Rattle and Hum: A Reassessment of Closed-Form Rattles in the Southern Levant.

• Author: Garroway, Kristine Henriksen

In 1953 Olga Tufnell published nine closed-form ceramic rattles found in her excavation at Tell ed-Duweir (Lachish). These rattles were all found in a funerary context and listed among the items in a chapter titled "cult objects" (Tufnell 1953: 374-84). She notes that similar rattles were found in tombs in other excavations, but "it is unusual to find fragments in town deposits" (Tufnell 1953: 376). Tufnell's report, which is often cited in the literature, was limited, looking to only four other sites for comparanda. Yet many more ceramic rattles have been uncovered in the southern Levant outside of burials, in public and domestic contexts. It is unsurprising that the pieces of broken rattles found in household and public contexts are often overlooked in favor of the complete rattles found in tombs. But it is these broken closed-form rattles found in and around houses that are intriguing. How were they used and by whom? Their location outside the tomb indicates that rattles also had a nonfunerary function. Deposition within houses further suggests that rattles are related to the needs of the family, to the needs of children as well as adults. Drawing upon household archaeology, anthropology, and sensory studies in sound therapy, it is suggested here that the sound of the closed-form ceramic rattles had a dual function: it quieted crying infants while simultaneously warding off the spirits that were provoked when children cried. In doing so, the rattling sound would protect the child, and in turn the family unit.

RATTLES IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

Many types of rattles have been found across the ancient Near East, from Mesopotamia, through the Levant, down to Egypt (Duschne-Guillemin 1981; Goodnick Westenholz et al. 2014; Fox and Roskop 1999-2000). Rattles are classified as idiophones, self-sounding instruments. In Egypt and Mesopotamia closed-form rattles are made of natural substances, such as gourds or clay. They are filled with pebbles or seeds that create a rattling noise (Duschne-Guillemin 1981: 289). Small, animal-shaped closed-form rattles have also been found in Mesopotamia (Duschne-Guillemin 1981: pl. 32). The more popular type of rattling instrument in these areas, nonetheless, is the sistrum. Scholars also favor sistra in their discussions of idiophones, mostly because there is, comparatively speaking, a wealth of information available to study (Fox and Roskop 1999-2000: 20; Lichtheim 1973; Soderberg 1968; Farmer 1960; Gardiner 1916). Sistra found in the material record, in iconography, and in texts attest to their use in multiple contexts from funerary rites to secular musical performances, from ritual performances to votive offerings (Fox and Roskop 1999-2000; Brunner 1955).

The closed-form rattle, popular in the archaeological record of Bronze and Iron Age Israel, has received less scholarly attention. Older studies of the closed-form rattles have described them as ritual or musical objects, with some studies hesitantly suggesting their use as toys (Bliss 1894: 117; Bliss and Macalister 1902: 96; Macdonald et al. 1932: 23, 25). The uncertainty surrounding closed-form rattles has continued into more contemporary scholarship as well. Consider, for example, this statement about rattles in Ugarit: "Whether they [rattles] were used as toys or for the accompaniment of music is also open to question" (Caubet 2014: 178). Identifying rattles as a musical instrument, Batjia Bayer understands the development of rattles as follows: they first belonged in a temple context, then as a tomb accessory, and finally in houses as a child's toy (Bayer 1963: 12-14; 1982). Statements such as Bayer's are not nuanced; no further information is offered on this progression or why some uses are attributed to adults and others to children. What is significant is that statements like these divide rattles into separate categories without even knowing exactly how they were used or who used them. They subconsciously signal that the rattles must have been either used by children (toys) or by adults (ritual objects). Closed-form rattles, it seems, have been understood in a very binary manner, as either one thing or the other.

What follows is a new assessment of the closed-form ceramic rattles. Here I draw upon the data collected by myself, Angela Roskop Erisman (unpublished), and Elizabeth Bloch-Smith (1992: 102-3, fig. 32) for over seventy such rattles from across Israel. My study includes the sites of Hazor, Samaria, Jerusalem, Gezer, Gibeah (Tel el-Ful), Lachish, Tel el-Hesi, Tel el-Far'ah (S), Azekah, Beth-Shemesh, Tel Beit Mirsim, Tel [??]Ira, Tell Jedur, Tel en-Nasbeh, Tel es-Safi, Zeror, Megiddo, Tel Aviv, Tel el Far[??]ah (N), and Tel es-Safi/Gath. The rattles come primarily from Late Bronze and Iron Age contexts. They range between 4.1-11 cm long with most being around 6-7 cm high, although a few are a bit shorter or taller. The rattles under investigation here are classified as barrel shaped and look like large ceramic spools of thread with slightly pointed ends.

