‫ארכיאולוגיה והפולחן הישראלי העתיק — כיצד השתנתה התמונה בעקבות הכתובות‬

ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE / ‫עג'רוד המזכירות את אשרה‬-‫קום ומכונתילת‬-‫מח'ירבת אל‬

ANCIENT ISRAELITE CULT: HOW THE KH. EL-QÔM AND KUNTILLET ʿAJRÛD 'ASHERAH'
TEXTS HAVE CHANGED THE PICTURE
Author(s): William G. Dever and ‫ויליאם ג' דיוור‬
Source: Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies / :‫ישראל‬-‫ארץ‬
‫ תשנ"ט‬/ 1999 ,‫מחקרים בידיעת הארץ ועתיקותיה‬, Vol. ‫&כו‬lrm;, FRANK MOORE CROSS
VOLUME / ‫&ספר פרנק מור קרוס‬lrm; (1999 / ‫)תשנ"ט‬, pp. 9*-15*
Published by: Israel Exploration Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23629918

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Israel Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies / ‫ מחקרים בידיעת‬:‫ישראל‬-‫ארץ‬
‫הארץ ועתיקותיה‬

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:23:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ANCIENT ISRAELITE

CULT: HOW THE KH. EL-QÖM AND KUNTILLET

£AJRÜD 'ASHERAH' TEXTS HAVE CHANGED
THE PICTURE

William G. Dever
University of Arizona

It is a special pleasure to dedicate this

4. The inscribed essay
decanter, towhen I pub
sui generis
Professor Frank Moore Cross, lished who it, buttaught me
now part of a larger group of Iron II
Northwest Semitic epigraphy at ceramic vessels inscribed
Harvard and in was
Hebrew and Phoen
one of those who encouraged me ician
early onthe
bearing tonames
enter
of the owners;5
5. It should also Professor
the field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology. be noted that salvage excavations
Cross5 foresight has resulted in
in my being
the village able
of Kh. toon the hill above
el-Qöm,
contribute to both of his Festschriften. In theconducted
the robbed cemetery, sec in 1971 by J.S.
ond one I have chosen to reflect on and
Holladay, to update
revealed an Iron II city wall and a
the discussion of my only venture intogate
two-entryway Hebrew
as well as 10th-7th century
epigraphy, which by chance brought
BCE occupation;6
to light in
1968 the now-famous 8th century
6. TheBCE
site hasKh. el-Qöm
been correctly identified with bibli
inscription mentioning la/Asherah\
cal Makkedah by Dorsey (which is preferable to
my tentative identification with Shaphir).7 The
Kh. el-Qöm and Its Inscriptions latest addition to our knowledge of ancient Kh.
Revisited
el-Qöm comes from a chalk slab, now in a
Inscription Number III from Tomb II has by now
private collection and recently published by
received so much attention that Kh. el-Qöm itself
Deutsch and Heltzer. It reads 'Bless your stone
has been almost eclipsed, as well as the other Iron
cutter(s); in this (i.e., the tomb) will rest the
Age material that was recovered from the site and
elders'.8
published.11 would remind readers of:
For those who may wish to consult more recent
1. The features of the tombs themselves, including
syntheses of what is known of Kh. el-Qöm, I
the carved head-niches on the benches,
may recommend forat
thethe
site itself several of my
time apparently unique, but with
own parallels
summaries in later
standard reference works;9
recognized by Barkay, Kloner and myself
and for in the
the a/Asherah inscriptions, such treat
Ecole Biblique tomb in Jerusalem,
mentssignificantly
as those of Ackerman and Binger, with
in the form of a Hathor or 'Qudshu-Asherah'
full references to the relevant literature.10
wig;2
2. The deeply incised representation of a human Toward a Synthesis on the Reading of
hand below Inscription I, which I identified as Inscription III
an early depiction of the later Islamic khamsa, While preparing the editio princeps of Inscription
or 'Hand of Fatima', used as a good-luck sign or III in Jerusalem in the spring of 1969, I showed
apotropaic emblem, a symbol since studied fur photographs and tracings to several leading scho
ther by Sylvia Schröer;3 lars — including B. Mazar, J. Naveh, and W.F.
3. The group of inscribed shekel-weights. Some of Albright, as well as to Frank Cross himself. Scho
the fractions appeared to be unusual at the time lars were slow to appreciate the significance of
but are now better understood. They have been Inscription III after its first publication in 1970,
placed in a larger context by recent studies, such until Andre Lemaire's pioneering re-reading in
as those of Barkay and Kletter;4 1977."

