The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah (British Archaeological Reports (BAR) International)

148 Pages·1996·18.64 MB·English

by  Raz Kletter

Table of Contents
B.A.R.
Acknowledgments
3
Chapter I: A GeneralIntroduction
4
All titles available from: Chapter II: HistoryofResearch
10
Hadrian Books Ltd, 122 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7B:p, England
Chapter III: Typology
28
Chapter IV: Chronology
40
The current BAR catalogue, with details of all titles in print, post-free prices Chapter V: DistributionPatterns 43
and means of payment, is available free from the above address.
Chapter VI: AspectsofManufacture
49
All volumes are distributed by Hadrian Books Ltd.
Chapter VII: DamagePatterns
54
ChapterVIII: Archaeological Contexts
57
Chapter IX: Analogiestothe JudeanPillar-Figurines 68
BAR S636 Chapter X: Notes aboutFunctionandMeaning 73
Figures 1-40
82
The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology ofAsherah Abbreviations and Bibliography
114
Appendixes and Keys
© R Kletter 1996
IntroductionandKeysto Appendixes 1-2
135
ISBN 0 86054 818 X
Key 1:TheFieldsofAppendix 1
136
Tempvs Reparatvm Volume Editor: Rajka Makjanic Key2: Codes forthe Figurinesin Appendix 1
137
8L
Key3: TheLocationofthe FigurinesToday
139
AfoO~ Key4:ListofSiteNames
141
•A~K1)(;\ Key5:TheFigurines-Holland'sTypology
142
Key6: TheFigurines-Engle'sTypology
145
tI(1C\(p
British Archaeological Reports are published by Appendix 1: DataBase for the JudeanPillar-Figurines 147
~\ Appendix2: CatalogueofJudeanPillar-Figurines 177
TEMPVS REPARATVM
Addenda: Figurines789-854 218
Archaeological and Historical Associates Limited
Appendix3:
JudeanPillar-FigurinesofUnknownArchaeologicalOrigin 232
All enquiries regarding the submission of manuscripts for future publication should Appendix4: TransjordanianAnthropomorphicFigurines 237
be addressed to: Appendix5: OtherAnthropomorphicFigurines
246
David P Davison MA MPhil DPhil Indexes: 1.Authors 2. GeographicalIndex 3.BiblicalSources
288
General Editor BAR
Tempvs Reparatvm
29 Beaumont Street Tel: [phone]
Oxford OXI 2NP Fax: [phone]
1
Acknowledgments
List of Figures
This book originated in a Hebrew Ph.D. thesis, submittedto the University ofTel-Aviv in April 1995. The presentwork is
(ChapterII: HistoryofResearch) revised and includes significant additions, especially in chapters II, IX and X. It is a great pleasure to thank first my two
Fig. 1. Attributesofthe use anddisposaloffigurines(after Voigt 1983)
supervisors,ProfessorsPirhiyaBeck and NadavNa'aman. To themlowemost ofmyknowledgeat itsverybest.
Fig. 2. The quantitativefactor in JPFs' studies
(ChapterIII: Typology)
DuringmyPh.D. studies I have received the WolfFund Stipendfor research studentsfor 1991, a prize from Yad Izhak Ben
Fig. 3. Typologyofotherfigurines
Fig.3b. The RelationbetweenthetypologiesofHollandand Engle Zvi for 1995, and the stipend of the Council of Higher Education for three years (1992-94). I hope that I have not
Fig. 4. Typology-wholeJPFs
disappointed my benefactors. lowe a special debt ofgratitudeto the British Council for a Post-Doctoral scholarship, which
Fig. 5. Typology-hand-made JPFs' heads
Fig. 6. Typology-mouldedJPFs' heads enabled me to write this book at ease in Oxford, among whose "natives" I have found much warmth. The advice and
Fig. 7. Coastal andnorthernmouldedtypes -appendix5.III
encouragement ofDr. P.R.S. Moorey, Keeper ofAntiquities in the Ashmolean Museum, and Prof. HG.M. Williamson,
Fig. 8. Appendix5.11andhand-madecoastal andnortherntypes
Fig. 9. Phoenicianfigurines -appendix5.VI RegiusProfessorofHebrew at OxfordUniversity, werevery helpful.
Fig. 10. Transjordanianfigurines -appendix4
Fig. 11. Plaquefigurines -appendix5.V
I have derived much information from many Scholars and Institutions abroad, allowing me access to material often not yet
(ChapterIV: Chronology) published. Included among them are the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; Dr. K. Prag, Manchester University; Dr. 1.Zorn,
Fig. 12. The datingofthe JPFs
University of Berkeley, California; L. Keppie, the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow; E. 1. Keal1, Royal Ontario Museum,
Fig. 13. Amendeddatingofthe JPFs
Toronto; B. Isserlin, University of Leeds; P. Watson, Department of Archaeology and Ethnography, University of
(ChapterV: DistributionPatterns)
Birmingham; Lori Iliff, Michael C.Carlos Museum, Emory University, Atlanta; G. Ruffle, the Oriental Museum, Durham;
Fig. 14. The dangerofcirculararguments
Fig. 15. Distributionof854 JPFs (sites and mainsub-types) HeatherRice, WeingreenMuseumofBiblical Antiquities, Dublin; and G.F. Stone, the Australian Institute ofArchaeology,
Fig. 16. Distributionmapofthe JPFs
Melbourne.
Fig. 17. Distributiongraphofthe JPFs
Fig. 18. Sitehierarchy (mainsites and sub-types)
Fig. 19. Sizeofsites, extentofexcavationsand amountofJPFs
In Israel the help was no less encouraging, including: Prof. Y. Beit Arieh (Ira, Qitmit and Malhata);Dr. Z. Herzog, Miriam
(ChapterVI: Aspects ofManufacture) Aharoni and Lili Singer (Arad and Beer Sheba); Nurit Feig (Arad); Miriam Tadmor (Beer Sheba); A. De-Groot (Ramot,
Fig. 20. Sizeoffigurinesand heads (mm.)
Moza and City of David); A. de Groot, Diana Gilbert-Peretz and D. Ariel (City of David); Dr. R. Reich and A. Meir
Fig. 21. Analysisofthewhite-wash
Fig. 22. Productionofaseries offigurines(after Nicholls 1952) (Mamila); Prof. M. Kochavi (Malhata); O. Borowski (Lahav); D. Amit (Kh. Geresh and Kh. Anim); Uza Zvulun and Yael
Fig. 23. Classificationofthe mouldedheads
Olenick (Bretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv); Prof. Y. Meshorer, Tallai Oman and Michal Dayagi-Mendels (Israel Museum,
Fig. 24. Exampleofa series, typeB.3.b
Jerusalem); O. Rimon (Hecht Museum, Haifa); Prof. A. Mazar (Tel Batash); Prof. R. Gophna (Kh. Hoga and Mefalsim);
(ChapterVII: DamagePatterns) Prof. D. Ussishkin (Lachish); Dr. G.Barkay(KetefHinom); Y. Dagan(JudeanShephelahsurvey andLachish); R. Peled, B.
Fig. 25. Mainpointsofbreakage
Brandl and B. Brimer (Collections ofthe Israel Antiquities Authority); G. Horwitz (Collections ofthe Hebrew University,
Fig. 26. Breakagepatternsofthe JPFs
Fig. 27. Breakagepatternofmodernclayfigurines Jerusalem). Ibenefitedfrom manytalks with Dr. G.Barkay, OrnaZimhoniand G.Kovo.
Fig. 28. Agroupofmodernfigurines
Fig. 29. Amodernfigurine
Fig. 30. Percentageofbrokenfigurines in ancientassemblages Ithankdeeply myfriends andcolleaguesat the IsraelAntiquities Authorityand its management; all myteachers, colleagues
and friends atthe UniversityofTel Aviv, andespeciallyProf. 1.Yakar. Ialso wish tothankMrs. LioraPik andSarahVered;
(ChapterVIII: Archaeological Context)
Mrs. Shoshana Noyand Mr. G. Shpigel, all from the University ofTel Aviv. I also wish to thank A. Kennedy; M. Cox
Fig. 31. The archaeologicalcontextofthe JPFs
Fig. 32. The context-widergeneralizations (drawings,figs. 4-11); A. Pikovski (maps, figs. 34-40)andM. Saltzberg(photographs,figs. 28-29). Last but not least, lowe
Fig. 33. A "model" Judeancity
muchtomydearyoungfriends, Y. MizrahiandlritZiffer.
Fig. 34. BethShemesh-season 1933 (distributionmap)
Fig. 35. Arad-theIronAgefortress (distributionmap)
Fig. 36. Tel en-Nasbeh-northernarea(distributionmap)
The onlyapology I canmake for writingthisbookis that it has not been typed by a wife, nor deprivedfive little children of
Fig. 37. Tel en-Nasbeh-southernarea(distributionmap)
Fig. 38. Tel BeerSheba (distributionmap) the attentionofalovingfather, norcaused griefto aloyaldog. Idedicateit tothe memory ofmylate mother, Haviva.
Fig. 39. Tel BeitMirsim-SE quarter(distributionmap)
Raz K1etter
Fig. 40. Tel BeitMirsim-NW quarter(distributionmap)
3
2
chronicle, and seems historically reliable (Gray 1964:513f; then added a story about the capture of Manasseh in
Chapter I: A General Introduction
Montgomery 1951:482-485; Rofe 1983:78-79; Tadmor Babylon and his repentance (II Chr. 33:10-17). Many
1985:66;Smelik 1992:101, 124;cf. Seitz 1993). Itfits well scholars accepted this as an authentic story (Reviv
the Assyrian sources,exceptfor the minor differencein the 1982:136; Elat 1975:66-68; Elat 1977:223; Tatum 1991:
"Itisnot aboutSanMichele andyourpreciousmarblefragmentsfrom the Villa ofTiberius you have been writing the whole
amountofbootytaken fromJudah. Afterwards,wefind two 136f; Rainey 1993:147 n. 1, 150ff; Bahat 1981; Barkay
time, it is onlysomefragments ofclayfromyourownbrokenlife thatyou havebroughtto light" separate prophetic stories, describing negotiations between 1985:491-492),but Iagreewiththe viewthat this isa late,
Assurand Hezekiah, with the prophet Isaiah acting as the a-historical "Midrash" (Zmirin 1952:29-31; Curtis and
(AxelMunthe. 1929[rep. 1991].The StoryofSanMichele.London:3).
"real hero". The first story is II Kings 18:17-19:9a, with Madsen 1910:497-499; North 1974:336-338; Smelik 1992:
but will be
The main aim ofthis work isa detailed studyofthe Judean archaeological phasing are not avoided, direct continuation in 19:36-37. The second story is 188;Williamson 1982:388-393;Lowery1991:185-89).
