Physical space, imagined space, and "lived space" in ancient Israel.

Abstract

One way in which to analyze biblical narrative is by examining the ways in which the ancient Israelites perceived and used space. This includes theological concepts like the "Promised Land," political dimensions such as "from Dan to Beersheba," and "lived space" such as the village gate or the threshing floor. By placing an emphasis on where events occur and on how kings, prophets or other characters use significant space/place to their advantage, and by noting the impact that space has on the development of tradition and local custom (hospitality, use of boundary stones) it is possible to better understand the social world of ancient Israel.

**********

In recent years there has been a growing interest in a critical examination of the spatial aspects of the biblical text (Flanagan 1999a: 26-30). Of course, every society forms its own concepts of space and thus these concepts will vary from one society to another. James Flanagan (2001) expands on this by noting that, "space is a fundamental subtext in all social understanding ... [it] is constructed through praxis and therefore based on experience." As a result, "lived space" (those places in which human occupations and activities occur) becomes the determinant of group identity and social boundaries (McNutt). It can thus be said that "by acting in space in a particular way the actor is inserted into a particular relation with [his/her society's] ideology" (Cresswell: 17). Physical space is continuously redefined by human presence and individual interpretation of the ideology of place. One term used by cultural geographers is "landscape" when referring to "the relation between the natural environment and human society" (Rose: 86). For instance, the view of a field by a farm worker evokes particular connotations: how it can be planted, contoured, irrigated, made more productive. On the other hand, that same field, when viewed by a real estate developer is first mentally and then physically transformed into plots of land for houses, schools, parks, and commercial establishments.

In a summary of the current discussion of critical spatiality theory within the AAR/SBL Seminar on Constructions of Ancient Space, Claudia Camp (2) uses the term "firstspace" to identify those concrete items that can be mapped and which we determine to be "geophysical realities as perceived" by society (Berquist: 6). Using the work of Edward Soja (1996: 10; 1987), she then points to what we consider to be represented or imagined space, in other words "ideas about space," which can be referred to as "secondspace." Finally, there is a "thirdspace," which can be thought of as "lived space" (Flanagan 1999; Lefebvre; Gunn: 157-59). There is value in employing this framework for understanding how space is lived and perceived in the ancient world by different elements of society (male and female, peasant and king, farmer and merchant). By applying these concepts, it becomes possible to classify how space is associated with events, legal formulations, architectural design, political boundaries, and personal ambitions.

One means of deciphering the spatial understanding of the ancient Israelites as they viewed or lived in particular places, is to examine the ways in which space is both defined and manipulated by persons and events. This can be as simple as identifying the physical places where the Israelites work, worship, transact business, practice and execute legal decisions, and gather for important announcements (all thirdspace designations). These mundane social practices take on different meanings, purposes, or intentions, however, depending on where in space and time that they occur and who is performing the action in question. Thus the content or substance of the act (farming, speech, ritual, and transaction) derives meaning from (1) the rank, authority, or status of the person involved, and (2) the physical and symbolic "space" (including time, place, occasion, or setting) involved.

Furthermore, one must also take into account the ways in which space or specific designations for space are intentionally manipulated or transformed. For instance, the term "all the land" (Josh 11:16; Deut 19:8) may be used for "the possession of Yahweh," and thus is to be considered "sacred space," but it also is a geographic reality with specific dimensions, "From Dan to Beersheba" (2 Sam 3:10), giving it political and economic implications (Grosby: 183). As a result, this terminology encompasses both aspects of secondspace and firstspace. On a smaller scale, humans, as social beings, decorate their space both physically with personal items that set an aesthetic tone as well as symbolically through cultural markers or communal understandings. Along these lines, Anne Buttimer (171) argues for an unconscious or preconscious perception of space. This would suggest that "the meanings of place to those who live in them have more to do with everyday living and doing than with thinking." I would add that there is a confluence of Buttimer's emphasis on thirdspace concepts with secondspace imagery that helps to determine how we imagine our space to be as well as how we live in it.

Behavior and Place: the Threshing Floor

One graphic example of how recurrent patterns of behavior lead to an expansion in the understanding of spatial usage can be found in the agricultural practices of ancient Israel. Farmers in the village culture of ancient Israel brought their harvested stalks of grain to a centrally located, communal threshing floor (Deut 16:13; Hopkins: 226). They processed the grain there using a threshing sled to separate the stalks or chaff from the grain (2 Sam 24:22). This was followed by a winnowing and sieving process that eventually resulted in piles of grain arranged around the facility (Ruth 3:3). At that point, the threshing floor took on an enhanced social character and takes on the connotations of both thirdspace and secondspace. Instead of just being a communal place of work, processing grain, it became a place associated with the future plans of the community, embodied in the distribution of their harvest (Borowski: 59-62; Aranov: 132-33). In this way the old world comes to an end and a new world begins (see the harvest celebrations in Isa 9:3 and Ps 126:5). When harvesting and herding are done, then bills are paid and all debts are reconciled. Then negotiation for the new world begins when the heads of households establish covenants to breed and graze their herds, and to obtain grain, as well as additional land and laborers for their crops.

