Not Only History

Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of

Mario Liverani Held in Sapienza–Università di Roma,
Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, 20–21 April 2009

edited by

Gilda Bartoloni and Maria Giovanna Biga

in collaboration with Armando Bramanti

Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns
2016
 © 2016 by Eisenbrauns Inc.
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Conference in Honor of Mario Liverani (2009 : Universitá degli studi di Roma “La
Sapienza.” Dipartimento di scienze dell’antichitáa) | Bartoloni, Gilda, editor. | Biga, Maria
Giovanna, editor. | Bramanti, Armando, editor. | Liverani, Mario, honouree.
Title: Not only history : proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Mario Liverani held in
Sapienza–Università di Roma, Dipartimento di scienze dell’antichita, 20–21 April 2009 /
edited by Gilda Bartoloni and Maria Giovanna Biga in collaboration with Armando
Bramanti.
Description: Winona Lake, Indiana : Eisenbrauns, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016015039 (print) | LCCN 2016022724 (ebook) | ISBN 9781575064567
(hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781575064574 (pdf)
Subjects: LCSH: Middle East—History—To 622—Congresses.
Classification: LCC DS62.23 .C66 2009 (print) | LCC DS62.23 (ebook) | DDC 939.4—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016015039

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard
for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984. ♾ ™
 Contents

Preface/Presentazione . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   vii
Curriculum vitae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   x
Bibliography of Mario Liverani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   xii
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxv

Sull’armonia tra la storia e l’archeologia del Vicino Oriente:

L’opera di Mario Liverani nella vita di un archeologo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
Joaquín María Córdoba

Weber—Polanyi—Sraffa: A Consideration of Modes of Production . . . . . . . .   15

Johannes Renger

The Court Banquets of Sargon II of Assyria: Commensality as a

Positive Affirmation of the (Successful) Hunt and Battle . . . . . . . . . . . . .   35
Irene J. Winter

Was Uruk the First Sumerian City? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   53

J. S. Cooper

City and Countryside in Ancient Mesopotamia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   57

Marc Van De Mieroop

Mesopotamian Cities in Comparative Perspective, Briefly: An Appreciation . . .   67

Norman Yoffee

Du texte à l’histoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   77
Jean-Marie Durand

State and Society: Flight in the Near East during the

Old Babylonian Period (20th–17th Centuries BCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   91
Dominique Charpin

The Ur III Literary Footprint and the Historian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Piotr Michalowski

On Egyptian Elite and Royal Attitudes to Other Cultures,

Primarily in the Late Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
John Baines
v
vi Contents

The Garamantes and After: The Biography of a Central Saharan Oasis

400 BC–AD 1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
David Mattingly

The “Kenite Hypothesis” in the Light of the Excavations at Ḥorvat ʿUza . . . . . 171
Nadav Naʾaman

“Ah, Assyria . . .” (Isaiah 10:5ff.): Isaiah’s Assyrian Polemic Revisited . . . . . . . 183

Peter Machinist

Measuring Middle Assyrian Grain (and Sesame) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

J. N. Postgate
 Offprint from:
Gilda Bartoloni and Maria Giovanna Biga (eds.),
Not Only History: Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of
Mario Liverani Held in Sapienza–Università di Roma,
Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, 20–21 Aprill 2009
The “Kenite Hypothesis” in the Light
© Copyright 2016 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

