Pigs in Space and Time Pork Consumption PDF

Pigs in Space (and Time)
Pork Consumption and Identity Negotiations

in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages of Ancient Israel
Avraham Faust
P
ork consumption, or to be more precise, its avoidance,
became a major issue in the study of ancient Israel in
the 1980s. Subsequently, it became closely associated
not only with the debates over Israel’s emergence in Canaan
and ethnic interaction during the Iron Age I, but also regarding
the transformations of Philistine society, as well as with general
debates on relations between pork consumption and taboos,
ecology, and environment. Relying on the vast database that
accumulated, it is my aim here to reexamine the distribution
of pork-consuming communities during the Late Bronze and
Iron Ages in order to see if clear and meaningful patterns can
be identified. Subsequently, the paper will study the emerging
patterns, and examine how they should be interpreted, and
whether patterns of consumption and avoidance can, or cannot,
be associated with the different groups that inhabited the region
at the time, and if the explanations to these patterns should be
attributed to culture or to ecology and economy.
History of Research
While the possible reasons for the taboo on pork are com- Figure 1. The studies conducted by Brian Hesse during the 1980s revolutionized the
plex (Harris 1998: 67–87; Douglas 1966; Redding 2015, and see treatment of faunal remains in the Levant and had an immense impact on the study
below), it should be noted that until the 1980s many believed of pork consumption in Bronze and Iron Age Israel, bringing the topic to center stage.
that the Jewish/Israelite taboo was late, resulting from the in- Photograph courtesy of Paula Wapnish.
teraction of the Jews with the Hellenistic world (Houston 1993;
Douglas 1973: 60–64). When faunal remains began to be studied already during the Bronze Age, long before Israel came into be-
systematically in the 1980s, however, Brian Hesse (fig. 1) noticed ing, and before the biblical prohibition on its consumption was
that pigs were completely absent from sites that were regarded formulated. Moreover, they noted that even the Philistines con-
as Israelite, whereas they were quite numerous in Philistine sites sumed large amounts of pork only during the Iron Age I, and its
(Hesse 1986, 1990). Not only was an early Israelite taboo appar- significance in their diet declined in the Iron Age II, concluding
ently identified, but Hesse stressed that pork was consumed in that pork avoidance was a poor distinguishing marker between
large quantities by the Philistines, creating a sharp contrast in Israelites and Philistines (Hesse and Wapnish 1997). Justin Lev-
the food habits of the two societies. The attribution of pigs’ ab- Tov (2006: 212) further noted that the Philistines consumed pork
stention to the Israelites (or “proto-Israelites”) had subsequently in the Levant because they were used to eating it in their place of
became a cornerstone of most attempts to identify this group on origin, and thus did not consume it as an ethnic statement.
the basis of the archaeological record (Stager 1995: 344; Dever Over the last few years, additional studies addressed the issue.
2000: 33; Faust 2006a: 35–40; and even Finkelstein 1996: 206). A number of scholars have suggested that some Iron I Canaan-
This identification was not free of problems. Already in 1997, ite communities also avoided pork (Bunimovitz and Lederman
Hesse and Wapnish noted that some communities avoided pork 2011; Faust and Katz 2011), and Faust and Lev-Tov (2011, 2014)
276 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018)

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on the University of Chicago Press website at journals.uchicago.edu/nea.
You can subscribe to NEA through UCP or an ASOR Membership. For more information, visit: http://www.asor.org/membership/individual-memberships/
full background of ethnic negotiations, the various data fit nicely
into a coherent, if complex, picture.
Introductory Notes on Methodology
All in all, we possess information on the percentage of pork in

131 levels/areas/sites (table).1 Of these, twenty-two levels/areas
(in nineteen sites) represent the Late Bronze Age, forty-three (in
thirty-one sites) represent the Iron I, and sixty-six (in thirty-five
sites) represent the various phases of the Iron Age II. This is a
vast amount of data, which present us with many possible av-
enues for analysis.
Identifying Meaningful Patterns: A Preliminary Note
When sorting data, a few options are possible:
(1) Sometimes, no patterns can be identified. For example when

some communities consume a certain type of food while
others do not, but no clear boundaries or clustering can be
Figure 2. Patterns of distribution (schematic): (a) gradual pattern; (b) sharp fall-off.
identified. This can result from a small sample (i.e., we are
missing information), or because this food was not meaning-
showed that some Philistine communities increased the con- ful and its consumption was arbitrary, or random. Still, when
sumption of pork in the course of the Iron Age I, before decreas- no patterns are identified, there is little we can do. In other
ing it significantly during the Iron Age II (as noted by Hesse and cases, however, types of products or foods show clear pat-
Wapnish, above). And in a detailed study of pork consumption, terns, which can be divided into two types (fig. 2): (a) gradual
Sapir-Hen et al. (2013; see also Sapir-Hen 2016) suggested that or “natural,” and therefore “expected”, and (b) sharp, “unnat-
while in the Iron I Israelites avoided pork, during the Iron II only ural”, and “unexpected.”
Judahites avoided this meat, whereas Israelites (referring to the
population of the kingdom of Israel) did consume it, raising the (2) Gradual patterns (in time and space) include, for example,
possibility that perhaps the biblical prohibition of pigs developed a case when a certain type of pot is produced in one place,
to demarcate Judahites from Israelites (2013: 13). Furthermore, and its popularity decreases with distance from the produc-
they noted that, even during the Iron I, pork was significant only tion center. This is of course expected, and the pattern, while
in Philistine cities, whereas in the rural sector in Philistia it was indeed clear, is quite straightforward, and there is no problem
quite marginal (2013: 1, 10–11; see also Maeir, Hitchcock, and in accounting for it. Similarly, consider a theoretical case in
Horwitz 2013). They therefore questioned “the notion that pork which a new group arrives at a certain place, bringing with it
consumption is a way to distinguish Israelites / Canaanites from a new type of food that comprises a fairly significant amount
Philistines” (Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 1). Finally, a recent article by of its diet. Two hundred years later we find that the percentage
Redding (2015) suggests that the decline of pork in the ancient of this food in the group’s diet decreased. This would also be
Near East correlates with the increase in the importance of the quite expected, and we could assume that after their settle-
chicken. The gradual change took place during the Iron Age, and ment in their new location the new group gradually fitted to
this is the reason behind the avoidance of pork by many Iron Age the new physical and cultural environment, and decreased its
communities (below). All the above studies have brought both special features. Again, this pattern is “expected” (though not
fresh data and new insights into the discussion, and indicate that inevitable, as we shall see), and can usually be easily explained.
the situation was more complex than previously thought. Still,
the various interpretations often contradict one another. Did (3) Sometimes the patterns are “sharp”, for example when a cer-
all Philistines consume pork or did only the urban Philistines? tain type of food (or pot) is extremely dominant in some
Did Israelites abstain from pork, or did these who lived in the settlements, but is completely missing from nearby, contem-
kingdom of Israel during the Iron II revert to pork consump- poraneous sites, that are located within the same ecological
tion? Did Canaanites eat pigs? Why did the Philistines in some niche. And such differences can be found even within the
sites increase the percentage of pork in their diet, and then de- same settlement, between neighborhoods and households.
crease it significantly? It is aim of the present paper to address all The pattern (sharp fall-off) is clear, and begs an explanation,
the available information on pork consumption during the Late but no “simple” straightforward ecological or “natural” ex-
Bronze Age and the Iron Ages in order to answer these ques- planations seems to account for it. Explaining it requires a
tions and to reveal the subtleties and complexities of the period’s thorough study, and it is likely that the explanation should be
pork politics on the one hand, but also to show that given the set along cultural rather than functional lines.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018) 277

How to Study Pork Consumption Patterns? • Medium level of pork consumption, that is, 4.1–7.9 per-
The data can be divided in various ways, but an appropriate cent. It is important to stress that in not a single site was
division is one that both takes into account the specific case- pork consumed at these levels during the Iron Age 1, and
study and research questions, and relates to the patterns that even in other periods this level was usually extremely rare
can be seen in the data themselves and does not blur clustering. (one site in the Late Bronze Age, and a few in the Iron
Consequently, here I take into account the following consider- IIA. The number increases in the Iron IIB, and see below).
ations: (1) the need to distinguish pork consuming communi- The mere fact that there are no Iron I sites in this category
ties from those that avoid it (hence not grouping them together, shows that there was a clear gap between groups 2 and 4,
see below), as well as (2) the actual clustering of the data itself. and highlights the significance of devising the grouping
Clearly, the two are complementary, that is, if pork was an in- according to the data at hand.
deed an issue for the communities that inhabited the region at
the time, the data should reflect it, and clusters will be identified. • High level of pork consumption, that is, 8 percent and
To examine the possible ways to section the data, I focused on higher (8 levels/areas/sites; mean, 15.98%; Median 14%;
the Iron Age I—the period that lies at the center of the heated standard deviation, 6.49). In the maps I added also a cat-
academic debate over the significance of pork—and a few groups egory for 16 percent and over, mainly in order to show
emerged: (1) groups that avoided pork (completely or almost trends, but generally speaking all the sites with 8 percent
completely), (2) groups that consumed moderate quantities of and over can be grouped together under this heading.
pork, and (3) groups that consumed significant quantities of this
meat.2 Moreover, there was a gap between the groups (more be- The division used here, which stems from the data them-
low), and subsequently, I have divided the sites into the following selves, shows, first and foremost, a clear difference between those
categories and subcategories:3 who avoided pork (less than 1%, and usually much less) and
those who consumed it (1% and more). The rarity of sites with
• Pork avoidance: less than 1 percent. While anything below 0.6–0.9 percent pork (subcategory 1b) strengthen the distinction
1 percent seems to indicate practical avoidance of pork, between those who avoided pork and the rest. Moreover, the
the subcatgoery of 0.6–0.8 percent is hardly represented data also show that while many communities consumed moder-
in the Iron I sample. In practice, therefore, and in order ate amounts of pork (group 2), and others consumed very large
to highlight the data at hand, we separated this category amounts of this meat (group 4), medium-level consumption
into two. (group 3) was very rare. This suggests that pork consumption
a. Category 1a: pork comprised up to 0.5 percent of the was indeed an issue, and each community defined itself in rela-
entire faunal assemblage. During the Iron I this group tion to this habit, creating clearly distinguished groups (only at
includes eighteen levels/areas (table). In most sites be- times when pork consumption became culturally more marginal,
longing to groups who followed this taboo, pork was and fewer communities consumed large amounts of it, did some
practically avoided (mean, 0.14%; median, 0.1%; stan- other communities consume medium levels of pork, e.g., dur-
dard deviation, 0.16%). ing some phases of the Iron II, at least in some regions). Below
b. Category 1b: pork comprised 0.6–0.9 percent of the we will see that the clustering can clearly be seen geographically,
entire faunal assemblage. Only two short-lived (not demonstrating that the distinction is real, and not arbitrary, and
covering the entire Iron I) sites/levels belong to this serves as objective confirmation that the grouping is meaningful.
category (mean, 0.8%; median, 0.8%; standard devia- It should be noted that there are many statistical ways to ana-
tion, 0%): Lachish VI, which existed only during the lyze the data. The advantage of the present approach is that it
first half a century or so of this epoch, and Tel Rehov, stems from the data themselves. It should also be stressed that
which existed only in the later part of this era. In other in this article I attempted to discuss the data from as many sites
words, during much of the Iron I no sites belong to this as possible. One could easily find reasons to exclude some of the
subgroup, especially in the south, where, as we will see data, for example due to sample size or, in rare cases, question of
below, this absence was more significant. This in itself context (e.g., an LBA burial at Dothan, and see table). One can-
creates a sort of a gap between group 1(a) (complete not, in the scope of an article, present all the possible divisions of
avoidance of pork) and group 2 (moderate consump- the data, and by presenting as many levels as possible one enables
tion; below), strengthening the distinction between the others to choose different divisions. Still, omitting some of the
two. It must be stressed, however, if one wishes to avoid sites, for whatever reason, will not change the overall pattern,
the separation of this category into two subcategories, and the temporal and spatial groupings that can be seen in the
this would not alter the analysis. maps will not be affected at all! Each group will have fewer sites
in it, but the groups will still be distinct from each other.
• Moderate consumption of pork, that is, 1–4 percent (four-
teen levels/areas/sites; mean, 1.89; median, 1.6%; standard A Note on Sapir-Hen et al.’s Division
deviation, 0.83%).4 The recent study of pork consumption by Sapir-Hen et al.
(2013), applied a division suggested by Grigson (2007: 84), into
three categories: “less than 2%, 2 –7% and higher than 7%.” This,

however, seems problematic for a number of rea-
sons.
First of all, at the heart of the present discussion
of pork consumption in Iron Age Israel lies the ques-
tion of pork avoidance. It is quite clear that when
pork constitutes 2 percent of the faunal assemblage,
one cannot speak of avoidance. Thus, amalgamat-
ing communities that completely avoided pork (0%)
with those in which pork was consumed fairly regu-
larly, even if in moderate quantities (2%), will inevi-
tably blur the very boundaries the study wishes to
identify.
Furthermore, the mechanical application of Grig-
son’s division led Sapir-Hen et al. to ignore the very
dataset they studied. Thus, of the forty-three Iron I
levels\areas (in thirty-one sites) discussed here,5 not
a single site exhibited pork consumption between
4.1 and 7.9 percent. This is an interesting pattern
that can easily be observed, and must be explained,
if the data are divided properly, that is, according to
the way they are clustered. When using mechanical
divisions, for example a category of 2–7 percent, this
mere distinction is missed, and will subsequently
not be explained. Grigson’s seminal studies are of
great importance, of course, but she studied differ-
ent datasets, and her division was very general, and
should not be applied automatically to all cases. The
data should be studied in their own right, and with a
clear focus on the research questions.
Pigs in Space and Time
Late Bronze Age