The economic understandings associated with this process include the determination of property rights based on the amount of grain brought by the harvesters. However, an additional formula also comes into play designed to provide for the "powerless" groups in society: widows, orphans, freed slaves, and strangers. For instance, when an Israelite debt slave has completed his six years of labor and is freed in the seventh year, the law mandates that he should not be sent out "empty-handed"(Deut 15:12-15; Matthews 1994: 127-29). Instead, he is given a financial stake from the flock, the threshing floor and the wine press (Phillips: 62-64). This is simply one of many examples in which the threshing floor and the wine press are coupled as economic indicators of prosperity or the abundance of the land that in turn is to be distributed to its people, as well as a portion to the Levites and, as in this case, to freed debt slaves (see Num 18:27; Deut 16:13; 2 Kgs 6:27).

Still, this does not exhaust the social implications of the threshing floor. In 2 Sam 24:18-25, David goes to the threshing floor of Araunah and there carries out a business transaction, purchasing that property as well as the animals for sacrifice. The transactional dialogue is very similar to that between Abraham and Ephron the Hittite in Gen 23:10-16 (see Tucker; Steinberg: 28-57). In both cases an emergency (a death and a plague) has necessitated purchase of land, and in both cases the owner is a non-Israelite, who begins the dialogue by making a magnanimous gesture, offering to freely give what the Israelite asks to purchase. It could be concluded that this is simply bargaining strategy, but since land is sacred and not often simply sold (especially to someone who is not a member of the family or the defined population group; see 1 Kgs 21:1-3), there are three things that occur. First there is a transfer of the use of space in perpetuity. Its thirdspace qualities in this way are tied to the economic value of the land. Secondly, there is a formal transfer of its physical dimensions (firstspace), which would be determined by the placing of boundary stones (see below in the discussion of "defined space"). For legal purposes, there must be no possibility of future claims being made against the land or the recipient. Finally, the idea of the land, its social connotations that determine place within society, and its tie within the Israelite community to membership in the covenant, provide the secondspace aspects of the transaction.

One more elaboration of the social character of the threshing floor is found in its use as a stage for events that either are turning points in a narrative or serve to showcase major public events. For example, in Gen 50:10-11 the public mourning of Jacob's death occurs "when they [see v. 7 for Joseph's entourage here] came to the threshing floor of Atad." This is twice qualified with the statement that this place is "beyond [i.e., east of] the Jordan" indicating that the mourners have left Egypt and are now free to express their grief in a seven-day ceremony. To further mark the occasion and to demonstrate how the threshing floor has been singled out by their actions, the site is renamed Abel-mizraim. In addition to the events of the story, however, is the inclusion of a rhetorical formula "when they came to the threshing floor of--." It is also used in 2 Sam 6:6, when Uzzah is struck dead for touching the ark of the covenant on the threshing floor of Nacon. In each case, the trigger for subsequent events is arrival at the culturally significant threshing floor.

A similar use of the threshing floor as a stage for events is found in the story of Ahab and Jehoshaphat in 1 Kgs 22:10. These two kings are able to derive a large measure of their "royal power" from the symbols associated with the setting where they confront the prophet Micaiah. In addition to their kingly robes, their thrones and a body of 400 court prophets, these monarchs have gravitated to the most socially significant place they could find, thus magnifying their own importance and intimidating this single, despised prophet of Yahweh. Their thrones are placed at the gate of the capital city of Israel, a space that was once occupied by a threshing floor prior to the construction of Samaria. Almost like peeling away the layers of an artichoke, the cultural critic can see how each level of authority is applied in this verse. And, it all hinges on an understanding by the ancient Israelites of the political value attached to a place (threshing floor) that is associated with the work of the people, their economic prosperity, fair dealings under established, customary laws and traditions, and covenantal ties to maintain a just society.