of the Excavations at Ḥorvat ʿUza

Nadav Naʾaman

The Kenites and the Judahite Fortress of Kinah

Ḥorvat ʿUza (Khirbet Ghazzeh) is located about 10 km southeast of the fortress
of Arad, on the southeastern border of the valley of Beer-sheba. The main road
leading from the Beer-sheba valley to the region of Aravah passed southward from
the Tel Malḥata–Tel Masos area to ʿAroer and through the Scorpion Pass to Naḥal
Aravah. A secondary road existed at the southeastern end of the plain of Arad,
passed near Ḥorvat ʿUza, and continued to the southern end of the Dead Sea (see
map in Beit-Arieh 2007a: 2). Contrary to Aharoni’s suggestion (1967: 54), the latter
road does not form part of the “way of Edom” mentioned in the story of the three
kings’ campaign against Moab (2 Kgs 3:20). In fact, the “Edom road” passed from
the area of Naḥal Aravah eastward to Edom; the western component of the route
was separate from this.
According to the book of Kings, Jehoram, king of Judah, while marching to sub-
jugate the Edomite rebellion, “passed over ṣāʿîrâ with all his chariots” (2 Kgs 8:21).
The LXX rendered the toponym’s name seiōr (Lucianic seōr), a form that suggests
an original ṣōaʿrâ ‘to Zoar’ (Montgomery 1951: 398; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 96).
Zoar (Zair in English Bibles) is located south of the Dead Sea. The Edomites defeated
Jehoram by a surprise night attack near this locale. The Judahite campaign passed
along the route where many years later the fortress of Ḥorvat ʿUza was built. Roads
in Biblical Hebrew were called by their destination; hence, it might be called “the
way of Zoar.”
The assumed motivations for erecting a fortress in this location in the 7th cen-
tury BCE are manifold: (a) the growing power of the Kingdom of Edom following
the Assyrian conquest of the Levant in the late 8th century BCE; (b) the growing
danger posed by the pastoral nomadic groups wandering in the Aravah in the 7th
century; (c) the development of commerce along the Beer-sheba valley and the col-
lection of tolls at the entrance to the Kingdom of Judah from the Aravah via the
way of Zoar.
The identification of Ḥorvat ʿUza with the town of Kinah mentioned in Josh
15:22 is commonly accepted and is based on the preservation of the ancient name in
modern-day Wadi el-Qeini, which descends eastward from the southern part of the
fortress area (Lemaire 1973: 18–23; Naʾaman 1980: 137). Kinah is also mentioned

171
172 The “Kenite Hypothesis” in the Light of the Excavations at Ḥorvat ʿUza

in ostracon no. 24 from Arad, in which a local commander was ordered to take five
soldiers from Arad and probably an equal number from Kinah and send them to
Ramat Negev, “lest Edom shall come there” (Lemaire 1973: 11–18; Aharoni 1981:
46–49). We may assume that Edomites had plundered the settlements of the central
Negev area via the route that passed near ʿAroer, so the fortresses’ commanders were
ordered to send soldiers from the eastern flank of the Beer-sheba valley to confront
the impending danger. The small number of soldiers noted indicates that the gar-
risons posted in the two fortresses were small and that they were mainly guarded
by the local population.
Kinah was named after the Kenite families who settled in the Negev of Arad,
forming most of the place’s inhabitants. Their early settlement in the area is explic-
itly mentioned in Judg 1:16, which with some minor textual corrections reads as
follows:
And the descendants of ⟨Hobab⟩ the Kenite, Moses’ father in law, went up from the
City of Palms with the children of Judah . . . which is in the Negev of Arad; and
they went and dwelt with the Amalekites (ʾt hʿmlqy) [LXX version]. 1

The text refers to the peaceful settlement of the Kenites in the district of Arad (cf.
Judg 4:11) and their neighborly relations with the Amalekites (cf. Num 24:20–22).
Actually, the Amalekites may well have been the dominant tribal group that settled
in the Beer-sheba valley during Iron Age I (see 1 Sam 15:6). The City of Palms should
be identified with the fortress of Tamar, which is situated south of the Dead Sea (1
Kgs 9:18; Ezek 47:19; 48:28), even though the “City of Palms” is better known as
a designation for Jericho (Deut 34:3; Judg 3:13; 2 Chr 28:15). The large fortress of
Tamar (ʿEn Haṣeva) was probably built by the Assyrians in the late 8th century BCE
(Cohen and Yisrael 1995; Naʾaman 2001: 267–68; Ussishkin 2010), and the refer-
ence to its name points to the late date when the text was written. In David’s story-
cycle, the district of Arad was called “Negev of the Kenites” (1 Sam 27:10). A group
of Kenites settled in the highlands of Judah, northeast of Ziph, as indicated by the
place-name Kain ( Jos 15:57). Another group wandered northward and camped in a
place north of the Jezreel valley ( Judg 4:11).
The Kenites must have retained their tribal cohesion from the time of their
early settlement, probably in the 10th century, until the late First Temple Period.
The persistence of their identity is typical of frontier tribes and subtribes, which
were forced by the local conditions to maintain their internal cohesion and socio-
economic solidarity (Lissovsky and Naʾaman 2003: 305, 318, 321; Naʾaman 2008:
269–70). Because the Kenites maintained their family ties down to the 7th century,
it is not surprising that the late fortress erected in their territory was called Kinah,
after the tribal name of its inhabitants.

