HOUSE
jambs
'
(fbid.
306).
At
Megiddo
was
found
the
skeleton
of
a
girl
of
about
fifteen
years,
who
had
clearly
been
built
alive
into
the
foundation
of
a
fortress;
at
Taanach
was
found
one
of
ten
years
of
age;
and
skeletons
of
adults
have
also
been
discovered.
An
interesting
development
of
this
rite
of
foundation
sacrifice
can
be
traced
from
the
fifteenth
century
b.o.
onwards.
With
the
jar
containing
the
body
of
the
victim
there
were
at
first
deposited
other
jars
containing
jugs,
bowls,
and
a
lamp,
perhaps
also
food,
as
in
ordinary
burials.
Gradually,
it
would
seem,
lamps
and
bowls
came
to
be
buried
alone,
as
substitutes
and
symbols
of
the
human
victim,
most
frequently
a
lamp
within
a
bowl,
with
another
bowl
as
covering.
Full
details
of
this
curious
rite
cannot
be
given
here,
but
no
other
theory
so
plausible
has
yet
been
suggested
to
explain
these
'
lamp
and
bowl
deposits
'
(see
Macalister's
reports
in
PEFSt,
from
1903
—
esp.
p.
306
tf.
with
illustrations
—
onwards,
also
his
Bible
Sidelights,
165
£f.;
Vincent,
Conoore,
50
f
.,
192,
198£f.).
The
only
reference
to
founda-tion
sacrifice
in
OT
is
the
case
of
Hiel
the
BetheUte,
who
sacrificed
his
two
sons
—
^for
that
such
is
the
true
interpretation
can
now
scarcely
be
doubted
—
his
first-
born
at
the
re-founding
of
Jericho,
and
his
youngest
at
the
completion
and
dedication
of
the
walls
and
gates
(1
K
16"
RV).
Here
by
anticipation
may
be
taken
the
rite
of
the
formal
dedication
of
a
private
bouse,
which
is
attested
by
Dt
20',
although
the
references
in
Hebrew
literature
to
the
actual
ceremony
are
confined
to
sacred
and
public
buildings
(Lv
S""-,
IK
S'"-
i»b-,
Ezr
6"'-,
Neh
3'
12^',
1
Mac
4'™).
It
is
not
improbable
that
some
of
the
human
victims
above
alluded
to
may
have
been
offered
in
connexion
with
the
dedication
or
restoration
of
important
buildings
(cf.
1
K
16*"
above).
On
the
whole
subject
it
may
be
said,
in
conclusion,
that,
judging
from
the
ideas
and
practice
of
the
Bedouin
when
a
new
tent
or
'
house
of
liair
'
is
set
up,
we
ought
to
seek
the
explanation
of
the
rite
of
foundation
sacrifice
—
a
practice
which
obtains
amon^
many
races
widely
separated
m
space
and
time
—
in
the
desire
to
propitiate
the
spirit
whose
aoode
is
supposed
to
be
disturbed
oy
the
new
foundation
(cf
.
TrumSull,
Threshold
Covenant,
46
£f.),
rather
than
in
the
wish
to
secure
the
spirit
of
the
victim
as
the
tutelary
genius
of
the
new
building.
This
ancient
custom
still
survives
in
the
sacrificeof
a
sheep
orother
animal
.which
is
indispensable
to
the
safe
occupation
of
a
new
house
in
Moslem
lands,
and
even
to
the
successful
inauguration
of
a
public
work,
such
as
a
railway,
or
—
as
the
other
day
in
Damascus
—
of
an
electric
lighting
installation.
In
the
words
of
an
Arab
sheik:
'Every
house
must
have
its
death
—
man,
woman,
child,
oranimal'
{C\iTtias,Primitive
Semitic
ReligionTo-day).
4.
Details
of
constmction,
walls
and
floor.
—
The
walls
of
Canaanite
and
Hebrew
houses
were
for
the
most
part,
as
we
have
seen,
of
crude
brick
or
stone.
At
Tell
el-Hesy
(Lachish),
for
example,
we
find
at
one
period
house
walls
of
'dark-brown
clay
with
little
straw';
at
another,
walls
of
'reddish-yellow
clay,
full
of
straw'
(Bliss,
A
Mound
of
Many
Cities,
44).
At
Gezer
Mr.
Macalister
found
a
wall
that
was
'remarkable
for
being
built
in
alternate
courses
of
red
and
white
bricks,
the
red
course
being
four
inches
in
height,
the
white
five
inches'
(PEFSt,
1903,
216).
As
a
rule,
however,
the
Gezer
house
walls
consisted
'
of
common
field
stones,
among
which
dressed
stones
—
even
at
corners
and
door
posts
—
are
of
the
rarest
possible
occurrence.
The
joints
are
wide
and
irregular,
and
filled
vrith
mud
packed
in
the
widest
places
with
smaller
stones'
(ibid.
215).
The
explanation
of
this
simple
architecture
is
that
in
early
times
each
man
built
his
own
house,
expert
builders
(Ps
1
18^')
or
masons
(see
Aets
and
Chafts,
§
3)
being
employed
only
on
royal
residences,
city
walls,
and
other
buildings
of
importance.
Hence
squared
and
dressed
stones
are
mentioned
in
OT
only
in
connexion
with
such
works
(1
K
5"
7»)
and
the
houses
of
the
wealthy
(Am
5",
Is
9'°).