Needless to say, Ahab's intent in setting up this space-based meeting plays upon the various popular understandings of this place's symbolic value. His actions may seem quite crass, but, like any good politician, he does understand the importance of proper placement and setting. He has taken advantage of the "social space" that he, as king, is apparently free to manipulate. While the gate area is associated with the movement of the citizen in and out of the city (Speiser: 20-23), and is therefore an integrated place where persons of various social classes may come into contact, Ahab has been able to draw upon its character as a source of power. It thus becomes an extension of his own personal court, a much more restricted "social space" (Matthews& Benjamin 1993: 122-24). In this way, what in physical space was inherently egalitarian and socially mixed has become, at least temporarily, in both physical and "social space" an area controlled by the power emanating from two monarchs, their trappings, and their entourage. Pierre Bourdieu (16), in his discussion of the phenomena associated with public space, notes that there is a "tendency toward spatial segregation [with] people who are close together in social space tending to find themselves, by choice, or by necessity, close to one another in geographic space." Obviously, in a high traffic area, such as the city gate, there is often a conjunction or combination of events that may be accidental, or, as in this case, designed to create an affect. It could thus be said that the "location" of power is associated with where in space a powerful individual or group exists or chooses to exist, and is further defined by the area in space over which that person or group is capable of extending control (Allen: 196).

Defined Space: Access and Dimensions

The setting of social boundaries or physical limits on property or space is what defines social life. Boundaries such as us/them, and allowable/disallowable mark both identity concerns as well as behavioral protocols. They also function as a means of political and economic control over persons and places. Every society has an understanding that some things or persons belong or do not belong within a specific place (Cresswell: 3). Thus only the consecration of vestments of the Aaronide high priests admitted them to the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle (Ex 40:12-15; Lev 16), and the purity laws make it clear that human excrement was to be deposited in an area "outside the camp" (Deut 23:12-14).

In our modern world the assumption is made that "the boundaries of the state define the boundaries of society so that the latter is `contained' by the former." (Agnew: 173) It is difficult to apply this definition to world of the Bible. Space among the Israelites is better defined by social relationship and group identity. However, the repeated mention of boundaries of the "Promised Land" encompassing the area "from Dan to Beersheba" (Judg 20:1; 1 Sam 3:20; 17:11; 1 Kgs 4:25) indicates an attempt to define the limits of the social ties and obligations for the covenant community.

Within the ancient cities and towns, zones of influence, both economic and political, were established based on proximity to market space, entry gates, and physical and social elevation within the boundaries (city walls) of the community as a whole (Soja 2000: 65-66). Thus Absalom's stationing himself "beside the road into the gate" of Jerusalem (2 Sam 15:2) at a point that apparently marks the beginning of the capital's sphere of influence. The prince's actions-could be seen as a usurpation of the authority attached to this place. While the gate area continues to be interpreted as a point associated with the judicial and administrative role of the king, Absalom attempts in his speech to redefine both his claim to that authority and his right to occupy that place in that capacity since his father David has forfeited it through his inactivity (2 Sam 15:3-6). The ability to fill or use particular "social space" is based on the communal expectations attached to that "place" and "transgression of space" can be considered a form of anti-social activity or social resistance (Cresswell: 21-27). This is sometimes based on law (Lev 12:1-4) and sometimes is enforced by unstated tradition or common understanding that is based on social status. For example, there is no law that says the elders must spend their time sitting in the gate in case waiting to see if a legal case would be brought before them. Instead it is clear that they often chose to sit in the gate because it was a place to transact business, share gossip, and demonstrate their status as men of property and influence (see Lot in Gen 19:1 and the "well-served" husband who is "known in the city gates" in Prov 31:23).

One instance in which the social understanding of place is clearly demonstrated in a defined set of concentric zones of power found in the story of Baruch's reading of a scroll dictated to him by Jeremiah. Having been barred from entrance into the temple precincts, the prophet dictates his message to Baruch. In so doing he elevates, at least in this instance, the importance of the scribe and the written word and diminishes that of the prophet and the oral presentation (Carroll: 31-33).

Baruch, the scribe, first reads the prophet's message "in the hearing of all the people" inside the Temple, "in the chamber of Gemariah ..., which was in the upper court, at the entry of the New Gate" (Jer 36:10). From this public place, which was accessible to a fairly large number of the Male population, the scroll is then taken to the palace and read in a place set aside for a select group of the king's personal advisers (Holladay 1989: 257), within "the secretary's chamber" (Jer 36:11-15). Finally, the scroll is read before the king and his officials "in his winter apartment," an area of the palace restricted to a very select group (Jer 36:21-22). Each of these locations represents the establishment of spheres of influence, defined by personal accessibility and proximity to increasingly powerful individuals.

