa chest, constructed by means of mortising, with a post at each corner. The lid of the chest was usually gabled, consisting of one plank on each side and a pedim~nt at each end. There is, however, one well-preserved example with a hinged lid. All parts of the coffin were made of wood and wooden pegs were employed in its construction. Iron nails and knobs found with the coffins were probably used only for decoration or structural support8 (but see below, pp. 127 f. regarding a 'magical' interpretation for the nails). Several types of wood were used in the construction of the coffin: the most common types were Sycamore, Christ-thorn and Cypress.9 The coffins were decorated with painted red and black geometric patterns and designs. Earlier examples of similar wooden coffins, dating to the fourth century B.C., have survived in Egypt and South Russia (Watzinger 1905). Contemporary coffins in Israel, different in their construction and decorated with inlay, were found in tombs near En-Gedi (Avigad 1962a, 181-

Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 82, PI. 22), and fragments of coffins were found in aJ ericho tomb during previous excavations in the area (Bennet 1965, 532). The remains of three wooden coffins were uncovered in the Qumran cemetery (de Vaux 1973, 46-47) and poorly preserved simple box coffins were also discovered in Syria, at the Dura Europos necropolis (Toll 1946, 20, 99). Later examples from the Roman period were found in the N abataean cemetery at Kurnub (Negev 197 I, I 18, Fig. 6, PI. 24b) and at another site in the Negev (unpublished). All the bodies were extended face upwards in the coffin, usually with the head to one side and hands close to the side of the body (Safrai 1976,780-81: 'Jews took pains to ensure that the body was interred with the limbs unbent ... '). Most coffins contained one individual but sometimes a mother and small child (infant or foetus) were found together in a coffin. There are several occurrences where one or two bodies were added to a coffin that already contained an individual, but no more than three bodies were found in anyone coffin. It is probable that these 116 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY later bodies were placed in coffins because the individuals were related to the first interred person (see Sema~ot 13, 8: 'Two corpses may not be buried beside one another, nor a corpse beside bones, nor bones beside a corpse. Rabbi Judah says: Whomsoever a person may sleep with when he is living, he may be buried with when he is dead', in Zlotnick 1966,84, 164). Orientation of the bodies in the kokh and tomb does not seem to be significant as the bodies were placed in various directions. No special marks were found on the coffins which might have indicated which direction the head should be oriented in the loculus. This is in contrast to the Qumran cemetery, where the orientation of most of the tombs is consistent - generally north- south (de Vaux 1973,46 and Bar-Adon 1977,22). I t should be noted that the wooden coffins inJ ericho were used only for primary burials and never as a container for secondary burials (cf. Avigad 1962a, 180 where wooden coffins at En- Gedi were re-used as ossuaries; see also Meyers 1971,23 n. 27). In most of the coffin tombs, grave goods, both personal possessions and objects of daily use, were found with the dead. Personal objects found inside the coffins were usually placed near the deceased's head or feet. They were found only with women and children, as is also the case at the Dura Europos loculi tombs containing coffins (Toll 1946,22, Figs. 21-24; 29, 37). These include wooden objects such as bowls, spatulae and beads, and a glass amphoriskos lacking a handle (Fig. 7). Leather sandals were also commonly found, placed at the head of the deceased inside the coffin. 10 Objects of daily use were found on the floor or in the pit of the tomb. These include cooking pots, bottles, juglets, folded lamps, and a flask (Fig. 8). Storage jars were placed outside the entrance of the tomb.

Fig. 6. Top view of sealed tomb with reconstructed coffins and vessels in situ as discovered by us. Drawn by A. Cleja Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS I 17

Fig. 7. Amphoriskos as it was found inside the Fig. 8. Cooking pot found in situ, in front of sealed coffin. (Note its location in the lower right-hand loculus, near coffin burial corner of coffin) .

Fig. 9. Coin of Agrippa I. Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016

(a) Reverse of coin - three ears of barley (b) Obverse - canopy; around inscription, issuing from between two leaves, in field; date- BACILEL[WCJ ArPIIlA. Two coins of LS (year 6) - A.D. 42/43; Agrippa I were found inside a skull of a secondary, gathered bone burial (Type 2b) 118 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY The discovery of several coins inside skulls may indicate that coins had been placed in the mouth of the deceased (Fig. 9; see below p. 128). The remains of twig-filled leather mattresses found in some of the coffins attests that the dead had been buried on them. Possibly the bodies had been brought up to the tomb on a mattress, perhaps the kliva referred to in T. B. Moed Katan 27b and T. Niddah 9, 16, and then placed inside the coffin (Safrai 1976, 778). Another possible explanation is that individuals who died in their homes on their mattresses contaminated them and, the mattresses were buried with the deceased in their coffins rather than burnt. Roman art reveals that mattresses and pillows were common accessories in funeral processions (Toynbee 1971, 46, PIs 9 and II) and this may have also been the accepted practice for Jews. The imprint of woven material found on several bones and a skullll suggests that the body was wrapped in a shroud (see also Bar-Adon 1977,22). This custom is mentioned in the sources (seeJohn 11.44; m. Kilaim 9,4; m. MaaserSheni 5,12; t. Shabbat 17,13; t. Nedarim 2,7; Safrai 1976, 777). This same custom was practised by the Romans (Toynbee 1971, 46).

Type 2a: Secondary Burial in Ossuaries. Several of the excavated Jericho tombs contained ossuary (= bone containers) burials. Most of them were disturbed or had collapsed, so a total picture regarding the tombs and their burial customs is lacking. From the finds and stratigraphy of the ossuary burials it is clear that they post-date coffin burials. The Jericho ossuaries12 were hewn from one large block of limestone (Fig. 10). They are in the shape of a small rectangular box, usually resting on four low 'legs', and measure Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016

Fig. 10. Front of ossuary decorated with two rosettes JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS 119 c.60 x 35 X 30 em. for adults with smaller ones for children.13 A stone lid - flat, slightly curved or gabled - was placed on top.14 The ossuaries were usually decorated on the front and sides with incised or chip-carved designs, the most common motif being two or three rosettes in a frame. Other ossuary motifs include geometrical or architectural designs. Animals and human figures never appear in the decorative repertoire. Red paint was often added, covering the entire decoration. Occasionally a design was painted on the ossuary. The ossuaries do not show any influence of wooden coffins, either in construction or in decoration (cf. Rahmani 1977, 15 who suggests that the protrusions ('legs') on ossuaries were influenced by coffin legs). Only few pottery ossuaries and no wooden ones have yet been discovered. Iron nails, which in the past were considered to be proof that wooden ossuaries existed, were not used in the construction of wooden containers (see below, pp. 127f.). Stone ossuaries might have been chosen because stone was not susceptible to contamination (see Avigad 1976a, 19). The ossuaries are very similar to the Jerusalem ossuaries in shape, design and decoration (see Rahmani 1977; 1982b, I 12-18). As the limestone was available in theJericho area as well as Jerusalem, it seems that the ossuaries were made in local workshops at Jerusalem and Jericho. However, due to the similarity between these ossuaries and the slightly inferior quality of those fromJericho, it is likely that the Jericho artisans had received their training in Jerusalem. The ossuaries were placed in the loculi or on the benches. Often two ossuaries were placed one above the other or next to each other (Hachlili 1978, 45). In one loculus, four ossuaries were found together (Hachlili 1979b, 56-57). The occupants of ossuaries placed in the same loculus are usually related as can be concluded from the inscriptions. Sometimes the ossuaries were put on benches (or on the floor), but this was not due to lack of space in the loculi - in many cases the loculi were empty and ossuaries were found on the benches or floor. From the way the ossuaries had been placed in the Jericho tombs it is clear that burial in ossuaries was not due to a desire to save space (cf. Avigad 1976a, 259). It is not entirely clear how the bodies were prepared for secondary burial. First, the body decayed until only the bones remained. M. Sanhedrin 6, 6 states: 'When the flesh is completely decomposed the bones were gathered and buried in their proper place.' R. Akiba declares in Sema~ot 12,7: 'The bones may not be gathered until the flesh has wasted away' (Zlotnick 1966, 81). It has been claimed that the body was placed in the loculus of the family tomb and after a year the relatives of the deceased came to gather the bones and put them in his ossuary (Rahmani 1961, 117-18; 1978, 104; Kloner 1980a, 248-52). However, up to now, no evidence has been found in theJ ericho cemetery to support this claim. Another objection to this theory is that it would take many years for a body to decompose inside a closed tomb in the dry Jericho climate. Perhaps there was a special structure where the bodies were placed, or an area where the bodies were first buried in shallow graves until only the bones remained (see Sema~ot 12, 9: ' ... my son, bury at first in a fosse. In the course of time, collect my bones and put them in an Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 ossuary' (Zlotnick 1966,82, 161-62) andy. Moed Qatan 1,5: 'A man collects the bones of his father and mother because it is ajoy unto him. First they interred them in the mahamorot ["pits" or "valleys"]. When the flesh had decayed they collected the bones and buried them in a container(?) ['aron = ossuary?]'. See Lieberman 1962, v, 1235; Meyers 1971, 5g-61; Hachlili 1979b,55-56). The bones were put inside the ossuary in a given order: long bones were found lengthwise at the bottom with the bones of the arms and hands on one side and those of the legs and feet at the other. On top of them the remaining bones of the body were placed. At one end the skull was placed on top of all the bones (Fig. I I). Usually the bones of one individual had been placed in each ossuary. In one tomb there are several occurrences of more than one individual interred in an ossuary - small children were buried with their mothers, or three children were placed 120 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