Pillar-Figurines (henceforward JPFs for short), small clay discussedlater (chapter1.2-3below). dovetailedintothefirst (originallyIIKings 19:9b-35). Both
female-figurines dating to the late Iron Ageperiod. Avery storiesareprobablylater and lessreliablethen the chronicle The reign of Ammon (643/2-641/640 BC) was but a short
large number of studies has been made on these figurines There are several absolute chronologies for Judah of 18:13-16(Rofe 1983:80-83,against Cohen 1979).1 The interludeoflittle historical significance(IIKings21: 19-26;
during the last hundred years, from monographs and throughout the period under discussion, but the differences storyof II Kings 19:32-35, about the miracle at the end of cf. Na'aman 1989:39-40; Galil 1~92:10, n. 28; Elitzur
scientificpapers to all kinds of secondary literature. Since between them are measured by a few years only. Those thecampaign,islegendaryandunreliable (forthe citylistof 1994).Ammonwas murderedin obscurecircumstances(for
the discoveries of the inscriptions and drawings at Kh. el differences result from contradictions within the Biblical 18:24 see Zadok 1976; for deportations in general see some suggestions about this episode cf. Malamat 1975:85f;
Kom and Kuntillet 'Ajrud, the pillar figurines have drawn sources; from the fragmentary state of some Assyrian and Na'aman andZadok 1988;Na'aman 1993). The description 1994:229).
even more attention, being usually interpreted as Babylonian sources; from chronological problems (Kitchen inthebookofIsaiah is mostlysimilar toKings II, and need
ex-pressionsofJudeanreligiousbeliefs.Anything concerning 1982-3; Spalinger 1973), and from uncertainty about the not be described in detail here (Orlinsky 1940; Clements
the religion ofJudah is bound to arouse much interest and, exactcalendar usedin Judah and Israel (Tadmor 1963:274 1983;Westerman 1969;Smelik1992;Konkel 1993). 1.2.3.The Reign ofJosiah (639-609Be)
279;Thiele 1965;Na'aman 1986c;Malamat 1983:243-247;
often,heated debates. Despite the vast amount ofresearch,
the relations between the JPFs and the political borders of Galil 1991; Kutsch 1974:544f; Edwards 1992; Donner The picture that emerges from the analysis of these sources The Assyrianwithdrawal fromthe West lefta vacuum,into
Judahwereneveradequatelystudied,and this formsanother 1986:370-381). Onthe other hand, archaeological remains indicates how severe was the punishment of Judah: areas which theempirespenetrated,firstEgypt and thenBabylon.
majorsubjectofthe presentwork. can not be dated accurately within a few years or months, werelost(inthe Shephelahprobably),heavybootyand taxes This wasa highly important event for the historyof Judah,
thus most of the differences between the chronological were taken, and there were mass-deportations and the onlyitsexactdateisdebatable.The main reasonforthis isa
systemsare negligible for our purposes. For this reason I destruction of dozens of cities. Judah's economy was gap in the Mesopotamian sourcesbetween the latest annals
I hasten to inform the readers that my intention is an will not discuss the absolute chronology, and havefollowed
severelyaffected,though Jerusalem was not conquered and of Ashurbanipal in 639 BC, and the beginning of the
archaeological examination, rather than a studyofthe Old onecommonsystem(Thiele 1965:AppendixB). Judahremainedindependent. Babylonian chronicles in 627 BC. Many scholars assumed
Testament sources about the Asherah. The basic
an early Assyrian withdrawal, close to the beginning of
archaeological possibilities - and limitations - were often
Josiah's reign. Assyria was indeed troubled by the
ignored by archaeologists and historians, who wished to
1.2. Historical Background 1.2.2.Until the Reign ofJosiah (700-639Be) Babylonian revolt of 652-648 BC (Frame 1992:chapter 8),
solve the problems of the symbolism and meaning of the
but it seems that it held the west until ca. 630-620 BC
JPFs. Many scholars used the figurines mainly in order to
prove - or disprove - various interpretations of the Old 1.2.1.The campaign of Sennacherib This time period is comfortable for discussing the Judean (following Na'aman 1989:54-56; Bloom 1988:68f). Thus,
Kings, but does not form a clear historical period. It is the reign ofJosiah doesnotforma real historical period, as
Testament. For these reasons, I havefocusedon seemingly
within a relatively peaceful period, termed the ''pax it is dividedbetween the ''paxAssyriaca"and the period of
"dry" archaeological aspects, such as dating, context and Sennacherib'scampaign in 701BCformed a majorbreakin
Assyriaca" (Na'aman 1987:7-8). Judah remained loyal to upheavalsfollowingtheAssyrianwithdrawal.
distribution. There issuchavast amount ofrecentliterature the former peaceful prosperity of Judah. The Assyrian
Assyria and enjoyed stability. The conquest of Egypt by
on the Biblical Asherah, that it would be superfluous to sourcesdo not describethe event in an accurate geographic
Assyria in 671 marked its zenith (Spalinger 1974a; 1978; The Old Testament account of Josiah's reign is focusedon
offer, once more, a review of all the Old Testament verses or chronological order. Sennacherib conquered Jaffa and
Lambert 1982). There were rebellions in Egypt in 669, but his reform(IIKings 22:3-23:27),which hasbeenconnected
and interpretations concerning her. I will not, however, Ashkelon,restoredEkron (Padiwasonlylater releasedfrom
these were suppressed during 667 and 664 BC. The with the book of Deuteronomy since De-Wette in the early
avoidtaking a clear stand in the debate. Thus, the title of his captivity in Jerusalem) and defeated the Egyptians at
Assyrians were helped by a local dynasty from the Delta, 18thcentury AD. The literature on this subjectis immense
thebook,"The ArchaeologyofAsherah", is not misleading, Elteke (Honor 1926; Childs 1967; Tadmor 1985; Na'aman
which later became independent under the rule of (for a few monographs see Noth 1943; Weinfeld 1972;
and I hopetojustify this title evenifonlyin a very modest 1974;1979:61-70; Galil 1988). Then, or at the sametime,
PsammetichusI. This wasprobably achieved with Assyrian Nelson 1981;Spieckermann 1982; Mayes 1983),but hereI
way. Sennacheribattacked "46cities"in Judah, with theconquest
agreement and not by rebellion (Spalinger 1974a:316-320; willdiscussonlythe reformanditspoliticalsignificance.
of Lachish being the centerpiece (as wall scenes from the
1974b;1976;alsoBurstein 1984).
palaceofNineveh indicate, Ussishkin 1982). The campaign
Following the book of Kings, the reform begun in Josiah's
1.1. The Absolute Chronology was presented as a complete victory with deportations and
ThesourcesaboutJudah duringthisperiodare few.TheOld 18th year (622 BC), when the book was accidentally
transference of Judean areas to Philistia, though Hezekiah
TestamentdescribesSennacherib'smurderimmediatelyafter discovered.This reformencompassedthe followingactions:
remainedin power,Jerusalemwas not conquered and Judah
The JPFs belong mostly to the 8th and 7th centuries BC. his campaign, as if he was punished for attacking Judah. 1. Concluding a treaty between the king, the people, and
was not annexed to Assyqa (for the Assyrian siege of
Judahflourishedthroughout the 8th centuryBC,anddid not Actually,Sennacherib wasmurdered some20years later (II God(IIKings23:2-3;fortreatiesin theBiblein generalsee
JerusalemseeBarkay 1985:67-71;Ussishkin 1979; 1994:5
suffer from the Assyrian conquests of Transjordan and Kings 19:36f; cf. Parpola 1980). Manasseh ruled for 55 Tadmor 1982; McCarthy 1973; Nicholson 1986; Kitchen
9). Somescholars believethat theAssyrians wereforcedto
Samaria(forwhich seeNa'aman 1994:20-24;Becking1992; years,but very few details are known about his reign from 1989). 2.PurifyingtheJerusalemtemple (IIKings23:4-7).
withdraw (Tadmor 1985:77; Galil 1988). Na'aman
Green, A.R. 1993). The great change came with the the OT, and Assyria is not even mentioned. Manasseh was 3. Centralizing the cult by abolition of the other "high
suggested that Sennacherib was satisfied with the
campaign of Sennacherib against Judah in 701 BC, which portrayed as a complete sinner in II Kings 21 (Gray places" in Judah, from "Gebac to Beer-Sheba" (ibid: 23:8
submissionofHezekiah, and did not aim to annex all Judah
formsa sharp divide both historically and archaeologically. 1964:641-646;Schniedewind 1991; Smelik 1992:131-168). 14). Gebac is probably a city in Benjamin (Aharoni
_otherwisehewouldhave returned and surely succeededin
This is, therefore, a vital starting point. The lowerlimit of The Chronicler repeated this picture (II Chr. 33:1-9), but 1987:310;Na'aman 1989:37n. 66), and not in Ephraim (as
doingso(Na'aman 1993:112-115;1994:25-26).
this research isthe endofthefirst templeperiodin 586BC. suggested by Galil 1992:1-2). 4. Purification acts in
At this time Judah lost its independence and many of its The Old Testament sources about the campaign are varied. 1Thesetwostoriesledinthepasttothetheorythatthereweretwo Samaria, mainly in Bethel (II Kings 23:15).2 This isvery
settlementsweredestroyed. Micah 1might reflectit, but in averyobscureway(Vargon different campaigns of Sennacherib in the west (Mazar, B. significant evidence: it is highly unlikely that Josiah could
1994;Schmitt 1990;Mittmann 1990).Kings II, 18-19isour 1964:292;Horn 1966;Shea1985). AgainstthistheoryseeRainey
Both Sennacherib's campaign and the Babylonian conquest major source, but it is a composition made of different 1982b; Spa1inger 1978; Hutter 1982; Kitchen 1982-3:65, n.33; 2ThestoryaboutthemanofGodisprobablylate:Rote1983:144f,
of 586 BC did not cause a total change in the material 1983:243. Cf alsoSme1ik1992:n.53;VonBeckerath1992. n.89;cf VanWinkle1989:33f
materials. Kings II 18:13-16 has the character of a
culture, of course. Difficulties in the historical and
5
4
1.3. Archaeological Background The .Shephelah. Amost all the sites were destroyed:
leave Judah to fight Egypt in the open field, thus it is
act in Samariapriorto the Assyrianwithdrawalfrom Israel. Lachishlevel III (see above), Tel Batash level II (Mazar, A.
