POWER RELATIONS IN THE SAMARIA OSTRACA

Abstract

Whereas recent studies have correctly identified a clan-based social structure presumed in the place names of the Samaria Ostraca, an analysis of the power relations within these structures has not been sufficiently developed. Approaching the evidence from a consumption perspective of the commodities for yn yšn (‘aged wine’) and šmn rḥṣ (‘washed oil’) suggests that the economic significance of these items is tied to complex social interactions. Specifically, both archaeological and ethnographic studies associate such prestige commodities with elite feasting and ceremonial displays. By gifting these items, the central power engaged in a form of ‘competitive feasting’ to secure political capital for future use from clan leaders of the periphery of Samaria. Accordingly, the Samaria Ostraca hint at the use of redistributive mechanisms to secure power relations at elite gatherings.

Keywords:

• Samaria Ostraca
• reciprocity
• redistribution
• feasting
• consumption
• olive oil
• wine
• Iron Age

I wish to thank the Faculty Development Committee of George Fox University for generously funding this project with a Summer Research Fellowship. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Hebrew Bible, History and Archaeology programme unit of the Society of Biblical Literature in 2009. I especially would like to thank Chip Stanish for his insight on ‘competitive feasting’ as an exchange mechanism, and Matt Suriano for improving on ideas in this article. Marvin Chaney generously provided helpful comments on the geographic spacing of the SO. Of course, all positions and any errors are my own responsibility.

Notes

1 Scholars date the SO to both Joash (804–789) and his son, Jeroboam II (788–748), or only Jeroboam II. Because the SO were not discovered in the context of good stratigraphy, scholars have turned to palaeography for most dating considerations. For a bibliography, see Niemann (2008, 265–266).

2 The references to the ‘aged wine’ appear in SO 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Interestingly, the references to just ‘wine’, and not ‘aged wine’, come from royal vineyards (SO 53, 54).

3 The references to the ‘washed oil’ appear in SO 16a, 16b, 17a, 17b, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 55. They also appear with the reference to wine in SO 53, 54.

4 Isa 1:16, 25 and Job 9:30–31; ‘The Qal passive participle mostly denotes a completed action or a state’ (Joüon 2006, 388).

5 Stager, though see objections in Suriano (2007, 32–33).

6 1 Sam 1:24; 10:3; 25:18; 2 Sam 16:1; Isa 30:14; Jer 13:12; 48:12; Job 38:37; Lam 4:2. Aharoni (1979, 95–97) equates the nbl to the Greek askos, citing the capacity from the Iron Age II examples to range from 0·65 to 1·4 litres.

7 Other examples of the nbl as a carrying capacity for socially-embedded exchange include: 1 Sam 25:18; 2 Sam 16:1.

8 For redistribution, the unit of the kor is a much more suitable measure for long-distance exchange as in the redistribution of 1 kilogramme 5:25.

9 Polanyi (1957, 243–270).

10 The following abbreviations are used: EA: El-Amarna tablets. According to the edition of J.A. Knudtzon. Die el-Amarna-Tafeln. Leipzig, 1908–1915. Reprint, Aalen, 1964. Continued in A.F. Rainey, El-Amarna Tablets, 359–379. 2d revised ed. Kevelaer, 1978.*****HB: Hebrew Bible.*****SO: Samaria Ostraca, editio princeps published in Reisner, G.A. Fisher, C.S., and Lyon, D.G., 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910 (vol. I, Cambridge, MA).

11 Reiner 1989, 328; cf. Lambert (1974, 277), line 48: ‘Turn your face to the holy divine meal of fat and oil.’

12 Aharoni (1979, 368, n. 122) matches the place name Yashub (SO 48) with Yasuf 19 km away, though Schloen (2001, 159, n. 30) disputes this identification.

13 Thus, Rosen (1986, 39–45) suggests two categories of l-men depending on the quantity of product.

14 Niemann (2008, 260). But such conclusions do not necessarily support the notion of early state formation during the ascendancy of the house of Jehu (249–266). This runs counter to the impressive anthropological evidence. In Mesoamerica, the use of feasting with ultra-elite consumables often appears in the transition from chiefdom to tiered state system (Stanish 2003). But for the ancient Near East, such dialectical state formation does not hold. In fact, Master (2001, 117–131) dismisses such anthropological notions of progressive state formation by appealing to research on modern Middle East state formation by Khoury and Kostiner (1990). Their study concludes that, in the Middle East, groups move from tribe and state, but also can run back to tribe again. Most significantly, Master (2001, 127) suggests: ‘Once the jump to statehood has been made, even in the presence of large empires or of modern state structures, tribal ties are still active throughout society.’ By using tribal ties as the framework for administration, large polities are possible far beyond initial state formation, such as those in the Late Bronze Age Ugarit (Schloen). Therefore, the usage of the SO to garner support for the Nimshide dynasty does not identify the 8th century as the point of early state formation.