Fig. I I. Placement of bones inside an ossuary, in situ Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016

together. In one ossuary two adults were interred together (a father and a youth; Hachlili 1979b, Table I; Hachlili and Smith 1979, 67). The relatives of the deceased were careful to place him in the correct ossuary. AtJ ericho the inscriptions mentioning the name and occasionally the age always correspond to the sex and age of the individual found inside the ossuary (Hachlili and Smith 1979). Evidently the bodies were carefully labelled during the period they were left to decompose. The more personal duties associated with burial of the deceased, such as carrying of the coffin and its orderly placing in the tomb, collection of bones into ossuaries, mourning and writing of inscriptions, were probably done by relatives and friends of the deceased (see Josephus, Ap. II, 205: ' ... funerary ceremony is to be undertaken by the nearest relatives ... '). JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS 121 Contemporary and later sources mention charitable societies, the habar cir who probably dealt with other duties involved in the preparation of the body for burial (see Sema~ot 12, 4-5 in Zlotnick 1966,80-81; Safrai 1976, 775; Schwabe and Lifshitz 1974, inscription no. 202). Such Jewish societies also existed in Egypt (Stern 1964, 252-53). Professional undertakers are also known from Roman society (Toynbee 1971, 45). Toll (1946, 20) suggests that at the Dura Europos necropolis the family did not even enter the tomb and the whole burial was done by grave diggers. is Fewer grave goods were discovered with ossuary burials, which is no doubt due in part to the tombs' disturbed condition. The finds include unguentaria, bowls, Herodian lamps and cooking pots, and were usually placed close to the ossuaries or in the pit. In one loculus, two ossuaries had been placed, one on top of the other, along with an inscribed funerary bowl (Hachlili 1978, 48-49). The assemblage of pottery found in the Jericho tombs is identical to that used in daily life by the Jews of the Second Temple period. However, certain vessels, such as cooking pots and unguentaria, appear frequently while other types such as bowls were rarely placed in the tombs. It should be noted that several objects in the tombs were defective at the time of their placement, e.g. dented cooking pots and a glass amphoriskos with a broken handle. Does this simply indicate that it is preferable economically to place a defective item in the tomb or was it a symbolic act?16 Comparisons between the grave goods appearing in coffin tombs and those found with ossuaries reveal that no personal objects were found with or inside the ossuaries. But vessels such as unguentaria, lamps and cooking pots appear in both types of tombs and probably served similar purposes. Several conclusions can be drawn regarding the placement and purpose of these vessels inside the tomb. Storage jars, some found in situ, had often been placed outside the entrance of coffin tombs and might have contained water for purification (see also Toll 1946, 100 and n. 20). Cooking pots were found in all types of tombs and various explanations have been proposed for their appearance. Avigad (1956, 334) has suggested that the cooking pots were placed in the tomb as containers for purification water (cf. Rahmani 1961, 118-19; 1967a, 96; Kloner 1980a, 256). Small vessels such as juglets and bottles were apparently used for funerary spices or ointments (Ant. xv, 51; Ant. XVII, 199; War, 1437,673; M. Berahot 8,6; see also Safrai 1976,776, nn. 3-9). The lamps found in the tombs may have been used to light the tomb for visitors or may have been lit and placed at the head of the deceased out of respect (Safrai 1976, 774 and n. 4; Lieberman 1965,509 and n. 22; Rahmani 1967b, 96; Mazar 1973, 210; Kurtz and Boardman 1971,21 I; Kloner 1980a, 254-55). The practice of placing burial gifts with the dead was widespread throughout the Hellenistic- and Semitic-Roman world, but the Jews gave it their own interpretation without Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 the connotation of an offering to the dead for their use in the afterlife, as in the pagan world. Rather, as Lieberman (1965, 509) claims, Jews placed personal belongings in the tomb of the deceased, not because he needed them but because the scene aroused the grief of the onlookers (Zlotnick 1966, 16-17; Sema~ot 8,7; War I, 437; Allon 1976, 9g-105; Kloner 1980a, 257-58). It should be noted also that personal gifts were only placed with women and children in the Jericho tombs (see also the Dura Europos cemetery: Toll 1946,21-22). The Jericho inscriptions were found, with the exception of an inscribed funerary bowl (Hachlili 1978), either incised or written on ossuaries. There was no particular place reserved for the inscriptions - they were found on the front, back, sides and lid. Quite often the inscription was repeated on the ossuary and several were bilingual, written inJ ewish and Greek script. The inscription usually included the name of the interred and his family relation 122 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

Fig. 12. Inscription appearing on an ossuary written inJewish script. It reads: Yehoezer son of Eleazar

(Fig. 12). In several cases additional information is included, such as place of origin (Hachlili 1978, 48-49), and there is one inscription where the status, 'freedman', is written (Hachlili 1979b, 33, 45-46). An abecedary, consisting of the first eight letters of the Greek alphabet, appears written in charcoal inside an ossuary lid (see Hachlili 1979b, 47-48). Nearly all the Jericho inscriptions came from two tombs, enabling us to reconstruct two family trees, each consisting of three generations (Hachlili 1978; 1979b). An intriguing aspect of the inscriptions is the identity of their author. Two possibilities exist: either professional scribes or family members. The latter suggestion seems more probable because of the great variety of hands that are evident in the execution of these inscriptions (see Sevenster 1963, 180-83). It is, however, Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 possible to find two ossuaries with inscriptions written by the same hand (Hachlili 1979b, 33). Very few funerary inscriptions prior to the Second Temple period have been found in Israel. In the First Temple period only four funerary inscriptions are known and they are associated with people of the upper class, such as royalty and important officials (Avigad 1953, 148; N aveh 1963, 8g--92). During the second century B.C. until the first century A.D., funerary inscriptions are commonly found on ossuaries (Frey 1952, 245 ff.) and occasionally on tombs. This custom seems to have existed also throughout the Hellenistic-Roman East, including the Jewish settlement of Leontopolis (Naville 1890, 14-15; Frey 1952, nos. 1450-530; Lewis 1964, 145-63, nos. 1451-530). These inscriptions from Leontopolis mention one person and include his name, epitaph, age and date. The names are Greek or Jewish. Funerary inscriptions also appear at Palmyra. These inscriptions, dating to the third century A.D., are in Greek or JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS 123

I f4.

o 1M bd bd :b3

Fig. 13. Collected secondary bone burial (Type 2b)

Palmyran Aramaic and were found above or on the entrance or on stelai. They record the names of the people who built the tomb and of the person who owned the grave space (Ingholt 1935; 1936; 1938). Nabataean funerary inscriptions, usually appearing on the fac;ade of the monumental rock-cut tombs, mention who made the tomb and for whom (Negev 1976, 2 I g-20). In contrast to the surrounding Semitic cultures, Jewish funerary inscriptions were almost exclusively found on ossuaries and seldom on the tombs. As the Jericho Jewish family tombs stress the individuality of the burial, it is only natural thatJ ewish inscriptions also included the name of the individual and his family relationship, occasionally mentioning age or origin, but Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 never including the builder of the tomb nor mentioning the selling or renting of the tomb, as occurs in the Palmyran and Nabataean funerary inscriptions. The Jericho inscriptions enable us to conclude: (I) that the Jericho tombs contained at most three generations of a particular family; (2) the addition of several names to the Second Temple period onomasticon; (3) the recurrence of names is common in successive generations of one family (Hachlili 1979b, 53); (4) theJericho families were literate; and (5) the families were bilingual in Greek and Aramaic.