In the Late Bronze Age (table, fig. 36), pork was
often consumed, but usually in small quantities
(usually 1–3%), and the data vary greatly. Out of Figure 3. Map showing pork consumption in selected Late Bronze Age sites, mainly of its later phase.
Map prepared by Yair Sapir.
twenty-two sites\levels, in eight, pork constituted
0–0.5 percent (actually 0–0.4%), and in an addition-
al two7 it was in the 0.8–0.9 percent range, that is,
the taboo was probably observed there quite strictly of a taboo on its consumption (which, as already noted, had old roots), but
(category 1a+b). In eight additional sites\levels pork the lack of any clear pattern makes it difficult to substantiate this sugges-
was consumed in moderate levels of 1–4 percent tion. The same applies to the sites in which pork was extremely popular, and
(category 2). Medium-level pork consumption (cat- contrary to the suggestion of Sapir-Hen et al. (2013: 10) it does not seem to
egory 3) was identified in one site (5%), and in three correspond with the Egyptian centers of control.8 We will not attempt here
sites\levels pork was consumed in extremely high to study the finds within each and every site in order to try and explain the
levels of 11–14 percent (category 4). phenomena locally (for example due to unique economic circumstances) but
Generally speaking, pork was consumed in small if such explanations will not surface than it might only be possible to deduce
quantities in the south (but see Gath and Tel Jem- that in some regions “pig politics” were operating and sites with high fre-
meh where it was avoided), whereas in the north, quency of pork could be contrasted with these in which pork was avoided.
pork was more commonly avoided (less than 1%) This, however, will require a nuanced study at the site/region level, which we
but was rarely very popular (11–14% in Beth-Shean, will not pursue here.
Dan and Tel Rekhesh; fig. 4). Despite this general-
ization, however, it is not clear what can be deduced Iron Age I
from this rough observation. It is likely of course Unlike the situation during the Late Bronze Age, when we examine the vast
that the avoidance of pork in many sites was a result datasets available on pork consumption during the Iron Age I (forty-three

Figure 4. Tel Rekhesh in the Lower Galilee. Pork comprised 14 percent of the faunal assemblage at the site during the Late Bronze Age. Photograph by the author.
sites/levels/areas; table), it is obvious that there are clear patterns geographically separated from one another. In other words, the
and the data are not random (fig. 5). three groups are not only quite distinct in terms of the percent-
Pork was avoided in twenty sites/levels, eighteen of which age of pork consumed, but are very distinct geographically.
with up to 0.5 percent (subcategory 1a),9 and only in two lev- Not surprising, perhaps, is that their distribution corresponds
els (each existing for only a part of this era) did pork constitute with the well-known cultural and ethnic grouping of Iron I sites
0.6–0.9 percent of the assemblage (subcategory 1b), exposing a into Israelites, Canaanites, and Philistines (with some new, even
“gap” in the “spectrum” of pork consumption. Moderate levels of if not surprising, insights, see below). Systematic study of Iron I
pork consumption (category 2) were identified in fourteen sites/ ethnic groups is of course beyond the scope of this article. The
levels, whereas medium levels of pork consumption (category 3) issue has been discussed at length elsewhere (Dever 2003; Stager
were not identified at all. High levels (category 4) of pork con- 1998; Finkelstein 1996; Faust 2006a, 2015a; Faust and Katz 2011;
sumption were identified in eight sites/levels. Faust and Lev-Tov 2011; Bunimovitz and Faust 2001; Bunimo-
The mere concentration of the data in categories 1a, 2, and 4, vitz and Lederman 2011), and in the following I will treat three
and the (almost) nonexistence of categories 1b and 3, shows that loosely defined groups that were apparently in existence at the
the grouping is meaningful. time:10 the Israelites (or proto-Israelites),11 the Philistines,12 and
This becomes much clearer when the groupings are examined the (even more loosely defined, and see more below) indigenous
spatially (fig. 5). Indeed, a few clear and sharp regional patterns groups, commonly referred to as Canaanites.13
emerge in the Iron Age I, and the clear geographical distribu- Before addressing pork consumption within these groups,
tion provides the grouping with an additional, objective support. however, a few brief comments on the nature of ethnicity are in
Thus, with but one exception (that is easily explained, see be- order. Ethnic identity is only one form of groups identity, and
low), these three groups (1a, 2, 4) are spatially clustered, and are people often have more than one such identity. In some contexts

boundaries between groups were quite fluid, and
even when people had to maintain high boundaries
these were porous and people could still change their
identity and move from one group to another. Still,
people had an ethnic identity at any given moment.
Moreover, in some contexts people had to send a clear
message as to who they were and could not maintain
more than one competing identity simultaneously. In
such contexts even if people could change their iden-
tity and become members of another group, they had
to chose one ethnic identity at any given moment.
Notably, while people often view ethnic affinity as
informing on common traits or “culture,” in practice
it has to do more with differentiating members from
those of other groups. Consequently, as circumstanc-
es change, so does the meaning of being a member
of any group, and this of course applies also to the
material correlates of such an affiliation (expressed in
symbols or in specific and unique—ethnic—behav-
ior) whose meaning also change over time.14
Philistia and the Philistines. The published percent-
age of pork in the diet of the inhabitants of the large
sites excavated in Philistia (Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath,
Ashdod, and even Timnah)15 during the Iron Age I
varied from 8 to 24.2 percent (category 4), greatly ex-
ceeding that of any other site in this period. Further-
more, this variation in itself exposes an additional sig-
nificant pattern, in which at least in Ekron, on which
we have the most detailed information from this era,
the percentage of pork apparently increased over time
during the Iron Age I (14%–17%–26%; fig. 6).16
Israelites. As noted above, and despite various res-
ervations and corrections, Hesse’s observations that
the Israelites avoided pork is accepted by most schol-
ars today (regarding the Iron I, even by Sapir-Hen et
al. 2013). In contrast to the situation in Philistia, the
inhabitants of sites like Shiloh (fig. 7), Giloh, Mount Figure 5. Map showing pork consumption in Iron Age I sites. Note that the groups are quite
homogenous, and spatially distinct from one another. Map prepared by Yair Sapir.
‘Ebal, ‘Ai, Kh. Raddana, Izbet Sartah, and many oth-
ers, which, on various grounds, were traditionally as-
sociated with the Israelites, completely avoided pork
(category 1a). It is quite clear that both the low per-
centage of pork in these sites and the drastic contrast
with the situation in Philistia are not random.
Thus, instead of the expected pattern of accul-
turation, hybridity, etc., the differences between the
neighboring Israelites and Philistines (fig. 5) were
quite clear during the Iron Age I, even increasing
with time, and as the former avoided it, the latter
group apparently increased the importance of pork
in its diet (as it did with other distinguishing marks;
Faust 2015a, and references).
The Indigenous, Non-Israelite and Non-Philistine
Canaanite Population. In addition to Israelites and
Philistines—two groups that crystallized and formed
Figure 6. Pork consumption in Ekron, from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the beginning of the
their identity in the Iron Age, and that have at- Iron Age II.
tracted a great deal of discussion—there were also

Figure 7. The mound of Shiloh. The Iron I Israelite population at the site avoided pork. Photograph by the author.
the indigenous Canaanite communities. These groups have re- avoided pork in this period (in contrast to the situation
ceived relatively little attention over the years, compared with in most of these sites during the Late Bronze Age). This is
the Israelites and Philistines, and (as we shall see below) this evident in the finds at Tel ‘Eton (fig. 9) and Beth-Shemesh,
has led to a number of misconceptions. We should note that the and also in Qubur al-Walaydah, Tel Hesi, Tell Jemmeh,
term Canaanite is broad, and is typically used to refer to the lo- and perhaps also Nahal Patish (see the extensive discus-
cal population in the southern Levant that was neither Israelite sion in Faust 2018).
nor Philistine. Thus, this is a generic term that is used as a de- Interestingly, the avoidance of pork in sites belonging to the
fault when no other designation is available. While this does not latter group makes them similar to the highlands sites, and this
render the term necessarily incorrect, we should bear in mind has led some to suggest that the inhabitants of some of the sites
the limitations inherent in this usage. Thus, while I think that were Israelites. Still, there are other traits that were shown to be
the local population should indeed be treated as a third group, ethnically meaningful during the Iron I (e.g., pottery; see below),
different from both Israelites and Philistines, and that from an and when these are examined it is quite clear that the inhabitants
etic perspective the various sites regarded here as Canaanites of these sites were not Israelites (see Faust and Katz 2011; Faust
do share many common features, we should be aware that they 2015a; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2011).18
probably had many distinctions between themselves, even if they Ironically, some scholars (e.g., Sapir-Hen et al. 2013; Maeir,
did share some common identity (which is not certain).17 Thus, Hitchcock and Horwitz 2013) have attempted to use the data
the term Canaanites incorporates a few groups that although dis- from these sites in the southern edge of Coastal Plain, bordering
tinct from Israelites and Philistines, did not necessarily form one the western Negev, in a region that is often called today Philis-
group (from an emic perspective). tia, to claim that not all Philistines consumed pork.19 These sites,
When analyzing pork consumption among these Canaanite however, lack most Philistine features to start with (Faust 2015a,
communities, two patterns emerge: 2018; also Lehmann 2011: 291), and there was no reason what-
• Most Canaanites consumed small amounts of pork. This soever to label them as Philistines in the first place.
is the situation for example in Megiddo (fig. 8), Kinrot, Tel Due to space limitations, the issue cannot be addressed here
Rehov, Aphex XI, and additional sites in the north (in re- at any length, but it appears as if indigenous communities in the
gions in which Canaanite identity continued into the Iron south used the period’s ethnically charged traits to demarcate
II, see below). themselves from the other, newly forged groups. They used pork
to differentiate themselves from the Philistines, whereas other
• In addition, a group of sites in the eastern Shephelah and traits (like Philistine pottery; fig. 10) were used to distinguish
the southern part of the Coastal Plain appears to have them from the Israelites.20 All the sensitive traits, therefore,