Yet another way of marking off space can be found in the protocol for hospitality, which is so much a part of the obligation to maintain social reciprocity in the ancient and modern Middle East. Hospitality customs originated as a form of social responsibility, an expected behavior in which travelers/strangers are provided with food, water and rest by their host (see the use of this protocol in Matthews 1991; 1992). The host obtains honor from this generous act (Pitt-Rivers: 59-60). It would also temporarily transform or neutralize potential enemies, who have no kin connection to that place, into noncombatant guests (Malina: 181-84; Hobbs: 17).

Based on the protocol of hospitality, it could be surmised that the space associated with a house or other dwelling comprised both an immediate and a slightly extended sphere of hospitality (see Herzfeld; Hobbs: 13-14). Within this defined zone (a combination of first and thirdspace), the head of a household was obliged to offer hospitality to any stranger. Exactly what its defined limits in space are is not immediately evident in the text. However, the reaction of Abraham to the approach of three strangers in Gen 18:2, with the patriarch "running" toward them, suggests a sphere based on visual sighting (i.e., "he looked up and saw three men standing near him"). This suggests therefore that space is continually defined and constructed by variation in human activity and social expectation.

With regard to personal property, landowners assured themselves of the dimensions of their land (firstspace) by stepping it off, as Ahab does when he takes possession of Naboth's vineyard (1 Kgs 21:16; Matthews & Benjamin 1993: 114). Markers would then be set in their fields to establish ownership of the land and control of its resources (Buccellatti: 286). Subsequently, legal and sapiential texts are produced to regulate and normalize the honoring of these survey indicators, and in so doing transform them into the imagination of the people (secondspace). Israelite law and wisdom literature as well as the teachings of Egyptian sages contain these admonitions to the wise regarding regulation of space:

You must not move your neighbor's boundary marker, set up by former generations, on the property that will be allotted to you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess. (Deut 19:14)

Cursed be anyone who moves a neighbor's boundary marker. (Deut 27:17)

Do not remove the ancient landmark that your ancestors set up. (Prov 22:28)

Do not remove an ancient landmark or encroach on the fields of orphans. (Prov 23:10)

Do not move a surveyor's stone to steal a field, do not move the surveyor's line to take a farm. Do not covet another's land, do not poach on the widow's field. ["Teachings of Amen-em-ope," Matthews & Benjamin 1997: 277].

Manipulation of Space and Shifts in Identity

One effect of the manipulation of space as well as access to defined space is a change in the conceptualization of personal identity. In fact agency and even individuality is itself the result of spatial conditions. For instance, when Joseph is placed in an Egyptian prison he has little agency whatsoever (Gen 39:20). Yet when he is brought into the presence of the pharaoh and is "authorized" to interpret the monarch's dream (based on a documented pattern of this skill), then both his personal identity and ultimately his status and agency to make great changes in Egypt are transformed (Gen 41:1-45; Matthews 1995: 33-36). A similar example of the manner in which spatial conditions determine agency and identity is in the Egyptian "Tale of Sinuhe." This political exile is finally allowed to return to his homeland after many years in Canaan, and yet his "rehabilitation" is only complete when he is recognizable as an Egyptian. He must return "the sand to those who dwell in it and the wood oil to those who grease themselves with it" so that the pharaoh and his household can recognize him and be assured that "it really is he"(Matthews & Benjamin 1997: 132-33).

On a more mundane level, a person who rents a room or apartment generally will decorate that space in such a way as to reflect both their aesthetic tastes and to place a stamp of personal identity on what is otherwise a liminal or generic living area (Pratt: 151). Some of this decoration may be simple happenstance, based on what is at hand, and may have no greater intention than to please oneself or to serve a utilitarian purpose (i.e., placing a mirror on the wall to aid in personal grooming). Thus when Boaz sleeps on the threshing floor at the foot of his pile of grain, he may be said to have simply found a convenient place to spend the night rather than waste time the next morning traveling from home back to the communal facility. However, it could also be said that his person and the deliberate placement of his body in a particular section of the threshing floor and at a point near his property says very clearly to all that he has temporarily defined that space as his own. It is no longer communal workspace. Instead, it has become "Boaz' corner"--with clearly defined limits, contents, and property rights. In essence, he has stamped this area by changing its character just it has "stamped" him by providing a place where his grain can be processed.

David and the Ark of the Covenant

On a somewhat larger scale, a further example of the placement of objects as a means of defining space occurs when David transports the ark of the covenant to the newly conquered Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-19). While this strand of the ark narrative is most likely Deuteronomic in origin (van der Toorn: 227-28), its portrayal of David's actions may well be based on an earlier tradition while at the same time providing a sense of origin for the ark and its placement in Jerusalem. Whatever the editorial history of the narrative may be, in this form it allows David to draw on the heritage of leadership set by Moses. He also garners a portion of the power attached to the ark as the physical symbol of God's presence (Miller & Roberts: 9-17; McCarter: 275).