Type 2b: Secondary Burial - Collected Bone Tombs. In addition to ossuary burials, secondary burials were found in two large, disturbed tombs and two single-loculus tombs. They contained piles of collected bones in the loculi and on the benches (Fig. 13), without any traces of coffins or 124 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY ossuaries. The bones had been systematically gathered, with skulls placed on top of the piles of bones (see also Rahmani 1967a, 95). Pottery vessels, usually cooking pots, were found among the bones as well as two coins of Agrippa I in a skull. From the stratigraphic position of these tombs, the pottery and the coins found in them, it can be stated with certainty that this group of tombs is later than the coffin tombs (Type I) but earlier or contemporary with the ossuary tombs previously discussed. Unusual Burials in theJericho Cemetery. There are three unusual practices which each occur only once in the Jericho cemetery and differ from burial customs described above: (I) bones transferred into a side loculus in the same tomb; (2) plastered-over primary burials without coffins; and (3) bones collected into heaps and placed in a special pit dug for them. (I) In one tomb, coffins in the loculi and on the benches had been emptied of their contents and the bones had been transferred into the first loculus on the left side of the tomb as one enters. Primary burials were again placed in the coffins (which had remained in the loculi). The last loculus was purposely reserved for the transference of bodies. According toJewish law it was permitted to move the body within the tomb (Klein 1908, 95-96; cf. Zlotnick 1966, 164; Sema~ot 13, 7). It is perhaps possible to explain this tomb as belonging to a family which was unable or did not want to cut another tomb and so transferred the bodies from the coffins and re-used them. (2) The second exceptional type of burial discovered consisted of primary burials without coffins, laid out in the loculi, and the pit filled with the bones of small children. The closed loculi and pit were then plastered over creating a tomb that consisted of a chamber with benches and a shallow pit. Ossuaries had later been placed on the plastered benches. Herodian lamps and pottery were found associated with the primary burials thus indicating that the primary burials only slightly pre-dated the ossuary burials. (3) In the monumental tomb, which contained twenty-two ossuaries, a special pit- loculus had been dug into the eastern wall, to the left of the entrance, and had been filled with layers of individually collected bones of at least 100 individuals. Next to it, in the southern wall, was a loculus which also collected bones. Whether this pit with its burials is contemporary with, pre-dates or post-dates the ossuary burials inside the tomb is difficult to determine at the moment as the finds discovered with the communal bone burial are not indicative. Re-interment. A differentiation should be made between the custom of secondary burial in ossuaries and that of re-interment in the Land of Israel of those who died in the Diaspora. Scholars (e.g. Meyers 197 I, 72-79) have claimed that ossuaries contained the bones ofDiaspora Jews and have used inscriptions mentioning a person's origin outside Israel as proof for their claims. But the inscriptions actually indicate that the deceased had belonged to a community of Jews residing in Jerusalem, ofDiaspora origin (Rahmani 1973, 123; 1977,28 and nn. 123-24; Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 Avigad 1962b, 12; Bagatti and Milik 1958, p. 81, inscr. 9). It was not until the third century A.D. thatJews began to practise the custom ofre-interment in the Land of Israel (Gafni 1977, 15). There is especially abundant evidence for this practice in the Beth Sheearim cemetery (Schwabe and Lifshitz 1974, 2 19). I t is clear that oss uary burials did not originate nor were they practised for the purpose of enabling Jews from the Diaspora to be re-interred in the Land of Israel.

DATING The dates of the three types of burial customs are: Type 1 (primary burial in coffins) - mid-first century B.C. to C.A.D. 10; Type 2a (secondary burial in ossuaries) - C.A.D. 10-68; Type 2b (secondary burials without ossuaries) - C.A.D. 10-68. These dates are based on the following considerations: JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS 125 Coins found in the tombs provide several absolute dates. Two were found in a coffin tomb, one ofJohn Hyrcanus II (63-40 B.C.) and one, inside a skull, dating to Archelaus (4 B.C.-A.D. 6), indicating the range of the coffins' use. Two other coins of Herod Agrippa I (A.D. 37-44) were found in a skull associated with secondary communal bone burials. A second absolute date is found in an ossuary inscription mentioning queen Agrippina, the wife of emperor Claudius, who was empress during A.D. 50-54 (Hachlili 1979b, 60, 62). The inscription states that she had freed the deceased Theodotus, sometime during his adult life between A.D. 50-54 and further confirms a first century date for the monumental ossuary tomb in which it was discovered. The other ossuary inscriptions permit us to reconstruct up to three generations offamilies buried in the tombs. The epigraphic evidence along with the anthropological data are proof that ossuaries continued in use at Jericho no longer than three generations (i.e. c.60 years), from approximately A.D. 10-70 (Hachlili and Smith 1979; Hachlili 1979b, 60, 62).17 These dates also correspond to the political events occurring inJudaea at this time. In A.D. 6 theJewish state lost its autonomy under Rome when Archelaus, ethnarch of Judaea, Samaria and Idumaea was removed from power and J udaea became a Roman province under procurators. After the destruction ofJ ericho by the Romans in A.D. 68 (War IV, 450-5 I), which obviously included the destruction of the industrial and workshop areas of the town, ossuary burials in the cemetery probably ceased, and there is no evidence for their continuation. All three types of tombs were found on one hillside providing stratigraphically relative dates for the three types of tombs. Type 1 tombs were found hewn into the lower part of the hill (i.e. the first tombs hewn) and therefore the earliest in the cemetery. Types 2a and 2b were found above Type I tombs and, in a few cases, cut slightly into the earlier tombs. Finally the pottery found in the tombs also indicates relative dates for the tomb types. Each type of tomb was found with a particular assemblage which can be dated typologically. Type 1 tombs contained the earlier types of pottery, including folded lamps, which can be dated no later thanl the first century B.C. Pottery found with Type 2 tombs is characteristic of the first century A.D. and includes Herodian lamps, which are prevalent during this period. Rahmani (1961, 116; 1977, 24-25; 1978, 1I I) has dated the practice of secondary burials in ossuaries to 40/30 B.C.-A.D. 70, continuing sporadically until C.A.D. 135 (Kloner 1980a, 252-53; see Meyers 197 I, 3g-44 who gives an earlier date for the beginning of secondary burials). In the light of the new discoveries in the Jericho cemetery, which provide absolute chronology for ossuary burials, previous dates given for the beginning of ossuary burials in Jerusalem should now be reconsidered.