Figure 8. Megiddo in the Jezreel Valley. The Iron I population at the site consumed a moderate amount of pork. Photograph by the author.
exhibit sharp boundaries, clearly indicating that peoples did modern pejoratives like “frogs”, “krauts”, etc.; Gabaccia 1998;
not hold competing identities and had to choose between them, Buckser 1999). The Philistines, moreover, had a very high cul-
sending a clear message as to who they were. While not dimin- tural and political profile at the time (Stager 1995; Faust 2006a,
ishing the importance of pork, as sharp boundaries were clearly and references), and being a dominant group, their customs be-
identified in this specific trait, this can serve as a warning against came something in relation to which people defined themselves.
studying isolated traits separately from a broader study of the Thus, some of the groups that interacted with the Philistines and
society (for this period, see also Faust 2006a; 2015a). wished to demarcate the differences between themselves and
Discussion. When examined together, all the above patterns the Philistines, for example, the Israelites, completely abstained
seem to be interrelated, and make sense as part of a coherent, from consuming pork, which came to be associated with the Phi-
even if complex, social process. The key factor were the Philis- listines. It is likely that the Israelites, or at least some elements
tines, who consumed exceptionally large amounts of pork. Re- within them, were familiar with the taboo before that time and
gardless of the exact amount these new arrivals consumed dur- did not consume much pork even before interacting with the
ing their initial stage of settlement—and at least in some cases it Philistines (see e.g., Faust 2006a: 152–55, 2015b). Now, however,
was substantial from the beginning—pork consumption became when interacting with a group that came to be associated with
a major component of the Philistine diet. I concur with Lev-Tov the consumption of large quantities of pork the taboo became
(2006) that this was not initially done as an ethnic statement, useful in boundary maintenance negotiations as a demarcating
but was rather a cultural habit of at least some of these settlers feature, and was therefore followed more strictly then before.
who consumed relatively large quantities of this meat. Still, given And the Philistines, who apparently also came to treat pork as a
the above background (of pork consumption during the Late marker, increased its consumption (whether belonging to com-
Bronze Age) this trait was very noticeable and pork consump- munities that consumed large quantities before or not). While
tion inevitably became associated with the Philistines (compare its initial consumption was not an ethnic statement (and likely

Figure 9. An aerial photograph of Tel ‘Eton, in the southeastern Shephelah, just below the Hebron hill country. The Iron I Canaanite population at the site avoided pork almost completely.
Photograph by Griffin Aerial Imaging; courtesy of the Tel ‘Eton expedition.
greatly varied between sites during the initial phase of Philistine themselves from the Philistines (Faust and Katz 2011; Bunimov-
settlement, before it became a distinctive Philistine feature), its itz and Lederman 2011).22
increased importance, in contrast to the pattern in all neighbor- The significance of pork is also evident, as noted above, by
ing cultures, clearly was. Notably, the increase in the consump- the fact that none of the Iron I Canaanite sites exhibit large (and
tion of pork in some sites in Philistia is counterintuitive, as one even medium) percentage of pork, whereas in the Late Bronze
would expect the percentage of this animal in their diet to de- Age and even in the Iron IIB (below) there were a few Canaanite
crease after they settled in the new environment. That it some- sites with a larger percentage of pork. Thus, while in the south
times even increased during the first 150–200 years after their the contrast is between pork avoidance (0–0.5%) and consuming
settlement must be meaningful, stressing its cultural and ethnic large percentage of pork (8% and usually much more, reaching
significance as a dividing line between Iron Age communities, 24%) is striking, even in the north, where Canaanite communi-
and proving that it was culturally significant. Thus, both parties ties consumed moderate amounts of pork (usually 1–2%, some-
used pork to demarcate their boundaries, leaving no place for times reaching 3–4%), not a single site exhibit pork consumption
ambiguity (similar phenomenon can be observed in the Philis- of over 4 percent, leaving high levels of pork consumption only
tine pottery; see Faust 2013, 2015a, and references). to the Philistines. This is probably a result of the association of
As for the indigenous population of Canaan, much of it was massive pork consumption with the Philistines, further signify-
less affected, at least as far as pork is concerned. The Canaanite ing the importance of this meat as a cultural marker even in the
population in the north consumed it in low quantities (with but north. Thus, while not always completely avoided, pork was per-
one exception, at Tel Dan [fig. 11], where it was avoided).21 The ceived as a Philistine food in all contexts, and no other known
southern indigenous population, which interacted more closely community consumed large or even medium quantities of this
with the Philistines, however, took a different strategy, and the meat during the Iron I.
settlers there avoided pork completely in order to differentiate

Thus, the patterns observed make it clear that the association of pork
consumption with the Philistines was a significant event, and that the
different groups in Iron I Canaan used this trait as part of the ongoing
ethnic negotiations, including the Philistines themselves!
Iron Age II
The consumption of pork continued to reveal significant patterns
also in the Iron II, but most of them are framed on the formative ones
of the Iron I (table; fig. 12). Thus, unlike the Iron Age I, when new,
unique patterns were created—patterns that were markedly different
from these of the preceding period—the Iron II is marked mainly with
continuity, albeit with some expected gradual alterations and changes.
Groups that did not consume (or hardly consumed) pork continued
to do so. Groups that during the Iron I consumed moderate amounts
of pork also continued to do so, although in some sites in the north
one can identify gradual increases reaching medium levels of pork con-
sumption in the Iron Age IIB. Change was identified mainly within the
group that consumed extremely large quantities of pork during the Iron
I, that is, the Philistines. Here one can usually see a marked decrease
during the Iron II, continuing to the end of this era. Still, examining
longer-term processes, this decrease is not surprising, and fits nicely
with the overall process of Philistine acculturation (more below).23
Israelites. Generally speaking, Israelites continued to avoid pork.24
Israelite sites with Iron IIA levels (including the Iron I–II transitional
levels) include Moza (0%), Lachish (V: 0%, and IV: 0.4%), Tel Harasim Figure 10. A Philistine jug from “the Philistine Tomb” at Tel ‘Eton. Photograph courtesy
of the Israel Exploration Society.
Figure 11. Tel Dan (the plaza outside the gate), in the Hula Valley. Pork was avoided at this site during the Iron Age I, in contrast to other sites the northern valleys, where a moderate degree of pork
consumption took place. Photograph by the author.
Canaanites. The Canaanite populations in
the northern valleys continued to consume
small amount of pork in the Iron II (the same
applies to the northern and central coastal
plain), with some increase overtime.27 Iron
Age IIA levels include, for example, Joqneam
(2.7%), Megiddo (1.2%, 0.9%), Hazor (1.3–
2.6% fig. 14), Tel Rehov (2.2%), and Aphek
(2.4%). This pattern continued into the Iron
Age IIB, with some increase, for example, Kin-
rot (1.9%), Beth-Shean (2%, rising to 6%), Tel
Rehov (1.2%), Hazor (2.8%, rising to 7.9%),
Joqneam (4.6% in the Iron IIA-IIB transition,
increasing to 5.1% later), and Megiddo (7.8%).
Dan (1%) and Tel Ifshar (4%) also exhibit mod-
erate levels of pork consumption, but the ex-
act date of the finds within the Iron II was not
supplied. Tel Michal exhibits a somewhat lower
level of consumption during both Iron IIA and
IIB (0.8%). Since the north was devastated
in the Assyrian conquests, hardly any data is
available on the Iron IIC (Beth-Shean P6, for
example, represent this post-destruction phase,
which is not discussed here).
In summary, some gradual increase can be
seen in a few sites, reaching a medium level of
pork consumption. This, however, occurred
only in the Iron Age IIB, after pork ceased to be
a demarcating feature, and even in Philistia its
consumption declined significantly, as we shall
presently see.28
Philistines. The most significant pattern is
identified in Philistia, and is probably also re-
sponsible for the above gradual changes in the
north. The Philistines did not abstain from
pork in the Iron Age II, but clearly reduced
its significance (as noted already by Hesse and
Wapnish 1997). This is the situation for ex-
Figure 12. Map showing pork consumption in Iron Age II sites (Iron IIA–B in the north, and Iron IIA-B-C in ample at Ekron IV of the Iron IIA, where pork
the south). Map prepared by Yair Sapir.
comprised only 6.5 percent. Figures continued
to drop later, to 4.7 percent in Ekron II–III of
(0%),25 Kh. Qeiyafa (0%), and Beth-Shemesh 4 (0%) and perhaps also the Negev the Iron IIB and to 1.8 percent in Ekron Ic/Ib
Highland sites (0%) and other settlements (e.g., the relevant levels at Beersheba and of the Iron IIC (fig. 15). Ashkelon (0.7%) and
Tel Masos I; 0%). Iron Age IIB sites includes the village at Horbat Rosh Zayit (0%; Timnah (0.9%) of the Iron Age IIC also exhibit
fig. 13), Moza (0.5%), Tel Halif (VIb: 0%), Tel ‘Eton (0.2%), Tel Harasim (0.1%), relatively limited quantity of pork at the time,
Beth-Shemesh (less than 1%), Beersheba (0–0.4%), and Lachish III (0.8%). Where- exemplifying the decline (Gath is an exception
as Israelite sites in the north (and most sites in the Shephelah) were devastated by to this general process and will be discussed
the Assyrians (and not resettled) some Iron IIC sites were identified in Judah, in- below). This change in food habits in the Philis-
cluding Jerusalem, Western Wall (0.2%), Jerusalem, Ophel (0%), and Moza (0.7%), tine centers is in line with other changes in Phi-
and the same applies to the Arad-Beersheba Valley sites (Tel Malahata, 0.2%; Tel listine material culture, like the disappearance
‘Ira, 0.4%; Horvat Uza, 0%; and the late fort at Tel Masos, 0%).26 Interestingly, La- of their Aegean-inspired Philistine pottery of
chish II with 1.7% (note that a small increase can be seen already in the Iron IIB), the Iron Age I (accompanied by their adoption
stands out. Some leniency, however, is only to be expected given the decrease in the of local styles of decoration), their adoption of
importance of the Philistines in the political arena at the time (see Ehrlich 1996: the local script, etc. (Dothan 1982; Stone 1995;
53–55; Mazar 2007: 135; Faust 2013, 2015a; and see below), and even more so in Uziel 2007; see also Faust and Lev-Tov 2011,
light of the decrease in the importance of pork even for them at the time (below). 2014; Faust 2015a, and references). The decline

Figure 13. A four-room house in the Iron II Israelite village at Rosh-Zayit in the Lower Galilee. Pork was avoided at this village. Photograph by the author.
in pork consumption is therefore just another aspect of the Phi- This decline is in line with the decrease in the political impor-
listine acculturation. Moreover, even within this generalization tance of the Philistines at large and with other changes in their
there is one telling exception: Gath. The percentage of pork in boundary maintenance policies (Faust 2013, 2015a), which led
Iron IIA–B Gath (13.2% and 15.8% respectively), was similar to to pork losing much of its importance as an ethnic marker. Since
that in the Iron I (see also Lev-Tov 2012: 589, 590, 601). It should its consumption was not regarded as Philistine anymore (along
therefore be noted that Gath is unique in Philistia in some other with the general decrease in boundary maintenance), other
manners as well (not all, of course). Thus, unlike most sites in groups, and especially the Canaanites in the north, which did
Philistia, and in contrast to the overall pattern of decline, Gath not completely avoid it even in the Iron I, gradually increased its
remained a very large settlement in the Iron Age IIA, continu- consumption, as we have seen above (this might have also influ-
ing to be a mega-city. This fits nicely other changes in material enced patterns in Lachish II).
culture (Ben-Shlomo 2006: 212; see Faust 2013), and it appears
that Gath remained the center in which Philistine identity was Pigs and Taboos: Ecology Versus Culture
still negotiated and stressed, despite the overall sharp decrease
in the political power of that group (interestingly, this seems to What are the reasons behind the taboo on the consumption
be corroborated by the literary references to the Philistine cities, of pork? This is not the place for a lengthy discussion, but in light
Gath being prominent in texts that are supposed to describe Iron of the detailed data available I would briefly like to address a few
Age IIA reality, e.g., Finkelstein 2007: 18, 19). It appears that due theories.
to its proximity to the new Israelite/Judahite settlements in the Some, for example, Marvin Harris (1998), sought to explain the
Shephelah, the inhabitants of Gath had to maintain high bound- taboo by environmental factors, and espoused a view that is deter-
aries (for similar processes, see Olsen and Kobylinski 1991: 7; ministic in leaning. According to Harris, in some ecological nich-
Barth 1969: 9–10; see also Eriksen 2013: 291).29 es, pigs competed with humans for resources, and this competi-
Still, with the exception of Gath, we see a gradual decline in tion led to negative attitudes toward pork, and to the emergence of
pork consumption in Philistine sites, peaking in the Iron IIB–C. the taboo. Others, for example Mary Douglas, looked into culture