Interestingly, he does not appear to make frequent use of the ark as an object of power. In its previous "career," the ark had served as a focal point of the activities of the Divine Warrior in battle (Josh 6:6-21; 1 Sam 4:2-11, 19-22; 1 Sam 14:18) or as the means of demonstrating Yahweh's control over nature (Josh 3:5-17). However, David shows less interest in sharing the limelight with the ark. Only once during his reign is the ark mentioned in conjunction with military activities (2 Sam 11:11).

As a result, David's actions can be described as an attempt to capture or contain the ark. The Philistines had made a similar attempt when they placed the ark of the covenant "beside" (i.e., in a submissive position) the statue of Dagon in the Ashdod temple (1 Sam 5:1-5). Despite their placement of the ark in symbolic vassalage to Dagon, they could not hold it there or protect themselves or Dagon. There is a reversal in placement exemplified by the statue first falling on its face "before the ark," in much the same attitude as the vassals in the El Amarna texts who bow to the ground both forward and backwards. Subsequently, the dismemberment of the statue, with its severed hands lying across the temple threshold, plays on actual punishment meted out by kings to their enemies (2 Sam 4:12; Bleibtreu: 57). Having them lie on the threshold adds even another dimension to the symbolic use of space here. Thresholds, like gates, are legally significant places and they function both as defined space associated with the defense and economy of the city as well as "lived space" (Matthews 1985: 32-33). They provide the setting for legal transfer (Exod 21:5-6) and for public execution of justice (Deut 22:20-21). When Dagon's hands are placed by divine action across the threshold, in an attitude similar to those of the raped and abused Levite's concubine in Judges 19:27 there can be no mistaking the symbolism. What had been sacred space, protected by law, custom and divine presence, is now violated and demoted to that of a "slaughterhouse" or battlefield. The gloss (1 Sam 5:5) that uses this to explain why the priests of Dagon no longer step upon the threshold simply ratifies their acknowledgement of an infringement upon their sacrosanct boundary. That space (the threshold) no longer belongs to their god or their community, but has been claimed by Yahweh.

When David retrieves the ark from its temporary "warehouse" in Kiriath-jearim, he makes a mistake similar to that of the Philistines. The ark had lain there for a generation (1 Sam 7:1-2) because the Aaronide priesthood was in disarray after the death of Eli and his sons (1 Sam 4:11-18) and because Samuel, a non-Levite, served as judge and prophet during much of that time. None of the judges had ever made any use of the ark and apparently Saul, who is really more judge than king, might claim possession, but could not gain access to it after his massacre of the priests at Nob (1 Sam 22:6-23; van der Toorn: 218-19). David, however, realized that such an important object of power could not lie dormant forever. Eventually, someone among the priesthood or Saul's family would think to use it as a rallying point to oppose the monarchy--either during David's reign or later. Thus it is clear that he determined to gain control of the ark for his own purposes (Hertzberg: 279).

As a means of reminding David's successors that manipulation of sacred objects is dangerous, the Deuteronomist's telling of the story demonstrates that only a leader with the stature of Moses could hope to harness/subdue/muffle the ark's power. This is made quite evident during the journey from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem. David chooses not to follow the established protocol for transporting the ark (Exod 25:12-15). Instead, like the Philistines, he places the ark on a cart pulled by oxen (2 Sam 6:2-4). Plus, no Levites are mentioned explicitly as being present. It is not surprising then that a tragedy occurs to remind David and the people involved in this triumphal procession (Carlson: 18-22), which is designed more to demonstrate David's power than that of the ark, that they cannot manipulate this power without consequences. Significantly, as they enter the threshing floor of Nacon, they are also treading on space which is known to be both "living space" as well as a place of judgment (Matthews 1985: 29-31). At that crucial point, one of men accompanying the cart puts out his hand to prevent the ark from falling to the ground, and he is struck dead for his unauthorized contact with the sacred object (2 Sam 6:6-7; see also Num 4:15). Surely, it could not have been lost on the story's audience that the place (a threshing floor) where this happens is one tied symbolically to the well-being and justice of the nation.