The most pressing questions for this current study are: How might these Levantine rattles have functioned and to whom are the rattles linked--children, adults, or both? The answer to these questions is not immediately obvious. The extant corpus of texts, known rituals, and iconographic images from ancient Israel does not include reference to rattles or their use. The closest reference to rattles from the ancient Israelite record is found in 2 Samuel 6:5. The word in question is mena[??]an[??]im, likely a pilpel participle from the root nun-vav-ayin. Found in a list of instruments, this hapax legomenon seems to refer to a rattle or sistrum (Fox and Roskop 1999-2000: 17; Kohler et al. 1995, 2: 603, 681-82; Bayer 1982). In lieu of direct information, indirect information becomes important. To this end, the current study takes an interdisciplinary approach, combining insights from household archaeology, ancient Near Eastern texts, and cross-cultural anthropological studies of rattles. This approach reveals how rattles are used by different members of the family, both young and old, for various purposes. Each of the uses, however, revolves around one key element: the percussive nature of the rattle, and it is precisely here, in making a connection with sound therapy, where the article provides a new possibility for how rattles may have met the needs of the ancient Levantine family.

CHILDREN AND RATTLES: LOCATING CLOSED-FORM RATTLES IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Household archaeology has demonstrated the importance of spatial analysis. Examining the corpus of items with which an object was found, along with where it was found, can help determine how the space was used (Daviau 2001; Hardin 2010; Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2006). About half of the ceramic rattles in this study were found in burial contexts. Many of them come from repositories in family tombs or are found listed among items from tomb contexts. Ceramic rattles are not limited to burials in one geographical location or in one time period; they are spread across ancient Israel (Bloch-Smith 1992: 271, fig. 32).

Elizabeth Bloch-Smith comments that within burial contexts, the osteological remains are too fragmented to determine whether any rattles were specifically deposited with children or if children were present at all (Bloch-Smith 1992: 103). Such comments are warranted considering that children were long overlooked by excavators when investigating the osteological record (Garroway 2018: 223-65). Yet Bloch-Smith does note that two Iron Age II tombs included children and rattles. Tomb 8 at Beth Shemesh contained a child and many individuals, and Tomb 103 at Samaria included a child and three adults (Bloch-Smith 1992: 102). Based solely on the relationship of where the bodies and rattles were located, Bloch-Smith states there is not enough data to link the children to the rattles; more data is needed.

Hidden in her description of the other items found with these burials Bloch-Smith unwittingly provides the needed data. She states the following: "Generally they [the rattles] occurred in rich assemblages with an unusually high incidence of jewelry, arrowheads, scarabs, scaraboids, Eyes of Horus, and Bes figurines. Toggle pins, fibulae, stamps, seals, cosmetic palettes, and imported Mycenean, Egyptian, Cypriot, Philistine, Phoenician, and Cypro-Phoenician wares were frequently present" (Bloch-Smith 1992: 102-3). This assemblage is important for assessing the use of rattles. Most reports that suggest rattles were used in funerary contexts generally do so simply because rattles were found in burials. Conclusions of this sort are based on circular reasoning. Taking note of the other items found alongside rattles provides new ways of thinking about how rattles functioned. In the case of the assemblage found with the Beth-Shemesh and Samaria tombs, a few things stand out. The items are all what are called "personal grave goods" (Baker 2012; Garroway 2014: 228-44). Especially notable are the Eyes of Horus, Bes figurines, and jewelry found with the rattles. These objects are often found in houses. Studies in household archaeology and Israelite household religion have identified these items as protective amulets (Meyers 2013: 154-55; Willett 1999; Garroway 2018: 111-36). Furthermore, when found in bedrooms, such objects are thought to protect children from harm. Is it possible that rattles functioned in this way as well?

The picture of rattles is further complicated when considering rattles found in and near houses. Some early excavations (e.g., Petrie 1930; McCown 1947) simply catalogued rattles or included images of them near households without any further information. Unfortunately, while we know the rattles existed and the general location in which they were found, it is difficult to understand how the rattles functioned with relationship to the household. As witnessed by the following two...