Figure 14. The upper mound at Hazor. Pork consumption in the Iron IIA was moderate, but increased in the Iron Age IIB, representing a pattern in the northern valleys. Photograph by
the author.
in an attempt to understand the prohibition. Douglas suggested example, we have seen that pork comprised 13 percent during
(1966) that in ancient Israel pork was forbidden to eat as a part of the Late Bronze Age, while it was missing altogether in the Iron
a complex classificatory system, that prescribed what was “good to Age I, and at Shiloh it comprised 3.5 percent in the MB (Hell-
eat” and what was not. Everything that did not fit into a prescribed wing, Sadeh, and Kishon 1993: 311, table 15.3), while practically
category was abominable (more below). Later, Douglas (1972: 79) missing in later phases. This cannot be explained by ecological or
suggested that pig had a special status,30 because “It carries the odi- environmental changes, since at Ekron the pattern is just the op-
um of multiple pollution. First it pollutes because it defies the sta- posite, that is, increase in consumption at exactly the same time.
tus of ungulates. Second, it pollutes because it eats carrion. Third, Here pork was practically absent (0.4%) in stratum IX of the Late
it pollutes because it is reared as food (and presumably as prime Bronze Age, whereas it grew to 12.6–24.2 percent in the Iron I. No
pork) by non-Israelites” (see also Douglas 1975: 249). Regardless ecological change can account for this simultaneous growth and
of the exact timing when pork was accorded special status, and decline—only the arrival of a new group of people who liked to
although the circumstances that gave the pig its unique standing eat pork, and the ensuing changes in boundary maintenance that
are complex, it is clear that according to Douglas the prohibi- impacted other groups. These are but examples, and one should
tion was part of a larger classificatory scheme. Recently, Redding also note that even in the highlands, where pork was almost com-
(2015) outlined a new theory, according to which the adoption of pletely avoided in the Iron Age, it was quite popular in other ep-
chicken in the Iron Age led to the decline in the popularity of pork. ochs. Thus, in addition to Middle Bronze Shiloh (above), pig was
As food sources, the two share many similarities, but the chicken popular also in Emeq Refaim during the Intermediate Bronze Age
has many advantages, for example enabling consumption of only a and the Middle Bronze Age (15.2% and 8% respectively; Horwitz
small amount at a time. Thus, as the chicken became more popu- 1989: 46). While many more examples can be cited for the fact
lar, pork gradually lost its significance. that the ecological theory does not fit the detailed data at hand,
The data presented in this article are clearly at odds with I believe the above is sufficient, and there is no need to dwell on
Harris’s theory. Thus, the same ecological niches that housed this theory in the context of Iron Age Israel any further.
pork-abstaining communities in the Iron Age, were inhabited As for Redding’s new theory, it is indeed an updated and
by pork-consuming communities in other epochs. At Dan, for well-argued explanation. Although it is likely that in broad lines

Figure 15. Aerial photograph of Ekron. Pork consumption declined at the site during the Iron Age II, exhibiting what appears to be a common pattern in Philistia. Courtesy of the Israel
Exploration Society and Sy Gitin.
Reddit might accurately reconstruct the general long-term pro- that the basic observations made by Douglas do seem to fit what
cesses that led to a decline in pork consumption, his theory also we know about at least a few other perceptions of the Israelite so-
does not fit with the data at hand. We do not have enough evi- ciety (Faust 2006b: 2017). Moreover, the only way to explain the
dence for major increases in chicken consumption at the time changes in the consumption of pork in space and time is through
(Redding 2015: 356), even when small bones are recovered. cultural lines, as demonstrated above. It seems to me that while
Moreover, his explanation does not account for the differences perhaps in need of more elaboration, Douglas’s basic formula-
between nearby sites, nor between different levels at the same tion, that the pig was abominable because it crossed categories is
site, and certainly not for the growth in pork consumption in correct, and that this understanding might have been (partly at
Iron I Ekron. The increase in pork consumption in a number of least) responsible for the taboo, or at least for its being widely ad-
Iron Age IIB northern valleys sites also contrast Redding’s recon- opted in ancient Israel, beyond its mere usefulness for the ethnic
struction. Thus, even when the larger processes are affected by negotiations with the Philistines.
materialist consideration, we should never discount culture as a
factor that influence peoples’ actions, and a community can act Good To Eat? Pork Avoidance in Context
in a way that seems counter to the deterministic processes that
influence the larger pattern. A detailed examination of the vast data at our disposal shows
As for Douglas’s suggestion, although it did receive much that during the Iron Age I, following the arrival of the Philis-
criticism over the years (e.g., Houston 1993), it must be noted tines who developed a shared identity that came to be associated

Pork consumption in Late Bronze Age, Iron I, and Iron II sites and levels
Site % porka (NISP)b Reference Comments
LB (mainly its later part)
Aphek X12 2.3% (1054) Horwitz 2009: 545, T. 21.1
Beth-Shean Q/3-2 11.1% (180) Horwitz 2006: 705, T. 26.10
Beth-Shemesh 9–8 1.6% (1434 + 3503) Tamar et al. 2015: 421, T. 5
Dan 13% (54) Hesse 1990: 211, T. 2
Dor G/12-11 0.3% (2400) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 4, T. 1.
Ekron IX–VIII 0.4% (261), 3% (1999) Lev-Tov 2010: 94, T. 7.2
Gath 0% (171) Lev-Tov 2012a: 592, T. 28.1
Hazor (A2) 0% (41) Lev-Tov 2012b: 587, T. 16A.1
Joqneam XXa, XIX 2.5% (88), 0% (111) Horwitz et al. 2005: 423, T. v.17 LB 1 and LB 2 (the LB 1 Does not appear on the Map)
Lachish 1.4% (19594) Croft 2004: 2257, T. 33.2 Varies between 0.4–2.2 (p. 2261, T. 33.4)
Shiloh 0.2% (2973) Hellwing, Sadeh, and Kishon 1993: 311, T. 15.3
Tel ‘Eton 1.3% (526) Sadiel forthcoming
Tel Halif VIII 3% (3236) Zeder 1990: 25, T. 4
Tel Harasim VI, V 0.8% (366), 1.1% (724) Horwitz and Sade 1993: 22, T. 1–2 (the earlier LB level does not appear on the map)
Tell Jemmeh 0.3% (3950) Hesse 1990: 211, T. 2c
Tel Michal 0.4% (563) Hellwing and Feig 1989: 239, T. 22.6
Tel Rekhesh 14% (116) Van Wyk 2014: 120
Timnah 5% (317) Hesse 1990: 216, T. 3
Being a tomb, some would prefer to exclude the finds from the analysis
Tomb I at Tel Dothan 0.9% (235) Lev-Tov and Maher 2001: 94, T. 1
(excluding it, however, will not impact the overall pattern)
Iron Id
‘Ai 0% (165) Hesse 1999 (quoted by Sapir-Hen et al.)
Aphek X11, and X10-9 2.1% (420), and 0.3% (1115) Horwitz 2009: 548, T. 21.7, 549, T. 2.10
Ashdod XII–XI 14.7 (68), 8% (112) Maher 2005: 283, T. 8.1, 285, T. 8.3
Ashkelon 23% (not supplied) Stager 1995: 344
Beersheba IX–VIII 0% (390+199) Sade 2016: 1346–1347, T. 31.1, 31.2, 31.5
Beth-Shemesh 7, 6, 5 0.3% (2470), 0.1% (3566), 0.1% (1359) Tamar et al. 2015: 421, T. 5 See also Hesse and Brown 2016: 408, 409, T. 11.1
a. I attempted to use the most updated articles by the scholars who published the results. When the fish would change the percentage of pork from 0.19% to 0.187%); (2) in some cases we did not have
final results were not yet published, I consulted other works, preferably by these scholars. I should note the raw data, and while in most cases it appears that the figures include wild animals (Hesse 1990),
that sometimes there were differences between the results published by the same authors, at some the data supplied by Sapir-Hen et al. (2013) obviously did not. Since there was no way to reconcile the
cases even in the same papers. Still, the differences were minor, and the overall patterns are clear. percentages, we opted for the common procedure of counting all identified bones, but the discrepancy
b. Sometimes other methods were used, see for example Hesse 1990, but the differences are minor, should be noted (although, given the data from other sites, it is unlikely that the differences are
compared to the large-scale patterns examined here. I would also like to note that some scholars significant).
counted only domestic animals (see Sapir-Hen et al. 2013, who counted the percentage of pork in c. Maher (2014: 1040–41, table 33.3) did not report any pig bones from this period, but noted that the
livestock, following Grigson 2007), whereas most counted all the identified bones, including wild sample he studied was too small (1,727 bones from all periods, compared to more than 100,000 that
animals (Kehati 2009; Lev-Tov 2012b; Horwitz et al. 2005, and many others). When we had access to were uncovered in the excavations), and referred the readers to a future publication by Wapnish (Maher
the raw data, we followed the majority group, but would like to stress (1) that given the relatively small 2014: 1049). In the meantime, it seems best to use Hesse’s (1990) data, as it appears to pertains to the
number of wild-animal bones in the assemblages, the differences are minor and do not influence the entire dataset.
overall results (see Sade 2015: 716–18, tables 20.4–20.6, where the inclusion of wild animals and d. The figures sometimes include the first half of the twelfth century (which is treated separately).

Pork consumption in Late Bronze Age, Iron I, and Iron II sites and levels (continued)
Dan 0% (77) Hesse 1990: 215
Dor G/10-9 and D2/11-9 1.6% (1601), 1.1% (654) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 4–5, T. 1
Ekron VII, VI, V 12.6% (2831), 23.1% (1506), 24.2% (2377) Lev-Tov 2010: 96, T. 7.3
Gath 13.5% (282) Lev-Tov 2012a: 594, T. 28.2
Hazor (A2, A4) 1.2% (172) Lev-Tov 2012b: 587, T. 16A1, 596, T. 16A.4 The average combines the two areas
The data include all three strata (the last one should probably be dated
Izbet Sartah 0.4% (1203) Hellwing and Adjeman 1986: 142, T. 8.2 to the very early Iron IIA). All pig bones were found in mixed loci, so it
was not possible to differentiate between strata
Joqneam (XVIII–XVII) 1.1% (435) Horwitz et a. 2005: 425, T. v.20
Kh. Raddana 0.2% (517) Hesse 1999 (quoted by Sapir-Hen et al.)
Kinrot (VI–IV) 1.1% (2020) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 5, T. 1
First half of the 12th century (the NISP follows Sapir-Hen et al. 2013,
Lachish VI 0.8% (2566) Croft 2004: 2261, T. 33.4
T. 1)
Megiddo H-12, and K-5, and

2.4% (245), and 2% (406), and 1.4% (2560) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 4–5, table 1
F-5, H-9, K-4, L-5, M-4
Mt. Ebal 0% (770) Horwitz 1986–1987: 181
Nahal Patish less than 1% (not supplied) Maeir et al. 2013: 5–6
Qubur el-Waleyide 0% (not supplied) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 10
Shiloh 0.1% (1350) Hellwing, Sadeh, and Kishon 1993: 311, T. 15.3
Timnah 8% (231) Hesse 1990: 216, T. 3
Tel ‘Eton, Iron IA, Iron IB 0% (52), 0.5% (438) Sadiel forthcoming
Tel Hesi 0% (96) Hesse 1990: 215, T. 3
Tell Jemmeh 0.2% (1396) Hesse 1990: 215, T. 3
Tel Masos III–II 0% (80), 0.4% (271) Tchernov and Drori 1983: 219, T. 1
Tel Qasile 1.6% (252) Davis 1985: 148
Tel Qiri 1.4% (971) Davis 1987: 249 It appears that the figure relates to the early Iron Age
Tel Rehov (D/7-6, and C-3, G-4), 1.4% (140), and 0.8% (238) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 4–5, T. 1
Tel Rekhesh 3% (150) Van Wyk 2014: 120
Tel Wawiyat 4% (604 Hesse 1990: 215, T. 3, see also p. 216
Iron II (including the very early Iron IIA)
Aphek X8-6 2.4% (212) Horwitz 2009: 552, T. 21.13 Iron IIA
Aroer 2.5% (1761) Motro 2011: 267, T. 3.60, 278 Iron IIB and IIC (the data refers to all levels together)
Ashkelon 0.7% (4286) Hesse et al. 2011: 628, T. 24.9 Iron IIC
Beersheba VII, VI, V, IV, III, II 0% (817), 0.1% (968), 0% (4672), 0% (2186), Sade 2016: 1346–1359, T. 31.1, 31.11, 31.21; Sasson Iron IIA and Iron IIB. Information on St. II taken from Sasson
0.4% (1740), 0.1% (4274) 2016: 1368, T. 32.1
Beth-Shean P-8, P-7, P-6 2% (464), 6% (183), 6.5% (11) Horwitz 2006: 689, T. 26.7 Iron IIB

