THE ‘BATHTUB COFFIN’ FROM TEL QITAF: A RE-EXAMINATION OF ITS CONTEXT AND FUNCTION

Abstract

Investigation of the ‘bathtub coffin’ from Tel Qitaf in the Beth Shean Valley indicates that its archaeological context is less secure than generally recognized. Additional research demonstrates that a large number of similar vessels in the Levantine corpus are also not found in burial contexts. This calls into question assumptions that such ‘bathtubs’ functioned solely as interment vessels and that their presence in the Iron II reflects foreign migrants or emulation of Mesopotamian burial traditions. While the function of clay ‘bathtubs’ cannot be answered here, any hypothesis of their intended use must take into account both burial and non-burial contexts. One possibility is that they had a primary function in crafts manufacture and were secondarily used for burial. The present study serves as a warning to be wary of circular arguments, in which an initial assignment of hypothesized function influences subsequent reconstructions of context that then supports further functional interpretations.

Keywords:

• Tel Qitaf
• bathtub coffins
• Iron Age
• context

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Eric Cline and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of the manuscript; the Israel Antiquities Authority and Alegre Savariego at the IAA for permission to access and study the Tel Qitaf bathtub; and Susanne Grieve for her assistance in locating and documenting the Tel Qitaf bathtub.

Notes

1 Additional vessels from late Iron Age non-burial contexts at Tell Jawa that are described as ‘[u]tilitarian ceramic basins having a triangular shape and rounded corner’ (Daviau 2001, 237) might also be of this ‘bathtub’ type, but further investigation is needed.

2 The locus in which this vessel was found has been assigned to either level IIId (Chambon 1984) or IIIe (Bloom 1988). In either case, it seems to have been a feature within a large building with no associated burial.

3 A second tell with similar name, Tel el-Qitaf Machev, is noted in the same vicinity but further south (Bergman and Bransteter 1941, 87). The pottery from this site dates from the Late Bronze, Iron I and beginning of Iron II and Roman and Byzantine periods. While one could suggest the possibility of confusion between two sites of similar name, no ‘bathtub’ was mentioned in association with Tel el-Qitaf Machev either.

4 Zori describes the rim as שפה מרוכסת. Although this phrase typically translates as ridged rim, in this case it may better refer to the jagged edge at the top of the side walls remaining when the rim had broken off the vessel. While it may be that Zori saw and described the vessel with its rim still preserved, there are no current traces of the rim remaining and the worn edge along the top of the side walls suggests that the break is old. Additionally, I know of no other parallels for a ridged rim bathtub, so my assumption is that Zori saw the bathtub's ‘rim’ in a state similar to its current one.

5 Zori's description of a purplish tinge to the sarcophagus' clay make-up also fits with my personal observations of the Tel Qitaf bath.