At once angry and then fearful of the power inherent to the ark of Yahweh, David repeats the actions of a previous generation, who had also been shocked by the way sudden death could strike the unwary (1 Sam 6:19-7:2). He places the ark in the keeping of Oded-edom the Gittite for three months (a parallel to its previous period at Kiriath-jearim). When it is determined that God's anger had subsided and that the Gittite's household had been rewarded by the ark's presence, David then feels safe to resume the Journey to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:8-12). However, this time the ark was carried by Levites and proper sacrifices were made to honor God while David humbled himself by removing his kingly garments, a deinvestiture that transformed him into a common Israelite. He then joins in the dancing with the other celebrants as the ark is carried into the city. In this way the Deuteronomist has completed the circle that began with the ark installed at Shiloh (1 Sam 1-4), its loss the Philistines, and its eventual triumphant return to its new sacred site, Jerusalem-thereby initiating a new political and religious era (Anderson: 100; Campbell & O'Brien: 289).

Once inside Jerusalem, the ark becomes associated with the Davidic monarchy, along with the other sacred icons and vestiges of the pre-monarchic, wilderness era (manna, the judges, the Divine Warrior; van der Toorn: 230). However, David's action in taking custody of the ark and installing it in his political center (compare Gideon's ephod in Judg 8:27) enhances the ark's importance over other regional or local objects, and it adds the authority of Jerusalem as the place where God dwells. Clearly, for David's monarchy to be able to emerge and mature as an identifiable political entity, the person of the king and his "House" must take precedence over all other political leaders. David's Jerusalem can thereby emerge from firstspace geopolitical reality into thirdspace in which he and his people share "lived space" (Gunn: 158-59).

Thus David enhances the sense of the power of his regime by proving his ability to manipulate the ark (whether it is a unique, national religious treasure or one that had previously been associated with Saul's regime; van der Toorn: 227-28) and then physically and cognitively places it in the background. The ark is only mentioned one more time during David's reign in its traditional role, accompanying the army and thereby signaling the presence of the Divine Warrior (2 Sam 11:11). This passage, like the story of the entry into Jerusalem, closes the chapter on the Saulides. From this point on, the political leadership of the nation and the presence of the ark of the covenant are exclusively associated with the House of David.

In fact, if this is an object from Saul's political reign then it could be said that David has made it his business to "collect" that which had belonged to the Saulides and thus systematically removed their political influence. Within his "collection" are Mephibosheth, Jonathan's crippled son (2 Sam 9), Goliath's sword (1 Sam 21:8-9), and Saul's daughter Michal (2 Sam 3:6-16). In each case, David first gains control of these persons or objects and then submerges them politically so that his rivals cannot use them. For instance, he does this to Michal when she scolds him for dancing almost naked "before the eyes of his servants' maids" (2 Sam 6:20; Kleven: 310). Her removal from the public eye and the postscript in 2 Sam 6:23 that she "had no child to the day of her death" indicates the end of any hope for a new generation of Saulides and further demonstrates her "place" had been taken by other women within the harem. What these narratives certify is that there is only one king in Jerusalem and all objects and claimants to power must be under his complete control. Bruce Lincoln (7-8) notes that authority is graphically demonstrated by "props" and rituals such as these. David's public display of the ark serves as a means to demonstrate his authority as divinely chosen king of Israel. By possessing the "insignia" of power as well as the office of king, David engenders the people's trust in his administration. In this way, political and physical space is defined to conform to the regime's message and public posture.

What is particularly interesting, however, is that David is unable to construct a temple to house the ark. He lacks the complete control of the natural resources of the nation and a period of peace to devote to such a monumental project. It is left to his successor Solomon to complete this final step in subjugating the ark, transferring it from "the city of David" to its new home on Mt. Zion (1 Kgs 8:1-9). This once all-important object is forever hidden from public view and replaced in the minds and sight of the people with a piece of monumental architecture associated with the dynasty of David (Whitelam). Although the ark is given a place of ultimate sacred honor within the Holy of Holies, it has been effectively "demoted" as a public icon, removed from the world of the living and is never heard of again (Carroll: 150). In fact, the final mention of the ark of the covenant is as a thing of the past, no longer needed, "not to be missed" because Jerusalem has become the new "throne of the Lord" (Jer 3:16-17; Holladay 1986:120-21; Thompson: 202-03).

Thus each of the forms of space (first, second, and third) is redefined through the encapsulation of a sacred object within a religio-political symbol of a ruling family's power. The past is replaced and a new future is forged, creating new spatial and social understandings for Jerusalem, the temple precinct, and those who control both. As Hetherington (20) has noted, "space and place are seen to be situated within relations of power and in some cases within relations of power-knowledge." The actions of the monarchy to identify icons, sacred space, monumental architecture, political boundaries, as well as an ideology justifying their rule demonstrate their knowledge of how space and power can be conjoined.

Through this conscious effort the understanding of space it shown to be malleable. It may be shaped by human action and redefined before the eyes and in the minds of the people. Space is thereby normalized, at least for a time, as custom certifies how it has always been. At the same time, it also must be understood that control of space may empower individuals, granting them identity, agency, and expanded social or political status.

