**Selections from Avraham Faust, *Society and Culture in the Kingdom of Judah during the Eighth Century* in *Archaeology and History of Eighth Century Judah*** [The full text is available here](https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pubs/9780884143482_OA.pdf) > The eighth century BCE, prior to the Assyrian destructions of the last third of this century, is regarded as a demographic and economic peak in the history of the Land of Israel, one that will be reached again only centuries later. The urbanization process of the Iron Age II reached a new zenith at the time. Many cities and towns are known to scholarship through excavations, and hundreds of settlements have been identified in surveys. Despite the differences between the different polities that existed in the region at the time, one can identify a complex settlement hierarchy, from mega-cities, like Jerusalem (in Judah), through administrative centers, field towns, villages and hamlets, to small farmsteads that dotted the countryside. This was a complex society with clear evidence for socioeconomic hierarchy, economic specialization, and administration. It is the aim of the present paper to analyze the social and economic reality in the kingdom of Judah during the eighth century BCE, and to briefly discuss some of the processes that led to the creation of this complex society. > > JUDAH IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY. SETTLEMENTS AND DEMOGRAPHY > Many studies of the Iron Age have noted that the eighth century (or Iron Age IIB) is a peak in term of both settlement and demography (e.g., Broshi and Finkelstein 1992). This is clearly the situation in the north, which was devastated following the Assyrian conquests (e.g., Dever 2007; Faust 2015b). [...] It is clear, therefore, that the eighth century was a demographic peak in Judah, exceeding any previous era. > > RESETTLING THE COUNTRYSIDE > Perhaps even more dramatic are the changes in the countryside. The countryside in Judah was abandoned during the transition from the Iron I to the Iron II, and practically all the excavated Iron I rural settlements were abandoned (e.g., Kh. Za'akuka, Giloh, Kh. Umm et-Tala; Beth-Zur; Allon Shevut). The resettlement of the countryside was a long process, which took place in new sites, making it clear that there is no continuity in settlement. The available evidence suggests that significant resettlement of the countryside in Judah, that is, the establishment of villages and farmsteads, was mainly a feature of the eighth century... [...] > > URBANIZATION > The peak of the eighth century is identified not only in the number of settlements, but also in their composition. Urbanization is by no means a new feature, but it appears that, generally speaking, the urban centers of the eighth century were denser and more developed than their predecessors. The nature of the eighth century urbanization can be examined in a number of sites, where the eighth century levels can be compared with earlier strata. Jerusalem was no doubt exceptionally large, with a walled area of over 600 dunams. This was, in my view, a result of a lengthy process of expansion (though some believe the expansion was quick and took place in the late eighth century; for various views, see Na’aman 2014; Finkelstein 2015; Faust 2014b, and references). The number of inhabitants is debated, but it was most likely on the scale of 20,000 and more (Faust 2014b). Still, the changes in Jerusalem were dramatic, and no similar changes can be identified in other urban sites in the eighth century BCE. [...] > > SETTLEMENT H IERARCHYS > The continued urbanization process, and especially the resettling of the countryside, led to the emergence of a very developed settlement hierarchy. At the top of this system was Jerusalem, Judah's capital which was a mega-city of over 600 dunams, and below it were regional centers like Lachish, Tel ‘Eton, and Beersheba, field towns like Tell Beit Mirsim, villages like Kh. Jarish and Kh. er-Ras, “fortress’ villages” like Kh. abu et Twein, and finally farmsteads like Pisgat Ze'ev A., French Hill, and Kh. el-Qatt. [...] > In the lower end of the spectrum, the mere existence of so many farmsteads is something new. Hardly any farmsteads are known from earlier epochs, whereas many that were dated to the eighth century were exposed in excavations (and many others were identified in surveys). This seems to imply, first of all, that settlement was indeed dense at the time and, moreover, that security was somewhat better than in earlier epochs and people could settle in isolated structures near the fields. This was likely connected to the existence of territorial kingdoms at the time, that is, with polities that governed larger areas and were responsible for security therein (more below). > > MILITARY AND FORTS > Excavations have unearthed quite a few large forts within the boundaries of the kingdom of Judah, for example, at ‘Arad (fig. 2) and ‘En Hazeva (Herzog 1998; Cohen and Yisrael 1995), and these clearly served a military function (these forts were established prior to the eighth century BCE, of course). [...] At any event, the mere existence of the large fortresses, like Arad, is indicative of a sophisticated state apparatus at the time with at least a small core of a standing army (though this also is not a novelty of the eighth century). > > ECONOMY AND TECHNOLOGY > As far as the technology is concerned, we witness great advances in the eighth century. This can be seen in the olive oil industry, which is easily identified archaeologically and can serve as a simple and good example (e.g., Katz 2008). While agricultural production existed throughout history, it appears that far more surpluses were produced in this period than in the preceding centuries, and toward the end of this century, relatively large centers for the production of oil surpluses were unearthed in Judahite sites like Tell Beit Mirsim and Beth-Shemesh. [...] > > An even more impressive advance can be seen in pottery... Zimhoni (1997, 170) referred to “the uniformity of pottery forms in Level III” at Lachish, which was in her view “the result of mass production.” [...] > > Notably, such changes in material culture are not only