1. For the translation of the passage, see Burney 1918: 14–17. For the suggestion to
read ʾt hʿmlqy (‘and Amalek with him’) at the end of v. 16, see Barthélemy 1982: 73–74. For
a detailed discussion, including various textual emendations, see Mittmann 1977: 213–19.
Nadav Naʾaman 173

The settlement of the Kenites in the fortress of Ḥorvat ʿUza tallies with the
policy of late Judahite kings to settle groups of wandering pastoral nomads in the
southern frontier of the kingdom. The Edomite pottery discovered in late-8th-
through early-6th-century BCE sites in the Beer-sheba valley is evidence of this
policy. Most remarkable is the extensive Edomite material culture unearthed at Tel
Malḥata (Beit-Arieh 2011), at the cult site of Qitmit (Beit-Arieh 1995), and at Tel
Aroer (Thareani 2007; 2011); but Edomite pottery was also discovered in several
other sites in the Negev (E. Mazar 1985; Singer-Avitz 2004; Thareani 2010). The ef-
forts made by kingdoms/states at various times in various regions to settle nomads
either in new settlements founded for the purpose or in existing centers is well
known and requires no further elaboration. The late Judahite kings’ efforts to settle
the nomads are another indication of this policy.
Josephus narrates the campaign conducted by King Antiochus XII against the
Nabateans in the year 84 BCE (J.W. 1.102; Ant. 13.391). The Seleucid king was de-
feated and killed in battle, and part of his army escaped to Kefar Kana, where many
of his soldiers suffered severe hunger and starved to death. The village’s name is
probably the same as biblical Kinah and may be identified as Ḥorvat ʿUza, where a
fortress was built in the Hellenistic Period (Lemaire 1973: 20). 2

The Excavations of Ḥorvat ʿUza

The fortress of Ḥorvat ʿUza was excavated over the course of seven seasons in
the years 1982–86, 1988, and 1996 (Beit-Arieh and Cresson 2007). It encompassed
an area of about 2 dunams and was surrounded by a 1.50-m-thick wall with ten
towers, two of them flanking the gate. A secondary wall of 1.25 m supported the
earth rampart that surrounded the fortress walls (for the fortress plan, see Beit-Arieh
and Cresson 2007: 18–19). The width of Ḥorvat ʿUza’s walls is much narrower than
the width of Arad’s walls (4 m), Tel Malḥata’s (3.5 m), or ʿAroer’s (4 m across the
offsets and 2.30 m across the insets). Clearly, the fortification was built to defend
the place from surprise attacks rather than to withhold a long siege.
The internal area of the fortress was well planned and densely inhabited. Its
eastern part was divided into insolates, and the external and internal walls of each
building unit were composed of one row of stones. These buildings were mainly
residences. The northwestern building constructed west of the gate was much larger
than all the buildings on the eastern side, and its walls are double in width. It must
have served as the military-administrative headquarters of the place. Unfortunately,
the western side of the fortress was only partially excavated, and not enough data
exist to understand the way it functioned. Neither a central store nor a major cis-
tern was discovered at the site. However, a storehouse/granary (mz[w]) located in
the place is probably what was being referred to in the Edomite ostracon discovered

2.  The identification of Kefar Kana with biblical Kinah is missing in the works of Möller
and Schmitt 1976: 117; and in Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994. It is also missing in Beit
Arieh’s final report on the excavations (2007).
174 The “Kenite Hypothesis” in the Light of the Excavations at Ḥorvat ʿUza

