By Tim Frank

 

The expression seeing is believing has another meaning in archaeology; imagination is necessary to see what has been removed. Visualization is a powerful technique to see what is no longer there and to see how the remains connect. Among the most important remains are common vessels related to food storage.

In excavations throughout the Levant, in the remains of houses large and small, the potsherds of many storage jars have been found. Often they were hardly noted, duly collected and used primarily for dating. If storage jars had an inscription or an unusual decoration, they were given extra attention. Archaeologists knew that people stored food in their houses; there was nothing unusual in that. And if an especially large number of storage jars was discovered, archaeologists suggested these were evidence of state-level organization and dedicated extra discussion in reports.

But these storage jars, together with other archaeological evidence of food storage, such as storage pits and bins, show some of the most fundamental aspects of household organization and lifeways of ancient peoples. In recent work I looked at household food storage from a Household Archaeology perspective, studying several Iron Age houses from Ancient Israel and Judah in detail. An important aspect of that study was the computer generated visualization of houses, including the reported artifacts. Visualizations are increasingly important tools in the interpretation and presentation of archaeological material. These techniques allow archaeologists to recreate living contexts and better appreciate the physical environment.

Visualization of the F7 House at Tell Halif, Field IV, Level VIb.

 

When converting reported data to digital data, constant interpretation is necessary. To what extent are missing data added, such as completing a vessel based on similar vessels or joining separate walls together? What fragments are included? Nothing can be disregarded; there needs to be a decision about all the data. Because each artifact needs to be digitalized and placed, each artifact passes through the hands of the researcher in digital form.

Visualizations enable recognition and assessment of patterns within and between houses. By allowing plan views, walk-throughs, different perspectives, lighting, and by integrating all data visually, the interpretation of space is more broadly based than separating data into plans, tables, plates and text. All those other data sources are still considered, but the visualization draws all of these together. Therefore, interpretation of space is certainly influenced by visualizations.

Visualization of House 75 at Beer-Sheba, Western Quarter, Stratum II.

 

The ceramic storage jar was the most common storage container in ancient Israel and Judah. It is not yet possible to associate any particular shape or style of jar with specific foods. Rather, various jars held different foods according to household requirements. Throughout their life, jars that were no longer suitable for one product would have been used to store other products. Some association can, however, be established between lmlk-type jars (used from the very late 8th to the 6th century BCE) and wine storage, and between large holemouth jars and cereal storage. Many theories have been advanced regarding the purpose of lmlk-jars and similar types, but it is important to note that these were also used for household storage alongside other vessels.

Generally, the larger the floor area of a house, the more storage jars were located in it. Larger houses may have contained more inhabitants, but may also indicate a wealthier household. Larger houses, however, did not use larger storage jars. Rather, they typically used greater numbers of jars to produce a higher storage capacity. While foodstuffs stored depended significantly on the individual household, an approximate value of 10 litres of vessel storage capacity per square metre has been observed.

Visualization of House 109a at ‘Izbet Sartah, Stratum I.

 

Underground storage pits were used for bulk grain storage. Most of these were outside. During the Iron Age I, such storage pits were commonly located within settlements near houses. They are not as frequent during the Iron Age II and were not directly associated with houses, but rather found in clusters as communal or centrally administered storage installations.

Smaller, shallower storage pits were sometimes located inside houses. They may have also been used for the storage of cereals or other granular goods. Rectangular bins lined with stone slabs, which were located inside houses but above ground, could have served a similar purpose. Grain was also stored in bulk, heaped on the ground in storerooms.

Even though they have not been preserved in the archaeological record, sacks, baskets, skins and wooden chests were probably also used for storage. Sacks and wooden chests would be mostly associated with grain storage, baskets with fruit and fruit products, and skins would be used for dairy products. There is no evidence that grain storage chests made from dried mud or clay, as commonly used throughout the Middle East in recent centuries, were used in ancient Israel and Judah.

One observation reinforced by visualization is that Iron Age I houses had a significantly greater storage capacity than Iron Age II houses, particularly if grain storage pits are taken into account. This is in line with a number of studies that conclude that grain storage in particular moved from shared community storage during the Iron Age I to more redistributive storage in the Iron Age II.

The value placed on stored food in the household, together with the successful harvest, did of course continue in the Iron Age II. Much of the food continued to be produced, controlled and stored in the house. A good harvest and successful storage were seen as a blessing; in an uncertain world, it required the blessing of God to make the work of human hands prosper. Storerooms were seen as an extension of the land, which was made fruitful and abundant by God.

Plan of Lachish Area S, Level III house.

 

3-D reconstruction of Lachish Area S, Level III house.

 

3-D reconstruction of Lachish Area S, Level III house with lighting.

 

Visualizations also create digital data.

The capacity of each vessel can be calculated. The area of architectural spaces can be measured. No longer is the area of a room, for example, given by taking the average width and length of a room or house. Rather, by tracing the exact shape of the room, the area and volume can be calculated. The capacity of features, such as bins, is also more accurate than a rough-and-ready calculation. These numerical data can be used for statistical comparisons. Of course, it has to be remembered that the numbers are not exact, that they always are dependent on the quality of the initial data and include a number of assumptions, decisions and uncertainties.

Visualization of Building 950 at Tel Batash, Stratum II.

 

Visualizations also allow easy presentation of archaeological spaces. They are accessible to the general public and provide ample information. They can also give an emotionally engaging impression of what those houses in ancient times may have been like, though with the proviso that these are not complete reconstructions, nor are they certain. It is important for example, to consider whether visualizations should appear reality-like or distinguish clearly between excavated and added data. The visualizations I created take a middle road: no artefacts are added, but the houses are completed to roof level. Visualizations that are ‘realer than real,’ in the fashion of a science fiction movie, present false impressions.

Visualizations will be a growing part of archaeological studies. They are especially helpful in Household Archaeology, but their use has to be explicit, so that their particular strengths and weaknesses are kept in mind when assessing the results.

 

Tim Frank holds a Ph.D in Theology (Old Testament and its Cultural Environment) from the University of Bern.