EVOLUTION OF JEWISH BURIAL CUSTOMS

Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 Primary burial in coffins and secondary burial in ossuaries were the two accepted forms of burial during the late Second Temple period, differing from earlier and later Jewish burial customs. In order to understand these burial practices more fully they will be compared to the earlier First Temple period (Israelite) burials (eighth-sixth centuries B.C.), as well as to contemporary Jewish sect (i.e. the Essenes) burials at the cemeteries of Qumran and En el-Ghuweir. Lastly, Second Temple burials will be compared to la,ter, second-fourth centuries A.D. burials in the Jewish necropolis at Beth She~arim. Israelite rock-cut tombs of the pre-exilic period are mainly known from the Jerusalem area and consist of a passage leading to a main chamber and side rooms with benches and rectangular troughs (Loffreda 1968; Ussishkin 1974). A repository pit for the transference of bones was often added (see monumental tombs in Silwan: Loffreda 1965-66; Ussishkin 1970; the Temple Mount tombs: Mazar 197 I, 25-28, Fig. 16, PIs XV-XIX; cemeteries of Jerusalem: 126 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY Barkai, Mazar and Kloner 1975; Mazar 1976; Davis and Kloner 1978). Few similarities exist between the Jerusalem First Temple period rock-cut tombs and those of the late Second Temple period. Architecturally these tombs differ - the earlier tombs are chamber tombs with side rooms while the Second Temple period rock-cut tombs have a chamber and loculi. The loculi provided individual burials for each interred person while in the Israelite tombs all individuals were laid out on the benches and were later moved to the repository pit.18 It is also noteworthy that First Temple rock-cut tombs served large numbers of people, probably an extended family or tribe, or in the case of the monumental tombs, only a small number of upper class individuals. Second Temple period tombs served the immediate family. The majority of rock-cut loculi tombs of the Second Temple period have been found in Jerusalem (Avigad 1962b; 1971; Rahmani 1961; 1967a; 1967b; 1977; 1978; Tzaferis 1970; Kloner 1980a; 1980b) and excavations have revealed that burial customs of Jerusalem and Jericho during the first century A.D. were similar: rock-cut loculi tombs, containing secondary burial in ossuaries. The grave goods found in these tombs are also similar. The ossuaries were cut from local limestone and similar motifs appear on both theJ ericho andJ erusalem ossuaries; however those from Jerusalem are of higher quality. This may be due to the relatively few ossuaries thus far discovered in Jericho, but it may also indicate that artisans of lesser ability worked and resided in Jericho. This is likely, as Jerusalem, being the religious and cultural centre of the time, was a city of much greater influence and wealth than Jericho. Primary burials in wooden coffins have not yet been discovered in Jerusalem but this is easily explained by the poor preservation of organic material in the damper climate ofJ erusalem and the disturbed condition of most of the tombs. But tombs containing primary burials have been found where the bones had been transferred to charnels (Rahmani 1958, 104; 1967a, 94-95; 1977, 24) and one such tomb contained primary burials with pottery similar to that found in theJericho coffin tombs (Kloner 1980b). In summary, the homogeneous nature of burial customs inJericho and Jerusalem must be stressed and it is logical to assume that not only secondary burials in ossuaries, but also primary burials in wooden coffins were practised in both centres. One sect of Jews during the first century A.D., the Essenes, practised primary burial in individual graves as evidenced by their cemeteries at Qumran and En el-Ghuweir. The main cemetery of Qumran was located east of the settlement and contained about 1,100 graves (de Vaux 1953; 1954; 1956; 1973). Its organized plan consisted of rows of single graves, usually oriented north-south. The graves were marked by oval-shaped heaps of stones appearing on the surface. Beneath the stones a rectangular cavity had been dug out of the ground to a depth which varies between 1.20 m. and 2 m. At the bottom of this cavity a pit had been dug, almost always under the eastern wall of the cavity. This was often closed by mudbricks or flat stones. Several graves showed signs of wooden coffins (de Vaux 1973, 46-47). Most of the excavated Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 tombs contained individual burials and only male interments were found in the main cemetery (de Vaux 1973,46, PIs XXV-XXVI; 1953, 102, Fig. 5, PIs 4b, 5a-b; Steckoll 1968; Bar-Adon 1977, 12, 16, Figs. 1g-20). On the outskirts of this cemetery and in the smaller cemeteries of Qumran a few females and children had been interred (de Vaux 1973, 47, 57-58; 1956, 569, 575; Cross 1961, 97-98). The large number of males found in these graves versus the number of women and children points to the importance placed on celibacy in this community (Cross 1961,97-98). The Essene burial practices do have a few common elements with those of the Jerusalem and Jericho cemeteries. The coffin burials at Qumran, though later in date, can be compared to those found at Jericho. Grave goods were discovered with women and children and, at En el- Ghuweir, remains of cloth (indicating that the dead had been wrapped in shrouds) and mattresses were found (de Vaux 1973, 47; Bar-Adon 1977, 22). Broken storage jars were JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS 127 uncovered on top of the graves at En el-Ghuweir (Bar Adon 1977, 16, Figs. 2 I: 1-3,22-23) and Qumran (de Vaux 1953, 103, Fig. 2:5 and PI. VI). The placing of vessels on top of the grave parallels the custom of placing storagejars outside the tombs atJericho. The variation of these burial practices indicates differences in religious philosophy and attitude towards the dead among theJews of this time and reflects the separation of the Essenes fromJudaism (de Vaux 1973, 126-38; Cross 1961,51 ff.; 1973,334-42; Yadin 1977,304-05). The importance of the individual, rather than the family, is indicated by the individual burials found in the graves at Qumran and En el-Ghuweir cemeteries. The lastJewish necropolis relevant to this discussion is Beth She~arim, the central burial grounds for Jews from the Land of Israel and the neighbouring areas "during the third and fourth centuries A.D. Burial customs differ from those of the first century A.D.: the dead were buried in large rock-cut catacombs consisting of halls, rooms and acrosolia in which stone, lead or clay sarcophagi containing primary burials of Jews from the Land of Israel or the re-interred remains of Diaspora Jews were placed. The matter of burial had become a commercialized, public enterprise, and was directed apparently by the Burial Society (Hevrah Kadishah) which sold burial places to any purchaser (Avigad 1976, 253, 265; Schwabe and Lifshitz 1974, 223). The Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek inscriptions found in these tombs mainly record the names of the tomb o\vner (Avigad 1976,230), and their purpose was to identify the graves of the deceased to visitors (Schwabe and Lifshitz 1974,219). It is clear that by the third century A.D. at Beth She~arim burial customs had little in common with those of the Second Temple period and there is a return to primary inhumation in acrosolia, sarcophagi, etc. Thus Second Temple period burial customs, particularly burial in ossuaries, were short-lived and unique toJews of this period.

JEWISH BURIAL CUSTOMS AND THEIR CONNEXIONS WITH THE PAGAN WORLD An interesting feature of Jewish burial customs of the Second Temple period is the connexion with pagan customs, particularly with the surrounding Graeco-Roman and Semitic cultures. As early as 300 B.C. Hecataeus of Abdera, speaking aboutJ ewish customs of his time, wrote: 'As to marriage and the burial of the dead, he saw to it that their customs should differ widely from those of other men. But later, when they became subject to foreign rule, as a result of their mingling with men of other nations, many of their traditional practices were disturbed' (Stern 1974,28, n. on p. 34). Many of the burial customs of this period are prevalent throughout the entire region and seem to have been adopted by Jews living in these areas, whether in the Diaspora or in Israel itself. This influence is seen in tomb architecture, particularly in the rock-cut loculi tombs, adopted by Judaean Jews during the late Hasmonaean period. The plan of the monumental courtyard tomb also had its roots in the Semitic world, closely paralleling the triclinia in the Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 Nabataean cemetery at Petra. The wall painting decorating the inside of this tomb is unique to Jewish funerary art, evidently influenced by the Hellenistic practice. Wooden coffins appear in the region during this period and were a form of burial in the Hellenistic world. Well-preserved coffins, dating to the fourth century B.C., have been found in Egypt and South Russia (Watzinger 1905), while less well-preserved contemporary coffins have been discovered atJericho, in theJudaean Desert and at Dura Europos. Red paint, found on the front, sides and lids oftheJericho ossuaries, may be related to the Greek 'magical' practice of painting the inside of stone or clay sarcophagi red. The colour red was sometimes used to symbolize blood or fire (Kurtz and Boardman 197 I, 2 I 7, n. on p. 364). Another possible 'magical' practice may have been the placement of nails with the burial, an interpretation first suggested by Kurtz and Boardman (197 I, 2 16) in an attempt to explain the 128 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY occurrence of nails in funerary contexts at Olynthus (Robinson 1942, 15g-60). A later rabbinic source which speaks of throwing iron between or in the tombs against spirits, may also support this interpretation (t. Shabbat 6, 10, 12; Lieberman 1962, Vol. III, 84, 88 for a discusssion on the use of iron to frighten offspirits). The abecedary, written on an ossuary lid and placed so that it faced the entrance, may have also served a similar 'magical' purpose. Grave goods associated with the dead are often found in tombs from nearly all periods and cultures. Leather sandals were occasionally found in the Jericho tombs, a custom probably borrowed from the Greeks who often placed sandals with the dead as a necessary item for their 'last journey' (Kurtz and Boardman 197 I, 2 I I). Coins, found in two skulls atJ ericho, have also been found in Hellenistic tombs and were considered by the Greeks to be 'Charon's fee', i.e. payment for Charon's ferry services across the river Styx (Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 21 I; Toynbee 1971,49, 119,124,291, n. 168; Negev 1971, 119,123 where coins were found between the teeth of the deceased at Mampsis; Rahmani 1980, 197 who refutes claims that coins were placed on the eyes of the deceased; cf. Gihon 1980, 139, 141). In this case, the pagan custom was apparently borrowed with the knowledge of its Greek significance. The practice of placing storage jars outside a tomb or on top of a grave, presumably filled with water for purification rites, appears not only at Jericho but also in Greek and Semitic cemeteries (see e.g. Kurtz and Boardman 1971,205; Toll 1946,21, n. 20 on p. 104). Funerary inscriptions are a common occurrence in Jewish, Palmyran and Nabataean cemeteries. However, in the Jewish inscriptions the importance of the individual is evident in contrast to the surrounding cultures where only the name of the tomb owner and its architect were included. A grave marker, or nefti, was evidently adopted from the surrounding Semitic world where it was commonly used as a tomb marker (Hachlili 1981; Galikowski 1972,20-30). It is evident that the surrounding cultures influenced Jewish burial practices of the Second Temple period, but their interpretation and combination produced burial customs unmistak- ably Jewish. 19