unlikely that he rebelled against Egypt (vs. Malamat
5. CelebratingthePassoverfeast (II Kings 23:21-23), which and KeIrn 1980:96; KeIrn and Mazar 1982' 1991' Ma
1975:90; 1988:120-122; Galil1992:11). More probably, he 1.3.1. The Separation ofthe Assemblages of
was made intoa nationalfeast (cf.Deut. 16:1).3 1985:306ff, 319); Tel Eitun and Tel BeitMirsim (Zimh:
was an Egyptian vassal who came to submit to Egypt, but
The story of the reform is totally different in Chronicles: the 8th and 7th Centuries BC 1985:63ff, 82f; Dagan 1992:64); Tel HalifILahav level VIb
was killed for reasons not explainedby the authorofKings
there, Manasseh repented, and Josiahcouldnot have hadso (Jacobs 1993:5; 1994:152-4; Seger 1988:143f); Beth
much to purify. The Chronicler attributed the reform to (Na'aman 1989:66-68). W,e ~ve see~ tha~ Sennachrib's Campaign is a clear Shemesh level IIc (Wightman 1985: chapter 10; EAEHL
Josiah's 12th year (II Chr. 34:2-7), separating it from the histoncal startmgpoint, but it is also an archaeological one. ~ew I:25~; D~g~n 1992:53) and Azeka (according to the
book, with a second later reform (ibid 34:33). The reform In order ~o, under~d this, we have to ask how was Azeka inscription": Na'aman 1994:5f, 17-20. cf. also
was extended to all "the cities of Manasseh and Ephraim 1.2.5. From 609 BC to the Destruction of Sennachenb.s C~Palgn reflected in the material culture of Dagan 1992:27-34; vs. Galil 1995). Tel Judeideh (Goded)
and Simeon and even unto Naphtali" (II Chr. 34:6). Some the First Temple Judah. LachishISthe key site in this regard, sincetodayit is was p~rha~s also destroyed at that time (Dagan 1992:44).
scholars took this as history (lately, Suzuki 1992:31-37; clearthat level III was destroyed not in 598, as suggestedby The situation at Tel Erani is not clear (EAEHL new
Weinfeld 1992:164f, 166f), but again the view that it is a SW:key.(1937), but during 701 BC (Lachish III:47, 55; IV:1278-1281). Tel Hesi was not destroyedand is probably
This short period was very dynamic, and there are many
legend, lacking historical significance, should be accepted US~is~n 1977:52ff; 1982; Aharoni 1976; LachishV).5 The not a Judean site (Oren 1993; Stem 1994; vs. Doennan
references about it in Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel
(Na'aman 1989:50, n. 118; Spieckermann 1982:30-41 with dating is c~rro~orated by the finding ofremains of a siege 1987:143ff;Fargo 1987; Toombs 1981; 1983:33).7
and"outer" (especiallyBabylonian) sources. Egyptprobably
further references). To summarise,the reformbeganin 622 ramp at this SIte (Uss~shkin 1983: area R; 1989; Eph'al
ruled the land of Israel even before 609. In 606
BC and included acts only in Judah, Benjamin and the 198~) and by.~e mention ofLachish in the ostraca found The N.egev. Sites in the Negev suffered destruction at the
NebuchadnezzardefeatedEgypt in thebattle ofCarchemish
Bethelregion. in Syria (Zmirin 1952:24f; Malarnat 1983:254; 1988:122f; during ~e Bntlsh excavations (Yadin 1985b:142-143, with sameorne or at approximately the same time, e.g., Tel Beer
earlier literature). The rich assemblage ofLachish level III Sheba level II (see above) and Arad level VIII (Rainey
Wiseman 1985: 21ff; Wiseman 1956:23-26). This defeat
enables us to date other assemblages to the end of the 8th 1987:18-20; Herzog 1984:19-22; Zimhoni 1985:84-87;
broughtaboutanEgyptian withdrawalfrom Syria. The land
1.2.4.The Story about Josiah's Death (609Be) centur,Y BC (Zimhoni 1990; 1995; Wightman 1985) Mazar and Netzer 1986:89f). For Tel Ira see Beit Arieh
ofIsrael becamethe nextbattleground, andNebuchadnezzar
Especiallyimportantarethe lmlkstamps, which can be no; 1985; 1987;Biran 1985; 1987; Rainey 1993: n. 5).
made repeatedcampaignsto the west until601 Be.
related safely to the reign ofHezekiah (Ussishkin 1977'56'
When the Babylonian annals re-appear in 627 BC, the
Na'aman 1979; Rainey 1982). . ,
situation is already very different from that of 639 BC. In Judah, Jehoahaz succeeded Josiah (II Kings 23:20-22), TheJudean Mountains. In the SouthernJudean mountains
Assyria is now fighting for its lif~. The annals are butNecho placedJehoiakim / Eliakimon the throne instead the situation is less clear. Remains of the 8th century are
fragmented, especially for the years 622-617 BC, and the (ibid: 24-26). Judahbecamea vassal ofBabylonduring the S~nce c~ramic typology can not be totally accurate, the known from Beth-Zur (Sellers 1933:53) and Hebron
Assyrian chronology is not secure (Zmirin 1952: chapter 1; days of Jehoiakim (609-598 BC), probably in 604 BC diffic~tles ofdating grow when we headfurther away from ~Chadwick 1992:124, 127, 199; Ofer 1990:91; 1993), but it
Na'aman 1989:53-56; Na'arnan 1991; Oates 1965; Wiseman (Na'aman 1992, not 603 or 605 BC, as Wiseman 1985:23f; Lachish. . For th~n, we must consider the possibility that is not clear ~these sites were destroyed. Kh. Rabud may
1956:5-23; Brinkman 1984:105ff; Zawadzki 1995). The Wenning 1988:190 n. 88; Worschech 1987; Malamat changes.m matenal culture may not only be temporal, but havebeennuned.{Kochavi 1.974:16, 18). Itis hardto point
mainline ofevents is still clear: Nabopolassar became king 1983:256-259). Perhapsthis submissionwas not destructive also regional. Tel Beer-Sheba is a good example: most to clear destruction levels m Benjamin and the Northern
in Babylonin 626 BC andrebelledimmediately. After afew (Rainey 1975:53-58), but the sources are limited and we scholars agree that the assemblage ofLachish III is similar Judean Mountains. Jerusalem was not destroyed and it is
years, Babylon appeared as the victorious side and in 616, lack details. Threeyears later, Jehoiakim rebelled, probably to Tel Beer Sheba II, but the date ofthe latter is dependent hard to date exactly its remains (Mazar, A. 1985:317:
when the chronicles are clear, it is attacking Assyria influenced by the Babylonian fiasco against Egypt in 601 ~pon~atofthe fi~st, and an exact date can not be fixed by Barkay 1985:420-421; for the excavations see Shiloh 19t8ru4~:
directly. In 615 Assur was besieged by a combined 600 BC near the Egyptian border (Lipinski 1972). The ~ure arch~eologIcal means (cf. Kenyon 1976:63f, vs. BS 1989; Avigad 1980; 1986; JerusalemI-II). Thesame is
Babylonian - Median army (for Media see Diakonoff 1985; Bible describes the immediate "punishment" of Judah I.~f, 76; Naaman 1979:75; 1986:13f).6 Also, in areas that for manysmallersettlementsnearby, e.g., RamotandMoza.
Zawadzki 1988; Dandamayev and Lukonin 1989). Assyria (Kings II 24:1-2), but in fact the Babylonian retaliation did not suffer from Sennacherib's campaign, our ability to Tel en-Nasbehflourishedthroughoutboth centuries without
was defeated in 612, but its authority still held in Haranfor came two yearslater, in 598 BC. MeanwhileJehoiakimdied separate the 8th and 7th centuries BC is limited. For any clear destruction levels (TN I-II; Zorn 1993:114, 161).
a few years. During this period, Egypt stood onthe side of andJehoiakin, his son, replacedhim. Jehoiakinsurrendered e~ple,.Jeru~ale~ was not destroyed, and we find a direct Ramat Rabel may have been destroyed (Na'aman 1979:72f:
Assyriaand sent forces to help severaltimes, including one to Babylon (II Kings 24:10-18) and was deported, but kept contln~tlon in ~ts material culture, while the 586 BC Barkay 1993:10). .
destruction there is much more prominent. Thelmlk stamps
sentin609 BC. alive (ibid:14f, Malamat 1983:269; Begg 1986b). Judah
may. help to date assemblages, but a few jars may have TheJudean Desert.Destructionswere not identifiedinthis
suffered deportation (ibid:13f; cf. Malarnat 1983:259-262;
Josiah's death should be seen against this background. The 1988: 124f; Wiseman 1965:32-35; 1985:30-32; Rainey continuedin.use a littleafter701 BC (Mazar, A. 1985:317; area. En Gedi existed already during the 8th century BC
description in Kings (II:23:29) is short and enigmatic. 1975:57f; 1983:17; Green, 1982). The Babylonians placed M19a9z4a:r1,9~A).m~iteannd Illan 1984:247f; Eshel 1989: Stem (Barkay 1993, vs. Mazar et. al. 1963:33, 57f). So did
Josiah went towards Necho in Megiddo, and Necho killed Zedekiah on the throne as the last Judean king (II Kings only the handlesofthejarssurvived, they probablythe smallerBuqe'ah sites, which are usually dated
Josiahwhenhe saw him. Theterms are problematic (for the may be mtrusrve and are less reliable for dating (Barka only to the 7th century BC (Stager 1975' 1976: also Cross
text see Welch 1925; Montgomery 1951:537f; Gray 24:17). 1985.'419ft). Also, the diismibuu.onofthe jars may relate toY and Milik 1956; Bar Adon 1989; Stem'1994;·Finkelstein
1964:678-680. For reconstructions see Frost 1968; Malarnat The reign ofZedekiah (597-586 BC) stood in the shade of ~y other factors (Na'aman 1979:75ff; 1986:14-17; for a 1~93:64~. It seemsthat Sennacherib's campaignwas not felt
1975; 1983:233-241; 1988:120ff; Na'aman 1989: 63-68; Judah's bitter end - the rebellion against Babylon and the ~st of stamps see Garfinkel 1988:70; for the origin of the directlym this area.
Jars seeMommsen, Perlman and Yellin 1984). A summary
Spieckermann 1982:138-153). The story in Chronicles (II destructionofJerusalemin 58t>Be. The propheticbooks of
35:20-24)isvery different,andagainit seems to be a legend Jeremiah and Ezekiel contribute many details to our of the m:chaeological effects of Sennacherib's campaign in To sum up, the campaign of Sennacherib had grave results
without historical value (Zmirin 1952:98-102; Malarnat knowledge, especially about the fate of the capital, eachregionofJudahfollows. for the JUde~ Shephelahand the Negev (the Edomites may
1975:88f; Oded 1977:486; Williamson 1982:408ff; 1982b; Jerusalem (Ma1arnat 1993:275-281). Onthe other hand, we have.used this opportunity to join in the destruction). It is
1987. Against see Na'arnan 1989:66-68; Begg 1987; North know little about the exact development ofthe Babylonian possibleto divide the 8th and the 7th centuries BC well in
1974:379-381).4 It isvery hardtobelievethatJosiahwould campaign against other Judean cities. Egyptianforces came these areas, but in the other areas ofJudah the situation is
to the aid of Judah (Jeremiah 37:7-11; 44:30; Malamat 5Af:w scholarscontinuetoobjecttothis dating(Holladay1976'
~~hin~ identificatio~
3SeeMontgomery 1951:5351;Gray1964:6731;CurtisandMadsen 1983:286-288), butwere obviously not very helpful. Azeka 1?79:49-53; 1988;1992),oreventothe
1910:512-516; Williamson1982:403-408; Spieckerman1982:130 .e SIte With Lachish (Ahlstrom 1980; 1983 1985' but
and Lachish were conquered by the Babylonians (Jer. 34:7; 7.The excavatorsdatedthe endofGezerVI (areaVII) toTiglath
138. Verses 23:24-27, or at least 26-27 are probablysecondary Davies 1982;1985).Thisviewcannolongerbeheld. ' see
cf. Malarnat 1988:125-128; Wiseman 1985:34-38; Kutsch Pileser'scampaignof734/3BC(Seger 1987:1241). It wasperhaps
(Montgomery1951:635,Gray1964:677). 1974). Finally, Jerusalem was conquered in 586 (for the t6hTehesuggesti.onstolower~edateofBeerShebaIItowellinside destroye~ also.in 701BC(thereare manylmlkstamps,butthese
4 Scholarseven explained level II at Megiddo as indicationof exact date see Cazelles 1983; Edwards 1992) and Judah 7~ centwy BC (Yadin and Geva 1983; Eshel 1986: the were mainlyfound out of context). For Gezer see alsoNa'aman
Jo~i~'s presence(Stern 1989b:243, n. 64;Galil 1992:11,n. 32). appendix:43)arenotconvincing. 1988:74;Becking1992:114-118;ReichandBrandl1985.
becameaBabylonianprovince.