at Ḥorvat ʿUza (Israel 1987: 341; Zwickel 1988: 38; Lindenberger 2003: 137; Becking
and Dijkstra 2011: 113–14). 3 A few cisterns have been detected near the site and in
its vicinity (Beit-Arieh and Cresson 2007: 48, 55), but it is possible that a (not-yet
discovered) cistern that collected rain from all parts of the fortress was in fact dug
somewhere inside the fortress.
A small altar approached by three steps was built in a room near the gate (Beit-
Arieh and Cresson 2007: 31–33). Nearby, a thick layer of ash with burnt animal
bones was discovered. Cultic activity similar to that which may be inferred to have
happened at this site must have taken place in many Judahite settlements through-
out the First Temple Period. Josiah’s cultic reform was aimed at eliminating the
major cult places and, in particular, purifying the central temple of Jerusalem rather
than eliminating small local altars such as the one unearthed at Ḥorvat ʿUza.
Comparison of the Iron Age fortress with the Hellenistic and Roman fortresses
built later in the site is instructive. Inside the later fortresses, buildings were erected
only along the fortress walls, whereas most of the internal area was left vacant (Beit-
Arieh and Cresson 2007: 58, 63). In contrast, the Iron Age fortress had buildings
all over the entire area. This difference indicates that local people inhabited most
of the site and that only its northwestern side (or possibly its entire western side)
functioned as a military-administrative quarter. The comparison also helps explain
the extramural quarter erected north of the fortress. It seems that, in its late stage,
the fortress was densely populated, and the local inhabitants were forced to settle
on the slope of the hill, near the fortress. The vicinity of the fortress guaranteed a
military umbrella in times of peace and a refuge in times of war. A similar picture is
observable in the fortress of Arad, the entire area of which was inhabited; the local
population built their houses on the eastern slope near the fortress (Goethert and
Amiran 1996).
The findings from Ḥorvat ʿUza are quite meager and include, in addition to the
pottery and ostraca, a few weights (Kletter 2007a), fragments of animal and bird
figurines (Kletter 2007b), a few stamp seals (Ziffer 2007), and a Neo-Assyrian bulla
(Beck 2007). Neither anthropomorphic nor horseback-rider figurines have been dis-
covered in the place, unlike the findings in all other sites in the Kingdom of Judah
(see below).

The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis of the Origins of Yahwism

Thirty-five inscriptions have been discovered in the excavations of Ḥorvat ʿUza,
two of them in the extramural quarter (Beit-Arieh 2007b). Except for one stamp seal
and two inscriptions written on a complete jar, all other inscriptions are ostraca

3. The ostracon was published by Beit-Arieh and Cresson 1985; see also Beit-Arieh
2007b: 133–37. Lines 3–6 of the Edomite ostracon may be translated as follows: ‘And now,
give the grain that is with Aḥiummīh [. . .]. And may Uzziʾil lift (it) in the store[house of . . . ,
x] ḥomer of the grain’ (for the translation, see Misgav 1990: 215–16; Becking and Dijkstra
2011: 112–14).
Nadav Naʾaman 175

written on jar fragments. All ostraca are written in Hebrew script, except for one,
which was written in Edomite script (Beit-Arieh 2007b: 133–37). A look at the dis-
tribution of the inscriptions reveals that, evidently, all of them were concentrated
in the eastern side of the fortress and in the gate area, whereas no inscription was
discovered in the partially excavated western side (see distribution map of the os-
traca in Beit-Arieh 2007b: 180). The distribution indicates that at least some (or
even most) of the inscriptions were written by the local inhabitants who lived in
the domestic quarter.
The religious-historical question that emerges is whether the data extracted
from the ostraca fit the hypothesis that the Kenite families who settled in the Negev
of Arad in the early Iron Age and inhabited the fortress of Ḥorvat ʿUza in the late
monarchic period participated in the introduction of the cult of Yhwh to other
neighboring tribal groups.
According to a well-known and extensively discussed hypothesis, the cult of
Yhwh first developed among Midianite-Kenite groups who wandered in the area
south of the Dead Sea, east and west of the Aravah up to the Gulf of Eilat, and was
later introduced to other tribal groups who settled in the hill country on the two
sides of the Jordan (Rowley 1950: 149–56; de Vaux 1969; see the extensive refer-
ences cited by Blenkinsopp 2008: 131–33 nn. 1–6). Blenkinsopp (2008) recently
examined this hypothesis in detail and concluded that it “provides the best expla-
nation currently available of the relevant literary and archaeological data” (2008:
151). Reexamining the hypothesis is not necessary for the present discussion, which
deals with the origins of Yahwism among the pre-Israelite and early Israelite tribal
groups. Rather, presenting some details of the hypothesis as a sort of introduction
to the analysis of the epigraphic material from Ḥorvat ʿUza will suffice.
The tradition of Yhwh’s origin from the southern periphery of Canaan rests on
some fragments of early Hebrew poetry (Deut 33:2; Judg 5:4–5; Hab 3:3a). In bibli-
cal historiography, the introduction of Yahwism to the people of Israel is connected
to the figure of Moses. Yhwh revealed himself to Moses when he stayed with Jethro,
also called Reuel, his Midianite father-in-law, who was a priest of Midian (Exod 3:1).
The Mountain of God was located in a place where the Midianites used to take
their flocks out to pasture (Exod 3:1, 12, 18; 18:5). These and other data led to the
hypothesis that Moses received Yahwism from the Midianites.
Some biblical texts connect the Midianites to the Kenites. Like the Midianite
Jethro, Hobab the Kenite also appears as the father-in-law of Moses ( Judg 4:11;
see 1:16). He is described as a son of the Midianite Reuel and Moses’ father-in-law
(Num 10:29). The close relationship of the Midianites and Kenites is indicated by
their similar lifestyle, their wandering in the southern Canaan desert, the assumed
original residence of Yhwh in their territories, and their close ties with Moses.
When combined, these elements formed the basis of the hypothesis that Midianite-
Kenite groups held a decisive role in the introduction of Yahwism to the early
Israelites.
176 The “Kenite Hypothesis” in the Light of the Excavations at Ḥorvat ʿUza