CONCLUSIONS The excavations at the Jericho necropolis have revealed that two completely different burial customs, one chronologically following the other, were practised by Jews of the Second Temple period. The earlier custom (first century B.C.) was primary individual burials in wooden coffins, which first appears amongJ ews of this time. Earlier, biblical references do not mention the word coffin Caron) except in the case of Joseph (Gen. 50.26) who died in Egypt and whose remains were transported to Canaan in a coffin (see also discussion in Hachlili 1979b, 55). This isolated case might be explained as simply following the Egyptian burial practices of Joseph's time (Klein 1908, 32). The biblical concept of burial was 'to be buried with your people', perhaps Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 indicating a tribal burial. After the settlement of the Israelite tribes in the land of Israel, one was to be buried in a family tomb ('to sleep with' or 'be gathered with your fathers' ancestors').20 Thus already at this time the concept of family burial is strong (see also Meyers 1971, 14, n. 38 and bibliography on the subject). Iron Age archaeological evidence (Lofreda 1968) gives no indication that coffins were used at this time by the Israelites. (However it should be noted that coffins are known from this period in the Egyptian and Phoenician world.) The importance of individual burial as well as burial in a family tomb is evidenced in the plan of the loculi tomb, which provided for individual burial of coffins or ossuaries in kokhim and at the same time allowed a family to be buried in the same tomb. The concept of individual burial for the entire population and not just for the upper classes, as in the Israelite period, is probably related to the increasing importance placed on the individual in contemporary JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS 129 Hellenistic society as a whole (Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 273) and to the Jewish belief in individual resurrection of the body. The concept of individual body resurrection is reflected in sources dating as early as the second century B.C. (Dan. 12.2; 2 Macc. 7·g-23; 12.43-44; 14.46; Ap. II, 218; Finkelstein 1941, 145-59; Rahmani 1961, 117-18, n.6; 1978, 102-03). Thus the importance of the family combined with that of the individual in his family and society is evident in the new Jewish practices of this period (see Rahmani 1981; 1982a). The second type of burial found in the Jericho cemetery, chronologically following the coffin burials, is conscious secondary burial of the bones either placed in individual ossuaries (Type 2a) or communal in nature (Type 2b). This complete change in burial customs occurs during the beginning of the first century A.D. along with the change in the political status of J udaea, which became a Roman province. It is difficult to explain this drastic change in burial customs. Unfortunately all the sources dealing with ossilegeum describe only the custom itself without indicating any explanation for the sudden appearance of this custom. While Meyers (197 I) attempts to explain ossilegeum as a continuation of earlier, local customs, Rahmani (1958, 105; 117-18, nn.6, 7; 1978, 103-04) proposes that ossuary burial began as an attempt to expiate sins from the body through the decay of the flesh, which would allow resurrection of a purified individual. Rahmani's suggestion seems to us a plausible explanation of this custom, particularly in view of the historical and social events of the period. Jewish burial customs of the Second Temple period display the influence of the Hellenistic and surrounding Semitic cultures. However several elements are unique to Jews of this period such as secondary burial in ossuaries. Although borrowing freely from pagan customs, theJews of this period combined and interpreted them in such a way that they created burial customs and rites that are uniquely Jewish. These customs were short-lived. They show little connexion with earlier customs of the Israelites, while only remnants of the Second Temple period customs continue into the Jewish rites of later antiquity (second-fourth centuries A.D.). The rapid changes as well as the varied pagan influences evident in the burial customs of the Second Temple period are outstanding as burial practices are usually the most conservative customs in a society. Loculi tombs appear among Jews for the first ·time along with primary burial in coffins and, within a period of about 100 years, basic changes were introduced by secondary burial in ossuaries, a practice which lacks any parallels with other burial customs in surrounding cultures of the time. The question remains unanswered - either by literary sources or archaeological investigation - what caused these changes? They could only have been brought about by turmoil in a society, perhaps as a result of historical events which affected the religious beliefs of this period.

NOTES Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 1 The excavations were directed by Dr Rachel Hachlili proposed in this article. Parts of this article were presen- (Tel-Aviv University) with the participation ofanthropo- ted in a lecture by Dr R. Hachlili to the Seventh World logists Profs Patricia Smith (Hadassah Medical School, Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, August 1977. Hebrew University, Jerusalem) and Baruch Arensburg 2 The main contemporary sources used in this article (Tel-Aviv University) on behalf of the archaeological staff are the writings ofJosephus, which were written about the officer for J udaea and Samaria. Thanks are due to the staff later part of the Second Temple Period. His works, jewish officer, Mr E. Damati, for permission to publish the War, Antiquities, Life and Against Apion reflect the ideas and material. We would like to express our sincere thanks to customs of the time. Reference is also made to rabbinical Dr L. I. Levine of the Institute of Archaeology, the literature, edited from the second century A.D. onwards, Hebrew University, and to Prof. D. Zlotnick of the New which may at times reflect earlier Jewish customs of the York Jewish Theological Seminary, who read the manu- Second Temple period. The subject of Jewish burial script and made several helpful suggestions and critic- customs has been researched in the past but it was based isms. Thanks are also due to Dr L. Y. Rahmani for his mainly on the written sources rather than on archaeologi- stimulating discussions on the subject. The authors cal evidence (see e.g. Klein 1908; Safrai 1976; Meyers however accept responsibility for the final interpretations 1971).