Beth-Shemesh 4, 3, 2 0% (117), and less than 1% (c. 3500) Tamar et al. 2015: 421, T. 5 (St. 4), and Hesse and Iron IIA and Iron IIB
Brown 2016: 408–409, T. 11.1
Dan 1% (286) Hesse 1990: 215, T. 3
Ekron IV, III–II, Ic/Ib 6.5% (643), 4.7% (1689), 1.7 (1107) Lev-Tov 2010: 96, T. 7.3, 98, T. 7.4 Iron IIA, Iron IIB, Iron IIC
Gath 13.2% (500), 15.8% (526) Lev-Tov 2012a: 599, T. 28.4, 603, T. 28.5 Iron IIA, Iron IIB
Hazor, 10th, 9th, 8th centuries 10th c.: 1.3% (155), 2.4% (376); 9th c.: 2.4% Lev-Tov 2012b: 587, T. 16A.1, 596, T. 16A.4, 600-601, Iron IIA and Iron IIB (the overall average in the 10th century: 2.1%; 9th
(Areas A2, A4, M) (249), 2.6% (614); 8th c.: 2.8% (145), 7.9% T. 16A.6 century: 3.9%; 8th century: 6%)
(253)
Jerusalem, Western Wall, Ophel 0.2% (3000), 0% (550) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 6, T. 1; Horwitz and Tchernov Iron IIC (mainly)
1989: 150
Joqneam XVI, XV, XIV (Iron IIA), 2.7% (258), 4.6% (65), 5.1% (118) Horwitz et al. 2005: 427, T. v.23 Iron IIA and Iron IIB
XII (Iron IIA–B), XII (Iron IIB)
Kh. Qeiyafa 0% (101) Kehati 2009: 207, T. 11.5 The very beginning of the period
Kh. Uza 0% (6869) Sade 2007: 290, T. 13.2, 291, T. 13.3
Kinrot I–II 1.9% (3432) Ziegler and Boessneck 1990: 133, T. 1
Lachish V, IV, III, and II 0% (106), 0.4% (1350), 0.8% (1173), and Croft 2004: 2261–62, T. 33.4 Iron IIA, IIB, IIC. Average for the entire Iron II is 0.6% (2257), see Croft
1.7% (243); 2004: 2257, T. 33.2. Accordign to Lernau 1975: 93, T. 1, the finds from
St. V–II did not include pig at all, i.e., 0% (292)
Megiddo H8, H7, K3: and H-6, 5, 1.2% (659), 0.9% (940), and 7.8% (381) Sapir-Hen et al. 2014: 5–6, T. 1 Iron IIA and Iron IIB
K-2, L-3, and H-4, H-3, L-2, Q-2
Negv Forts 0% (2808) Hakker-Orion 2004: 221, T. 1 Iron IIA
Moza VI, V, IV 0% (150), 0.5% (1032), 0.7% (2057) Sade 2009: 201, T. 10.10, 202, T.10.13, 204, T. 10.16 Iron IIA, IIB, IIC
Qitmit 0% (317) Horwitz and Raphael 1995: 298, T. 8.3 Iron IIC
Qubur el-Waleyide 0% (78) Maher 2010: 135, T. 1 Iron IIC
Rosh-Zayit (fort and village) 0% (196) and 0% (335) Horwitz 2000: 222, T. 4.1 Iron IIA fort and Iron IIB village
Shiloh 2% (147) Hellwing, Sadeh, and Kishon 1993: 311, T. 15.3 Iron IIC (probably non-Israelite)
Timnah 0.9% (914) Hesse 1990: 216, T. 3
Tel ‘Eton 0.2% (462) Sadiel forthcoming Iron IIB
Tel Halif VIb 0% (309) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 6 Table 1 Iron IIB
Tel Hamid 5.2% (906), and 8.6% (255) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 6 T. 1 Iron IIA, and Iron IIB
Tel Harasim 0% (1243), 0.1% (1633) Maher 1998: 17, T. 1; 1999: 9 T.1, 11 Iron IIA and Iron IIBe
Tel Hesi 1.5% (1383) Hesse 1990: 215 T. 3 Iron II
Tel Ifshar 4% (47) Hesse 1990: 215, T. 3 Iron IIB
e. The stratigraphy at Tel Harasim is not always clear, and the ceramic assemblages are sometimes during the Iron Age or the Late Bronze Age did the population consume a significant amount of pork. As
mixed. Still, many Late Bronze Age and Iron II contexts were differentiated properly and the mere fact can be seen in the discussion, this observation in itself is of significance (I should add that the fact that in
that no Iron I remains were unearthed supports the distinction. At most, one should be wary of the inner all periods the finds are in line with what can be expected on the basis of the knowledge from other sites
distinction within the Iron II. Moreover, the figures of pork are very low throughout (0%, 0.1%, and 1%), also supports the stratigraphy).
so it doesn’t really matter how one wishes to manipulate the data, and it is quite clear that at no stage

Tel ‘Ira 0.4% (578) Dayan 1999: 481 T. 16.1 Iron IIC
Tel Malhata 0.2% (5877) Sade 2015: 716–717 T. 20.4 The data relate to all phases of the Iron II
Tel Masos I, late fort 0% (71), 0% (380) Tchernov and Drori 1983: 219, T. 1 Beginning of Iron IIA, and Iron IIC
Tel Michal 0.8% (372) Hellwing and Feig 1989: 239, T. 22.6 Iron IIA-B
Tel Rehov B, C, D, J: IV–VI, and 2.2% (8059) and 1.2% (84) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 6 T. 1 Iron IIA and Iron IIB
B-2, J-4, 3
with pork consumption, pork became an important cultural find Canaanite sites with a medium to large percentage of pork
marker, and both its consumption and avoidance were ethnically consumption even in the north (unlike the situation during the
charged. While patterns in the Late Bronze Age were less clear, Late Bronze Age). That no Canaanite communities consumed
during the Iron I, groups started to use this feature as part of exceptionally high percentage of pork in the Iron I—precisely
their ethnic negotiations, in order to demarcate boundaries. the time in which the Philistine pork consumption peaked—also
The Philistines, being a dominant group that gradually con- supports the association of this practice with the Philistines,
sumed growing quantities of pork, came to be associated with showing that even communities that did not avoid it altogether
high levels of pork consumption. It is also clear that the Israelites refrained from the Philistine habit of making it a central compo-
(or proto-Israelites) completely avoided pork at this time, most nent of their diet.
likely building on an existing taboo to distinguish themselves Thus, in the Iron Age I, pork was an important component
from the Philistines. When two such contrasting behaviors take in the ethnic negotiations that took place between what can be
place at the same time this is clearly no accident. Moreover, the broadly defined as Israelites, Philistines, and Canaanites, and
contrast in food habits is accompanied by contrasts in other sen- most of the involved communities used pork consumption as
sitive traits (e.g., pottery decoration), greatly strengthening the one strategy for transmitting messages on their identity, and for
meaningfulness of the disparity. Furthermore, the mere fact that maintaining boundaries. Notably, the Iron I was a formative pe-
at least at Ekron—the Philistine site for which we have the best riod in which new groups emerged and older ones renegotiated
(published) stratigraphy in the Iron I—Philistines apparently in- their identities. This is precisely the context in which groups—
creased the consumption of pork during the first 150 years or even if not clearly demarcated before—are expected to consoli-
so of their settlement is another feature that supports its being date and develop clearly defined, even if porous, boundaries, and
used for ethnic demarcation. Although it is likely that some of therefore to adopt markers that could help in the delineation of
the Philistines initially consumed pork because it was part of these boundaries.
their culture before arriving to the region, one would expect a Patterns in the Iron II continue, and modify, those of the Iron
gradual decrease in its consumption over time, as they accul- I. While Israelites continued to avoid pork in the Iron II, and
turated and acclimated. That Philistine pork consumption did Canaanites continued to consume small quantities of pork (even
not decrease and apparently even increased during the Iron I, gradually increasing its consumption in some sites), there were
when other groups avoided it, suggests that pork consumption more noticeable changes in Philistia. Most Philistines signifi-
and avoidance was a culturally charged issue, and groups defined cantly decreased the percentage of pork in their diet. This should
themselves around this trait. Thus, as Israelites and Philistines be viewed as part of their acculturation process, and while they
(and even some Canaanites, below) interacted, pork consump- did not avoid it altogether, it was far less significant in most sites
tion evolved into one of traits that was used in boundary main- in Philistia than in the past, especially toward the end of the Iron
tenance; consequently, Israelites avoided it completely, whereas Age. This seems to be a major factor, and coupled with the over-
Philistines came to consume large quantities of this meat, some all decline in the political position of the Philistines, the decrease
even increasing its significance in their diet.31 in their association with pork made its use by other groups less
Some indigenous groups consumed limited amounts of pork objectionable. Thus, some Iron IIB Canaanite sites in the north
(similar to the practice in many sites in the Late Bronze Age), increased the consumption of pig, reaching a medium level of
for example in the northern valleys and the northern and cen- consumption for the first time since the Late Bronze Age.32
tral Coastal Plain. However, indigenous Iron I communities in Thus, when examined against the wider social background
the eastern Shephelah and the periphery of Philistia had a stron- of the Iron Age, once pork became associated with the Philis-
ger need to define themselves in contrast to both Israelites and tines, it became an important cultural and ethnic marker. Its
(mainly) Philistines, and as part of their ethnic negotiations also gradual association with the Philistines influenced its consump-
avoided pork (whereas in the Late Bronze Age pork was con- tion both within Philistine communities (where its consump-
sumed in these sites). Interestingly, during Iron I we do not tion initially even grew with time) and without them (where it

