Kevin McGeough, «Birth Bricks, Potter’s Wheels, and Exodus 1,16», Vol. 87 (2006) 305-318
It is argued here that the Hebrew word ’obnayim, which appears in Exodus 1,16
and Jeremiah 18,3 refers to either birthing equipment or equipment used in
ceramic production. The particular type of birthing equipment referred to by this
word is identified as a “birth brick”, which is well attested in Near Eastern
literature and one of which has been uncovered in archaeological excavations at
Abydos in Egypt. It is further argued that the semantic range of this word is not
surprising given the conceptual link between child birth and ceramic manufacture
in the ancient Near East.
Birth Bricks, Potter’s Wheels, and Exodus 1,16 317
brick’s use. Both are possible. The discovery of a birth brick in an
actual living context in Middle Kingdom Egypt provides strong
evidence that this kind of equipment was in general use in Egyptian
birthing contexts.
*
**
Based on the variety of evidence from ancient Near Eastern
sources regarding the use of birth bricks in delivery practices, it is most
likely that the ’obnayim mentioned in Exodus 1,16 refers to some sort
of birthing equipment, as opposed to a reference to genitalia. While the
traditional translation has taken this equipment to be a birthing stool,
this reflects later Greek and Roman practices, and in fact it seems more
likely to refer to the bricks a child is placed on immediately following
birth. There is some ambiguity in modern readings of Egyptian
literature on this subject and these two pieces of equipment may not
have been distinct from one another. The use of the preposition l[
indicates that the ’obnayim there more likely refers to the bricks the
child is placed on immediately afterwards but does not rule out the
possibility that the reference is to the actual bricks the mother would
have knelt on.
The fact that this equipment term is attested in both birth contexts
and ceramic production contexts provides further evidence for
Kilmer ’s suggestion that there was a conceptual link between these
two spheres of human activity in the ancient Near East. This link was
substantial enough to facilitate the borrowing of vocabulary from one
activity’s equipment as referents for the equipment of another activity.
Ceramic production and human reproduction were not such different
activities in Near Eastern thought. This has long been recognized as
explicit in mythological texts. Since this connection transfers to the
level of mundane classification and naming of equipment, it points to
a deeper level of cognitive connection. The role of the potter and the
role of mother/midwife/doctor were closely connected. For Biblical
exegesis then, references to ceramic production should not necessarily
be taken as references to the mundane world. Nor should the
connection between motherhood and creation be glossed over.
University of Lethbridge Kevin MCGEOUGH
Lethbridge
AB (Canada)