9 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

3 In the Temple Scroll, which contains the writings of a 11 An attempt was made to analyse the material found on J udaean Desert sect, the Essenes, there are several rules the bones in the Jericho tombs but it proved unsuccessful regarding cemeteries (Yadin 1977, Vol. I, 24g-51). The due to the material's deteriorated condition. regulations state that cemeteries should be outside the 12 The origin of the ossuary has been discussed by town limits and located between four settlements (Temple Meyers (1971, 27-31) who tried to compare them with Scroll, 48: 11-14) so as to avoid contamination of the whole other, earlier ossuary containers, going back to the Chal- country. Yadin (1977, Vol. 1,250), basing his conclusions colithic period. Jewish ossuaries have also been compared on interpretation of later rabbinical literature (m. Oholot to Persian containers dated to the mid-first century A.D. 71, 5; t.Oholot 15; etc.), claims that the reasons for these (Meyers 1971,27-31; Rahmani 1977,28-29). Both of the restrictions is that Jews of this period did bury inside the above theories are unacceptable to us and we see Second town limits and that the Essenes were attempting to follow Temple period ossuaries as uniquely Jewish burial con- the stricter laws of the priests. But, until now, noJewish tainers. tombs have been discovered inside the town limits. In 13 On three ossuaries from the monumental tomb, holes fact, the Essene cemeteries at Qumran (de Vaux 1973, had been drilled in the centre of the sides, front and back 45-46) and En el Ghuweir (Bar-Adon 1977, 12) were of the ossuaries. On one ossuary, double holes appear. located outside, but nearby, the settlements. Thus the These holes were evidently meant to secure the lid to the Essene cemeteries cannot be distinguished by their loca- box. There are incised lines or crosses to indicate the place tion, but rather by their type of burial (see pp. 126 f.). for the holes. They showed no indication of use, but if the 4 Several later sources mention the 'standard' securing ties were of organic matter, such as leather or dimensions of the tomb and its kokhim, but excavated string, it is unlikely that the holes would show any signs of tombs have shown that dimensions of the tomb and its wear. There is no indication why these three ossuaries, out loculi vary. The only measurement that seems to remain of all the ossuaries previously found, had holes drilled in constant is the length of the loculi, which usually corres- them. ponds to the length of a coffin, long enough for a body (see 14 One ossuary, from the monumental tomb, was found m. Baba Batra 6, 8; t. Baba Batra 6, 22; b. Baba Batra with two lids. The lower lid was flat and especially carved 6:lola-b; also Petrie 1892; Klein 1908, 6g-81). so that the second, heavier and rounded lid could be 5 Noteworthy is the special closing of the monumental placed on it. We could not determine if there was any tomb. A rectangular blocking stone, whose profile resem- significance to the double lid on this ossuary, which bles a 'stopper', sealed the tomb entrance. A hole in its contained the remains of the manumitted slave, Theodo- upper left corner, evidently a 'door knob', enabled visitors tus (Hachlili 1979b, 33). to open and close the tomb. On it a large circular stone 15 Toll (1946, 20) bases his conclusions on the careless had been placed. way the coffins had been handled and shoved into the 6 A similar, contemporary installation, consisting of tomb and on the lack of decoration inside the tomb. steps leading to two 'baths' (or miqveh) was found at the 16 Bar-Adon (1977, 20) suggests that broken pottery 'Tombs of the Kings' in Jerusalem (Kon 1947, 31-38, found in graves at En el Ghuweir symbolizes death, while Fifs. 2, 6). Yadin (1977, Vol. I, 251, n.63) claims that before the Graffiti occasionally appear in tombs ofthis period, as, burial the vessels that had become contaminated in for example, atJason's Tomb,Jerusalem, in which several the deceased's house were broken and then placed inside drawings of menorot, naval scenes and various other inci- the grave. AtJericho we found a lower part ofa storagejar sions were found (Rahmani 1967a, 96-97). Graffiti are still in situ and most of the pottery which was found broken also found in earlier tombs, as for instance at Beit Lei was restorable. Therefore it seems most of the pottery had (Naveh 1963), dating to the sixth century B.C., as well as been whole at the time it was deposited in the tomb. third-fourth century A.D. tombs in the Beth Shetarim 17 It should be stressed that palaeography during the cemetery (Mazar 1973, PIs vn:5; VIII:3; XIV:2; XVIII;XX:2; Second Temple period is not a good indicator of date as XXIII; XXIV). In these cases the drawings and incisions the difference in the cursive script are due to differences in seem to be the work of tomb visitors and were not the individual's handwriting and not to the development necessarily executed at the time the deceased was placed of the script (Hachlili 1978,55; 1979b, 60). in the tomb. 18 A repository loculus has also been found in a Jericho S However, Avigad (1967, 124; 1976a, 183) and Mazar tomb (see p. 124). (1973, 222-24) claim that the appearance of nails in a 19 It has been suggested that Roman funerary urns con-

Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 tomb is evidence for the existence of wooden coffins or taining the remains of cremated burials may have influ- ossuaries. Other explanations for their appearance in enced burial in ossuaries. However, these burials are tombs includes the possibility that the nails were placed in vastly different in concept - the former consisted of the the tomb or with the body in order to mark the deceased's cremated remains of the individual immediately after his permanent burial place (Brand 1953,71 and n. 305). death (Toynbee 1971,40-41,50,253-55), while the latter 9 The wood was examined by Prof. Y. Waisel and first entailed the primary burial of the individual and only N. Liphschitz of the Botanical Department, Tel-Aviv after some time had passed, at least one year, had the University and Prof. Fahn and Dr E. Werker of the Bot- gathering of his bones into a small rectangular container anical Department, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. taken place. 10 The same custom has been observed in a burial cave in 20 Biblical references which reflect the Israelite concept Masada, where sandals were found with a woman's body are: 'Gathered unto his people' (e.g. Gen. 25.8; 49.29; (Yadin 1966, 196, photo. on p. 56). Sandals were also Num. 31.2; Deut. 32.50); 'buried with his fathers' (e.g. discovered with bodies in the J udaean Desert caves, I Kings 14.31; 15.24; 2 Kings 8.24; I Chron. 17.1 I). dating to the Bar-Kokhba period (Yadin 1963, 165-66). JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aharoni, Y., 1962. 'The Cave of Horrors', IE}, 12, 196-97. Alon, G., 1976. Studies in}ewish History II (Hebrew, Tel-Aviv). Avigad, N., 1953. 'The Epitaph ofa Royal Steward from Siloam Village', IE}, 3, 137-52. -- 1954. Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley (Hebrew, Jerusalem). -- 1956. 'The Necropolis', in M. Avi-Yonah (ed.), Sepher Yerushalayim (Hebrew, Jerusalem), 320-35. -- 1962a. 'Expedition A- The Burial Caves in Nahal David', IE}, 12, 181-83. -- 1962b. 'A Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley', IE}, 12, 1-12. -- 1967. 'Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in theJudean Hill-Country', EI, 8, 119-42 (Hebrew). -- 1971. 'The Burial-Vault ofa Nazirite Family on Mount Scopus', IE}, 21,185-200. -- 1976a. Beth She'arim III: Catacombs 12-23 Uerusalem). -- 1976b. Archaeological Discoveries in the}ewish Quarter of Jerusalem Uerusalem). Avi-Yonah, M., 1948. 'Oriental Elements in the Art of Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period, II', QDAP, 13, 128-65. Bar-Adon, P., 1977. 'Another Settlement oftheJudean Desert Sect at 'Ain el-Ghuweir on the Dead Sea', BASOR, 227, 1-25. Bagatti, P. B. and Milik,J. T., 1968. Gli Scavi de 'Dominus Flevit', Parte II: La Necropoli del Periodo Romano Uerusalem). Barkai, G., Mazar, A. and Kloner, A., 1975. 'The Northern Cemetery ofJerusalem in First Temple Times', Qadmoniot, 30-31,71-76 (Hebrew). Bennett, C., 1965. 'Tombs of the Roman Period', in K. Kenyon, Excavations at}ericho II (London). Brand,Y., 1953. Ceramics in Talmudic Literature (Hebrew, Jerusalem). Broshi, M., 1972. 'Excavations in the House ofCaiaphas, Mount Zion', Qadmoniot, 19-20, 104-09 (Hebrew). Cross, F. M., 1961. The Ancient Library of Qumran (New York). -- 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass.). Davis, D. and Kloner, A., 1978. 'A Burial Cave of the Late Israelite Period on the Slopes ofMt Zion', Qadmoniot, 41, 16-19 (Hebrew). Finkelstein, L., 1940. The Pharisees I-II. The Sociological Background of their Faith (Philadelphia). Frey,J. B., 1952. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum (Rome). Gafni, Y., 1977. 'Bringing Deceased from Abroad for Burial in Eretz-Israel- On the Origin of the Custom and its Development', Cathedra, 4, 113-20 (Hebrew). Gawlikowski, M., 1970. Monuments Funeraires de Palmyre (Warsaw). -. - 1972. 'La Notion de Tombeau Syrie Romaine', Berytus, 21,5-15. Gihon, M., 1970. 'Excavations at