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:23:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
10* WILLIAM G. DEVER

It was Lemaire who in Tomb

rescued II, whether
Inscription h
III fro
probable oblivion by pointing
wealthyout that in or
individual Line
an3o
should read 'by his a/Asherah'.
Line 2 hasMy original
never posedno
a
show that I had originally attempted
formula right to
outread 'his
of the
Asherah'; but I 'Blessed
suppressed be 0Uriyahu
that reading in the by
fin
version of my ing formulae
manuscript. had not be
Lemaire correctly put his finger on the crux
extra-Biblical Hebrew tex
our understanding of veh had reconstructed in one
Inscription of thethe
III: Horvat Beth
reading
lines 3/4. Line 1 Loya tomb
presents inscriptions the phrase
a difficulty hwf [y]hwh,
only with
second word, evidently'(May) Yahweh deliver
hcsr, 'the(us)'.16 Now, several man';
wealthy of the o
hsr, roughly
'the governor,' or, contemporary Kuntillet cAjrüd
alternatively, inscripsing
'the
Virtually all scholarstions
have discussed
contain the expression 'Blessed the pecu
be X by Yah
weh'.171, which might be read
seventh 'letter' in line
,ay in, dalet, resh, or qop.
Line 3 is admittedly
The difficult,
sign,and scholars
however,
under is
entirely right for anystandably
of differ
these
on the reading
letters;
of several letters. and furth
more it has been As one
partly of the few who has handled
obscured by the stone slab
the addition
an extraordinarily extensively,
long I can attest
'tail'. Naveh to the fact that several
and Mittm
ignore this letter, so asletters
to are deliberately
yield hsr,and deeply
most overwritten,
others a r
it as cayin (despite theproblem that does not seem difficulty,
comparative to me to have been co
sidering thesufficiently addressed.
formed clearly cayin This overwriting
in Line occurs3), t
mostly
hcsr, 'wealthy man'.121 had in connection
taken withthis
the wordsign
now readasby a q
however, reading virtually
hqsb, all scholars asimperative
a Hiphil 'a/Asherah'18 That is why
ofI qsb
thus yielding 'take could legitimately
heed, read this word differently,
pay attention to'. Not and on
does this make good sense
thus arrive at of the
a reading following
that excluded any reference wo
ktbh, 'his inscription,'to 'a/Asherah'.
butGranted that the text doesplace
it would read 'aJ Insc
Asherah' in Line
tion III within a well known 3, the question
corpus ofremains: Did
Hebrew an
Phoenician burial inscriptions
someone try to efface
thatthe straightforward
include reading,
implic
warnings against disturbing the
and if so why? I can only suggesttomb. Thus
that a reference to
contemporary Royal 'a/Asherah' in connection
Steward with the name of Yah
Inscription ends wit
the warning: 'Cursedweh, be in an obviousman
the context ofwho
blessing, was
willbecom op
this!' In publishing this inscription
ing a theological problem for some ininJudah1953,
by the N
Avigad noted several 8th century BCE — as indeed
Phoenician examplesit is for many of s
formulae.13 commentators today, as we shall see presently.
I still believe that my In any case, restoringreading
original what is undoubtedly
has the som
original reading ofto
merit, because it does attempt 'a/Asherah'
read in Line 3 yields bysev
'letter'
common scholarlyit,
rather than simply discarding consensus
and a phrase that, taken al
it would
provide a clear and together with Line 2, runs
well-attested something Among
genre. like: th
other alternatives, I would prefer reading hcsr, '
Blessed be 0Uriyahu to Yahweh, and from his
wealthy man'.
Certainly a number of the 8th
enemies save him by his a/Asherah.
tury BCE Kh. el Q6m tombs are elite tombs —
workmanship amongThe variousfinest
the readings have been
ever conveniently
discoversum
outside of Jerusalem.14
marized nowThe recently
by Binger, although her ownpublish
interpre
chalk slab inscriptiontation
notedof Line 3 above,
is idiosyncratic, to say the least
which I agr
must have come from el-Qom,
('his light by Asherah, shewith its
who holds her hand uniqu
over
him').19 The overwhelming
reference to the 'stonecutters' who majority of scholars
prepared th
tombs,15 would seem readto Inscription III as having to the
underline do with 0Uriyahu's
importa
of the Kh. el-Qom cemetery and
being blessed and 'saved some
from his of
enemies' by some tho
interred in its tombs.combination
These of the Israelite deityour
include Yahweh and 'his
TJriy