Comparisons made between epigraphic documents and biblical-historiograph-

ical texts always involve enormous difficulties. In the case under discussion, we
have, on the one hand, original sources written as part of daily life in a marginal
Judahite site in the late First Temple Period; and on the other hand, a hypothesis
that was formed on the basis of various biblical texts that are literary, ideologi-
cal, and multilayered—written long after the events they describe, apparently in
Jerusalem, which is far away from the arena where the events took place. The prob-
lems involved with the combination of two so markedly different sources into a
linear historical line are self-evident. Hence, we should be very careful when trying
to draw conclusions from one set of sources regarding the other.

Personal Names as an Indication of Devotion to YHWH

Let me open the discussion with an analysis of the personal names registered in
the ostraca. To arrive at the exact number of persons, I carefully checked all names
that are mentioned in the texts more than once (for a provisional list of names,
see Beit-Arieh 2007b: 183–84). 4 Different individuals with identical names were
each counted in the numbering of names, whereas names that appear more than
once but relate to the same person were omitted. In reality, because no archive was
discovered in the site, and the ostraca were distributed across many rooms, the
number of people who appear more than once is minimal. I also omitted from the
count of names the sender of the Edomite letter (ostracon no. 5) and people who
originated from other places (ostracon no. 10). According to my calculation, the
corpus of names from Ḥorvat ʿUza includes 89 different people who belonged to
two generations.
Of the 89 secure names, 54 names (approximately 60%) include the theophoric
component yhw either as the first or the last element of the name. Seven of the names
(nearly 8%) include the theophoric component ʾl. 5 Three different people each
bore these, the most-popular names: Elishama, Gedalyahu, Hoshaʿyahu, Hiṣilyahu,
Yaʾzanyahu, and Neriyahu. Two different people each had been given the names
Uriyahu, Elyashib, Hodavyahu, Nehemyahu, Semachyahu, and Shelemyahu. All
other names appear only once.
The actual percentage of yhw and ʾl names may be slightly lower than the above
statistics, because names with these theophoric components are easily identified
even in fragmented texts, whereas the decipherment of less-well-known names—
unless they also appear undamaged—is more difficult. Due to the problem of deci-
pherment, some of these fragmented less-well-known names may have escaped the
reconstructed name list.

4. The list of personal names from Ḥorvat ʿUza should be corrected in many places.
Explaining these corrections requires a detailed discussion of many texts, which is far be-
yond the scope of this article.
5.  For a general comparison of the theophoric components yhw and ʾl in Hebrew epi-
graphic sources, see Pardee 1988: 126.
Nadav Naʾaman 177