Works Cited

Agnew, John. 1999. The New Geopolitics of Power. Pp. 173-93 in HUMAN GEOGRAPHY TODAY, edited by Doreen Massey, John Allen, & Philip Sarre. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Allen, John. 1999. Spatial Assemblages of Power: From Domination to Empowerment. Pp. 194-218 in HUMAN GEOGRAPHY TODAY, edited by Doreen Massey, John Allen, & Philip Sarre. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Anderson, A.A. 1989. 2 SAMUEL. Dallas, TX: Word Books.

Aranov, Maurice M. 1977. THE BIBLICAL THRESHING- FLOOR IN THE LIGHT OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN EVIDENCE: EVOLUTION OF AN INSTITUTION. Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University.

Berquist, Jon. 1999. Theories of Space and Construction of the Ancient World. Presented in the SBL Constructs of the Social and Cultural Worlds of Antiquity Group (Hyperlink: http://guildzone.org

Bleibtreu, Erika. 1991. Grisly Assyrian Record of Torture and Death. BAR 17.1: 52-61, 75.

Borowski, Oded. 1987. AGRICULTURE IN IRON ACE ISRAEL. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1989. Social Space and Symbolic Power. SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY 7:14-25.

Buccellati, Giorgio. 1994. The Kudurrus as Monuments. Pp. 283-91 in CINQUANTE-DEUX REFLEXIONS sun LE PROCHE-ORIENT ANCIEN OFFERTES EN HOMAGE A LEON DE MEYER, edited by. H. Gasche, et al; Mesopotamian History and Environment Occasional Publications, vol. 2. Leuven: Peeters, 1994.

Buttimer, Anne. 1980. Home, Research, and the Sense of Place. Pp. 166-96 in THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE OF PLACE AND SPACE, edited by Anne Buttimer & David Seamon. London, UK: Croom Helm.

Camp, Claudia V. 2002. Storied Space, or, Ben Sira "Tells" a Temple. Presented to the AAR/SBL Seminar on Constructions of Ancient Space. Toronto, Canada. (Hyperlink: http://guildzone.org

Campbell, Anthony E, & M. A. O'Brien. 2000. UNFOLDING THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY: ORIGINS, UPGRADES, PRESENT TEXT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Carlson, R. Agge. 1993. David and the Ark in 2 Samuel 6. Pp. 17-23 in History and Traditions of Early Israel, edited by Andre Lemaire & Benedikt Otzen. Leiden: Brill.

Carroll, Robert P. 1986. Jeremiah. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

1996. Manuscripts Don't Burn--Inscribing the Prophetic Tradition. Reflections on Jeremiah 36. Pp. 31-42 in DORT ZIEHEN SCHIFFE DAHIN ..., edited by Matthias Augustin & Klaus-Dietrich Schunck. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

Cresswell, Tim. 1996. IN PLACE, OUT OF PLACE: GEOGRAPHY, IDEOLOGY, AND TRANSGRESSION. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Flanagan, James W. 2001. The Trialectics of Biblical Studies. Presidential Address, Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society (April 5, 2001).

1999a. Ancient Perceptions of Space/Perceptions of Ancient Space. SEMEIA 87:15-43.

1999b. Mapping the Biblical World: Perceptions of Space in Ancient Southwestern Asia. Presented in the Social and Cultural World of Antiquity Group. Pp. 1-18 in Humanities Group Working Papers 5, edited by J. Murray. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor.

Grosby, Steven. 1993. Sociological Implications of the Distinction Between "Locality" and Extended "Territory" with Particular Reference to the Old Testament. SOCIAL COMPASS 40: 179-98.

Gunn, David. 2000. Entertainment, Ideology, and the Reception of "History": "David's Jerusalem" as a Question of Space. Pp. 153-61 in "A WISE AND DISCERNING MIND" ESSAYS IN HONOR OF BURKE O. LONG, edited by Saul M. Olyan & Robert C. Culley. Providence, RI: Brown University Judaic Studies.

Hertzberg, H. W. 1976. I AND II SAMUEL. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

Herzfeld, M. 1987. As in Your Own House: Hospitality, Ethnography and the Stereotype of Mediterranean Society. Pp. 75-89 in HONOR AND SHAME AND THE UNITY OF THE MEDITERRANEAN, edited by D. D. Gilmore. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.

Hetherington, Kevin. 1997. THE BADLANDS OF MODERNITY: HETEROTOPIA AND SOCIAL ORDERING. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hobbs, T R. 2001. Hospitality in the First Testament and the "Teological Fallacy". JSOT 95: 3-30.