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:23:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ANCIENT ISRAELITE CULT 11*

a/Asherah' — the only question being tofunctionalist,

what or to reductionist view of ancient Israelite
whom the latter phrase refers. religion robs it of much of its variety and vitality.
Lemaire, who as I noted above first drew wide
Susan Ackerman has grasped the point when she
observes
spread attention to the el-Qom inscriptions inthat in the ancient world 'the idol was the
1977, was also the first to see in line 3 a god'.22
reference to
Thus I would suggest that the 'asherah-pole/
Yahweh's 'a/Asherah'. Lemaire, however, inter tree' would have been perceived as Asherah herself
preted the term as denoting simply a tree-like by many if not most worshipers in ancient Israel.
symbol relating somehow to the goddess Asherah, And that constitutes the problem: the widespread
as indeed required in most of the 40 or so occur presence in 'popular religion' of a consort alongside
rences of the term 'asera in the Hebrew Bible. In Yah weh was what led the prophetic and Deuteron
these instances the 'asherah' is something anathe omistic writers by the 8th-6th century BCE to
ma to the Deuteronomists in particular — a wood condemn the goddess and anything associated with
her. As Olyan (1988) has suggested, 'Asherah was
en pole or living tree, which, because of its frequent
association with 'high places' (bämöt), and 'stand Yahweh's consort in state religion as well as popu
ing stones' (ma^ebot) that were thought reminis lar religion in the northern kingdom from earliest
cent of the Canaanite cult, should be cut down, times', until later reform movements progressively
chopped to pieces, or burnt up. discredited her, largely by coming to associate her
A number of more recent commentators have with Bacal rather than Yah weh.231 concur; and am
followed Lemaire's 'minimalist' interpretation of therefore puzzled that Olyan should note regarding
'Yahweh's a/Asherah,' among them Emerton the clear reference to 'a/Asherah' at Kh. el-Qöm
(1982); Day (1980); Hadley (1987); Tigay (1987); that 'little can be said,' that the reference is only to
Smith (1990); and Keel and Uehlinger (1992).20 a 'symbol' of some sort. In reply to my observation
McCarter (1987), however, nuanced the interpreta that to interpret the phrase in line 3 as saying
something like 'May 0Uriyahu be blessed by As
tion of the 'asherah' as a 'mere symbol' by arguing
that at Kh. el-Qom the 'asherah' was conceived of herah and his tree-symbol' would be inexplicable,
as a hypostasis of Yahweh, i.e., neither a deity nor a Olyan can only say: Not so. Yet Olyan's view that
consort of Yahweh, but his 'trace' or 'cuitically 'the cult symbol represents the goddess' hardly
available' presence. Yet elsewhere McCarter ac clarifies the issue, since he misses Ackerman's
knowledges that in the Hebrew Bible and in ancient point and mine here: one cannot separate the sym
Israel generally Yahweh had a consort named 'As bol from the goddess, either conceptually or ex
herah', as, of course, El had at Ugarit.21 This, it istentially.24 It is the Goddess Asherah who conveys
seems to me, is wanting to have it both ways. It also blessings, no matter whether she was conceived
begs the question of what a religious 'symbol' is and as an independent deity by some, or simply as
how it functions. I would insist that the 'asherah' as one manifestation of Yahweh and his powers. To
a tree-like object — a 'mere symbol' — would have perceive the issue as one of 'idolatry' is to fall un
been meaningless unless it mediated to those in thewittingly into the theological trap of the Deut
ancient cult the existence, presence, and power of eronomistic redactors who shaped the late, ortho
an actual deity, the old Canaanite Mother Goddess dox literary tradition enshrined in the Hebrew
Asherah. A symbol (from Gk. symballein, 'to throwBible as it has come down to us. Archaeology is
together, compare') is any inanimate object that valuable precisely because it can enable us to get
points beyond itself to an ontological and ultimate behind this tradition, closer to the original reality.
reality, an 'outward sign of an inner and invisible Several minority opinions may be noted here.
reality'. To separate the religious symbol from that Lipinski (1980), commenting shortly after Le
which it symbolizes, as McCarter and many others maire's resurrection of the Kh. el-Qöm inscription,
do, is to impose upon the past a modern, rational regarded the 'a/Asherah' as a 'shrine' of some sort,
distinction that does violence to what we know of drawing, however, upon questionable Phoeni
the holistic world view of ancient Israel, and indeed cian parallels.25 Zevit (1984), who collaborated
of Canaan and all of the ancient Near East. Such a with me in 1981/1982 in re-examining and redraw