ThisISbaseless(Kempinski1993:109-111;Ussishkin1993:84).
7
6
more ambiguous and our ability to phase the material The Judean Desert. Here En Gedi level V was perhaps established, considering that the separation of the 8th and Sease1993). Accordingtothe logicofYadinand Geva,one
remainsmuchmorelimited. destroyed(Mazaret.al. 1963:33,vs. Barkay 1993:106),and 7th centuries BC as a whole was achieved only some 20 sherd ofpotteryisenough toprove Judean control at remote
alsoVeredJericho (Eitan 1984; 1994).Eitanrelatedthe end yearsago? sites,evenat Tel Keisanwhich waspart ofPhoenicia. Most
of this site to the reform of Josiah, but this has no ofthis criticism istruefor the work ofEshel as well (1986),
1.3.2. The Separation ofthe Assemblages of archaeological basis. The situation at Jericho is not clear A suggestion for four archaeological sub-phases within the but he dealt mainly with ceramic assemblages, which
(Weippert, M and H. 1976:145, 148; EAEHL new 11:680), 7th century BC has recently been made (Yadin and Geva require aseparate discussion.
the 7th and 6th Centuries BC butinfactJerichobelongedtoIsrael andnottoJudah. 1983; Eshel 1986), but it can hardly be accepted, for the
followingreasons: Another alternative was suggested latelybyOren, following
Howwelldemarcated is the lower limit ofthe period under
The Negev. This area suffered almost a total wave of his important excavations in the southern coastal plain.
research (i.e., the 586 BC date)? This question faces similar
1. The suggested phases were built upon the reigns of the Oren separated an Assyrian phase (701-640 BC) from a
destruction after its flowering during the 7th century BC.
difficultiesto those seen in chapter1.3.1(above), only more
Judeankings, rather than on an independent archaeological later "Egyptian" phase (640-540 BC; Oren 1991:13-15;
Destructions were found in Tel Malhata (Kochavi 1970:23,
powerful. First, there were quite a few Babylonian
Beit Arieh, personal communication); Arad level 6 (Rainey basis (and we saw that these reigns do not constitute 1993). The excavations at Tel Haror, Tel Shera, Ruqeish
campaigns to the land of Israel between 604-586 BC, and
distinctive historicalphases, chapter 1.2.above). and other sites in this region have not been published fully
1987;Herzog 1987:77; cf. Ussishkin 1988); Tel Ira (Biran
this complicates the picture. Archaeologically, we can not
yet,thus Oren's suggestioncan notbeexplored in detail (for
1985; 1987H:26f;Beit Arieh 1985:20, 25; 1987;35); Aroer
date any site exactly within these years. The exact dating
2. Archaeologically,dating toa margin of20 or 30years is preliminary reports see Oren and Netzer 1974; Oren 1982;
level 2 (Biran 1987:33; Biran and Cohen 1981) and Uzah
must bejudged historically: the end ofLachish level II will
level 4 (Beit Arieh 1986:33, 35; 1987:37f; Beit Arieh and impossible for Iron Age Judah. For example, see the Oren 1986). However,itseemsthat this isalsoan historical
bedatedto586BC (Lachish III; Ussishkin 1983)while that
Cresson 1991:130, 134; for a detailed historical survey of different dating suggested for the end of Tel Beer Sheba separation, based on an early date for the Assyrian
of Ekron level lb to 604 or 603 BC (Dothan and Gitin
the Negev in the 7th century BC see Na'aman 1987). Tel level II (chapter 1.3 above), from 720 to 701 BC or even withdrawal from the west. Even if this phasing fits
1987:202, 215; Gitin 1989:45, 47; Na'aman 1992). Of
Masos was perhaps destroyed as well (Zimhoni in: Masos later. Philistia, it may not fit other parts of the land of Israel.
course sites can also be destroyed in events that were not
1:130, but cf ibid:124; Kempinsky et. al. 1981:167). The Moreover, most of the finds from the so-called Assyrian
recorded,atanygiventime. For our purposes wecan define
3.The phases notedbyYadinand Geva(1983:table p.284) phase are not typical of Judah; and there is nothing clearly
small site ofKh. Radum was probably deserted (Beit Arieh
the whole period of 604-586 BC as one horizon of
areoftenvalidforafewsites, orone siteonly.These phases Egyptian in the material culture of the second phase. The
1992).Theidentity ofthe destroyers at each siteisnotclear,
destruction, and the exact dating within it is not very
often designate only minor changes and alterations in a basic problem in this phasing relates to the dating of the
whether Babylonians or Edomites, but this is not crucial to
crucial. Thus, Iwill usethe term "7th century BC" to mark
restricted locality.Atno sitedoall allfourphases exist, and sites. Atfirst, Oren dated destructions at Tel Haror and Tel
ourpurposeshere.
all the assemblages in Judah that can be dated between 700
onlyfoursites(ofthe 19discussedbyYadin and Geva)have Shera tothe end ofthe 7th, orearly 6th, centuriesBC (Oren
and 586BC. One shouldkeep in mind that there is likelyto
evidence of three phases. In some cases, Yadin, Geva and 1988:136). Later Oren changed this dating to ca. 640 BC.
Benjamin. The area ofBenjaminissomewhat an exception.
be a "latebias" - i.e., the majority of the finds would relate
Eshel defined "phases" which are not recognized by the This was done according to the assumption that the sites
It is hard to discern destructions there, and this area may
to the end ofthe levels concerned, towards the 604-586 BC
excavators of the sites, e.g., at Lachish (cf. Ussishkin wereruinedbyEgyptian campaigns against the withdrawing
have submittedtothe Babylonians without struggle, prior to
destructionhorizon.
1993:133f; Zimhoni 1990:47). At Tel Beer Sheba, for Assyrians (Oren 1991).Yet, the Egyptian 26th dynastywas
the destruction of Jerusalem (thus Malamat 1983:286f;
example, there is no "level I", other than one wall with an ally of Assyria (cf. part 1.2 above), thus Oren's
Eshel 1986:16; Barkay 1993:196f; for another opinion see
The secondproblem isthat there are limited written sources
scanty remains (BS I:6f). Surprisingly, Yadin and Geva reconstruction is unlikely. Perhaps a few sites were ruined
Kochman 1982:26). For the lack of destruction at Tel en
about the details of the Babylonian campaigns against
NasbehseeZorn 1993:161-162.8 (1983) ignored Jerusalem completely - the capital of Judah. in 640 BC, but surely the 604-586 BC destruction horizon
Judah. Most of the evidence relates to Jerusalem and its
The reason is clear: Jerusalem does not fit their fourfold would be much more substantial, and should therefore be
vicinity, and it is hard to assess the situation in other
divisionat all. preferred for the dating of destructions at sites in Philistia
regions. An even graver problem is the Babylonian period
and Judah.
1.4. Archaeological Sub - Phasing of
(586-532 BC). It was more or less peaceful, and left a kind
4.Yadin and Geva (1983), as well as Eshel (1986), did not
ofa material "tabula rasa"in Judah (despite the pioneering the 7th Century BC? acceptthe separation of the 8th and 7th centuries BC, as is In the future, the 7th century BC may perhaps be divided
efforts of Weinberg 1971:204-207; Barkay 1985:298-300;
acceptedbyalmost all the archaeologists today (seechapter into two sub-phases, but currently this is not possible. We
1989:42; 1993). Sites that were not destroyed in 586 BC
1.3.1 above). have to recognize the fact that the first half of the 7th
often continued directly into the Persian Period (Barkay Can the 7th century BC in Judah (or, better defined, the centuryBC "slips between the fingers", since no large-scale
1993; Zorn 1993:183-5), and this hampers our ability to period of700-586BC)be separated into archaeological sub 5. The suggested fourfold division is combined with very destruction occurred. For the archaeologist this means lack
definethelowerlimit ofthe 7th century assemblage. Despite phases? Ifthis is possible, we would be able to date finds simplistic explanations of material culture, ignoring basic of rich destruction levels and clearly dated assemblages.
all thesedifficulties, 586BC (or, to be more exact, 604-586 much more accurately, and to relate them much better to arc~eological limitations. For example, Yadin and Geva The remains of the 7th century BC belong mostly to the
BC)canbesetasaclear line for the archaeological phasing, historical processes. claim that the East-Greek pottery can be dated accurately second half of the century (and the beginning of the 6th
since many sites in Judah were destroyed then (listed,
within a margin of 10 years (1983:250). This may be true century BC). For these reasons, all the efforts to identify
accordingtogeographical regions, below). We have seen earlier (chapter 1.2above) that the reigns of forlater periods,but notforthe Iron Age(cf.Bowden 1991: king Manasseh's supposed building projects are very
the kings of Judah do not form real historical periods, and see also the new dating proposed by Wenning 1989; problematic, even ifwe take the Chronicler's version to be
The Shephelah. In the Shephelah the following sites were that aclear separation shouldbe recognizedbetweenthepax accepted by Waldbaum 1994).9 Furthermore, the East historically reliable (e.g., Tatum 1991). The archaeological
destroyed: Lachish level II (already discussed above), Tel Assyriaca (the first half of the.7th century BC) and the Greekpotterysurely has no special relation with Judah, and limitations, unfortunate as they are for scientific
BatashlevelII (Mazar A. and Kelm 1980:93, 96f;Mazar A. period of struggles following the Assyrian withdrawal (ca.
the same holds true for the engraved tridacna shells (found scholarship, must be fully acknowledged, otherwise the
1985:307-320)and Azeka(Dagan 1992:34,261f). 630/620-586 BC). Judah may havegained a certain amount
alloverthe ancient Near East, Brandl 1984;Reeseand wholepicture might bebiasedfromtheverybeginning.
of independence in between these phases, but this would
The Judean Mountains. Ramat Rabel level Va was have been a very short and exceptional period, ifat all. Of
distroyed(RR I;RR1I:119f;Aharoni 1956:143, 151),aswas course, archaeological phases are not always dependent
Jerusalem or at least the city of David level X (Malamat upon historical ones. Can archaeological sub-phases be
1988;Avigad 1980:53;Kenyon 1974:170f;MazarE. andB.