a passive reflection of societal change, but are also the agent of change, alienation in this case, that is, a process in which the familiar gradually became strange and “things” became “objects” (c.f. Gosden 2004, 36–39) [...] > > Writing is also greatly advanced in this era, beyond what was known in the past, and this is reflected in a wide array of evidence, from the increase in the number of ostraca, bullae with writing, lmlk impressions, and more (at least part of the increase seems to be real, and not a result of formation processes which lead to the finding of more items of all types in the destruction layers of the late eighth century BCE, see below). Such writing belongs to the technology of administration. Notably, increase in writing is part and parcel of the process of increase in standardized manufacture on the one hand, and it also leads to further alienation on the other, because it helps to "calculate, and convey worth in ways that have no direct link the actual object, but rather conceive of their values in both abstract and utilitarian ways (cf. Gosden 2004, 39). [...] > > A related advance can be seen in the development of a unified system of weights. [...] > > It is quite clear, therefore, that the eighth century was quite developed technologically and that many processes that were initiated earlier matured then. > > T RADE > The large amount of agricultural surpluses inevitably led to more trade. The importation of various products—at least for the use of the monarchy and the elite (though not only by them)—is reflected by the large number of fish bones, imported from afar (e.g., Borowski 1998), as well as by the inscribed weights. Although peaking in the seventh century (Faust and Weiss 2011 and references), these processes were clearly underway at least by the late eighth century, if not earlier. While imports did not usually reach the average inhabitants of Judah (Faust 2006, 49–64; Katz 2008, 118–120), the integration of Judah into the international trade influenced the population. [...] > > SOCIOECONOMIC STRATIFICATIONS > Socioeconomic stratification was identified in every city or town in Judah for which we possess enough data, e.g., Beth-Shemesh, Tell en-Nasbeh (Mitzpah), Tell Beit Mirsim, Beersheba, and Jerusalem. While socioeconomic stratification can be studied on the basis of various lines of analysis, architecture seems to be the best vehicle for such an enterprise (e.g., Smith 2015; Blanton 1994; Faust 2012, 117–27, and references). [...] > > Houses can be differentiated according to size, quality of construction, use of common walls and location (Faust 2012, 41–42). It appears that in a typical Judahite city there was small number of very large and wealthy structures, and many smaller and flimsier abodes. [...] > > Notably, when enough data is available, differences can also be identified on the basis of a sophisticated analysis of the finds within the houses. Again, the finds in house 101 at Tel ‘Eton can serve as an example. We found dozens of storage vessels within the various rooms, indicating the storage of surpluses, along with other items showing high status or position like sealings and bullae. This seems to indicate a high level of socioeconomic hierarchy. In order to assess the degree of socioeconomic stratification. [...] > > This is clear evidence that Judahite cities were characterized by severe polarization between two classes: the small, wealthy upper class, and the poor lower class that was much larger. There was no middle class. This situation is typical of what Nolan and Lenski (2009, 145–46) called simple agrarian societies. [...] > > MATERIAL C ULTURE > Many traits in the material culture of Judah show clear signs of continuity with previous phases of the Iron Age. Ceramic traditions, for instance, express continuity in a number of traits, including the extreme rarity of decoration of pottery. Another example is the extensive use of the four-room house, and more could be added to this list. Still, there are a few traits that appear, at least in substantial numbers, for the first time in this era. [...] > > ROCK-H EWN T OMBS : The eighth century saw the en masse adoption of a new burial practice. In the earlier phases of the Iron Age, the vast majority of the population was buried in simple inhumation in the fields outside the city—a form of burial that does not leave substantial remains (Kletter 2002; Faust 2004). In contrast, the eighth century experienced the adoption of rock hewn burial caves, at least by the middle segments of the society and its upper echelon. [...] > > FIGURINES : Figurines, mainly of the type known as the Judean Pillared Figurines (note that there are also other types of figurines) are also adopted in the period en masse, and hundreds were discovered in the destruction layers in sites from this era. These are stereotyped female figurines, with solid, handmade bodies, “featuring a standing woman, with hands supporting the breasts (or placed a little beneath them)” (Kletter 1999, 28). It is agreed that this is mainly a feature of the eighth and seventh centuries (Kletter 1999, 29; Byrne 2004, 139; Darby 2014). Interestingly, while figurines are typical in many polities throughout the region at the time, those in Judah are stylistically different, and some scholars have even suggested that their distribution (along with these of other features like the inscribed weights) matches the boundaries of the kingdom of Judah (with few exceptions). [...] > > DISCLAIMER > We must stress that while the above presented picture clearly reflects the situation in the eighth century BCE, we cannot always be certain what the situation earlier in the Iron Age was, and exactly when the above-mentioned reality came into being. Sennacherib's campaign of 701 BCE brought about destruction to many sites, especially in the Shephelah, sealing the finds from this era within heavy destruction layers, and allowing archaeologists to learn about this period. It is precisely because of these destruction layers that we know a great deal about the archaeology of the late eighth century. We know a great deal less about the tenth and ninth (and even the early part of the eighth) centuries BCE. There are hardly