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:23:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12* WILLIAM G. DEVER

ing the stone itself, inexact,

the Israel
contemporary Museum,
duplicate read 'a
of my Kh. el-Qöm
srth rather than 'a srt + h with
Inscription the final
III.29 Gradually, heh under
and often somewhat
stood as the 3rd masc. sing, possessive
reluctantly, suffix,
it seems, other scholars thus
came around to
'his a/Asherah,' but rather as not
seeing 'Asherah' a only
Phoenician word,
as a shadowy image, but
i.e., the name of the well known
as a deity Phoenician
alongside Yahweh, as his paredros, femin
all of
ine deity Ashrata.26 Although Zevit's
them citing the Kh. el-Qöm reading
and Kuntillet 0Ajrüd is
ingenious, and does indeed deal with the supposed
inscriptions. Meshel himself (1979) at least allowed
for that by
grammatical problem posed possibility,
the as have
finalmuch more recent
possessive
heh (below), no one seems to (1987),
scholars. Miller have Cooganfollowed
(1987), Ackerman his
invocation of a Phoenician deity at Kh. el-Qöm.
(1992), and Binger (1997) do not hesitate to inter In
Zevit's favor, however,pret
isthenot only theinscriptions,
archaeologically-recovered appearance
and the texts at
subsequently of inscriptions of thecontemporary
Hebrew Bible as well, as Kun
tillet cAjrüd in the Phoenician script,
reflecting a full-fledged but in
cult of Asherah now
Israelite also
the discovery of several 8th-7th century BCE
'popular religion'.30
Phoenician inscriptionsI recount
at Tel this briefMiqne (Biblical
history of scholarship on the 'Ek
ron') mentioning offerings
subject only for,
to make an and even
essential point: it was a
newsanctu
ary dedicated to, the goddess
archaeological data'Asherat'.27
that forced Biblical scholarsThus
to it
seems to me that Zevit's reading
reconsider should
the nature of Israelite monotheism,not of be
arbitrarily ruled out of consideration.
the possible existence of Asherah as Yahweh'sMargalit
con
(1989) offered what is surely the
sort, and indeed most
of the imaginative
entire cult in the light of
reading, but he inserts an entirely
what we imaginary
now know of 'popular,' extra
'folk,' or 'family'
'line' between lines 2 and 3,
religion and the
throughout this
history is a flight
of ancient Israel of
fancy that discredits any contribution
and Judah. he
I have recently discussed much might
of the
have made.28 literature on the latter from an archaeologist's
There remain the few scholars who have been point of view.31 Here I need only note that the
bold enough to confront what is to me the obviousproliferation of recent works on 'popular religion'
reading: 'May TJriyahu be blessed by Yahweh and is due in nearly every case to the recognition that
saved from his enemies by his Asherah,' i.e., by the new archaeological data are relevant and in
Yahweh's consort Asherah, acting jointly as anmany cases decisive. Such works would include
agent of blessing. As long as the Kh. el-Qöm in Holladay (1987); Meyers (1988); Smith (1990);
scriptions were sui generis, scholars might have Bird (1991); Keel and Uehlinger (1992); Ackerman
been justified in being cautious; after all, this was
(1992); Bloch-Smith (1992); van der Toorn (1994);
the first extra-Biblical text to mention what may Albertz (1994); Berlinerblau (1996); Zevit (forth
have been the goddess Asherah herself. But incoming); and, of course, my own treatments (1982;
1975, Ze'ev Meshel excavated an 8th century cara 1983; 1984; 1987; 1994a; 1994b; 1995).32
vanserai, or waystation, at Kuntillet 0Ajrüd in the
eastern Sinai wilderness on the ancient road from Remaining impediments
the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, with an attached Despite growing recognition among Biblical scho
gateway shrine. The dozen or more Hebrew in lars that the discovery of the 8th century BCE Kh.
scriptions on the plastered walls, on large storage el-Qöm and Kuntillet cAjrüd inscriptions mention
jars, and on votive offerings, attracted widespread ing 'Asherah' marks a crucial turning point in our
attention when they were partially published begin understanding of ancient Israelite religion, a
ning in 1976. By 1978, the catalog of an exhibit at number of scholars remain skeptical, as we have
the Israel Museum made many of the inscriptions seen. Among some of those that I have noted
available to scholars, at least in line-drawings. above, I cannot help but suspect that the hesitation
Several of them, especially on Pithos 1, clearly to embrace Asherah (as it were) stems largely from
included expressions like 'may X be blessed by theological sensitivities, whether explicit, unex
Yahweh of Samaria and by his a/Asherah' — an pressed, or perhaps even unexamined. For some, it