1989). Many small villages surrounding Jerusalem were 8Lately,BarkayhasopposedthesettingoftheendoftheIronAge
probably also ruined. Further south one may probably add in586BC(1993). Forourpurpose, 586BCis theonlypossible
Beth Zur and Kh. Rabud (Kochavi 1973: 55-58; Sellers et. date, sincewe deal only with Judah, which certainly suffered
al. 1968:pls, 18-19;Sellers 1933:53;EAEHL new: 1252). greatly and lostits independence at this date. Thequestion of 9FortheEast-Greekpottery intheLevant anditschronology see
terminology (i.e.whether the 6thcentury·BCis part ofthe Iron
Boar~an 1980; 1988; Collombier 1987; Cook 1992. Lately it
Age)isnotimportantinthisregard.
wasfoundalsoatKabri,seeNiemeier1994.
8 9
Chapter II: The History of Research influential scholar until the end of this phase, signified by mentioned, but obviously many more "unidentifiable"
the excavations at Lachish (though these were published fragments were discarded (TBM 1II:69). All were ascribed
onlyin 1953(LachishIII). to levelAand dated to the 8th century BC and later.More
"...Aftersuch knowledge, whatforgiveness? Think now specifically, one figurine from silo 32 was seen as the
Historyhasmanycunningpassages, contrivedcorridors earliest (cf. app. 2:229), while all the other pillar figurines
Andissues, deceiveswith whisperingambitions TI.2.t. The Study ofPilz (1924) were said to belong to the last hundred years of level A
Guides usby Vanities... Givestoo late (pertainingtothe 7th centuryBC,but nowcommonlydated
What'snotbelievedin, or ifstillbelieved, Pilz made the first comprehensive study of figurines from to the 8th century BC). Albright saw no great differences
Israel. It was part of an unpublished thesis titled "Yahweh
In memoryonly, reconsideredpassion" between pillar figurines from Tel Beit Mirsim and from
and the female goddess". Pilz catalogued 123figurines of
(T.S.Eliot, 'Gerontion'). Megiddo,and discussedthe context onlyfor the purposeof
all periods, including metal, stone and faience figurines
dating. Against the explanation of female figurines,
(1924:133-145). He arranged these by the position of the
The Judean Pillar Figurines (henceforward, JPFs for short) mandate that followed has to be seen as a very different Albright explained figurines of horses, males, a woman
arms (ibid:157),separating "plaquefigurines" (his typesA,
were discovered in the nineteenth century AD, and since period(chap.11.2below). carrying a child and women carrying lamps as toys or
B) from pillar figurines (C), tambourine players (0), etc.
then discussed in many monographs and papers, not to amulets (ibid:142).2 Perhaps more important was the
(ibid:140).Actually,Pilz cataloguedonly 12pillar figurines
mention the wealth of secondary and popular treatments. At Gezer, Macalister defined the figurines as cult objects, technical report by Kelso and Thorley (in TBM III:138
from Gezer, dated after 1000BC (ibid:145, 150, 161). He
Thesefigurineshavebeenfound in almosteveryIronAgeII usuallyas representation ofgoddesses(Gezer11:411) or the 141). TheybelievedthattwoJPFs'headswerebroughtfrom
understood most of the figurines as "Gdtterdarstellung",
excavationin Judah. I have defined several phases in the Biblical teraphim (Macalister 1915:270f). The figurines Phoeniciabecauseoftheir superior qualityoverotherbadly
except the tambourine players, which he perceived to be
complicated history of research, but the separating lines were broken on purpose during magical rites (Macalister fired "local Astartes". Kelso and Thorley also related the
representations of human beings. Pilz offered varied
between each phase are not always decisive, and the 1905:270f).Macalisterseparatedplaquefigurines, shapedas pillar bodywith a tree, that wasusedin the cult ofAsherah
publication dates are often more important then the actual a rectangular lump of clay with frontal moulding (Gezer explanations for each type of figurine, and for the pillar (ibid:138).
figurineshehinted givingmilk.byagoddessoramother, or
dates of excavation. I will comment only briefly on many 11:411-416), from pillar figurines which are made in the
Cypriot / Phoenician 'Astarte' figures (pilz 1924:161).
studies, which are discussed in detail in the following round. He believed that the last are a Cypriot form of a AtTelle-Nasbeh, all the human figurines wereofthe pillar
Nevertheless,he made some interesting remarks. First, he
chapters. A simple representation of the quantitative. nurturinggoddess(dea nutrix-ibid:417).Atthattime,large type(TN 1:145),and averycleardefinitionofthetwomajor
notedthat ifthese were indeed female goddesses,then the
progressofresearchisgiveninfig.2. amountsofCypriotIronAgefigurines were alreadyknown. variations was formulated: the "pinched head" and the
monotheistic cult of Yahweh did not suppress her cult
Macalister noticed that the pillar type was later than the mould-made head. Both variations were seen as
(ibid:167);this critical attitudeis unusualfor archaeologists
plaque type, dating this type to his late Semitic IV and contemporary. The excavatorsgave the numbers of all the
of this phase. Secondly, Pilz noted the small size of the
Persian-Hellenistic levels (Gezer 11:417). Unfortunately, figurines that have been found, including small fragments
11.1. From the Nineteenth Century to figurines, thus they were not cult statues (Kultbilder) but
dueto the unfortunate method of his excavationsat Gezer, notpublishedwith drawings or photographs (ibid:246,273,
onlysmaller copies of statues, still representing goddesses.
the Excavation ofGezer (1912) almost all the JPFs that he found there have no clear mapfig.50c).Some150JPFshad beendiscovered,allfrom
Pilz also suggested that the figurines were related to
archaeologicalcontext. level I (except one or two), dated to 750-450 Be. The
"popularreligion" (ibid:161,but withoutfurther discussion).
One of the first JPF ever found was brought by father excavators believed that the JPFs had been deliberately
HedidnottrytorelatethemdirectlywiththeOldTestament
Berkeley to the British Museum in 1865, as part of an Mackenzie's work in Beth Shemesh (1912) deserves the broken (ibid:245), and were amulets or homely icons, not
andhisgeneralattitudewascautious:
assemblagefrom a grave near Bethlehem (app. 2:7). Very highest regards. His report of the first season is clear and usedin officialtemples.They had notbeen found in tombs
little was known about these figurines then, so Clermont detailed, even to the point of giving exact locations for "Religionsgeschichtlich muss sich unsere Typen at this site, supposedly because they were not used as
Ganneau doubted its authenticity and could not date it figurines found inside a certain grave (cf. app. 2:8-9). vergleichungdie Archaologisch solohnend war, wollenwir concubines or female replacements during internment
clearly (1884:224). It was fully published only a hundred Mackenzie thought that the hand-made, pinched head auffestenboden bleiben, mit dem wenigen oben Gesagten rituals (but probably the tombs found at Tel en-Nasbeh
years later (Tubb 1981). Other JPFs found their way into variationofthe JPFsrepresenteda Semiticfigure,dueto its bescheiden" (pilz 1924:167). predate the period when these figurines became common).
privatecollections,e.g.,theUstinovcollection,laterdonated facial features (possibly the aquiline nose - he did not Inthe summary,the JPFsweretermed Astartefigurinesand
totheMuseumofUppsala (Supinska-Levset 1976;1978:17 specifythe reasonsforthis conclusion). Twofigurinesfrom examplesofthepropheticcondemnations,buttheyhavealso
20,no.UT5). tomb5 were seen as a pair of gods (cf.below, app. 2:8-9), TI.2.2. Major Excavations during the 1920's beenconsideredasvotiveobjectsand "evidenceofthe extent
an idea followed recently by Wenning (1991). For to which magic ruled the minds of the ancients". Their
and 1930's
Sincethe beginning of the 20th century the term "Astarte Mackenzie, the figurines were cultic idols of gods that crudity and small size indicate that they are cheap tokens,
figurines", together with the notion that these are protectedhuman beings. Theywere put in the gravesas an Theseexcavationsformeda large data-baseofJPFs,for the that replace"bymagicand ritual the placeofthe realobject
representations of fertility goddesses,became common (for expressionof magic (Mackenzie 1912:76-77). Mackenzie, first time. The final report of the excavations at Beth in religion" (ibid:248). In the same breath, the authors
plaquefigurines alreadyat the end ofthe 19thcentury AD, likemanyotherscholarsofhisgeneration, separatedsharply Shemeshoffereda short synthesis,and a datefromthe 10th suggested that the figurines were manufactured by
Clermont-Ganneau 1896:6f, 242; cf. Contenau 1914:94:ff). religionfrommagic,followingtheworkofFrazer (1890;for centuryBC and later was suggestedfor the pillar figurines uninstructedpotters,perhapschieflywomen,beingpartofa
Vincentsuggestedthat these figurines had been deliberately criticism cf. Voigt 1984:168 n.I; Versnel 1991; Ritner (ASV:155).This datewasbasedonanearlydatefortomb1 localworship(TN1:248).
brokenduring rituals (1907:161-163). Contenau (1914:94ff, 1992). I will discuss this question more thoroughly below at this site.1 The excavators exempted themselves from a
100)made a general surveyof nakedfemale figurines from (chap. IX). Mackenzie (1912:54) also used the name detailed studywith the excusethat Albright was preparing Excavations outside Judah helped to define other typesof
the Near East, including Cana'an, but mainly pertaining to Astarteforthepillar figurines. oneonthesamesubject. pillar figurines,especiallyat Samaria (Samaria1:348f, #Bl)
the 3rd and 2nd millenniums BC (and without mentioning and Megiddo (May 1935). At Megiddo, all the
thepillarfigurines). ThisAlbrightdid,buthedealtwiththeplaquefigurinesand anthropomorphic figurines were explained in connection
gave only a short summary about the pillar figurines with religion (cult, mortuary cult, mother-goddesses, etc.).
11.2. Between the Two World Wars:
ThepublicationofMacalister'sexcavationsat Gezerin 1912 (Albright 1939:117-119).Albright datedthe pillar figurines
marksthe end ofthis phase of research. The excavationsat the "Astarte Phase" to the 7th-6th centuries BC and called them "nurturing 2Asomewhatdifferent viewwas proposed byAlbright inhisbook
Gezer (Gezer II-III) and Beth Shemesh (Mackenzie 1912) goddesses". Inhisview,someofthe headshadbeenmadein "Archaeologyandthe Religion oflsrael" (1942). There heclaimed
gave access, for the first time, to relatively large During this phase, there occurred a significant acceleration Cyprus(ibid:120). More detailed was the Tel Beit Mirsim thatIronAgeIIpillarfigurines havenosimilaritytotheCana'anite
assemblages of JPFs. These assemblages could now be inthequantityofexcavationsin the land ofIsraelunder the report from 1943 (TBM III). 39 pillar figurines were plaque figurines; and that the Israelites used these figurines as
dated, at least crudely, and provided some information on British Mandate, and many studies on the JPFs were amulets for help during birth or as expressions of "sympathetic
their context. Soonafterwards, the first world war caused published. The changes were not only quantitative (fig. 2 1Many scholars adopted this dating, e.g., IBM Ill:69; Pritchard magic"; thus, "inno casecan we label them with the name ofa
an interval in the archaeological activity, and the British below), but qualitative as well. Albright was the most 1943:24,no.203; Holland 1975:330; Engle 1979:20. goddess"(Albright 1942:115).