did not change during the period represented in each map, and hence
was usually avoided, at least among neighboring communities,
the dot is representative of all strata. In cases when there was a change,
and was never very popular). When this association waned, and
this is usually acknowledged on the map or in a footnote. Despite these
the Philistines decreased their consumption of this meat, some
reservations, which are inevitable, the data presented on the maps rep-
communities slightly increased its consumption (whereas oth-
resent the spatial distributions of the various groups, and clearly cor-
ers continued to maintain the taboo). Moreover, the distribution
roborate its significance.
of pigs in space and time correlates nicely with other sensitive
7. One of the two is a tomb from Tell Dothan (see table), which should
traits of material culture, and is indicative of the overall strate-
possibly be excluded from the statistics. While excluding the tomb will
gies of boundary maintenance used by the different groups re-
not impact the overall pattern, it will decrease the number of sites in
siding in the region. Finally, more-nuanced studies might reveal
this subcategory to one, and hence strengthening the likelihood that it
more subtleties in the pig politics of the different eras, and prob-
should indeed be separated from subcategory 1a.
ably some subgroupings within the major, broad identity groups
8. Sapir-Hen et al. refers to Aphek and Beth-Shean as the two sites in
discussed in this article, thus refining the conclusions presented
which pork was extremely popular, and which served Egyptian control.
above. Still, the overall patterns identified above, which show
Still, the percentage of pork at Aphek is not very large (2.3%), and while
that pork consumption was related to ethnic negotiation, is not
Beth-Shean does exhibit a high level of pork consumption (11.1%), this
likely to change.33
is overshadowed by Dan (13%) and Tel Rekhesh (14%) which are not as-
sociated with Egyptian presence (even at Timnah—another site not as-
Acknowledgments sociated with Egyptian presence—pork was consumed at a much higher
level than at Aphek).
I would like to thank Prof. Yossi Ashkenazy for his help, to
9. For one site (Nahal Patish) the information is too partial, and it is
Yair Sapir for preparing the maps, and to Ms. Shlomit Yaari,
only stated that the percentage of pork was less than 1 percent. It is likely
Head of the Scientific Application Support Unit at Bar-Ilan Uni-
that the percentage was approaching zero, like other sites in the region
versity for her help with the statistical analysis. The responsibility
(and this how it is treated on the map), but since the information is not
for the content of this article and the analysis contained in it,
available it is not counted in any category.
however, is solely mine.
10. The terms are generic, and it is clear that each of these groups was
composed of different subgroups, which were aware of the differences
Notes among themselves (and see below regarding the Canaanites).
1. The so-called “Negev fortresses” (Iron IIA) are counted as one. 11. Finkelstein 1988, 1996; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Dever
2. It is not easy to distinguish domesticated pigs from wild boars (see 2003; Faust 2006a; Bloch-Smith 2003; Killebrew 2005; Hawkins 2013.
also Greer 2013: 60 n. 59), and the data might include bones of both. 12. Dothan 1982; Faust 2015a; Faust and Lev-Tov 2011, 2014; Maeir,
This, however, is most likely marginal statistically and, moreover, it is Hitchcock, and Horwitz 2013; Yasur-Landau 2010.
very much possible that the taboo applied to both. Furthermore, if the 13. Faust and Katz 2011; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2011; Finkelstein
taboo did not apply to wild boar, it is likely that the meagre finds in and Silberman 2001, and more below.
some sites might result from hunting, and hence indicate that the few 14. For detailed discussion, see, for example, McGuire 1982; Jones 1997;
bones unearthed there are in line with the taboo. Emberling 1997; Faust 2006a; Eriksen 2010, 2013; Diaz-Andreu 2015.
3. In studying the data, I consulted with Prof. Yossi Ashkenazi of Ben 15. For the small sites in the region, see below.
Gurion University and Ms. Shlomit Ya’ari, head of the Scientific Appli- 16. A similar pattern can be seen in the Aegean-inspired Philistine pot-
cation Support Unit at Bar-Ilan University, who also conducted a statis- tery, whose percentage increased during the Iron I (before disappearing
tical analysis (k-means cluster analysis). While I am grateful to them for in the Iron II), for example at Ashkelon, Ashdod, and apparently Ekron
their help, the responsibility for the data, its analysis, its presentation, (see Faust 2015a, and references). Notably, at Ashdod there seems to be
and the content of this article, is of course, mine alone. While other divi- an opposite trend (in pork consumption) but the dataset is much small-
sions of the data were also possible, and will be commented upon below, er than in Ekron and it is not clear if the difference is a result of chance
it must be stressed that the differences are minor, and do not impact the or of different strategies, perhaps resulting from the site’s location.
general patterns observed. 17. We noted that it is common for peoples and communities to change
4. Some statistical tests suggested separating sites with 3–4 percent of their identities overtime and, furthermore, what it meant to be a mem-
pork, and treating them as a separate group. In the Iron I there are only ber of any group ultimately changed, and it is quite clear that such pro-
two sites in this category (and their number in other periods is also cesses were operating here too (for the Iron Age, see Faust 2015a, 2015c,
limited) and applying this division will not affect the general patterns. and references). Still, at any given moment individuals have at least one
5. Sapir-Hen et al. had information of fewer sites, but the patterns from group identity, and peoples do not typically exist without one. While
these sites are similar. in many instances peoples can have more than one ethnic identity, one
6. Maps are a very useful tool for facilitating the organization and un- should bear in mind that it is often impossible to hold two competing
derstanding of data. Still, they suffer from a number of shortcomings: and hostile identities, and one has to choose between them (see Hodder
(1) Not all the sites shown on them were necessarily contemporaneous 1982; Faust 2006a). Interaction often strengthens identities rather than
(I referred to some examples in the text and/or footnotes, e.g., regard- weakens them (see Eriksen 2013: 291; Faust 2006a, and references).
ing Lachish VI in the Iron I); (2) in some of the sites there was more 18. It must be stressed that studying trait lists, as was common under
than one stratum per map. In most cases, however, pork consumption the culture history paradigm (and is still done today) has proved futile,

since most of the traits a group uses has nothing to do with ethnic iden- groups in the region, and became culturally similar to its neighbors.
tity (see McGuire 1982; Jones 1997; Eriksen 2013: 293; Diaz-Andreu This process is sometimes called acculturation, hybridization, fusion,
2015; also Faust 2006a; 2015a, and references). What count are only etc. (also Uziel 2007; Faust 2015a: 185, and references).
traits that have already proved to be ethnically sensitive, and that served 24. The population of the trough valley sites, which was apparently Ca-
in intergroup interaction. naanite in the Late Bronze Age and the Iron I, assimilated in the course
19. Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 11 raised the possibility that the difference of the Iron II and became Israelite (see Faust and Katz 2011; also Faust
‘may be related to different background of the inhabitants – higher per- and Sapir 2018). They are therefore discussed under this heading.
centage of Aegean-origin population in the urban centers versus higher 25. The stratigraphy at this site is not always clear; see notes to table.
percentage of local population in the rural sites’. Generally speaking, 26. At Qitmit, although apparently non-Israelite, pork was also avoided
however, they tend to downplay the ethnic significance of pork for the (0%). Aroer in the eastern Negev, probably with a mixed population, is
Philistines. an exception with 2.5 percent.
20. Regarding the potential Philistine identity of the inhabitants of 27. We have seen that Sapir-Hen et al. (2013; see also Sapir-Hen 2016)
these sites, it is not only pork that is “missing”; so are hearths, which suggested that while in the Iron I the population of what later became
also have proven to be ethnically sensitive at the time. While Philistine both Israel and Judah avoided pigs, in the Iron II the population of Is-
pottery is found in these sites (the quantities are usually not supplied), rael, unlike that of Judah, reverted to pork consumption. They deduce
it is agreed that the mere presence of this pottery, with the absence of all this from finding of pig bones in various Iron II sites in the Kingdom
other sensitive traits, is insufficient to label a site as Philistine, especially of Israel, like Hazor, Megiddo, Yoqneam, Rehov, etc. (Sapir-Hen et al.
since Canaanites also used this pottery in the Iron IB (Bunimovitz and 2013: 9–10). But this suggestion is very problematic. First and foremost,
Lederman 2011; Faust and Katz 2011; Faust 2015c). It appears that the all the sites are located in the northern valleys, and although politically
reason behind the initial suggestion that these sites are Philistine is the they were part of the Kingdom of Israel there is an agreement that they
reference to Philistines in this area in the book of Genesis, which the were settled by Canaanites (Finkelstein 1999: 48; Finkelstein and Silver-
majority of scholars consider to be ahistorical. This erroneous identi- man 2001: 191–94; Faust 2000, 2012; Münger 2013; Mazar 2015). The
fication still lingers on and influences modern scholarship (see Faust finds reported by Sapir-Hen et al. simply strengthen this conclusion.
2018 for a detailed discussion). Notably, the only relevant Iron II highland site discussed by Sapir-Hen
21. The avoidance of pork at Dan during the Iron I stands out in the et al. (2013: 5, 9) is the village at Horbat Rosh-Zayit, which was inter-
northern valleys, where all other known sites exhibit a moderate degree preted by the excavators as Israelite (Gal and Alexandre 2000; contra
of pork consumption. If pork were the only known relevant trait, then Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 9), and where pork was indeed avoided!
we would have to treat Dan as a minor anomaly. Since, however, we 28. As for the indigenous population in the southern Coastal Plain,
know of other unique material traits in this site and its vicinity, which it typically consumed relatively low percentages of pork, for example
connect it with the more southern Israelite settlement phenomenon (Bi- Qubur al-Walaydah (0%) and Tel Hesi (1.5%). Tel Hamid, in the pe-
ran 1989), we may conclude that while the avoidance of pork makes it riphery of Philistia had a relatively large percentage of pork during the
anomalous within its broader geographical environment, it joins other Iron Age IIA (5.2%), and even more in the Iron IIB (8.6%). Overall, this
sensitive traits and show that the site (like a few other sites in its envi- increase was at the time when the meat’s ethnic significance declined.
ronment) was indeed part of a different settlement phenomenon, hav- 29. The other Philistine sites (Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron) by con-
ing affinities with more southern regions. Thus, when examined in contrast, did not define themselves against Israel/Judah, but in relation to
text, different sensitive traits seem to fit together into a coherent, even the Phoenician world into which they were gradually incorporated (see
if complex picture. extensive discussion in Faust 2013, 2015a, and references).
22. In this context, two additional points should be stressed: (1) people 30. Modifying her suggestion that the pig received its special status
can change their identity and move from one group to another even at only as a result of the interaction between Jews and the Hellenistic world
times of stress (when they cannot hold two conflicting identities simul- at the time of the Hasmoneans (Douglas 1973: 60–64).
taneously). For example, it is likely that some of the local population 31. As noted above, a similar pattern can be seen in the Aegean-
that lived within the Philistine centers themselves gradually assimilated inspired decorated pottery of Iron I Philistia—Israelites avoided it al-
and became Philistine (probably also increasing the amount of pork together, whereas the Philistines gradually increased the percentage of
they consumed; see Faust 2015a); (2) even at times of stress and hostil- this decoration during the Iron Age I (before abandoning it completely
ity, competing groups could share the same sites. Consider, for example, in the Iron Age II).
Timnah. With 8 percent pork consumption, the site is usually regarded 32. It is possible that the increase in Lachish II should be viewed in a
as a Philistine settlement, but one cannot discard the possibility that its similar light.
population was mixed, and that some of the population consumed large 33. It must be stressed that only a broad study can expose and explain
amounts of pork—similar to that of the Philistine centers—while others the relevant patterns. First of all, one must study all sites (from a num-
avoided it or consumed smaller amounts (like other groups in Philistia’s ber of subsequent periods), rather than concentrate on one site or a
periphery or outside it). This is also in line with the biblical description small group of sites, or just one period, in order to appreciate spatial
of a mixed population in this region, if indeed it carries any historical and temporal differences and developments. Furthermore, the data re-
value (see Weitzman 2016). garding pork consumption should be compared and contrasted with ad-
23. I follow Stone’s (1995) use of the word acculturation to describe ditional lines of evidence. The present article, therefore, not only covers
the process in which the Philistine society continued to maintain its the entire country and discuss a number of periods, but is conducted
separate identify, but lowered the boundaries between itself and other as part of a larger study of the relevant traits and groups (Faust 2006a,