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:23:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ANCIENT ISRAELITE CULT 13*

is simply unthinkable that Yahweh in that our rules

ancient for classical or 'Biblical' Hebrew are
Isra
el and in the Hebrew Bible had a female consort. to some degree arbitrary, derived as they are largely
The widespread abhorrence of such a concept mayfrom the analysis of a living continuous language in
explain in part why the Kuntillet cAjrüd inscrip
its later, formal stages of development.36 This is not
to say, as certain 'revisionist' historians have de
tions still have not been fully published or made
widely known to the public in Israel, more than 20clared recently, that 'Biblical Hebrew' is a Bildungs
years after their discovery. Particularly in North
spräche, or artificial literary language of the Per
America, many Biblical scholars appear to be sosian-Hellenistic era. As hundreds of Iron Age in
mewhat ill at ease with the notion of Yahweh scriptions, ostraca, and seals written in this suppo
having a consort and are either mystified or re 'non-existent' Hebrew attest, this is not a
sedly
pelled by the notion of a vibrant, potent Mother
reasonable proposition.37 What I am suggesting is
Goddess. Whatever the reasons for the continuing
that many of the early Hebrew inscriptions that we
resistance to the obvious and overwhelming impli
now have, like those scratched in the tombs at Beth
cations of the archaeological data (not simplyLoya
the or Kh. el-Qom, or the plaster wall di pinti at
non-Biblical inscriptions discussed here),331 do not
Kuntillet cAjrüd, do not represent literary Hebrew.
think that in sophisticated circles there can any
Thus they may not necessarily conform closely to
longer be cogent theological objections. the expected 'rules' of Iron Age Hebrew grammar,
A few of the hold-outs mentioned above advance
but are in effect graffiti. As a vernacular form of
what appears at first to be a more substantial
expression, they may have violated formal rules,
but they were nevertheless easily intelligible to
argument, one based on Northwest Semitic syntax.
The heh at the end of word 'asrh is universally those in the countryside who were only 'function
taken to be a final mater lectionis for ...to, ally'
the literate. If this is the case, one problem can be
normal way of representing the 3rd masc. sing, resolved: how to explain the difficulties modern,
possessive suffix in this period, yielding 'hiswella/ trained Hebraists and epigraphers have in
Asherah'. Such usage of the possessive suffix with a
deciphering and actually understanding the grow
personal name is held to be 'ungrammatical' ing by corpus of Iron Age inscriptions that we now
scholars like Angerstorfer (1982); McCarter (1987);
have. Why so many varied interpretations, when
Tigay (1987); and Olyan (1988). Thus, they argue,
the consonantal text can usually be established
'asrth cannot refer to a deity by the name ofwith 'As virtual certainty? Perhaps it is because we are
herah,' but only to a symbol, 'the asherah'34 Itmoreis concerned with 'correct grammar' than the
true that such usage is rare or perhaps non-existent
ancients were, to the point where overly refined
in Biblical Hebrew; but I would make several quali
linguistic analysis impedes rather than advances
fications. (1) A possessive suffix can occur with knowledge.
the
name of a deity at Ugarit, as Miller and McCarterIn any case, 'reading' an ancient text or an
have pointed out, thus, latrty, 'my Asherah,' artifact
and always requires a certain degree of intui
krtn, 'our Keret'.35 (2) In the later Aramaic tion,
of empathy, and imagination. It may be that the
Elephantine, we have the expression cAnat-yahu, 8th century BCE inscriptions at hand have been
'face/presence (pny) of Bacal,' i.e., Bacal's consort
over-analyzed, over-intellectualized — that they
— the divine name Bacal being in construct mean rela just what they would seem to the uninitiated
tion with the word for face/presence. And
to of
say: 'May X be blessed by Yahweh and his
course, such construct relations of nouns with di Asherah'. David Noel Freedman not only insists on
vine names, including Yahweh, are common in the this, but he thinks that the coupling of the 'non
Hebrew Bible, so the concept of a deity's 'possess standard' (?) possessive suffix with Yahweh's name
ing' something or somebody is ever present, even in the Kh. el-Qom and Kuntillet cAjrüd Asherah
if it is not expressed in precisely the same gram inscriptions was deliberate. It was meant to empha
matical construction that we encounter at Kh. size the fact that Asherah was Yahweh's consort,
el-Qöm and Kuntillet cAjrud. (3) Finally, I would not Bacal's as the Deuteronomists and other ortho
suggest, as philologians like Pardee already have, dox parties would have had it.381 would also stress