10 11
Even animal figurines were not seen as mere toys, but as Hooke (1938:25) barely mentioned the figurines: "Vast 11.3. From World War II until 1975 However, they limitedthe range to the 8th-7th centuries BC
related to cults ofbulls or herds (May 1935:28, 34). The numbers of Astarte figurines and amulets showed how (Gibeon WS:15-17).
important thing was the recognition that the type ofpillar widespread was the use of such charms for apotropaic or
figurines so common in the south "had little influence" at fertility purposes". 11.3.1. The Contribution of NewExcavations Many JPFs were found in Aharoni's excavations at Ramat
Megiddo - other than one exceptional figurine (May Rabel, but were only partly published (RR I-II). Aharoni
Many important excavations have taken place during the
1935:31, reg. no.M.I776; app. 2:102 in the presentwork). Burrows (1941:220f) managed to call the figurines every used the term Astarte, but did not state a clearview about
present phase, e.g., those at Lachish, Jerusalem (by
conceivable term, all in the same short section: Astartes, the identity of these figurines.6 Ciasca's detailed study of
Kenyon), Gibeon and Ramat Rabel.
"dumb and helpless idols" (though this is less likely), the horse-and-rider figurines from this site was important,
11.2.3. The Monograph ofPritchard (1943) household deities like the Biblical teraphim, expressions of showing the ability to identify small fragments. She often
Tufnell ascribed the JPFs at Lachishto level III-II, i.e., 8th
sympathetic magic, images of the mother-goddess, votive managed to identify broken parts through changes of color
7thcenturiesBC (LachishIII:374). She lowered the date of
This monograph indicates well the state of research at the
objects and playthings. Otherwise, Burrows just repeated resulting from exposure (or lack of exposure) to oxygen
the figurines from Beth Shemesh tomb 1, by arguing that
end of the Astarte phase. Pritchard discussed 249 female
the words ofAlbrightand Pritchard. duringfiring (Ciasca 1964:95-100; cf. her publicationofthe
only the beginningofthe burialsthere are from ca. 900 BC,
figurines ofthe Bronze and Iron ages in Israel. 52 of these
Tell Eranimaterial, Ciasca 1962; 1963).
but the tomb continued to be used later; thus the figurines
were termed pillar figurines, his type VII (pritchard
Gallingthoughtthat all the figurines were goddesses of life
are probably later (ibid:377). The Tel Beit Mirsim pillar
1943:56, nos. 189-240). Theseincludedmanyfigurines that
and fertility. This is evidence that the war staged by the A very important contribution was made at that time by
figurines are distinctive from the Megiddo pillar figurines,
cannot be termed thus today, like juglets, figurines with
Israelite religion against the goddesses was not always Gophna (1970), despite its brevity. Following small scale
although Albright disagrees. Still, many of these figurines
legs, women holding birds, etc. (ibid: catalogue nos. 199,
successful since the Israelitesused, to a certainextent, these surveys, Gophna defined clearly a pillar type of figurine
are only "crudely playthings" or "homely symbols", lacking
218-221, 225, 236-240).3 Pritchard dated the pillar
figurines (Galling 1937:230). Gallingalso hintedthat major typical of southern Philistia (1970:27, 29). This type is
any artistic value (ibid:374). The moulding of the heads
figurines to after 1000 BC, following Albright at Tel Beit
goddesses, such as Anat or Asherah, were paredos of the clearly different to the simple, pinched, hand-made type of
was technically good, and they were all made in one place,
Mirsim." He noted that pillar figurines appear also in
male god -but he did not explicitlyidentify these goddesses figurine which is typical of Judah and rare in the coastal
while the bodies were made locally at each site (Lachish
private loci, thus being private property (ibid:87). Pritchard
with the figurines: plain (ibid:29, pI. 6:6; cf. app. 2:68 below). Gophna dated
III:375). Occasionally, the report glided into unwarranted
though that their origin was Cyprus or Mesopotamia
the figurines and the sites to the 7th-6th centuries Be. He
(ibid:53, 87). "Sie lebten mit ihrer kleinen Abbilden als kraftgelandes generalizations. For example, itwas suggestedthatthe pillar
also suggested precise dating to Josiah's reign, but it was
Symbol der vis natur in der privaten Sphare .des figurines may have represented the naked goddess, a
made via historical considerations, and did not depend on
Pritchard'sconclusionswere cautious: the natureofall three israelitischenHauses. Soweit man die weiblische Gottheiten goddess returning to Israel and to Greece (and having a
archaeologicalevidence (Gophna 1970:30).
major goddess mentioned in the Old Testament, Astarte, als Grossgdtter ansprechen darf (Anath, Aschira), sind sie sharedAssyrianorigin-ibid:377). Regardingthe horse-and
Asherah and Anat, is quite similar (pritchard 1943:59-81). ParedoidesM3nnIichenGottes" (1937:233).5 riderfigurines, Tufnellwrote that:
Excavations outside Judah, especially those at Hazor,
Thus, there is no unequivocal evidencefor the identification
The opinions of Galling are exceptional for this early stage Ta'anakh, Samaria and Ashdod, were also important to the
"The simultaneous introduction of equestrian figures is a
ofa specific goddess with the pillar figurines (ibid:2-4, 85
of research, preceding the "Asherah phase of research" by study of the JPFs. At Ta'anakh, the figurines are earlier
further sign ofnorthernpressure, commemorating, perhaps,
87). Pritchard believed that the pillar type was a direct
more thanthirtyyears. than the JPFs, but Lapp noted the lack of the "Dea Nutrix
these bands of horseman from the northern steppes
continuation of the plaque figurines depicting a woman
figurine, typical of the Iron Age II in southern Palestine"
[meaning the Scythians] whose descendants had reached
holding her breasts, thus perhaps indicating a symbolic
(Lapp 1967:37; cf. Lapp 1964). Assemblage E207 at
Egypt bythe middleofthe seventhcentury" (ibid:377).
representationofwomankind, or mothergoddess, orprivate,
Samaria contained many figurines (Samaria III:76),
domestic cult of milk-fertility (ibid:83, 87). In this way, a
World War II terminated this phase of research, though not explained as votive objects related to different goddesses.
A very large quantity of pillar figurines was discovered in
rather peculiar mix of explanations is given in Pritchard's
as sharply as did World War I earlier. One l~t wo~d Horsefigurineswere relatedwitha sun cult; pillarfigurines
Kenyon's excavations in Jerusalem. Kenyon (1967: 101)
summary, but his caution is much more appealing then
concerns the title of this phase - "Astarte". Dunng this with a mother goddess; a woman and child figurine with
wasveryassuredabout the meaningofanimalfigurines: "it
arrogance, which is, unfortunately, not uncommon among
period, the term Astarte was very commonlyattached ~o the Isis, etc. (Samaria III:77-78). The figurines were
isalwayspossible to saythatan animalfigure has no greater
archaeologists.
pillar figurines (as well as to other types of figunnes). supposedly signs offoreign, non-Yahweisticcult:
significance than that ofa toy." On the other hand, female
Earlier, it was used mainly in respect of the plaque
pillarfigurines are mainly "elementalmother- goddess" and
figurines, but these figurines were not yet separated well "These poorrelics do help to quickenour understandingthe
"fertility cult objects" (ibid). Kenyon suggested that horse
11.2.4. Popular and Other ShortAllusions
from the pillarfigurines, andthe termwas used mutuallyfor of the mingled scorn and pity which they [theOT prophets]
figurines are related to the "sun horses" that are mentioned
during the 'Astarte' Phase both kinds. Furthermore, many scholars who saw these pouron the people of Samaria - scorn of their adultery, and
in II Kings (cf already Samaria III:78), especially because
figurines as representations of a goddess related them with pity for theirdesperate state underthe threatofthe Assyrian
ofthe applieddisc thatsome horses carry betweentheirears
Popular works are not necessarily worse than scientific forbidden or foreign cults; fitting them to the Old invasion" (SamariaIII:79).
(though this phenomenon is quite rare among the Judean
papers, and are usually simpler to analyze. Driver saw the Testament's descriptions of foreign, condemned goddesses
horse figurines). Manyfemale pillarfigurines were found in
figurines from Gezer as images ofhome - gods, especially like Anat or Astarte. The term Astarte remained popular Ashdodis importantforthe definitionof the assemblages of
cave I, which Kenyon believed to be a temple's favissa.
Astartes, withoutdiscussingthe pillarfigurines in particular much later, somewhat ironically, and a few scholars use it the southern coastal plain. Most of the figurines from
These figurines were not related to Yahweh, in her view:
(1922:56-58). For Watzinger (1933: 117), the pillar eventoday (e.g., Haran 1992:331). Ashdod were found in area D which was termed cultic,
"The association of these female figurines with a fertility
figurines were a direct continuation of the Bronze Age s. while the figurineswere calledAstartes (Ashdod I:137-139).
cult, abhorrent to the worshippers of Yahweh, is very
plaque figurines, therefore evidence for the continuation of In the following report (Ashdod II-III:125), Hachlili related
obvious" (Kenyon 1974:141). The fullest publication of the
the domestic cultofthe female nature goddess. The specific the figurines from area D to domestic and industrial
JPFsfrom Kenyon's excavationsat Jerusalemwas writtenby
term Astarte appears only in the labels to the photographs contexts. The comparisons that she found to the figurines
Holland (whose work I will discuss in detail inchap. 11.3.4
(Watzinger 1933:pI.40:96, 98; cf.also Reifenberg 1927:90 below). from Ashdod lack examples from Judean sites, but she did
96). not make an explicitallusionto this fact. Shesuggested that
the variety offigures indicates that they were not gods, but
In Gibeon, 54 JPFs were found in the great public pool (of
which only 27 were published with a photograph or
3Ofthe52figurines hetermed "pillar",Ihavedefmedonly12as drawing: Gibeon WS). The excavators tried to date the 6Thesameistrueforhistextbook"TheArchaeologyoftheLand
ofIsrael"(Aharoni 1978)andhisTelBeerShebaReport(BSI).In
JPFsinthepresentstudy(cf.fig.2). figurines by their relative depths within the pool, but
a popular book, though, Aharoni defmed a JPF from Arad ~
following Pritchard (1943), they suggested that the pillar
4 Hiscatalogue nos. 191-2 fromMegiddo weredatedto theIron 5 Thesecondeditionofhisbook,from1977,holdsnosignificant Astarte, a fertility goddess of Cana'anite origins (Aharom
type was used in Palestine in the IOth-6th centuries BC.