In
the
Gezer
houses
of
the
post-exilic
period,
however,
'
the
stones
are
well
dressed
and
squared,
often
as
well
shaped
as
a
modern
brick'
HOUSE
(PEFSt,
1904,
124,
with
photograph,
125).
Between
these
two
extremes
are
found
walls
of
rubble,
and
quarry
stones
of
various
sizes,
roughly
trimmed
with
a
hammer.
Mud
was
'universally
used
as
mortar.'
In
ordinary
cases
the
thickness
of
the
outside
walls
varied
from
18
to
24
inches;
that
of
partition
walls,
on
the
other
hand,
did
not
exceed
9
to
12
inches
(ib.
118).
In
NT
times
the
thickness
varied
somewhat
with
the
materials
employed
(see
Baba
bathra,
i.
1).
It
is
doubtful
if
the
common
view
is
correct,
which
finds
in
certain
passages,
especially
Ps
118^2
and
its
NT
citations,
a
reference
to
a
comer
stone
on
the
topmost
course
of
masonry
(see
Cohneb).
In
most
cases
the
reference
is
to
the
foundation
stone
at
the
corner
of
two
walls,
as
explained
above.
The
inside
walls
of
stone
houses
received
a
'plaister'
(EV)
of
clay
(Lv
14"ff-,
AV
'dust,'
RV
'mortar'),
or,
in
the
better
houses,
of
lime
or
gypsum
(Dn
5').
The
'untempered
mortar'
of
Ezk
13"
22^'
was
some
sort
of
whitewash
applied
to
the
outside
walls,
as
is
attested
for
NT
times
(Mt
23",
Ac
23^
'thou
whited
wall').
In
the
houses
of
the
wealthy,
as
in
the
Temple,
it
was
customary
to
line
the
walls
with
cypress
(2
Ch
3',
EV
'fir'),
cedar,
and
other
valuable
woods
(1
K
6"-
"
7').
The
'cieled
houses'
of
EV
(Jer
22",
Hag
1*
etc.)
are
houses
panelled
with
wood
in
this
way
(Cieled).
The
acme
of
elegance
was
represented
by
cedar
panels
inlaid
with
ivory,
such
as
earned
for
Ahab's
pleasure
kiosk
the
name
of
'the
ivory
house'
(1
K
22^9)
and
incurred
the
denunciation
of
Amos
(Am
3").
We
also
hear
of
the
panelled
'cielings'
of
the
successive
Temples
(1
K
a'',
2
Mac
1"
RV).
The
floors
of
the
houses
were
in
all
periods
made
of
hard
beaten
clay,
the
permanence
of
which
to
this
day
has
proved
to
the
excavators
a
precious
indication
of
the
successive
occupations
of
the
buried
cities
of
Palestine.
PubUc
buildings
have
been
found
paved
with
slabs
of
stone.
The
better
sort
of
private
houses
were
no
doubt,
like
the
Temple
(1
K
6"),
floored
vrith
cypress
and
other
woods.
The
presence
of
vaults
or
cellars,
in
the
larger
houses
at
least,
is
shown
by
Lk
11^"
RV.
The
excavations
also
show
that
when
a
whoUy
or
partly
ruined
town
was
rebuilt,
the
houses
of
the
older
stratum
were
frequently
retained
as
underground
store-rooms
of
the
new
houses
on
the
higher
level.
The
reference
in
1
Ch
27^"-
^s
to
wine
and
oil
'cellars'
(EV)
is
to
'stores'
of
these
com-modities,
rather
than
to
the
places
where
the
latter
were
kept.
6.
The
roof.
—
The
ancient
houses
of
Canaan,
like
their
modern
representatives,
had
flat
roofs,
supported
by
stout
wooden
beams
laid
from
wall
to
wall.
Across
these
were
laid
smaller
rafters
(Ca
1"),
then
brushwood,
reeds,
and
the
like,
above
which
was
a
layer
of
earth
several
inches
thick,
while
on
the
top
of
all
came
a
thick
plaster
of
clay
or
of
clay
and
lime.
It
was
such
a
roofing
(AV
tiling,
RV
tiles,
Lk
5")
that
the
friends
of
the
paralytic
'
broke
up
'
in
order
to
lower
him
into
the
room
below
(Mk
2*).
The
wood
for
the
roof-beams
was
furnished
mostly
by
the
common
sycamore,
cypress
(Ca
1")
and
cedar
(1
K
6»)
being
reserved
for
the
homes
of
the
wealthy.
Hence
the
point
of
Isaiah's
contrast
between
the
humble
houses
of
crude
brick,
roofed
with
sycamore,
and
the
stately
edifices
of
hewn
stone
roofed
with
cedar
(Is
9>»).
It
was,
and
is,
difficult
to
keep
such
a
roof
watertight
in
the
rainy
season,
as
Pr
27"
shows.
In
several
houses
at
Gezer
a
primitive
drain
of
jars
was
found
for
carrying
the
water
from
the
leaking
roof
(Ec
10"
RV)
through
the
floor
to
the
foundations
beneath
(PEFSt,
1904,
14,
with
illust.).
In
the
Mishna
there
is
mention
of
at
least
two
kinds
of
spout
or
gutter
(2
S
5'
AV,
but
the
sense
here
is
doubtful)
for
conveying
the
rain
water
from
the
roof
to
the
cistern.
Evidence
has
accumulated
in
recent
years
showing
that
even
in
the
smallest
houses
it
was
usual
to
have
the
beams
of
the
roof
supported