any destruction layers from these eras, and it is almost impossible to quantify finds. [...] Notably, it appears that destruction events contribute much material to the archaeological record, and hence periods in which there were massive destruction, events are far more known archaeologically (e.g., Faust and Katz 2012, and references). > > CHANGES IN JUDAHITE SOCIETY IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY BCE: A SYNTHESIS > It is clear...that the Iron Age IIA saw the initiation of urbanization and the processes that led to the development of stratification. Clearly, the greater urbanization of the eighth century is first a result of gradual natural growth and internal processes, and the same is probably true for the repopulation of the countryside and the establishment of many villages and farmsteads. While the increase in industry might have accelerated in the eighth century, it can still be viewed, at least to some extent, in a similar light, that is, as the result of a long process of growing complexity. But it appears that there is more to it than that, and in the following section I would like to briefly address the processes that were unique to the eighth century BCE. > > Some changes might be related to contacts with other regions, reflecting direct and indirect influences. Thus, the growth of the olive oil industry might result from interaction with the northern kingdom of Israel, which had a more sophisticated olive oil industry (Gal and Frankel 1993; Faust 2011). While olive-oil was produced earlier, the growth the industry in general and the increase of surpluses production in particular, might result from the incorporation of Judah within the ever-growing economic world system of the Phoenicians (Markoe 2000; Aubet 2001), probably through the mediation of the kingdom of Israel (prior to its destruction of course), and to some extent Philistia. The growth of the international (Phoenician) trade also greatly influenced some segments of Judahite society, especially the upper classes. It probably enabled some other socioeconomic changes within the society and encouraged both urbanization and stratification (coupled with the gradual developments described above). [...] > > Other innovations might be attributed directly, perhaps, to refugees from the kingdom of Israel. However, I think that some scholars have exaggerated the extent of these migrations. Yet even if the number might not have been very large, one can assume that qualitatively, there were influences that go beyond the actual number of refugees (e.g., Israelite influences on religion in Judah). The economic pressure exerted by Assyria, mainly in the last third of the century, required internal changes in Judah’s economy in order to collect the required tribute. The connections with Assyria gradually led also to some cultural influences, at least as far as the elite is concerned. [...] > > SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES: All the above may have led, especially toward the end of the eighth century BCE, to growth of new forms of organization, partially, at least, at the expense of the traditional structures (cf., Halpern 1996). Socioeconomic differences deepened, some segments of society were more influenced by “foreign” traits, state administration increased, and production became more industrialized. Society gradually became more segmented, objects became less personal, and material culture was, to some extent, alienated (Faust and Bunimovitz 2008, 157; cf., Gosden 2004, 36–39). Urbanization and hired labor led to the disintegration of some large kinship units, especially in the cities (Faust 2012, 110–15, 264–66). As noted, these changes led to the weakening of the traditional social frameworks, and eventually to the disintegration of some of them, especially in the larger and more central settlements. The disintegration was accompanied by the growth in importance of the nuclear family, and even the individual, at the expense of the extended family (or the beth ‘av) [...] Halpern stresses the developments in this regard in the late Iron Age (Halpern 1996). He thinks at this time we witness a transformation from a concept of collective responsibility to a concept of personal responsibility. [...] > > Archaeologically, these changes can be seen by the fact that at this time the majority of houses are pretty small, and were inhabited by small nuclear families, rather than large extended ones (the bet ‘av). The transition to the nuclear family in most cities and towns is the equivalent of the above-mentioned change to personal, rather than collective responsibility. We must remember, however, that in the rural sector, large families were still common, and it appears that the traditional kinship structure was maintained there. > > SUMMARY > The eighth century was a formative period in the history of the kingdom of Judah. Diverse processes like natural demographic growth, economic development, resettlement of the countryside, urbanization, increased international connections— all beginning in the Iron IIA—had matured. Coupled with some unique features of the eighth century like the impact of Assyria, these processes led to important societal change. The result was a complex, stratified state society, with sophisticated settlement hierarchy (with Jerusalem at the top as a “primate city”), complex administration, and mass-produced material culture. International connections in general, and the growing Assyrian threat in particular, led to further changes. This resulted with additional changes within the Judahite society, as various segments coped with these developments. All the above led to alienation, that is, a process in which “things” became “objects” (Gosden 2004, 36–39), which increased the pressure on the traditional kin-based society. This process, however, took place mainly in the urban centers, as evidence suggests that the traditional structure was better preserved in the countryside. All these processes led to significant social changes and developments, including the rise in the significance of the nuclear family and the individual in the urban sector, as well as material cultural developments, like the adoption of the Judahite tomb.