AgeI,butthesearenotJPFs(followingmydetinitions). changesinthisregard. 1971b:l13-114).
12 13
individual human beings (Ashdod II-III:128, 132). At the functions. Even the "unenlightened and tolerant circles in figurines represent Asherah as a domestic goddess which grouped as type N, with sub-type N.II defined as moulds of
same time, female figurines were explained by Hachlili as Israel" understood that Yahweh cannot be worked in a also has an aspect of fertility. The figurines are not the pillar figurines (ibid:314-316). Holland occasionally used
votive objects, which were used to enhance fertility or to similar way (therefore one does not find similar large, wooden cult idols, but Patai saw no great differences the term Astarte for various sub-types within his A type
assure female safety by sympathetic magic (ibid:113). representationsofa male god). All thisproves the antiquity between the two. The large quantities of pillar figurines (ibid:49, 62, 97, 102, 133,etc.).
Animal figurines were explained in various ways: as burial ofthe first twocommandments(Wright 1957:118). indicates the extreme popularitythatthe Asherah had in all
levelsofIsraelitesociety.This was perhapsdue to the belief Holland followed Albright's chronology, attributing type A
gifts, as symbols of sacrifices of animals (of the species
represented by the figurines), and even as toys (Ashdod 11 A similar view was expressed by Heaton (1974:232); the that Asherah helped in giving birthand encouragedfertility figurines entirely to Iron Age II, until the 6th century Be
III:134-135). figurines were mother goddesses that belonged to women. (patai 1967:32-35). Critical scrutiny would show that (1975:16, 319). He did not discuss separately the date of
Theywere not idols but "lucky charms" - maybethefamous Patai's theory is simplified and lacks an understanding of each sub-type within group A, and accepted the chronology
teraphim. Heaton (1974:232) liked one ofthese figurines the archaeological material. Patai quoted from other ofvarious excavators, oramendments suggested byKenyon
D.3.2. The Research ofReed fromLachish, which "is more pleasantthanusual, but when archaeologists without criticism (e.g., the view of Albright to various levels. The one JPF from Beth Shemesh tomb 1
she had her cheeks painted red, she must have appeared that the moulds were imported, Patai 1967:60). For some was defined as the earliest of its kind (ibid:30). Holland
In an important study, Reed (1949) discussed the distinctly garish". Much more important were the short reason, the Asherah figurines were discussed in the chapter noted that his type B was not popular "in the heart" of the
problematicnatureofthe Asherah, which seems toappear in remarks made bythe Frankens,who noted the difficulties in on the kingdom of Israel and not in relation to Judah. Israelite culture (ibid:319); its appearance at Megiddo and
the Old Testamentsometimesas afemale goddess and other the AstartelFertility explanations. The variety of female Nevertheless, Patai has influenced many of the later Samaria was ascribed to a large foreign population that
times as a cultic object. Reed concluded that the Asherah types of figurines calls for different represented figures. archaeologists(seebelow), despite thegeneralpopular, often supposedly lived in these Israelite cities. Even the material
was a cultic object in temples, both in the cults of Yahweh Furthermore, it is hard to see all the animal figurines as even grandiose, tone ofhis book: "Is the Hebrew goddess and finish of the figurines from Samaria are different from
and Ba'al. This conclusionwas based on theplaces and the related tofertility, since pregnancyor sexualitywere usually dead or does she merely slumber, soon to awaken those in Judah(Holland 1975:163). The appearance oftype
verbs which are related to the Asherah in the Old not stressed, and some species of animals are missing rejuvenated by her rest and reclaim the hearts of her sons B at Tel Gemmeh was explained as havingan Egyptian, or
Testament, as well as on other cultic objects mentioned (Franken and Franken-Battershill 1963:143). The Frankens and lovers?"? Phoenician influence (ibid:319-320); although this is its
beside it. In some instances, Asherah is an image of a suggested a comprehensive research offigurines according homeland (together with the areas of Samaria and a few
goddesscalled Asherah(Reed 1949:53, 95). tothe different typesandfollowing detailedstatisticanalysis Worthy of note, and on a totally different scale, is an figurines from Transjordan, ibid:330f).
and study of distributions and contexts. One should ask is extensive work by Ucko (1968) dealing with prehistoric
Reed (1949: appendix 1) rejected simplistic identifications any type of figurine limited to a certain segment of the figurines from the Near East and the Aegean. I have Holland thought that type A was mainly Judean, but it
ofthe Asherah with various material objects. He wrote that mentioned this work here because of its theoretical appearedalso a little in the north. Jerusalem seemsto be its
population? What is the relationbetween the distributionin
even ifthe Asherah was made ofwood, it does not imply importance. Ucko discussed varied explanations given to homeland (ibid). When discussing the separate types,
cities versus agricultural villages? This ideal plan of
that every wood, tree, or pole is an Asherah (1949:37). He figurines which lack historical sources: mother-goddesses, Holland did connect directly some sub-typesofAwith Judah
research, however,did not materialize.
criticized harshly, and rightly, the many identifications of dolls, concubines and magical figures (1968:409-414, 420 (1975:181, 183, 187, types AI, A.IV.e, AI.g, etc.).
the Asherahwith all kinds oftrees, groves and poles, since: Ahlstrom warned about seeing the figurines only as part of 423). He made extensive use of anthropological material Furthermore, he quite often used the definition "Judean" in
(ibid:424fi) and criticized sharply the "mother-goddess" regard to different specificfigurines (ibid: 105, 106).Thus,
popular religion, since some had been found in the royal
"When one assumes, as he has no right to do, that the palace at Ramat Rabel (1963:51). De-Vaux (1958:82) explanation (ibid:417-419). Ucko thought that in any Judean figurines at Tel Gat [i.e., Tel Erani] imply that this
Asherahwas a tree or a pole, thenthe field becomes a large assemblage offigurines, there are some types of figurines was a Judean site (ibid:96). Moulds type N.II were also
thoughtthatthese figurines were toys:
one andevery stylized tree or uprightpole may be called an that can have more than one explanation; on the other called Judean (ibid:324), but as there are almost no moulds,
a
Asherah" (Reed 1949:3). "Le petit Israelite passait le meilleur de son temps jouer hand, no one explanationcanfit all the figurines in a given this conclusion must have been formulated on the basis of
dans les rues ou sur la place avec les garsons et les filles de assemblage. Itislogical, that the samefigurines had several differencesbetween the typesofmoulded heads.
Reed separated small figurines found in domestic buildings son ~ge... Ils chantaient, dansaient, s'amusaient avec des functions (ibid:426). Important also was the statement that
and large Asherah statues that stood in public temples modelages de terre cuite comme on en a retrouve dans les figurines which have a similar outlook may have The archaeological context of the figurines was not really
(1949: 72 n.14). The clay figurines are not "Asherim", fouilles; lespetitsfilles ont toujoursjou~~lapoupee," represented different figures (ibid:423-425). discussed, otherthena general statementthat theyarefound
though Reed did not cancel out the possibility that some of in various contexts (1975:325, 331). Holland thought that
them represented goddesses, which we can not yet identify Exceptional among the popularliterature ofthose years was the figurines were deliberately mutilated, since whole
specifically. Reed did not discuss the JPFs in particular, but a book by Patai, called "The Hebrew Goddess" (1967).7 D.3.4. The Dissertation ofHolland (1975) vessels and broken figurines were found in the entrance to
his study presented a well balanced and critical attitude to Patai arguedthatthe writtensources implythat Asherahand cave 1 in Jerusalem (ibid:330, 337-338). He believed that
This monumental work is the most thorough study on
the question ofthe Biblical Asherah (as opposed to many of Astarte were not part of a foreign cult or magical figurines from graves were mother-goddesses which served
the later "Asherahstudies"). phenomena, but kosher Hebrew goddesses - even if their figurines from Israel so far, and it marks the end of the asburial gifts. Cave 1in Jerusalemwas afavissa (ibid:327
present phase ofresearch. Holland presented 2711 artifacts,
329, followingKenyon). Horse figurines mayrelateto a sun
first origin was, perhaps, foreign (1967:25-26, 34-52). He
of which ca. 1000 were not published earlier. This work
cult (ibid:342). Even figurines from domestic houses are
went as far as to state that Asherah was Yahweh's consort,
remains unpublished, other than a short summary (Holland
D.3.3. General Allusions and Popular and the pillar figurines were used to support this theory. cultic (ibid:325); thus, the many figurinesfrom Ashdodarea
1977, without significant changes from the dissertation).
Literature Patai took it for granted that the naked female figurine D strengthenits definition as a cultic area (ibid:55, but this
Holland separated the discussion into two parts: review by
belonged to ritualistic, or religious contexts (1967:30). The is rather a circular argument: one has first to prove the
Many allusions to the JPFs have been made during this sites (1975:39-177) and review by types of figurines cultic nature ofthe figurines themselves!). Rarely, Holland
Late Bronze Age plaque figurines, or the Middle Bronze
phase ofresearch, butonly a selection ispresentedhere. Age figurines from the temple at Nahariya, were explained (ibid:178-318). This was followed by a short summary made unwarranted generalizations, e.g., that the large
(ibid:319-346). Anthropomorphic figurines were divided
as representations of Astarte.8 On the other hand, pillar quantity of pillar figurines at Tel Beit Mirsim shows the
Wright (1957:117f) claimedthat archaeology confirmed the into solid pillars (type A); hollow pillars (type B) and Israelite love of cult-idols, against which the Biblical
Biblical ban of idols, since figures of Yahweh were not plaques (type C). 572 specimens were counted in type A prophets complained so much (ibid:142). The more
found in Israelite sites. The female figurines that were 7ThefirstchapterofthisbookappearedoriginallyinJNES1965. (Holland 1975:319), including hand-made heads (type AI) elongated face of type A.lV.f figurines is perhaps a hint
foundthere in plenty are only mothergoddesses, though less For a short later summary, but withoutsignificant changes, cf and mould made heads (types A.II-AIX). Body fragments about the ethnic origin ofthe settlers in the coastal plain
sensual thentheirCana'anitepredecessors. Wrightperceived Patai1987:379. and heads without clear classification where gathered (ibid:189).
them to be evidence of large scale syncretism within the thereafter (types AX-AXIl, ibid:194-197). Moulds were
8 Thereasonforidentifying Astartewiththe Nahariya figurines
common people, verging on polytheism. The figurines were A few matters impaired the extensive work of Holland.
wastheirhorns. Pataiclaimedthatthehomswererelatedtothe
the property of the common people, who used them as placename"AshtarotKamayim"andhencetoAstarte(ibid:56,nn. 9 Is the tone, in a way, a retlection of the eventful year of First, the cumbersome structure; although Holland's main
"good-luck charms" for magical, rather then theological, publication-1967? aim wastogiveafullcatalogue, thereisnoneinhiswork. A
24,58-59,98).