The inscription lʿbḥkm ʿzwl appears on a stamp seal discovered at Ḥorvat ʿUza
(Beit-Arieh 2007b: 178–79). The 2 names are non-Hebrew, but possibly the first
component of the first name was shortened and should be restored as ʿb(d); thus,
the name ʿb(d)ḥkm may perhaps be translated ‘the Servant of the Wise’. In this the-
ory, ‘wise’ was the title of an unknown god, and since the name ʿzwl is non-Semitic,
the title ‘the Wise’ probably referred to a foreign god.
It is also possible that the theophoric name Baʿal appears in two names: bʿlʾm[r]
(no. 5:1) and [. . .]bʿl (no. 9:1). However, the restoration of the two fragmented
names remains uncertain.
How should we interpret the high percentage of Yahwistic names in the ostraca
from Ḥorvat ʿUza? It is self-evident that a high percentage of names referring to
a god in a certain population group indicates his popularity among the members
of this community. But scholars have demonstrated that the distribution of theo-
phoric elements may have been influenced by factors other than mere popularity. 6
To clarify the onomastic situation at Ḥorvat ʿUza further, let me present an il-
luminating analogous case recently presented by Beaulieu (2011).
A religious-cultic reform was conducted in the 5th century BCE in the city of
Uruk, at the center of which was Anu, the sky god, who was raised to the head of
the local pantheon (Beaulieu 1992; 2011: 256–58, 260–61). Following the reform, a
dramatic rise took place in the number of names that included the god’s name. This
is a good analogy with Josiah’s reform, which must have resulted in the increased
popularity of Yhwh. However, the Uruk documents came from the temple and
reflect the names of persons attached to the administration of the temple and city,
as well as those whose livelihood was dependent on the temple (Beaulieu 2011:
257–58). We may assume that Josiah’s reform promoted the popularity of Yhwh
in the urban centers of the Kingdom of Judah, especially in the capital city of
Jerusalem. However, the inhabitants of Ḥorvat ʿUza lived far away from the cen-
ter of Jerusalem, and it is doubtful that the reform, however broad its historical
scale, directly influenced this remote site. Furthermore, the ostraca reflect the over-
all population of the site, not just the elite and middle classes, which are usually
represented in ancient Near Eastern documents. Thus, the popularity of Yhwh as
reflected in the ostraca should be attributed to the religious devotion of the local
inhabitants and only secondarily (if at all) to the influence of religious actions
taken by the royal court of Jerusalem.
In this context, we may also examine the onomasticon of Arad, a fortress that,
like Kinah, is located in the district inhabited by Kenites (Negev of Arad). The cal-
culated number of names of different persons in the fortress of the 7th–early 6th

6. For the difficulties involved in the forming of lists of theophoric elements and in
evaluating the official status of gods in the cult of a kingdom, see Pardee 1988, with earlier
bibliographical references. For Yahwistic names in the Diaspora as markers of self-identity
rather than as an expression of devotion to God, see Beaulieu 1997; 2011; Pearce 2006; 2011.
178 The “Kenite Hypothesis” in the Light of the Excavations at Ḥorvat ʿUza

centuries (strata VII–VI) is 81, and 49 of them include the component yhw (60.5%). 7
Only 3 names (3.7%) are constructed with the theophoric component ʾl. The iden-
tical percentage of Yahwistic names at Arad and Kinah is remarkable, indicating the
similarity of their respective Kenite inhabitants’ devotion to Yhwh.

The Absence of Anthropomorphic Figurines

as an Expression of Aniconism
Whereas the fashion of name-giving at Arad and Kinah was almost identical,
a marked difference appears in their respective attitudes toward anthropomorphic
figurines. No figurine was discovered at Ḥorvat ʿUza, in contrast to the 23 pillar
figurines that have been discovered at Arad in strata of the 8th–early 6th centuries
BCE (X–VI). Kletter (1996: 41–42) has shown that a remarkable decline took place
in the number of 7th-century BCE securely dated pillar figurines in the overall
area of the Kingdom of Judah (24) compared with their number in the 8th century
(127). To compare the two sites, we must first establish the number of anthropo-
morphic figurines in strata VII–VI of Arad.
According to Kletter’s catalog (1996: 95–96, 147, 210b–212a, 213b), 9 pillar figu-
rines discovered at Arad are securely dated to the 8th century BCE, 3 to the 7th
century, and the 11 additional figurines unearthed at the site have not been dated. 8
Some of the undated figurines may well have belonged to the 7th-century strata.
As for other sites in the Beer-sheba valley, 5 pillar figurines were discovered at
Tel Masos, a small site that, like Ḥorvat ʿUza, was constructed in the 7th century
BCE (Crüsemann 1983: 130–32; Kletter 1996: 95–96, 174, 196b). Twenty-one an-
thropomorphic figurines (13 of which are pillar figurines) were discovered in the
excavations of Tel ʿAroer. Three of the latter pillar figurines are securely dated to the
8th century, 5 to the 7th century, and the rest are undated (Thareani 2011: 188–93,
203–4). Six pillar figurines were discovered in the excavations of Tel ʿIra. Two of
these figurines are securely dated to the 8th century, 2 to the 8th–7th centuries, and
the rest undated (Kletter 1999: 374–78). 9 We may conclude that the absence of an-
thropomorphic figurines (including horseback riders) at Ḥorvat ʿUza, where most