2015a, 2015c; Faust and Katz 2011), allowing us to complement the data ———. 1972. Deciphering a Meal. Daedalus 101: 61–81.
on pork with that other significant traits. ———. 1973. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. Rev. ed. Har-
mondsworth: Penguin.
References ———. 1975. Implicit Meanings. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ehrlich, Carl S. 1996. The Philistines in Transition: A History from ca.
Barth, Fredrick. 1969. Introduction. Pp. 9–38 in Ethnic Groups and
1000–730 B.C.E. Studies in the History and Culture of the An-
Boundaries. Edited by Fredrick Barth. Boston: Little, Brown.
cient Near East 10. Leiden: Brill.
Ben-Shlomo, David. 2006. Decorated Philistine Pottery: An Archaeolog-
Emberling, Geoff. 1997. Ethnicity in Complex Societies, Archaeological
ical and Archaeometric Study. Oxford: British Archaeological
Perspectives. Journal of Archaeological Research 5: 295–344.
Reports.
Eriksen, Thomas H. 2010. Ethnicity and Nationalism. 3rd ed. London:
Biran, Avraham. 1989. The Collared-Rim Jars and the Settlement of the
Pluto.
Tribe of Dan. Pp. 71–96 in Recent Excavations in Israel: Stud-
———. 2013. Ethnicity: From Boundaries to Frontiers. Pp. 280–98 in
ies in Iron Age Archaeology edited by Seymour Gitin and Wil-
The Handbook of Sociocultural Anthropology. Edited by James
liam G. Dever. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
G. Carrier and Deborah B. Gewertz. London: Bloomsbury.
Research 49. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Faust, Avraham. 2000. Ethnic Complexity in Northern Israel During the
Bloch-Smith, Elisabeth. 2003. Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology
Iron Age II. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 132: 2–27.
Preserves What Is Remembered and What Is Forgotten in Is-
———. 2006a. Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion
rael’s History. Journal of Biblical Literature 122: 401–25.
and Resistance. London: Equinox/Routledge.
Buckser, Andrew. 1999. Keeping Kosher: Eating and Social Identity
———. 2006b. Trade, Ideology and Boundary Maintenance in Iron Age
among the Jews of Denmark, Ethnology 38: 191–209.
Israelite Society. Pp. 17–35 in A Holy Community. Edited by
Bunimovitz, Shlomo, and Avraham Faust. 2001. Chronological Separa-
Marcel Purthuis and Joshua Schwartz. Leiden: Brill.
tion, Geographical Segregation or Ethnic Demarcation? Eth-
———. 2012. The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II. Winona
nography and the Iron Age Low Chronology. Bulletin of the
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
American Schools of Oriental Research 322: 1–10.
———. 2013. From Regional Power to Peaceful Neighbor: Philistia in the
Bunimovitz, Shlomo, and Zvi Lederman. 2011. Canaanite Resistance:
Iron I–II Transition. Israel Exploration Journal 63: 174–204.
The Philistines and Beth-Shemesh: A Case Study from Iron
———. 2015a. Pottery and Society in Iron Age Philistia: Feasting, Iden-
Age I. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
tity, Economy and Gender. Bulletin of the American Schools of
364: 37–51.
Oriental Research 373: 167–98.
Croft, Paul. 2004. Archaeozoological Studies. Pp. 2254–348 in The Re-
———. 2015b. The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: On Origins and Hab-
newed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994).
itus. Pp. 467–82 in Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Per-
Edited by David Ussishkin, Tel Aviv: The Institute of Archae-
spective: Text, Archeology, Culture and Geoscience. Edited by
ology.
Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Schneider, and William H. C. Propp.
Davis, Simon. 1985. The Large Mammal Bones. Pp. 148–50 in Tell Qa-
New York: Springer.
sile, Part Two. Edited by Amihai Mazar. Qedem 20. Jerusalem:
———. 2015c. The “Philistine Tomb” at Tel ‘Eton: Cultural Contact, Co-
The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University.
lonialism, and Local Responses in Iron Age Shephelah, Israel.
———. 1987. The Faunal Remains of Tell Qiri. Pp. 249–51 in Tel Qiri.
Journal of Anthropological Research 71: 195–230.
Edited by Amnon Ben Tor and Yuval Portugali. Qedem 24.
———. 2017. The Bounded Landscape: Archaeology, Language, Texts,
Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew Univer-
and the Israelite Perception of Space. Journal of Mediterrane-
sity.
an Archaeology 30: 3–32.
Dayan, Tamar. 1999. Faunal Remains. Pp. 480–87, in Tel ‘Ira: A Strong-
———. 2018. The Land of the Philistines? Reexamining the Settlement
hold in the Biblical Negev. Edited by Itzhak Beit-Arieh. Mono-
in the Periphery of Philistia. Eretz Israel 33: 195–204. (He-
graph Series 15. Tel Aviv: The Sonia and Marco Nadler Insti-
brew)
tute of Archaeology.
Faust, Avraham, and Hayah Katz. 2011. Philistines, Israelites and Ca-
Dever, Willaim G. 2000. Save Us from Postmodern Malarkey. Biblical
naanites in the Southern Trough Valley during the Iron Age I.
Archaeology Review 26.2: 28–36, 68–69.
Egypt and the Levant 21: 231–47.
———. 2003, Who Were the Israelites and Where Did They Come From?
Faust, Avraham, and Justin Lev-Tov. 2011. The Construction of Philis-
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
tine Identity: Ethnic Dynamics in 12th–10th Centuries Phil-
Diaz-Andreu, Margarita. 2015. Ethnic Identity and Ethnicity in Archae-
istia. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 30: 13–31.
ology. Pp. 102–5 in International Encyclopedia of Social and
———. 2014. Philistia and the Philistines in the Iron Age I: Interac-
Behavioral Sciences, vol. 8. Edited by James D. Wright. Ox-
tion, Ethnic Dynamics and Boundary Maintenance. HIPHIL
ford: Elsevier.
Novum 1: 1–24.
Dothan, Trude. 1982. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New
Faust, Avraham, and Yair Sapir. 2018. The “Governor’s Residency” at Tel
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
‘Eton, the United Monarchy, and the Impact of the Old House
Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concept of
Effect on Large-Scale Archaeological Reconstructions. Radio-
Pollution and Taboo. London.
carbon 60: 801–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.10

Finkelstein, Israel. 1988. The Archaeology of the Period of Settlement and ———. 1999. Animal Bone Analysis. Pp. 103–18 in An Early Iron Age
Judges. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Village at Khirbet Raddana: The Excavations of Joseph A. Call-
———. 1996. Ethnicity and the Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the High- away, by Zvi Lederman. PhD diss., Harvard University.
lands of Canaan: Can the Real Israel Stand Up? Biblical Ar- Hesse, Brian, and Paula Wapnish. 1997. Can Pig Remains Be Used for
chaeologist 59: 198–212. Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East? Pp. 238–70 in The
———. 1999. State Formation in Israel and Judah, a Contrast in Context, Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the
a Contrast in Trajectory. Near Eastern Archaeology 62: 35–52. Present. Edited by Neil A. Silberman and David Small. Journal
———. 2007. Digging for the Truth: Archaeology and the Bible. Pp. 9–20 for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 237.
in The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
and the History of Early Israel. Edited by Brian B. Schmidt. Hesse, Brian, and Emmett Brown. 2016. From Village to State: Chang-
Archaeology and Biblical Studies 17. Atlanta: Society for Bib- es in the Animal Economy of Beth-Shemesh during the Iron
lical Literature. Age. Pp. 406–15 in Tel Beth-Shemesh: A Border Community in
Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Judah. Renewed Excavations 1990–2000: The Iron Age. Edited
Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and Its Sacred Texts. by Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman. Winona Lake, IN:
New York: Touchstone. Eisenbrauns.
Gabaccia, Donna R. 1998. We Are What We Eat: Ethnic Food and the Hesse, Brian, Deirdre N. Fulton, and Paula Wapnish. 2011. Animal
Making of Americans, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Remains. Pp. 615–43 in Ashkelon III. Edited by Lawrence E.
Press. Stager, David Schloen, and Daniel Master. Winona Lake, IN:
Gal, Zvi, and Yardena Alexandre. 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit, an Iron Age Eisenbrauns.
Storage Fort and Village. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Author- Hodder, Ian. 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of
ity. Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greer, Jonathan. 2013. Dinner at Dan: Biblical and Archaeological Evi- Horwitz, Liora K. 1986–1987. Faunal Remains from the Early Iron Age
dence for Sacred Feasts at Iron Age II Tel Dan and Their Signif- Site on Mount Ebal. Tel-Aviv 13–14: 173–89.
icance. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1989. Diachronic Changes in Rural Husbandry Practices in
Grigson, Caroline. 2007. Culture, Ecology and Pigs from the 5th to Bronze Age Settlements from the Refaim Valley, Israel. Pales-
3rd Millennium BC around the Fertile Crescent. Pp. 83–108 tine Exploration Quarterly 121: 44–54.
in Pigs and Humans: 10,000 Years of Interaction. Edited by ———. 2000. Animal Exploitation: Archeozoological Analysis. Pp. 221–
Umberto Albrella, Keith Dobney, Anton Ervynck, and Peter 32 in Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village.
Rowley-Conwy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edited by Zvi Gal and Yardena Alexandre. IAA Report 8. Je-
Hakker-Orion, Daliah. 2004. Animal Bones from Sites of the Iron Age rusalem. Israel Antiquities Authority.
and Persian Period. Pp. 220–22 in Ancient Settlement of the ———. 2006. Mammalian Remains from Areas H, L, P and Q. Pp.
Negev Highlands, vol. 2. Edited by Rudolf Cohen and Rebecca 689–710 in Excavation at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996. Vol. 1,
Cohen-Amin. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority (He- From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Edited by
brew). Amihai Mazar. The Beth-Shean Valley Archaeological Project
Harris, Marvin. 1998. Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture. Prospect 1. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Insti-
Heights, IL: Waveland. tute of Archaeology.
Hawkins, Ralph. 2013. How Israel Became a People. Nashville: Abingdon ———. 2009. Terrestrial Fauna. Pp. 526–61 in Aphek-Antipatris. Vol. 2,
Press. The Remains on the Acropolis: The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhi-
Hellwing, Salo, and Yizhak Adjeman. 1986. Animal Bones. Pp. 141–52 ya Beck Excavations. Edited by Yuval Gadot and Esti Yadin.
in ‘Izbet Sartah: An Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh Ha’ayin, Is- Monograph Series 27. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, The Sonia
rael. Edited by Israel Finkelstein. BAR S299. Oxford: British and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology.
Archaeological Reports. Horwitz, Liora K., and Eitan Tchernov. 1989. Appendix D, Subsistence
Hellwing, Salo, and Nurit Feig. 1989. Animal Bones. Pp. 236–47 in Ex- Patterns in Ancient Jerusalem: A Study of Animal Remains.
cavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Edited by Z. Herzog G. Rapp Pp. 144–54 in Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount:
and O. Negbi. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University. The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem. Edited by Eilat Mazar and
Hellwing, Salo, Moshe Sadeh, and Vered Kishon. 1993. Faunal Remains. Benjamin Mazar. Qedem 29. Jerusalem: The Hebrew Univer-
Pp. 309–50 in Shiloh, the Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Edited sity, The Institute of Archaeology.
by Israel Finkelstein, Shlomo Bunimovitz, and Zvi Lederman. Horwitz, Liora K., and Ora Raphael. 1995. Faunal Remains. Pp. 287–
Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University. 302 in Horvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev;
Hesse, Brian. 1986. Animal Use at Tel Miqne-Ekron in the Bronze Age Catalogue of Cult Objects and Commentary. Edited by Izhak
and Iron Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re- Beit-Arieh and Pirchiya Beck. Monograph Series 11. Tel Aviv:
search 264: 17–28. Tel Aviv University, The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of
———. 1990. Pig Lovers and Pig Haters: Patterns of Palestinian Pork Archaeology.
Production. Journal of Ethnobiology 10: 195–225. Horwitz, Liora K., and Moshe Sade. 1993. Fauna from the Late Bronze
Age Strata at Tel Harasim. Pp. 14–27 in The Fourth Season of