Luria, B. Z., 1978. 'The Town of the Priests in the Second Temple Period', HUCA, 44, 1-18 (Hebrew). Mazar, A., 1976. 'Iron Age Burial Caves North of the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem', IE}, 26, 1-18. Mazar, B., 1971. Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem near the Temple Mount (Hebrew) Uerusalem. Translated from an article in EI, 10 (1971),1-33). -- 1973. Beth She'arim I Uerusalem). Meyers, E. M., 197 I. Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth (Rome). Naveh,J., 1963. 'Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave', IE}, 13,74-92. Naville, E., 1890. The Moundofthe}ewsandthe CityofOnias (London). Negev, A., 1971. 'The Nabatean Necropolis ofMampsis (Kurnub)', IE}, 21, 110-29. -- 1976. 'The Nabatean Necropolis at Egra', RB, 83, 203-36. Netzer, E., 1974. 'The Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces at Jericho', Qadmoniot, 25-26, 28-36 (Hebrew). -- 1977. 'The Winter Palaces oftheJudean Kings atJericho at the End of the Second Temple Period', BASOR, 228, 1-13· -- 1978. 'Miqvaot (Ritual Baths) of the Second Temple Period', Qadmoniot, 42-43, 54-59 (Hebrew). Noshi, I., 1937. The Arts in Ptolemaic Egypt (London). Ory,]., 1939. 'A Painted Tomb near Ascalon', QDAP, 8, 38-44. Patrich, 1.,1980. 'The Aqueduct from Etam to the Temple and a Sadducean Halakhah', Cathedra, 17, 11-23 (Hebrew). Peters,J. D. and Thiersch, H., 1905. Painted Tombs in theNecropolis of Marissa (London). Petrie, F., 1892. 'The Tomb-cutters' Cubits at Jerusalem', PEQSt, 28-35. Rahmani, L. Y., 1958. 'A Tomb on Shahin Hill', IE}, 8, 101-05. -- 1961. 'Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in Jerusalem', 'Atiqot, III, 93-120. -- 1967a. 'Jason's Tomb', IE}, 17,61-100. -- 1967b. 'Jewish Tombs in the Romema Quarter of Jerusalem', EI, 8,186-92 (Hebrew). -- 1968. 'Jerusalem's Tomb Monuments on Jerusalem Ossuaries', IE}, 18,220-25. -- 1973. 'Review ofE. M. Meyers - Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth', IE}, 23, 121-26. -- 1977. The Decoration on}ewish Ossuaries as Representation of Jerusalem's Tombs (Hebrew. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (unpublished)). -- 1978. 'Ossuaries and Bone Gathering in the Late Second Temple Period', Qadmoniot, 44, 102-12 (Hebrew). -- 1980. 'The Shroud of Turin (Polemics & Irenics)', BA, 43,197. -- 1981. 'Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs and Tombs - Part I', BA, 44, 171-77. -- 1982a. 'Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs and Tombs - Part 3', BA, 45, 43-53. -- 1982b. 'Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs and Tombs - Part 4', BA, 45, 10g--1 19. Rivkin, E., 1970. 'Pharisaism and the Crisis of the Individual in the Greco-Roman World',}QR, 60,25-53. Robinson, D. M., 1942. Excavations at Olynthus, vol. XI: Necrolynthia, A Study in Greek Burial Customs and Anthropology (Baltimore, Md.). Safrai, S., 1976. 'Home and Family', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds), The}ewish People in theFirst Century, Vol. II (Assen). Schwabe, M. and Lifshitz, B., 1974. Beth She'arim II Uerusalem). Sevenster,J. N., 1968. Do You Know Greek?How Much Greek Could the First}ewish Christians Have Known (Leiden). Steckoll, S. H., 1968. 'Preliminary Excavation Report on the Qumran Cemetery', RQ, 23, 323-36. Stern, M., 1957. 'Resolution of a Jewish Association', in V. A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks (eds), Corpus Papyrorum judaicarum, I (Cambridge, Mass.). -- 1961. 'The Relations between Judea and Rome during the Rule of John Hyrcanus', Zion, 26, 1-22 (Hebrew). -- 1974. Greek and Latin Authors on}ews and}udaism, I: From Herodotus to Plutarch Uerusalem). Strobel, A., 1972. 'Die Wasseranlagen der Hirbet Qumran', ZDPV, 88, 55-86. Talmudic Encyclopedia (Hebrew): 'Cemetery', in Vol. III, 25g--67 Uerusalem, 1951); 'Gollal' and 'Dofek', in Vol. v, 370-80 Uerusalem, 1953). Tcherikover, V. A., 1959. Hellenistic Civilization and thejews Uerusalem). Toll, N. P ., 1946. The Necropolis in the Excavation of Dura Europos, Ninth Season 1935-36, Pt III (New Haven, Conn.). Toynbee,J. M. C., 1971. Death and Burial in the Roman World (London).

Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 Tzaferis, V., 1970. 'Jewish Tombs at and near Giv'at ha-Mivtar,Jerusalem', IE}, 20, 18-32. Ussishkin, D., 1970. 'The Necropolis from the Time of the Kingdom afJudea at Silwan,Jerusalem', BA, 33, 34-46. -- 1974. 'Tombs from the Israelite Period at Tel Dead Sea Scrolls (London). Watzinger, C., 1905. GrieschischeHolzsarkophage aus der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen(Leipzig). Yadin, Y., 1963. The Findsfrom the Bar Kokhba Period in the Caveof the Letters Uerusalem). -- 1966. Masada (London). -- 1977. The Temple Scroll I-III (Hebrew,Jerusalem). Zlotnick, D., 1966. The Tractate 'Mourning' (Sema~ot) (New Haven, Conn.). JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS 133

APPENDIX: THE JEWISH POPULATION OF JERICHO 100 B.C.-70 A.D.

B. ARENSBURG AND P. SMITH

The skeletal remains recovered from the Jericho Second Temple Period tombs were divided into three groups: those found as primary burials in wooden coffins; those found as secondary burials in stone ossuaries; and bones found in piles, often from twenty or more individuals, probably representing the secondary disposal of earlier burials. Preliminary analysis revealed no differences in age distribution, sex or physical characteristics between the three groups, and these were pooled for further analysis. Many of the bones were poorly preserved and were in various stages of disintegration, especially those in contact with the rock walls or subjected to dampness. A total of I92 individuals or parts of individuals were identified. The age and sex distributions (Table I) show a relatively low rate of infant mortality, with only 13.5 per cent aged 5 years or less at death. It is possible that at least some of the infants who died in the Jericho region were buried separately, since one burial cave that was incompletely excavated contained two layers of infant remains beneath a plastered floor. However, all age groups were found in the family tombs, the infants usually buried with adults, but occasionally infants were found in individual ossuaries, as described by Hachlili and Smith (1979). As Table I shows, a relatively large percentage of the total sample survived to 50 years or more. There were more males than females (86 adult males versus 52 adult females) possibly because of poorer preservation of the smaller, lighter, female skeletons. Figures I and 2 show skulls typical of those found. The crania range from mesocranic to brachycranic and are fairly rugged, with marked glabellae and superciliary eminences in males and shorter and relatively broader skulls in females. The forehead is generally high and vertical, and no metopic sutures were found in adults. The mean cranial height/length index is medium or orthocrane in both sexes. The mastoid processes are moderate to large in size with a distinct supramastoid line present in males. Both males and females have a metriometopic fronto/parietal index, a mesorrhine nasal index, and a mesoconchic orbital index (Table 2). Stature calculated from the femur length was 169 cm. for males and 156 cm. for females. Little overt pathology was seen. Degenerative changes in the joints or vertebrae were rare, even in older individuals. Most adults had lost one or more teeth, and several of the older individuals were edentuous. There was little evidence of dental caries or attrition, but moderate to severe periodontal disease and alveolar resorption were present in all older individuals.

TABLE I AGE ANDSEX DISTRIBUTION

Age Male Female Unsexed Total*

No. % No. % No. % No. % Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 Sub 0--5 26 57.8 26 13·5 Adults 6-14 19 42.2 19 9.8

Adults 20--29 24 28.0 9 17.2 35 18.2 30--39 20 23.2 14 27.0 41 21.4 40--49 16 18.6 6 11.5 22 11.4 50--59 22 25.6 23 44·3 45 23.6 60+ 4 4.6 4 2. I

Total 86 100.0 52 100.0 45 100.0 192 100.0

*The total number includes 9 unsexed adults, two aged 20-29 and seven aged 30-39· 134 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY TABLE 2 MEASUREMENTSOFEARLYJEWISH CRANIAFROMJERICHO, ISRAEL,BYSEX (in mm.)