7.  For a list of the personal names at Arad, see Aharoni 1981: 199–200. The list includes
names from all the strata, and for the sake of calculating statistics, it was necessary to sepa-
rate the early (strata IX–VIII) and late (strata VII–VI) lists of names. Moreover, in light of
recent advances in the decipherment of some texts, the list requires some additions and cor-
rections. Explaining these changes would greatly exceed the bounds of this article.
8.  Although the last excavation season at the fortress of Arad was conducted in 1966, the
final report of the excavations, including the list of all the figurines, has yet to be published.
9.  The results of the excavations at Tel Malḥata are as yet unpublished. Many Edomites
settled in the place, and the various kinds of anthropomorphic figurines unearthed in the
site are markedly different from those of all other Judahite sites in the Negev. I therefore
exclude these figurines from the discussion. I would like to thank Ms. Liora Freud, who is
currently working on the publication of the pottery from the site, for sending me Kletter’s
unpublished manuscript, which discusses the figurines discovered in the place.
Nadav Naʾaman 179

of the area has been excavated, is exceptional among all other major 7th-century
BCE sites excavated to date in the Beer-sheba valley.
In light of this discussion, we may cautiously conclude that a general accord
exists between the commonly held view of the origins of Yhwh in the southern
periphery of the land of Canaan—possibly among the Kenite (and Midianite) pas-
toral groups wandering there—and the findings from Ḥorvat ʿUza, where groups
of Kenites settled in the 7th century BCE. The personal names as reflected in the
ostraca uncovered at the site are an indication of the devotion of the inhabitants
to Yhwh, and the absence of anthropomorphic figurines (and figurines of horse
riders) points to an avoidance of making figurative representations in the place.
Furthermore, the absence of anthropomorphic figurines at the site is exceptional
in comparison with other sites all over the Kingdom of Judah (see the distribution
map in Kletter 1996: 96) and may reflect the aniconic tendency of the Kenites who
lived at Ḥorvat ʿUza.
One serious limitation to this conclusion, however, is the fact that the docu-
ments and artifacts on hand reflect only the situation in the last century of the
Kingdom of Judah, while a “black hole” exists in our knowledge of the long time
span between the early Iron Age and the 7th century BCE. Nevertheless, the os-
traca and figurines apparently reflect the cultic practice and religious beliefs of the
Kenites who lived in Ḥorvat ʿUza in the late First Temple Period and who may have
maintained the inherited traditions of their ancestors who wandered in this area
hundreds of years before their time.

References
Aharoni, Y.
1967 The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia: Westminster.
1981 Arad Inscriptions. Judean Desert Studies. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Barthélemy, D.
1982 Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 1: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois,
Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. OBO 50/1. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires /
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Beaulieu, P.-A.
1992 Antiquarian Theology in Seleucid Uruk. Acta Sumerologica 14: 47–75.
1997 The Cult of AN.ŠÁR/Aššur in Babylonia after the Fall of the Assyrian Empire. SAAB
11: 55–73.
2011 Yahwistic Names in Light of Late Babylonian Onomastics. Pp.  245–66 in Judah
and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International
Context. Edited by O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and M. Oeming. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
Beck, P.
2007 A Neo-Assyrian Bulla. Pp. 194–96 in Beit-Arieh 2007a.
Becking, B., and Dijkstra, M.
2011 Some Remarks on an Edomite Ostracon from Ḥorvat ʿUza. Journal of Northwest
Semitic Languages 37/1: 113–20.
180 The “Kenite Hypothesis” in the Light of the Excavations at Ḥorvat ʿUza