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:23:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 14* WILLIAM G. DEVER

that the possessive every dayis

suffix that deliberate,
modern archaeology is at least
but sign
cant in a different as 'revolutionary'
way. That ais, tool in biblical writer
the exegesis and of t
inscription could havethe writingthe
put of histories
heh of ancient
at the Israel as Al
beginn
of the word instead, making
bright predicted long ago itthat 'the
it would asherah
prove
frequently in the Hebrew to be. It isBible,
precisely in the dialogue
i.e. between
specifying t
the phrase denoted the texts and material
symbol, culture remains that our best
rather than
deity. But the heh placed hope for comprehending
at the the end realityofof lifethe
in w
used clearly as a possessive ancient Israel resides. Our failure to understand
suffix, seems to m
clear indication that the very much
writerthus far, however,
of this of Israelite reli
inscripti
intended to specify not gion lies'the
not so much in faulty or inadequate
asherah' but Ash
herself, in contradistinction data of either kind,
toas most
it does in theBiblical
narrow, usa
We should recall that logocentric
in at angleleast
of vision that has character
seven passage
the Hebrew Bible theized most biblical'aserd
term commentators. Fortunately,
clearly refe
the goddess Asherah herself, fresh archaeologicalthusdiscoveries
islike those ofunders
still
in the old sense of consort, Kh. el-Qom and as Kuntillet
in cAjrud
earlier force us to
Canaan
I Kgs. 15:13; I Kgs. 16:33; II Kgs. 21:7; II Kings broaden our perspective. They do so by giving
23:4; 23:7, and also (plural) Jud. 3:7; I Sam. 7:3). us a rare glimpse into the world of 'popular re
ligion' — the practice of religion that character
Conclusion ized the masses in ancient Israel — that texts
In conclusion, I think that it is becoming clearer alone can never provide.