Male Female

No. Mean SD Range No. Mean SD Range

Length 15 186·3 7·7 176-200 12 174·7 4·9 167-83 Breadth 16 147·3 5·7 138-58 I I 140.3 4.6 134-48 Basion-bregma 10 133·3 7·5 122-45 7 131.0 4.0 126-36 Minim urn frontal 17 98.6 5.2 90-108 10 94·4 4.1 8g-IOI Foramen magnum Length 7 34.6 1.4 32-36 6 35.0 1.3 34-37 Width 6 28·3 3.2 25-32 4 28.0 3.6 23-31 Frontal chord 16 114·4 6.2 106-24 12 108·3 3·4 103-15 Parietal chord 16 113·4 7·7 106-26 13 114.0 6.2 101-25 Occipital chord 9 97·7 4.8 91-104 9 95.0 4·9 85-101 Frontal arc 15 131.3 9.0 115-46 12 126·3 7.0 117-37 Parietal arc 15 129.7 9.2 110-42 13 128.6 8.2 113-43 Occipital arc 9 120.8 7.0 110-33 9 112.2 3. I 106-16 Basion - nasion 8 100.1 4.8 91-105 7 95·7 4·3 91-102 FACE Nasion - pros thion 5 66.6 3·4 63-71 3 59.0 1.7 58-61 Bizygomatic ------Interorbital breadth 7 22.0 2.6 18-25 3 21.7 2·5 19-24 Biorbital length 6 98.5 3.6 94-104 3 96.0 4·4 93-101 Basion-prosthion length 4 93·3 4.8 88-99 3 89.0 6.1 82-93 Orbit breadth, left 7 39·9 3.2 35-45 3 40.7 1.2 40-42 height, left 7 33·3 2.2 30-36 3 33·7 1.2 33-35 Nasal height 7 52.6 3·4 4g-58 3 49·7 1.5 48-51 Nasal breadth 7 24·9 2.0 22-27 3 26.0 1.7 24-27 Palate length 5 43.8 4·7 37-50 - - - - Palate breadth 4 34.8 3.6 32-40 - - - - INDICES Cranial 15 79.2 3·4 72.5-83.4 10 80.1 3·4 75.3-87. I Basion-bregma/length 9 72.0 3·4 68.4-78.4 7 74.2 2·5 71.3-78.0 Minimum frontal! bi-parietal 14 67·4 4·5 62.7-79. I 8 66.6 2.8 64.2-73.0 Foramen magnum bread th/length 5 81.1 7.2 73·5-g1·4 4 80·7 11.0 67·6-91.2 Nasal 7 47·4 4·4 41.5-55.1 - - - - Left orbital 83·7 79·5-g4.6 82·9 78.6-87.5 Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 7 5·4 3 4·5

DISCUSSION In metric characteristics, the crania fromJericho closely resemble other Jewish crania of the same period from Jerusalem and En Gedi (Smith and Zias 1980; Arensburg et al. 1980) with the exception of cranial breadth (Table 3). Slight differences were also found in stature as calculated from the femur length. Thus the mean stature for males in theJericho group was 160 cm., as compared to 165 cm. in males from En Gedi and Jerusalem. Since stature and cranial breadth are both sensitive to secular trends (Brown et al. 1980), these differences may reflect better general health in theJ ericho sample due to differences in environmental stresses during childhood. This suggestion is supported by the differences in health status between the' studied populations. The Jericho remains rarely showed degenerative changes in thejoints and vertebrae, even in older individuals, while in the Jerusalem sample individuals over the age of 30 invariably show JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS 135 TABLE3 JEWISH CRANIAFROMHELLENISTICANDROMANPERIODSINISRAELCOMPARED(STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE)WITHTHOSEFROMJERICHO,BYSEX (see Table 2 for Jericho data)

Diameters (mm.) Statistical Males Females and Indices Significance

No. Mean SD No. Mean SD Male Female

Length 64 182.6 6·5 37 171.0 7·4 t Breadth 60 143·3 5.0 34 138.5 6.0 * Basion -bregma 54 133.2 4·5 30 127.4 4·7 Minimum frontal 64 96.7 4.8 42 93.1 4.1 Bizygomatic 23 131·9 6·3 17 122.1 4.1 Nasion -pros thion 38 68·9 4·3 24 64·4 3·5 t Nasal width 49 25.2 1.5 31 23·7 1.9 Nasal height 51 52.3 4.0 32 49.0 3.2 Orbit: breadth, left 51 40.2 1.9 32 38.2 2. I height, left 49 34.2 2.0 32 33·4 2.0

INDICES

Cranial 59 78.6 3·4 34 81.1 4·9 Bas.-br./length 44 73.2 3.0 3° 74·7 3.1 Bas.-br./breadth 43 93.1 4.1 29 92.2 5.0 Fronto-parietal 48 68.0 2·5 34 67·7 3·5 Upper facial 21 52.6 2.6 17 53·3 3·4 Nasal 49 48'5 4.8 31 48.8 5.2 Orbital 50 85.2 5·3 32 87·5 5·4

Note: * refers to significance at I per cent level of probability; t to 5 per cent; - refers to data not tested.

TABLE4

No. of Site Percentage in each age group individuals Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 0--5 6-1 I 12-19 20--29 30--49 50+

Jericho (this study)* 244 24 10 5 5 33 23 Jerusalem (1St century B.C. 8 8 17 13 1St century A.D.) 9 25 7 29 Meiron (4th century A.D.; 108 2 6 6 2 15 Smith and Bornemann 1976) 3 9 3 Greece (Angel 1969) 144 38 8 3 8 33 10 19th century A.D. Beduin 216 23 10 17 (Goldstein et ale 1976) 5°

* No. ofindividuals includes skeletal remains from the monumental Goliath tomb. PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY varying degrees of osteoarthritic conditions. The data on age and death also suggest a longer life span at Jericho. While mortality figures based on skeletal remains excavated must be regarded with caution, the evidence does point to lower infant mortality and a higher percentage of adults surviving beyond the age of 50 atJericho than in Jerusalem (Table 4). These differences may be climate-related; winters in Jericho are warm and mild, while in Jerusalem they can be very cold and damp, and respiratory infections and rheumatic conditions are common even today. The statistically significant difference in cranial breadth between theJ ericho andJ erusalem populations may then be related to differences in environmental stress rather than to genetic differences, especially since there is a close resemblance between all groups in other parameters studied that are less sensitive to environmental stress than stature and head form. In conclusion then, Second Temple populations from Jerusalem, En Gedi and Jericho, all have broad- headed moderately rugged crania, and are of short to medium height. They show marked differences from the long-headed, narrower crania typical of Iron Age Lachish, and also differ from recent Arab and Beduin groups described by Arensburg (1973).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Angel,]. L., 1969, 'Paleodemography and Evolution', American}ournal of Physical Anthropology, 31, 343-53. Arensburg, B., Goldstein, M. S., Nathan, H. and Rak, Y., 1980. 'Skeletal remains of jews from the Hellenistic Roman and Byzantine periods in Israel', Bull. et Mem. de la Societed'Anthrop. de Paris, 7, 175-86. Goldstein, M. S., Arensburg, B. and Nathan, H., 1976. 'Pathology of Bedouin Skeletal Remains from Two Sites in Israel', American journal of Physical Anthropology, 45, 633. Hachlili, R., Arensburg, B., Smith, P. and Killebrew, A., 1981. 'The jewish Recropolosis at jericho: First Century B.C.E.-First Century C.E.', CurrentAnthropology. Hachlili, R. and Smith, P., 1979. 'The Genealogy of the Goliath Family', BASOR, 235,67-73. Smith, P. and Bornemann, E., 1976. 'Preliminary Report on the Human Skeletal Remains from Tomb I', in Preliminary Excavation Reports: Bah edh-Dhra, Sardis, Meiron, Tell el-Hesi, Carthage (Punic) ed. D. N. Freedman, AASOR, 43, 105-08. Smith, P. and Zias,j., 1980. 'Skeletal Remains from the Late Hellenistic French Hill Tomb', IE}, 30, 10g-15. Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016 JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS 137

2 Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016

Figs. 1-3. Anteriorviewofcraniafrom ] ericho, arranged in order of ascending age. The triangular shaped lesion on the frontal bone of H3 is due to postmortem damage. Note the

Jtlricl'l'O H5 alveolar resorption in HS, following loss of the 3 teeth and producing reduction in facial height. PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

Jericho 1-13 4 5 Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016

Figs.4-6 Laterial view of same three crania. Note abscess cavities around tooth roots ofH3, and

"'5 successive stages of alveolar resorption in H2 and 6 HS· JEWISH FUNERARY CUSTOMS 139

Jerichc H3 /-(2 8 Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 13:43 27 June 2016

Figs. 7-9. Superior view of crania, showing pentagoid form of crania. Note parietal depression H5 9 onH2.