Beit-Arieh, I.
1995 Ḥorvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. Monograph Series of the
Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 11. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass
Publications in Archeology.
1999 Tel ʿIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. Monograph Series of the Institute of
Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 15. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications
in Archaeology.
2007a Ḥorvat ʿUza and Ḥorvat Radum: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev. Monograph
Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 25. Tel Aviv: Emery
and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.
2007b Epigraphic Finds. Pp. 122–87 in Beit-Arieh 2007a.
2011 Excavations at Tel Malḥata: An Interim Report. Pp.  17–32 in The Fire Signals
of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze, Iron
Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Edited by I. Finkelstein and
N. Naʾaman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Beit-Arieh, I., and Cresson, B. C.
1985 An Edomite Ostracon from Ḥorvat ʿUza. Tel Aviv 12: 96–101.
2007 Stratigraphy and Architecture. Pp. 15–76 in Beit-Arieh 2007a.
Blenkinsopp, J.
2008 The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament 33/2: 131–53.
Burney, C. F.
1918 The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes. London: Rivingstons.
Cogan, M., and Tadmor, H.
1988 II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 11.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Cohen, R., and Yisrael, Y.
1995 The Iron Age Fortress at ʿEn Haṣeva. BA 58: 223–35.
Crüsemann, F.
1983 Die Kleinfunde. Pp. 130–33 in Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Ḫirbet el-Mšāš
(Tel Masos) 1972–1974. Edited by V. Fritz and A. Kempinski. Abhandlungen des
Deutschen Palästi­navereins. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Goethert, R., and Amiran, R.
1996 A Salvage Excavation on the Eastern Slope of Tel Arad. Eretz-Israel 25 (Aviram
Volume): 112–15. [Hebrew]
Israel, F.
1987 Supplementum Idumeum I. Rivista Biblica Italiana 35: 337–56.
Kletter, R.
1996 The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. BAR International Series
636. Oxford: Tempus reparatum.
2007a Stone Weights. Pp. 205–10 in Beit-Arieh 2007a.
2007b A Group of Clay Figurines. Pp. 188–93 in Beit-Arieh 2007a.
Lemaire, A.
1973 L’ostracon “Ramat Negeb” et la topographie historique du Negeb. Semitica 23:
11–26.
Lindenberger, J. M.
2003 Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill.
Lissovsky, N., and Naʾaman, N.
2003 A New Outlook at the Boundary System of the Twelve Tribes. UF 35: 291–332.
Nadav Naʾaman 181

Mazar, E.
1985 Edomite Pottery at the End of the Iron Age. IEJ 35: 253–69.
Misgav, H.
1990 Two Notes on the Ostraca from Ḥorvat ʿUza. IEJ 40: 215–17.
Mittmann, S.
1977 Ri. 1,16f und das Siedlungsgebiet der kenitischen Sippe Hobab. ZDPV 93: 213–35.
Möller, C., and Schmitt, G.
1976 Siedlungen Palästinas nach Flavius Josephus. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des
Vorderen Orients B/14. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Montgomery, J. A.
1951 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. International Critical
Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Naʾaman, N.
1980 The Inheritance of the Sons of Simeon. ZDPV 96: 136–52.
2001 An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Raḥel? Tel Aviv 28: 260–80.
2008 Sojourners and Levites in the Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE.
Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14: 237–79.
Pardee, D.
1988 An Evaluation of the Proper Names from Ebla from a West Semitic Perspective:
Pantheon Distribution according to Genre. Pp. 119–51 in Eblaite Personal Names
and Semitic Name-Giving. Edited by A. Archi. ARES 1. Rome: Missione Archeologica
Italiana in Syria.
Pearce, L. E.
2006 New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia. Pp.  399–411 in Judah and the Judeans
in the Persian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
2011 “Judean”: A Special Status in Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Babylonia?
Pp. 267–77 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in
an International Context. Edited by O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and M. Oeming.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Rowley, H. H.
1950 From Joseph to Joshua: Biblical Traditions in the Light of Archaeology. London: Oxford
University Press.
Singer-Avitz, L.
2004 ‘Busayra Painted Ware’ at Tel Beer-sheba. Tel Aviv 31: 80–89.
Thareani, Y.
2007 Ancient Caravanserais: An Archaeological View from ʿAroer. Levant 39: 123–41.
2010 The Spirit of Clay: “Edomite Pottery” and Social Awareness in the Late Iron Age.
BASOR 359: 35–55.
2011 Tel ʿAroer: The Iron Age II Caravan Town and the Hellenistic–Early Roman Settlement.
Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology / Hebrew Union
College–Jewish Institute of Religion 8. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical
Archaeology.
Tsafrir, Y.; Di Segni, L.; and Green, J.
1994 Tabula Imperii Romani—Maps and Gazetteer: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and
Byzantine Periods. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Ussishkin, D.
2010 ʿEn Haṣeva: On the Gate of the Iron Age II Fortress. Tel Aviv 37: 246–53.
182 The “Kenite Hypothesis” in the Light of the Excavations at Ḥorvat ʿUza

Vaux, R. de
1969 Sur l’origine kénite ou madianite du Yahwisme. Eretz-Israel 9 (Albright Volume):
28–32.
Ziffer, I.
2007 Stamps and Stamp Seals. Pp. 197–204 in Beit-Arieh 2007a.
Zwickel, W.
1988 Das ‘edomitische’ Ostrakon aus Ḫirbet Ġazza (Ḥorvat ʿUza). BN 41: 36–39.