Holladay, William L. 1989. Jeremiah, vol. 2. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1986. JEREMIAH, vol. 1. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Hopkins, David. 1985. The Highlands of Canaan. Sheffield, UK: Almond Press.

Kleven, Terrance. 1992. Hebrew style in 2 Samuel 6. JETS 35: 299-314.

Lefebvre, Henri. 1991 [1974]. THE PRODUCTION OF SPACE. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Lincoln, Bruce. 1994. AUTHORITY: CONSTRUCTION AND CORROSION. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

McCarter, P. Kyle. 1983. II SAMUEL. Garden City: Doubleday.

McNutt, Paula M. 2001. Spatiality and Marginal Social Groups in Ancient Palestine. Presented to the Constructions of Ancient Space Seminar, SBL Annual Meeting, Denver, CO.

Malina, Bruce J. 1986. The Received View: What it Cannot Do: III John and Hospitality. SEMEIA 35: 171-86.

Matthews, Victor H. 1995. The Anthropology of Clothing in the Joseph Narrative. JSOT 65:25-36.

1992. Hospitality and Hostility in Genesis 19 and Judges 19. BTB 22:3-11.

1991. Hospitality and Hostility in Judges 4. BTB 21:13-21.

1987. Entrance Ways and Threshing Floors: Legally Significant Sites in the Ancient Near East. FIDES ET HISTORIA 19:25-40.

Matthews, Victor H., & Don C. Benjamin. 1997. OLD TESTAMENT PARALLELS: LAWS AND STORIES FROM THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

1994. The Anthropology of Slavery in the Covenant Code. Pp. 119-35 in THEORY AND METHOD IN BIBLICAL AND CUNEIFORM LAW. REVISION, INTERPOLATION, AND DEVELOPMENT, edited by B. M. Levinson. JSOTSup 181; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

1993. SOCIAL WORLD OF ANCIENT ISRAEL, 1250-587 BCE. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Miller, Patrick D., & J. J. M. Roberts. 1977. THE HAND OF THE LORD: A REASSESSMENT OF THE "ARK NARRATIVE" OF 1 SAMUEL. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Philips, Anthony. 1984. The Laws of Slavery: Exodus 21.2-11. JSOT 30: 51-66.

Pitt-Rivers, Julian. 1971. PEOPLE OF THE SIERRA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Pratt, Geraldine. 1999. Geographies of Identity and Difference: Marking Boundaries. Pp. 151-67 in HUMAN GEOGRAPHY TODAY, edited by Doreen Massey, John Allen, & Philip Sarre. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Rose, Gillian. 1993. FEMINISM AND GEOGRAPHY. THE LIMITS OF GEOGRAPHICAL KNOWLEDGE. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Soja, Edward W. 2000. POSTMETROPOLIS: CRITICAL STUDIES OF CITIES AND REGIONS. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

1996. THIRDSPACE: JOURNEYS TO LOS ANGELES AND OTHER REAL-AND-IMAGINED PLACES. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

1987. POSTMODERN GEOGRAPHIES: THE REASSERTION OF SPACE IN CRITICAL SOCIAL THEORY. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Speiser, Ephraim. 1956. Coming and Going at the City Gate. BASOR 144: 20-23.

Steinberg, Meir. 1991. Double Cave, Double Talk: the Indirections of Biblical Dialogue. Pp. 28-57 in "NOT IN HEAVEN": COHERENCE AND COMPLEXITY IN BIBLICAL NARRATIVE, edited by J. Rosenblatt & J. Sitterson. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Thompson, J.A. 1980. THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Tucker, Gene. 1966. Legal Background of Genesis 23. JBL 85: 77-84.

Van der Toorn, Karel. 1994. David and the Ark. JBL 113: 209-31.

Whitelam, Keith. 1986. The Symbols of Power: Aspects of Royal Propaganda in the United Monarchy. BA 49:166-73.

Victor H. Matthews, Ph.D. (Brandeis University), is Associate Dean, College of Humanities and Public Affairs and Professor, Religious Studies Department, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65804 (e-mail: [e-mail]; http://courses.smsu.edu/vhm970f). His publications include MANNERS AND CUSTOMS IN THE BIBLE (Hendrickson, 1991; rev. ed.), two works co-authored with Don C. Benjamin: OLD TESTAMENT PARALLELS: LAWS AND STORIES IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST (2nd ed.; Paulist, 1997) and THE SOCIAL WORLD OF ANCIENT ISRAEL (Hendrickson, 1993). His most recent publication is A BRIEF HISTORY OF ANCIENT ISRAEL (Westminster/John Knox, 2002.