NOTES

1 W.G. Dever, 'Iron Age Epigraphic Material from tic levels,

the see L.T. Geraty, 'The Khirbet el-Köm Bilingual
Area of Khirbet el-Köm', HUCA 40/41 (1969/1970), Inscription',
pp. BASOR 220 (1975), pp. 55-61.
139-204. For convenient bibliography on the Kh. el-Qöm 7 D.A. Dorsey, 'The Location of Biblical Makkedah', TA
inscriptions, see now T. Binger, Asherah, Goddesses 7 (1980),in
pp. 185-193.
Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament, Sheffield, 1997. 8 See R. Deutsch and M. Heltzer, Early New Inscriptions
(above,
2 Long ago I had observed that the 8th century BCE n. 5), pp. 27-30.1 agree with them that the chalk slab
Ecole
Biblique tomb in Jerusalem had head-niches similar must
tohave
Kh.come from Kh. el-Qom.
el-Qöm, but in the shape of the Hathor-wig associated9 with
For recent resumes, see W.G. Dever, 'Köm, Khirbet el',
Qudshu in Egypt and Asherah in Canaan. D.N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York,
3 See further S. Schröer, 'Zur Deutung der Hand1992,
untervolume IV, pp. 97-99; idem, 'Qom, Khirbet el', E.
der Grabinschrift von Chirbet el-Qöm', VF 15 (1983), pp. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations
Stern (ed.),
191-200. in the Holy Land, Jerusalem, 1993, volume 4, pp. 1233
4 For the most recent comprehensive treatment of 1235;
the idem, 'Qöm, Khirbet el', E.M. Meyers (ed.), The
Judean shekel weights, see R. Kletter, 'The Inscribed
Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, New
Weights of the Kingdom of Judah', TA 18 (1991), pp.York,
131 1997, volume 4, pp. 391, 392.
163. 10 For bibliography, see numerous references in the
5 Prior to the publication of the Kh. el-Qöm inscribed works cited in n. 1 above.
decanter, only one other was known, from Kenyon's excava 11 A. Lemaire, 'Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qöm et
tions in Jerusalem (published in 1968). Avigad published l'Asherah de YHWH', RB 84 (1977), pp. 595-608.
another in 1972 and discussed the unusual method of chisel 12 J. Naveh, 'Graffiti and Dedications', BASOR 235
ing the letters after firing. Another one from Beersheba was (1979); pp. 27-30; S. Mittman, 'Die Grabinschrift des San
published by Aharoni in 1975, then one in 1981 from Arad. gers Uriahu', ZDPV 97 (1981), pp. 139-152.
In 1994 another was published; for this one and full bibliog 13 N. Avigad, 'The Epitaph of a Royal Steward from
raphy, see R. Deutsch and M. Heltzer, Forty New Ancient Siloam Village', IE] 3 (1953), pp. 135-152.
West Semitic Inscriptions, Tel Aviv, 1994, pp. 23-26. 14 For a full discussion of the Iron Age tombs known to
6 For Holladay's Iron Age excavations, see 'Khirbet el date, see now E. Bloch-Smith Judahite Burial Practices and
Qöm', IEJ2X (1971), pp. 175-177. On the Persian-Hellenis Beliefs about the Dead, Sheffield, 1992.

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:23:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ANCIENT ISRAELITE CULT 15*

See references in n. 8 above. Babylon, and in Ugarit: Her Relation to the Moon-god and
16 J. Naveh, 'Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave', the Sun-goddess', Folia Orientalia 21 (1980), pp. 163-174.
IEJ 13 (1963). pp. 74-92. 26 Zevit, 'Khirbet el-Qöm Inscriptions' (above, n. 18).
17 For syntheses and bibliography on Kuntillet 1Ajrüd, 27 See Meshel, Kuntillet 'Ajrüd (above, n. 17) (no pagina
see Z. Meshel, Kuntillet 'Ajrud: A Religious Centre from the tion); and cf. S. Gitin, 'Miqne, Tel (Ekron)', E. Stern (ed.),
Time of the Judean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai, Jerusa New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Floly
lem, 1978; idem, 'Did Yahweh Have a Consort?', BAR 5/2 Land, Jerusalem, 1993, volume 3, p. 1058.
(1979), pp. 24-35; W.G. Dever, 'Asherah, Consort of Yah 28 B. Margalit, 'Some Observations on the Inscription
weh? New Evidence from Kuntillet cAjrüd, BASOR 255 and Drawing from Khirbet el-Qom', VT 39 (1989), pp. 371 -
(1984), pp. 21-35; J.M. Hadley, 'Some Drawings and In 378.

scriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet 'Ajrud', VT 37 29 See references in n. 17 above.