Excavation at Tel Harasim 1992. Edited by Shmuel Givon. Tel Maeir, Aren, Hitchcock, Louise A., and Liora K. Horwitz. 2013. The
Aviv. Construction and Transformation of Philistine Identity. Ox-
Horwitz, Liora K., et al. 2005. Faunal and Malacological Remains from ford Journal of Archaeology 32: 1–38.
the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, and Iron Age Levels at Tel Maher, Edward F. 1998. Iron Age Fauna from the Tel Harasim Excava-
Yoqne’am. Pp. 395–435 in Yoqne’am, III: The Middle and Late tions, ,1996. Pp. 13*–25* in The Eighth Season of Excavation
Bronze Ages; Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations at Tel Harasim (Nahal Barkai) 1997. Edited by Shmuel Givon.
(1977–1988). Edited by Amnon Ben-Tor, Doron Ben-Ami, Tel Aviv.
and Ariella Livneh. Qedem Reports 7. Jerusalem: The Hebrew ———. 1999. Iron Age Animal Exploitation at Tel Harasim. Pp. 27–44 in
University, The Institute of Archaeology. The Ninth Season of Excavation at Tel Harasim (Nahal Barkai)
Houston, Walter. 1993. Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Ani- 1998. Edited by Shmuel Givon. Tel Aviv: Bar-Ilan University.
mals in Biblical Law. Sheffield: Sheffield Acadmic. ———. 2005. The Faunal Remains. Pp. 283–90 in Ashdod, VI: The Ex-
Jones, Sian. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in cavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969). Edited by Moshe
the Past and Present. London: Routledge. Dothan and David Ben-Shlomo. IAA Reports 24. Jerusalem:
Kehati, Ron. 2009. The Faunal Assemblage. Pp. 201–8 in: Khirbet Qeiya- Israel Antiquities Authority.
fa, I. Excavation Report 2007–2008. Edited by Yosef Garfinkel ———. 2010. Late Iron Age Faunal Remains from Qubur al-Walaydah.
and Saar Ganor. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Die Welt des Orients 40: 133–36.
Killebrew, Anne E. 2005. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeologi- ———. 2014. Temporal Trends in Animal Exploitation: Faunal Analysis
cal Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel from Tell Jemmeh. Pp. 1038–53 in The Smithsonian Institu-
1300–1100 B.C.E. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 9. Atlan- tion Excavations at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990. Edited by
ta: Society of Biblical Literature. David Ben-Shlomo and Gus W. Van Beek. Washington: The
Lehmann, Gunnar. 2011. Cooking Pots and Loomweights in a “Philis- Smithsonian Institution.
tine” Village: Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Qubur Mazar, Amihai. 2007. The Search for David and Solomon: An Archaeo-
el-Walaydah, Israel. Pp. 287–314 in On Cooking Pots, Drink- logical Perspective. Pp. 117–39 in The Quest for the Historical
ing Cups, Loomweights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel.
and Neighbouring Regions: An International Archaeological Edited by Brian B. Schmidt. Archaeology and Biblical Studies
Symposium Held in Nicosia, November 6th–7th 2010. Edited 17. Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature.
by Vassos Karageoghis and Ourania Kouka. Nicosia. ———. 2015. Religious Practices and Cult Objects During the Iron Age
Lernau, Hanan. 1975. Animal Remains. Pp. 86–103 in Lachish V: The IIA at Tel Rehov and Their Implications Regarding Religion
Sanctuary and Residency. Edited by Yohanan Aharoni. Tel in Northern Israel. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4: 25–55.
Aviv: Tel Aviv University, The Institute of Archaeology. McGuire, Randall H. 1982. The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archae-
Lev-Tov, Justin. 2006. The Faunal Remains. Animal Economy in the ology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 159–78.
Iron Age I. Pp. 207–33 in Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations 1995– Motro, Hadas. 2011. Archaeozoological Analysis of the Faunal Remains.
1996. Field INE East Slope Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period). Pp. 265–97 in Tel Aroer. The Iron Age II Caravan Town and
Edited by Mark W. Meehl, Trude Dothan and Seymour Gitin, the Hellenistic-Early Roman Settlement: The Avraham Biran
Tel Miqne-Ekron Final Field Report Series 8. Jerusalem: Israel (1975 –1982) and Rudolph Cohen (1975 –1976) Excavations.
Exploration Society. Edited by Yifat Thareani. Annual of the Nelson Glueck School
———. 2010. A Plebeian Perspective on Empire Economies; Faunal Re- of Biblical Archaeology 8. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College,
mains from Tel Miqne-Ekron, Israel. Pp. 90–104 in Anthro- Jewish Institute of Religion.
pological Approaches to Zooarchaeology. Colonialism, Com- Münger, Stefan. 2013. Early Iron Age Kinneret: Early Aramaean or Just
plexity, and Animal Transformations. Edited by Douglas V. Late Canaanite? Remarks on the Material Culture of a Border
Campana et al. Oxford: Oxbow. Site in Northern Palestine at the Turn of an Era. Pp. 149–82
———. 2012a. Preliminary Report on the Late Bronze and Iron Age Fau- in Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine
nal Assemblage from Tell es-Sâfi/Gath. Pp. 589–612 in Tell in the First Millennium B.C. edited by Anjelika Berlejung, and
es-Sâfi/Gath, I. Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons. Edited by Michael P. Streck. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Aren M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Olsen, Bjørnar, and Zbigniew Kobylinski. 1991. Ethnicity in Anthro-
Harrassowitz. pological and Archaeological Research, a Norwegian-Polish
———. 2012b. Archaeozoological Analysis of Animal Bones from Ar- Perspective. Archaeologia Polona 29: 5–27.
eas A2 and A4. Pp. 586–603 in Hazor, VI: The 1990—2009 Redding, Richard W. 2015. The Pig and the Chicken in the Middle East:
Excavations; The Iron Age. Edited by Amnon Ben-Tor, Doron Modeling Human Subsistence Behavior in the Archaeological
Ben-Ami, and Deborah Sandhaus. Jerusalem: The Hebrew Record Using Historical and Animal Husbandry Data. Jour-
University of Jerusalem, The Institute of Archaeology. nal of Archaeological Research 23: 325–68.
Lev-Tov, Justin S. E., and Edward F. Maher. 2001. Food in Late Bronze Sade, Moshe. 2007. Faunal Remains. Pp. 289–97 in Horvat Uza and
Age Funerary Offerings: Faunal Evidence from Tomb 1 at Tell Horvat Radum: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev. Edited by
Dothan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 133: 91–110.

Izhak Beit-Arieh. Tel Aviv: The Institute of Archaeology, Tel Tamar, K., G. Bar-Oz, S. Bunimovitz, Z. Lederan, and Tamar Dayan.
Aviv University. 2015. Geography and Economic Preferences as Cultural
———. 2009. The Archaeozoological Remains. Pp. 197–207 in Salvage Markers in a Border Town: The Faunal Remains from Tel
Excavations at Tel Moza: The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements Beth-Shemesh, Israel. International Journal of Osteoarchaeol-
and Later Occupations. Edited by Zvi Greenhut and Alon de ogy 25: 414–25.
Groot. IAA Reports 39. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Author- Tchernov, Eitan, and Israel Drori. 1983. Economic Patterns and En-
ity. vironmental Conditions at Hirbet el-Msas during the Early
———. 2015. Archaeozoological Remains. Pp. 714–23 in Tel Malhata: A Iron Age. Pp. 213–22 in Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der
Central City in the Biblical Negev, vol. 2. Edited by Izhak Beit Hirbet el-Msas (Tel Masos), 1972–1975. Edited by Volkmar
Arieh and Liora Freund. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Fritz and Aharon Kempinski. Abhandlungen des Deutschen
———. 2016. Archaeozoological Finds from Strata IX–III and I. Pp. Palästina-Vereins 6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
1346–63 in Beer-sheba III: The Early Iron IIA Enclosed Set- Uziel, Joe. 2007. The Development Process of Philistine Material Cul-
tlement and the Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB Cities. Edited by Ze’ev ture: Assimilation, Acculturation and Everything in Between.
Herzog and Lily Singer-Avitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Levant 39: 165–73.
Sadiel, Tehila. forthcoming. Faunal Remains from Tel ‘Eton: A Town in Van Wyk, Koot. 2014. Pig Taboos in the Ancient Near East. Interna-
the Judean Shephelah. MA thesis, Bar-Ilan University. tional Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 4.13: 111–34.
Sapir-Hen, Lidar. 2016. Pigs as Ethnic Markers? You Are What You Eat. Weitzman, Steven. 2016. Crossing the Border with Samson: Beth-
Biblical Archaeology Review 42.6: 41–43, 70. Shemesh and the Bible’s Geographical Imagination. Pp. 266–
Sapir-Hen, Lidar, Guy Bar-Oz, Yuval Gadot, and Israel Finkelstein. 78 in Tel Beth-Shemesh: A Border Community in Judah. Vol.
2013. Pig Husbandry in Iron Age Israel and Judah: New In- 1, Renewed Excavations 1990–2000: The Iron Age. Edited by
sights Regarding the Origin of the “Taboo.” Zeitschrift des Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman. Winona Lake, IN:
Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 129: 1–20. Eisenbrauns.
Sasson, Aharon. 2016. The Faunal Remains from Stratum II: Zooarchae- Yasur-Landau, Assaf. 2010. The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the
ological, Taphonomic and GIS Spatial Analysis. Pp. 1364–409 End of the Late Bronze Age. New York: Cambridge University
in Beer-Sheba III: The Early Iron IIA Enclosed Settlement and Press.
the Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB Cities. Edited by Ze’ev Herzog and Zeder, Melinda A. 1990. Animal Exploitation at Tell Halif. Pp. 1–32 in
Lily Singer-Avitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. The Bronze Age Settlements at Tell Halif. Phase II Excava-
Stager, Lawrence E. 1995. The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan tions, 1983 –1987 [pp. 24—31 edited by J. D. Seger et al.], in
(1185–1050 BCE). Pp. 332–48 in The Archaeology of Society Preliminary Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations 1983–87.
in the Holy Land. Edited by Thomas E. Levy. London: Leices- Edited by Walter E. Rast. Bulletin of the American Schools
ter University Press. of Oriental Research Supplement 26. Baltimore: American
———. 1998. Forging an identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel. Pp. Schools of Oriental Research.
123–75 in The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Edited by Ziegler, Reinhard, and Joachim Boessneck. 1990. Tierreste der Eisenzeit
Michael D. Coogan. New York: Oxford University. II. Pp. 133–58 Kinneret: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf dem
Stone, Brian J. 1995. The Philistines and Acculturation: Culture Change Tell el-’Oreme am See Gennesaret, 1982–1985. Edited by Volk-
and Ethnic Continuity in the Iron Age. Bulletin of the Ameri- mar Fritz. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
can Schools of Oriental Research 298: 7–32. 15. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
(C) (2019) American Schools of Oriental Research. All rights reserved. Published here by permission of the
American Schools of Oriental Research.
Avraham Faust is professor of archaeology in the Department of General History at Bar-Ilan University. He currently
directs the excavations at Tel ‘Eton. His research interests include the archaeology of Israel in the Bronze and Iron Ages,
especially from social and anthropological perspectives. He has authored numerous books and articles covering various
aspects of Israel’s archaeology from the Early Bronze Age to the Byzantine period. His most recent book (written jointly
with Ze’ev Safrai) is The Settlement History of Ancient Israel: A Quantitative Analysis (Ramat Gan, 2015, Hebrew).


Pigs in Space and Time Pork Consumption PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pigs in Space and Time Pork Consumption PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pigs in Space (and Time)

Pork Consumption and Identity Negotiations

276 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018)

Introductory Notes on Methodology

All in all, we possess information on the percentage of pork in

Identifying Meaningful Patterns: A Preliminary Note

When sorting data, a few options are possible:

(1) Sometimes, no patterns can be identified. For example when

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018) 277

278 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018)

Pigs in Space and Time

Late Bronze Age

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018) 279

280 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018)

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018) 281

282 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018)

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018) 283

284 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018)

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018) 285

286 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018)

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018) 287

288 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018)

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018) 289

Site % porka (NISP)b Reference Comments

LB (mainly its later part)

Aphek X12 2.3% (1054) Horwitz 2009: 545, T. 21.1

Beth-Shean Q/3-2 11.1% (180) Horwitz 2006: 705, T. 26.10

Beth-Shemesh 9–8 1.6% (1434 + 3503) Tamar et al. 2015: 421, T. 5

Dan 13% (54) Hesse 1990: 211, T. 2

Dor G/12-11 0.3% (2400) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 4, T. 1.

Ekron IX–VIII 0.4% (261), 3% (1999) Lev-Tov 2010: 94, T. 7.2

Gath 0% (171) Lev-Tov 2012a: 592, T. 28.1

Hazor (A2) 0% (41) Lev-Tov 2012b: 587, T. 16A.1

Tel ‘Eton 1.3% (526) Sadiel forthcoming

Tel Halif VIII 3% (3236) Zeder 1990: 25, T. 4

Tell Jemmeh 0.3% (3950) Hesse 1990: 211, T. 2c

Tel Rekhesh 14% (116) Van Wyk 2014: 120

Timnah 5% (317) Hesse 1990: 216, T. 3

‘Ai 0% (165) Hesse 1999 (quoted by Sapir-Hen et al.)

Ashkelon 23% (not supplied) Stager 1995: 344

Beersheba IX–VIII 0% (390+199) Sade 2016: 1346–1347, T. 31.1, 31.2, 31.5

290 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018)

Site % porka (NISP)b Reference Comments

Dan 0% (77) Hesse 1990: 215

Gath 13.5% (282) Lev-Tov 2012a: 594, T. 28.2

Joqneam (XVIII–XVII) 1.1% (435) Horwitz et a. 2005: 425, T. v.20

Kh. Raddana 0.2% (517) Hesse 1999 (quoted by Sapir-Hen et al.)

Kinrot (VI–IV) 1.1% (2020) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 5, T. 1

Megiddo H-12, and K-5, and

Mt. Ebal 0% (770) Horwitz 1986–1987: 181

Qubur el-Waleyide 0% (not supplied) Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 10

Timnah 8% (231) Hesse 1990: 216, T. 3

Tel Hesi 0% (96) Hesse 1990: 215, T. 3

Tell Jemmeh 0.2% (1396) Hesse 1990: 215, T. 3

Tel Qasile 1.6% (252) Davis 1985: 148

Tel Rekhesh 3% (150) Van Wyk 2014: 120

Tel Wawiyat 4% (604 Hesse 1990: 215, T. 3, see also p. 216

Iron II (including the very early Iron IIA)

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 81.4 (2018) 291

Site % porka (NISP)b Reference Comments

Dan 1% (286) Hesse 1990: 215, T. 3

Kh. Uza 0% (6869) Sade 2007: 290, T. 13.2, 291, T. 13.3