15
14
reader interested in a specific figurine must recollect the aboutAsherah. Fromthe beginning, the basic assumption is i.e., a religious context.12 Engle also tried to find a representedAsherah? TheOldTestament, regrettably,gives
material about it from various chapters in Holland's work. that the JPFs represented the Asherah (Engle 1979:1-2). religiousbackgroundforJPFsfromcisterns, poolsand silos, noevidencethat relatesAsherah with small clayfigurinesat
The type table (Holland 1975:20-36) is disconnected from This identification was made earlier by Patai (1967, see assuming that they had been thrown there deliberately. all. Where is, then, the archaeological proof for this
the second volume, where only part of the figurines were II.3.3 above). For the Old Testament sources, Engle relied However, this deliberatethrowing wasclaimed first because identification? Engle'seffortstoattributereligiousfunctions
fully described (mainly new, unpublished ones). Many heavilyonthe workofReed(cf. chap. 11.3.2 above). Engle only heads had been found, and later because whole to JPFs found in cisterns, graves, etc. are feeble and
details are still missing from Holland's work, especially for stressed the principle that a common type is much more figurineshadbeenfound (cf.ibid30-31). Inexplaining the unconvincing. Even ifweadoptthem, mostoftheJPFsstill
the manyfigurinesfromKenyon'sexcavationsin Jerusalem. important for studythan the various, "obscure"pieces, and figurinesasAsherah, Engle suggestedan analogytoGreece, comefromdomesticcontexts,lacking anyclear religious,or
So far, Holland's thesis is the main publication of these therefore set severe rules for defining what he termed as where figurines seem to be small copies of large cultic cultic function. As a matter of fact, Engle simply adopted
figurines (a few were published in the Jerusalem I and II "classical pillar figurines". This definition excluded the statues (ibid:35). The situation in Greece is much more the old view that figurines were cultic artifacts, and just
volumes). Regrettably,Holland oftendid notgivethe locior pillar types of figurines found at Megiddo (Engle 1979:9, complicatedthan what he assumed to be (cr. Alroth 1988), changed their title from Astarte to Asherah. True, this fits
registration numbers of these figurines, which are now II). Engle's classical typeincluded most ofHolland'stypes and analogies cannot form decisive proof (see more about more the.date of the pillar figurines, but the prooffor the
spreadallovertheworld.10 AII-AIX,11 while all the other types of pillar figurines analogies in chapter IX below). In summary, Engle identificationisstilllacking.
were defined as foreign (ibid:9). Engle excluded from the (1979:50-52) suggested that his classical pillar figurines
A second major limitation is the typological scheme: discussionat least 183bodyfragments (i.e., Holland's types represented Asherah, since she was the only serious
Holland's type Aincluded not only pillarfigurines, but any AX-AXI), claiming that these couldnotbe classifiedsince candidatefor identification. He even claimed that the logic n.4.2. NewExcavations
solidfigurine, eventhose with legs (AXIlI), sitting figures, the headswerelacking. Holland's typesAXII-AXVlIwere shouldbe turned around: instead of learning from the Old
peg figurines and even hollow, double-moulded figurines also excludedbyEngle as being irregular or miscellaneous. Testamentabout the JPFs, the JPFs can teach us about the An impressive number of important sites have been
(Holland 1975: type AIV.g.2-3). This mixture prevented Even the pinched, hand-made heads (Holland's type AI) identity of the Biblical Asherah. Engle (1979:62-63) also excavated during this phase of research. Many JPFs were
Hollandfrom reaching clear conclusions aboutthe date and were omitted by Engle, on the pretense that they were too connectedtheBiblicalpluralformAsherim withtheJPFs.13 found at Tel Ira, Tel Beer Sheba, Arad, Jerusalem, Ramot
thedistributionofeach sub-type. Butthe majorlimitationis "featureless" for classification (Engle 1979:10). and other sites. Many of these figurines have not yetbeen
the lack of a synthesis for the huge number of artifacts. Nevertheless, Engle criticized the typology of Holland as Englenodoubtcontributedtoourunderstandingbydefining published, but I was able to include them in this work
Almostnogeneralconclusionswereoffered(otherthan ibid, artificial and suggested a typology of seven sub-types clearlyaJudean typeofpillarfigurine, and by stressingthe through the kindness of the excavators. Among the
319-325;325-329).There was nostatistic analysis (Holland according to minor changes in the shapes ofthe eyes(ibid, valueofastandardtypeasthe mainsubjectofresearch, but, publications, the Jerusalem volumes are important for an
ishardlytobeblamedforthis, asthis wouldhavebeen hard but cf. already Kelso and Thorley, TBM III:140). Another there are many drawbacks in Engle's work. It is mainly a understanding ofcave 1. The authors explained the cave as
to achieve before the era of private computers). Only the type ofpillar figurine was called "foreign" (type VIII) and Biblical study, and the JPFs were brought in as outside aphenomenonofpopularreligion: "thiscavefitsin withthe
majortypes(A,B,C) werediscussed,but notthe many sub ascribed to figurines from Phoenicia, Ammon, Moab and support for his theory about the Asherah. The figurines general picture of popular religion in that period"
types;thus, for all the figurines oftype A one can find only Philistia (Engle 1979:14-15). occupyaminor part ofthe work (Engle 1979:5-28),and are (Jerusalem II:127, also 44, 48-50, 125ft). The female
afewsentencesinHolland's summary (1975:319-320).Only notdiscussedfortheir ownsake. Engle did not checkJPFs figurines were explained as representations of women who
afew typeAfigurines from cave 1were discussedin more Engle (1979:19)adoptedAharoni's IronAgechronology,yet with his own eyes and admitted that only someone with came to the cave seeking help during illness or birth; but
detail,buteventhiswasdonebriefly. What isthevalue ofa continued to acceptan early date forBeth Shemeshtomb I, directaccessto the material could make a detailed typology also as magical objects (Jerusalem II:128; cf. recently
very detailed typology,ifit is not used for synthesis? For like Albright. Engle also dated figurines from level IV at (ibid:10).Nevertheless, he dismissed the detailed typology Franken 1995). It is actually the bird figurines who are
these reasons Holland's work, despite its wide scope and Beer Sheba early (ibid:20), thus concluding that the ofHolland,who hadfar better directaccesstothe figurines. thought to have represented Asherah (Jerusalem II:128;for
thoroughness, marks the end of a fruitful phase of research beginning ofthe JPFswas around the late 10thor early 9th Holland'stypologywas rejected in favor of a new - though the potteryfrom the cavecf.Lagro and Noordhuizen 1987).
(ratherthanthebeginningofanewphase). centuries BC. Most of the JPFs are from the 8th century admittedlyan arbitrary -one(Engle'sownacknowledgment, Figurines from Mazar's excavation in Jerusalem were
BC,with gradual declineuntil the6th century BC (evidence 1979:13-14). A major set back is the exclusion of all the explainedotherwise,asforeigncult.Itwasclaimedthat they
for such a decline, or explanations why it should have fragments of body-parts and hand-made heads, not to have been deliberately mutilated by religious reformers
11.4. 1975-1995, The Asherah Phase occurredwere not given). Engle suggested that typological mention every other doubtful item. It is a very convenient (Nadelman 1989:123). Lastly,agroupoffigurinesfromthe
differenceswere related to chronology: type I maybe early, method,but it left Engle with only a small portion of the Kenyon'sexcavations havebeen republished as "new"(Amr
while type V is late - but he accepted the dating of many wholecorpusoffigurines,up tothe extentthat onewonders 1988;but cr. Franken 1989and app. 2: nos. 364,371,373,
The last two decades have been very dynamic concerning siteswithout anycriticism. He discussedthe distribution of whether the general conclusions can be considered valid. 385,388,389[possibly],411).
the researchoftheJPFs. The prosperity ofthis research has the figurines onlybriefly, but clearly associated types I-VII The so called foreign type was not studied closely, but
muchto dowith the Asherah inscriptions found at the sites with Judah, since only 2 of the 147 "classical pillar presented like an unimportant leftover. The geographic
of Kh. el-Kom and Kuntillet 'Ajrud, and the growing figurines" were found outside Judah. Therefore, these were discussion was simple, and Engle did not even raise the n.4.3. Collections, GeneralAllusions and
interest in the study of the religion of Judah and Israel Judean figurines, while type VIII was foreign (Engle 1979: questionofthe relationsbetweentheJPFsand thebordersof
Popular Literature
duringtheFirst Templeperiod. 16andfig. 13). Judah. For example, he took the JPFs and the lmlk seal
impressions to be contemporaneous and claimed that they Regarding collections, I will mention only one example to
The discussion ofthe contexts was also very limited (Engle fittedtheevidence inthe Old Testament -but the useofthe show the problems involved. It concerns a large group of
n.4.1. The Dissertation ofEngle (1979) 1979:27ft). Engle wanted to prove that the JPFs had JPFsbegan much earlier and continued well after the lmlk figurines offered for sale in Jerusalem's antiquity market.
religious function. He admitted that many figurines came stamps,according to Engle's own dating (1979:24-26). The One part of this group was taken abroad, reaching the
This work marks the new phase of research, both
fromdomesticcontexts,andthat afewfigurines werefound moulds(ortheir lack)werenotdiscussedat all. collectionsofa museumand waspublished,at leastpartially
chronologicallyand thematically. The JPFsare discussedin
in public or industrial contexts (ibid:29-30). A dozen were (Jeremias 1993;cf.below,App.3:77-78). Otherfigurinesof
theopening pages(despitethe useofthe word Israel in the
found in tombs, and in his view this is at least a "quasi ThemainproblemaboutEngle'sworkis, however,different. this group were bought by a rich Texan (thus complained
general title of the work). Then Engle reviewsthe sources
religious" context. Three other JPFswerefound infavissa, Where is the basis for the main argument that the JPFs Jeremias). Archaeology suffered a double damage: the
figurines surely came to light as a result of robbery,
10Thedrawings andphotographs inthe photocopy ofHolland's inflicting much damage on the robbed site/s (such a large
11 Holland (1975) had a total of 159 figurines of thesetypes; 12OnlybecauseEngleacceptedthedefinitionofJerusalemcave1
thesisarenotalwaysclear,andmanyfigurines were notdrawn or number of figurines are unlikely to be a "family
Engle hada totalof 147"classical pillarfigurines", including a as a ''favissa'', and the same for a ''favissa'' in Aharoni's
photographed. Thus, despite the correspondence with many inheritance", as oftenclaimedby merchants). Furthermore,
dozennewfigurinespublishedafter1975. excavationsatLachish.
institutions and the kind help of Prof. K. Prag, head of the we do not know the archaeological origins (date, nature of
Jerusalem projecttoday, itissometimes hardtoidentify figurines 13Hisattitude towards theOf verses is farfrom being critical, context, site, etc.) and cannot rely upon anything told by
in Holland's work with the records kept by Museums and e.g.,histendency to accept without questioning the versions in antiquities dealers. Only the artifacts remained, devoid of
Institutions. Chronicles(ibid:63,68-69). anycontext.
16 17