(1987), pp. 180-213. Cf. further, more recent bibliography 30 Cf. Meshel, 'Consort?' (above, n. 17); P.D. Miller,
and convenient summaries of readings in Binger, Asherah 'Aspects of the Religion of Ugarit', in Ancient Israelite
(above, n. 1), pp. 167-175. Religion (above, n. 20), pp. 58, 59; M.D. Coogan, 'Canaanite
18 The best photograph is still the original, published in Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religion of Ancient
HUCA (above, n. 1). One should compare my hand-copy Israel', in Ancient Israelite Religion (above, n. 20), pp. 115
published there with slightly different copies done by Zevit 124; Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree (above, n. 22), pp.
and myself in 1982; see Z. Zevit, 'The Khirbet el-Qöm 189-193; Binger, Asherah (above, n. 1), pp. 110-141.
Inscription Mentioning a Goddess', BASOR 255; 39-47. 31 W.G. Dever, 'Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?
Most of the other commentators discussed here have not Part II: Archaeology and the Religions of Ancient Israel',
seen the stone, and none, to my knowledge, have made fresh BASOR 298 (1995), pp. 37-58, cf. also 'Archaeology and the
photographs or hand-copies. The major mechanical difficul Religions of Israel', BASOR 301 (1996), pp. 83-90 (a review
of R. Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old
ties lie in (1) several letters in line 3 that have been overwrit
ten; (2) many scratches defacing the stone. Testament Period, Vol. 1; Louisville, 1994).
19 See Binger, Asherah (above, n. 1), p. 167. 32 Bibliography is too cumbersome to cite here, but
20 Cf. J.A. Emerton, 'New Light on Israelite Religion:
references to all these and other works on 'popular religion'
The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet 'Ajrud',
will be found conveniently in my two articles cited in n. 31
TAW 94 (1982), pp. 2-20; J. Day, 'Asherah in the Hebrew above.

Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature', JBL 105 (1986), 33 For the extensive non-textual data on the cult that
pp. 385-408; J.M. Hadley, 'The Khirbet el-Qöm Inscrip archaeology has recently brought to light, see my two articles
tion', VT 37 (1987), pp. 50-62; J.H. Tigay, 'Israelite Reli
cited in n. 31 above; and add W.G. Dever 'Ancient Israelite
gion; The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence', in P.D.Religion: How to Reconcile the Differing Textual and Arti
Miller, P.D. Hanson, and S.D. McBride (eds.) Ancient Israel
factual Portraits?', in W. Dietrich and M.A. Klopfenstein
(eds.), Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer
ite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Philadel
phia, 1987, pp. 157-194; M.S. Smith, The Early History Monotheismus
of im Kontext der israelitischen und altoriental
God. Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, San ischen Religionsgeschichte, Freiburg, 1994, pp. 105-125 and
Francisco, 1990, pp. 82, 83; D. Keel and C. Uehlinger,
references there.
Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole. Neue Erkenstnisse zur34 Cf. A. Agerstorfer, 'Aserhah als "Consort of Jahweh"
Religionsgeschichte Kanaan's und Israel aufgrund bislang oder Ashirta?', BN 17 (1982), pp. 7-16; McCarter, 'Aspects
unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen, Freiburg, 1992,of the Religion' (above, n. 20), p. 148; Tigay, 'Israelite Reli
pp. 268-282. gion' (above, n. 20), p. 175; Olyan, Asherah (above, n. 23), p.
31.
21 P.K. McCarter, 'Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite
Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data', in Ancient Israel 35 P.D. Miller, 'Israelite Religion', in D.A. Knight and
ite Religion (above, n. 20), pp. 143-144. G.M. Tucker (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Inter
22 S. Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree. Popular Relipreters, Chico, CA, 1985, p. 208; and see also McCarter,
gion in Sixth-Century Judah, Atlanta, 1992, p. 65. For 'Aspects of the Religion' (above, n. 20), p. 152.
Ackerman's perceptive treatment of Kh. el-Qöm, see pp. 63 36 Coogan, 'Canaanite Origins' (above, n. 31), pp. 118,
66. 119.
23 S.M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, 37 P.R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel', Sheffield,
Atlanta, 1988, pp. 23-37. 1991, p. 102-105.
38
24 Olyan, Asherah, p. 31. D.N. Freedman, 'Yahweh of Samaria and his Ashera',
25 E. Lipinski, The Goddess A(irat in Ancient Arabia, in BA 50 (1987), pp. 241-249.

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:23:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms