Construction of Ancient Space

Construction of Ancient Space

James W. Flanagan

Introduction

I follow academic convention by opening with two disclaimers. The first is the usual assertion that the paper represents work in progress and cannot be judged as a finished product or stable contribution to biblical or Near Eastern studies. The second goes further. It insists that what is presented for judging and refining is an agenda and only an agenda. Although I welcome comments on the subject matter of the paper, I am most anxious for responses and criticisms regarding the kind of research (i.e., constructs) and topic outlined here. Does it work? Does it lead anywhere? Is it worth pursuing more or less along the contours suggested here?

The problem is the nature of ancient space, here limited to geographical space such as emerges in boundaries and on maps. The focus is further restricted by centering on the so-called tribal and chiefly eras in ancient Israel. Our problem resides in two places simultaneously or, perhaps more correctly stated, it is twofold and relational. On the one hand, I ask what perception of geographical space prevailed in the heads of biblical writers and characters? On the other hand, I am suspicious that as modern, literate, academics living in and influenced by hybrid Asian-Euroamerican Western thought and praxis, we hold a set of presuppositions about space that control our views of the past. In this I sympathize with Stephen ToulminÕs conviction that concepts of space and time are cultural subtexts. That means two things. First, they are presuppositions, largely unexamined, which we unconsciously bring into our interpretations of history and culture whether present, past, or future. Second, instead of being innate or natural, they are learned constructs that change in unison with metamorphoses in knowledge, belief, and practice.

Outline

The paper proceeds in stages. The topics are:

1. Statement of a multistage hypothesis or set of hypotheses.

2. Ancient maps, some issues and examples.

3. A review of segmentary systems and maps for them.

4. Discussion of geographical borders and territoriality.

5. A brief history of space.

6. An analysis of three biblical sections that are often mapped.

7. Impact that modern electronic technologies are having on perceptions of space, modern and ancient.

Hypotheses

Modern and ancient realms of space are related, and the relationship is problematic. Stated interrogatively, can we be certain that we are not imposing our modern view of space on ancient peoples, ancient texts, ancient sites, and ancient artifacts? Toulmin and others insist that we do impose, and that we fail to recognize that we are imposing. Philosopher of science Rom HarrŽ describes this as smuggling in a referential grid -- a framework that controls our perceptions of reality, and a practice that should be avoided (HarrŽ 124, 141-143).

Such issues have been addressed before, but their importance is currently being reasserted in new, interesting, and sometimes controversial ways. Keith WhitelamÕs treatment of space and time in his recent book (1996: 37-70), and Bruce MalinaÕs appraisal of apocalypticism and territoriality (1993: 369-380) are but two examples that summarize and interpret specific kinds of spatiality in the two biblical testaments. A fuller review of the Hebrew Bible appears in Johan BrinkmanÕs 1992 monograph, The Perception of Space in the Old Testament (Kampen: Kok Pharos). Brinkman surveys a great deal of the secondary literature, especially works used for his linguistic, psychological, and philosophical approach before testing his hypotheses against Exodus 25-31. His conclusions, although not radical, differ substantially from those of others. For example, T. Boman (1977) felt that the Hebrews did not have an abstract concept of space and consequently could not visualize objects according to an abstract geometry. In order to see objects as they are, the aid of lines such as contours and boundaries is needed. BrinkmanÕs conclusions are more tentative:

These conclusions [that Exodus 25-31 is useful for inferring concepts of space and spatial relations] make us assume that, as far as the perception of space is concerned, there is general agreement between users of modern, Western languages and the author of the text. However, in our investigation we also detected a few points in which the author used his language in a remarkable way as compared to modern users. On the basis of these points, we believe that there is a small difference in the perceptions of space: unlike most modern, Western people, the author did not perceive space as an entity which can be quantified in general and under all circumstances (Brinkman, 1992: 255).

His conclusions about the ancient Near East generally are similar:

. . . as far as the wider concept of space experience is concerned, a more or less generally accepted pattern exists: People in the ANE perceived space in a way similar to that of modern Western people, but in the experience and use of space and spatial concepts they were influenced by factors which originated from their cultural background and usually are alien to modern Western culture (Brinkman, 1992: 252).

While I do not question the validity of either Boman's or Brinkman's approaches, I would find it difficult to choose between their results. Geographers and cartographers warn that links among Near Eastern cartographies are tenuous so that there may not be a regional cartographic tradition strictly speaking (Aujac, 1987: 130). They caution that perceptions of space often contrast from one culture to another (Soja, 1992: 126). Therefore, moving uncritically back and forth between the Bible and the rest of the ancient Near East maybe be unwise and doing so casts a shadow on BomanÕs and BrinkmanÕs success.

It could be argued that the same authors have limited the options too quickly by limiting their research agenda to a few mutually reinforcing disciplines and approaches. They may be criticized for focusing too narrowly and not going farther afield to look for information, models, and approaches that other disciplines have developed to deal with space and spatiality. Geography, architecture, cartography, art history, and technological disciplines come quickly to mind. In this paper, I am attempting to broaden inquiry by labelling ancient space a construct, and by reviewing information from multiple disciplines including the arts, humanities, social sciences, and several technologies and technological studies.

My working hypothesis can be sketched against the back drop of these suggestions. It unfolds as follows:

¥1. Concepts of space (and time) are subtexts that are cultural constructs. Constructed in and by cultures, they arise and change in unison with other elements in a culture. Technology is often an element that contributes to changes in a cultureÕs subtexts.

¥2. Just as writing is a technology -- defined and described by Jack Goody (1977) and Walter Ong (1982) -- so drawing, map making, and other non-textual modes of representing space are technologies. Like writing that stands in contrast to orality, so stands drawing in contrast to writing. In other words, they form a continuum, but they are not the same technology. They do not draw upon the same imaginations and skills.

¥3. Drawing maps based on biblical tests whether in the past or today requires crossing the technological divides suggested above. This is often done without regard for the differences among technologies. As a result concepts of space appropriate to a specific technology and residing in a specific culture may be uncritically imposed on another culture or technological mode. The issue is the absence of self-awareness and self-criticism. Comparison among cultures, subtexts, and technologies can be valid -- as much scholarship attests. However, to be critically aware is a necessity, and with such awareness, alternate concepts of space can be tested against each other.

¥4. The last portion of the twentieth century C.E./A.D. is witnessing and experiencing enormous technological shifts. Among them are new modes of communication and information, developing networks and communities such as the internet, and recognition that cyberspace is a real but different space that is changing the spatial subtext in cultures that have access to the technologies. The move is away from and beyond Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment, so-called modernist, subtexts.

¥5. A corollary of these points is that writing computer code (programming) is a technology in the same sense as writing text has been defined as a technology. Among other things, it is a new way of encoding, organizing, controlling, and disseminating information. Persons who work with this technology visualize and implement space in ways that are dissimilar to previous modes and conceptions. Cyberspace, and its supporting environments, may offer opportunities for new understandings of space, not only in the present, but also of the past.

Mapping Antiquity: Issues and Examples

There are no maps in the Hebrew Bible. But there are thousands of biblical maps, or more exactly, maps that purport to be based on readings of the Hebrew Bible. The difficulties that accompany biblical mapping are aptly illustrated by a cross-section of biblical and Near Eastern scholarship. We may draw on these studies to frame our question. In chronological order, Robert North (1979), Zecharia Kallai (1986), Aharon Kellerman (1989), Philip Alexander (1992 [and 1982]), and Ralph W. Brauer (1995) offer an eclectic but representative sampling.

In his monograph, A History of Biblical Map Making, North opens the first chapter with the heading Òa. Maps are not 'facts' but the record of a moment in history Ó (1979: 1). This statement summarizes the thesis that he develops by inventorying the manuscript and print traditions of biblical maps. He quickly clarifies his thesis by comparing four atlases: those of Abel, Aharoni, Noth, and the widely used Westminster map by Wright/Filson:

But it would be desirable that the scholar could see before him [four principal maps by Abel, Aharoni, Noth, and Wright/Filson] combined onto a single map the different frontiers traced by these four experts. Then it would become obvious that they are drawing on some sources of information apart from the Òconcrete factsÓ of the literary texts or empirical observations. The ÒfactsÓ especially of excavation are being differently interpreted in the different ÒschoolsÓ; and the schools themselves represent different traditions. Thus, each of these four maps is the record of some tradition as well as of some real geographical facts. In the same way ultimately every map, and not merely one attempting to reconstruct a historical situation already long past, is really a record of the particular phase in the history of cartography to which the author belongs (North, 1979: 2).

For its time, the monograph is a remarkable compendium and analysis of biblical map making and secondary studies on biblical geography. To a non-specialist, it represents a useful and adequate survey of the mapping tradition. Compared with the projected six-volume encyclopedic The History of Cartography being edited by David Woodward and the now late J. B. Harley, or with Leo Bagrow's earlier classic History of Cartography, North's piece offers the most comprehensive summary of biblical and Near Eastern materials.

It is important to emphasize that, as the title suggests, NorthÕs volume is a review of traditions of map making and scholarship, and is not an exercise in map making itself. He produces no maps or definitive geography. Those are not his intent or goal, and this must be kept in mind when judging his work against those who have made such attempts.

In spite of this, the difference between NorthÕs perception and understanding of the referentiality of historical and modern maps of antiquity and that of Zecharia Kallai is immediately apparent. KallaiÕs Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel is a major study on the tribal period, as the title implies. And again it is his presuppositions more than his reconstructions that interest us here:

The fundamental basis of our examination of these lists [in Joshua, Judges, Numbers, and Deuteronomy] will be the premise that their descriptions constitute a picture of a once-existing reality and are not the fabrications of an ancient writer, nor a prophetic vision or theory, for they clearly bear the stamp of reality. The precise, convoluted lines of the territorial descriptions, as well as the inconsistency between the systems formed by the various lists, are incontestable evidence that we have before us no artificial portrayal. A visionary description or literary reworking would have resorted to smoother and more harmonious lines. It will suffice to compare these lists with the vision of Ezekiel, chapter xlviii, to realize the truth of this. However, where we can find no actual background to a passage, we must ascertain whether a literary revision has not occurred here and blurred the reality that is represented in the first instance.

Our premise, therefore, is that such descriptions were recorded in accordance with a given historical reality, which they reflect, irrespective of whether the descriptions were originally composed in their present form, or whether the passages show signs of subsequent redaction or revision. Such later editing, wherever it may be assumed, left the clearest -- and decisive -- impression on the relevant sources, making it difficult to discern its earlier formulations. Hence we shall refrain from basing our investigation on any attempt to reconstruct these lists historically and discover the nucleus of a description by removing the ÒadditionsÓ; we shall rather examine the existing text as we find it. After we have elucidated the geographical significance of the lists, we shall be in a position to investigate the time when these lists portrayed existing conditions (Kallai, 1986: 16).

KallaiÕs willingness to work with a final-form text would resonate strongly in many quarters of biblical scholarship today. Approving glances would be cast not only by the roster of final-form critics, but also by some more historically minded colleagues who have learned that immediate emending some types of biblical materials is unwarranted. For example, information in genealogies may be obscured or lost in attempts to reconstruct an ur-reading or an ÒaccurateÓ history. We can applaud KallaiÕs willingness to work first with what he receives before trying to unravel the tradition.

Other aspects of his statement are puzzling. To make convolution and inconsistency in biblical materials criteria for reliability, authenticity, or historicity is unusual. As a result, some his remarks -- to the extent that the quotations are representative -- illustrate characteristics of map making that North criticized, especially his confidence in historical referentiality and objectivity. Hence, if his work were added to the list of four whom North cited, the same mixture of general information and specific personal and traditional details would emerge.

An attempt to separate these elements can be seen in Aharon KellermanÕs Time, Space, and Society: Geographical Societal Perspectives. Admittedly, he is neither a biblical specialist nor cartographer and is not speaking directly of maps, so we are moving outside the worlds and perspectives of North and Kallai. Instead, Kellerman offers a geographerÕs perspective on spatiality that confronts readers with ancient religion in the age of modern politics:

The processes of change in Israeli temporality and spatiality have immense ideological loadings that are typical of transitions in other values and structures in a society. The Judaic notions of time and space are ancient; those of Zionism, socialism and capitalism started to evolve in the nineteenth century and were imported into European Jewish society and, through immigration, into the Land of Israel. The processes of change may be summarized as follows. The weakening of Judaic spatiality and temporality stemming from secularization trends was simultaneously coupled with the strengthening of socialist-Zionist temporality and spatiality, starting in the early 1900s and culminating in the 1920s and 1930s. At the same time, the nesting of Zionist-nationalistic and capitalist notions of time was taking place. The dominance of Zionist-socialist time and space in pioneering Israel did not prevent a penetration of Judaic elements into socialist time-space. This blending process continued in later Israeli society, when a gradual shift occurred toward capitalist and nationalist notions of time and space; nevertheless, political elements of time-space were left strong.

The current pluralism in time-space notions in Israeli society reflects not only conflicts among the several approaches but interactive influences as well. All this leads to a minimal consensus on temporality and spatiality, consisting of a variety of elements originating in different approaches. Examples of these elements are the use of the Jewish calendar, the use of settlements as a political tool, and the increased emphasis on time as an economic resource. Israeli society may thus be typified as having both strong temporality and strong spatiality, the first, partially of ancient Judaic origin and the second with modern Zionist and capitalist roots (Kellerman, 1989: 96-97).

Kellerman is not directly concerned with visual representations of geographical space. As noted, he is a geographer and not a cartographer. But his dividing IsraelÕs view of space and time into Judaic, Zionist-socialist, and capitalist categories is helpful. The division enables him to assess the interaction among religion (or religious tradition), politics, and history. As a result, he can demonstrate both the subtly and centrality of spatial subtexts in matters of enormous international importance.

We may pause to summarize by noting that the three authors are representative of 1) varying attitudes that accompany biblical map making, 2) the potential effect that those attitudes have on modern perceptions of space, and 3) reciprocally, the effect that modern (i.e., current) perceptions of space have on understandings of the past. Seemingly, Robert NorthÕs position with regard to maps of antiquity and Aharon KellermanÕs view of the cultural spatiality of modern Israelis have weathered the tests of time. KallaiÕs view, with the mimetic and referential tone expressed here and elsewhere, contrasts with the other two (even though they are not completely in mutual agreement). As North implies, however, KallaiÕs disposition more than his own has dominated biblical history and geography.

The fourth example illustrates an attempt to plot inferences in literary texts on a two-dimensional cartographic plane. Several of Philip Alexander's studies on Jewish geography have been published as a 1982 article in the Journal of Jewish Studies on the geography of the Book of Jubilees and in a broader review of "Early Jewish Geography" in a 1992 entry in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. The latter contains an abridged section on Jubilees that follows the former article.