Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1 (2013): 39–51
Nadav Na’aman
Tel Aviv University
1
N. Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud through the Lens of Historical
Research,” UF 43 (2011): 299–324.
2
Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud” (n 1): 312–319; N. Na’aman and N.
Lissovsky, “Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, Sacred Trees and the Asherah,” Tel Aviv 35 (2008): 186–208.
39
40 MAARAV 20.1 (2013)
3
For the identification of Sela at as-Sela‛, a remarkable mountain stronghold located
near the place where a relief of Nabonidus was discovered, see S. Hart, “Sela‛: The Rock of
Edom?” PEQ 118 (1986): 91–95; M. Lindner, U. Hübner and E. Gunsam, “Es-Sela‛—2500
Jahre Fliehburg und Bergfestung in Edom, Südjordanien,” Das Altertum 46 (2001):
243–278, with earlier literature; P. Gentili and C. Saporetti, “Nabonedo a Sela‛,” Geo-
Archeologia 21.1 (2001): 39–58; B. L. Crowell, “Nabonidus, as-Sila‛, and the Beginning
of the End of Edom,” BASOR 348 (2007): 75–88, with earlier literature.
4
For discussion of the date of Amaziah’s death and the beginning of Uzziah’s reign,
see recently N. Na’aman, “The Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BCE: Biblical Text
Analysis versus Archaeological Research,” Tel Aviv 40 (2013): 250–252, with earlier
literature.
5
For discussion of the relations between Israel and Judah in the first half of the eighth
century b.c.e., see N. Na’aman, “Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel,” VT 43
(1993): 227–234.
6
The earliest pottery unearthed at Tell el-Kheleifeh is dated to the first half of the eighth
century b.c.e. and corresponds well with the biblical account of Uzziah’s foundation of the
place. See: G. D. Pratico, “Nelson Glueck’s 1938–1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A
Reappraisal,” BASOR 259 (1985): 1–32; idem, Nelson Glueck’s 1938–1940 Excavations at
NA’AMAN: A NEW OUTLOOK AT KUNTILLET ‘AJRUD 41
of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011). For discussion, see
Israel Eph‛al, The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th
Centuries B.C. (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1982): 21–36, 82–92; R. Bryne, “Early
Assyrian Contacts with Arabs and the Impact on Levantine Vassal Tribute,” BASOR 331
(2003): 11–25.
11
See for example: P. Beck, “The Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud),” Tel
Aviv 9 (1982): 61; A. Lemaire, “Date et origine des inscriptions hébraïques et phéniciennes
de Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” SEL 1 (1984): 136; idem, “Remarques sur les inscriptions phéniciennes
de Kuntillet ‛Ajrud,” Semitica 55 (2013): 98; J. M. Hadley, “Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: Religious
Centre or Desert Way Station?” PEQ 125 (1993): 115–124; idem, The Cult of Asherah
in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (University of Cambridge
Oriental Publications 57; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 2000): 106–120; C-H. C. Ji, “Is
Kuntillet Ajrud a Cultic Center? A Psychological and Archaeological Reassessment,” Near
Eastern Archaeology Society Bulletin 39–40 (1995): 14–16; Othmar Keel and Christoph
Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of Gods in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1998): 247; M. Dijkstra, “I Have Blessed You by YHWH of Samaria and His Asherah:
Texts with Religious Elements from the Soil Archive of Ancient Israel,” in Only One God?
Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah (B. Becking et
al., eds.; London and New York: Sheffield Academic, 2001): 17–21; L. Singer-Avitz, “The
Date of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: A Rejoinder,” Tel Aviv 36 (2009): 115–117; J. M. Hutton, “Local
Manifestations of Yahweh and Worship in the Interstices: A Note on Kuntillet ‛Ajrud,”
JANER 10 (2010): 187–189; E. Blum, “Der historische Mose und die Frühgeschichte
Israels,” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 (2012): 55.
12
E. Blum, “Die Wandinschriften 4.2 und 4.6 sowie die Pithos-Inschrift 3.9 aus Kuntillet
‛Ağrūd,” ZDPV 129 (2013): 48–50.
NA’AMAN: A NEW OUTLOOK AT KUNTILLET ‘AJRUD 43
13
Blum, ibid., 49.
14
Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud” (n 1): 314–315.
15
Z. Meshel, “The Nature of the Site and Its Biblical Background,” in Kuntillet ‛Ajrud
(Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious site on the Judah-Sinai Border (Ze’ev Meshel,
ed.; Jerusalem: IES, 2012): 67–68.
16
Cooking pots represent only seven percent of the ceramic assemblage. See E. Ayalon,
“The Iron Age II Pottery Assemblage from Ḥorvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud),” Tel Aviv 22
(1995): 155–156, 186–188 (repr. in Meshel, Kuntillet ‛Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman) [n 15]: 216,
239–240).
17
Keel and Uehlinger ([n 11]: 245) suggested that “[t]he wall paintings show especially,
with all the clarity one could desire, that the caravanserai was a royal/state outpost on a
trade route that was under government control.” Oddly, they overlooked the incongruity
between the definion of the place as caravanserai and its role as a royal/state outpost.
18
For ancient caravanserais in the Levant, see K. A. C. Creswell, “Two Khans at Khan
Tuman,” Syria 4 (1923): 133–139; M. F. Abu Khalaf, “Khan Yunus and the Khans of
Palestine,” Levant 15 (1983): 178–186; M. Lee, C. Raso and R. Hillenbrand, “Mamluk
Caravanserais in Galilee,” Levant 24 (1992): 55–94; Ji (n 11): 14–16; M. Hawari, “Khan
44 MAARAV 20.1 (2013)
supervising the nearby regions. Thus, for example, the stations that the
Assyrians constructed in the eastern Syria desert were called bīt mardīti,
“road station,” and served to supervise the movement of the Arabs in the
desert front of the empire.24 Clearly, the use of the term caravanserai for
Kuntillet ‛Ajrud is anachronistic, involving the borrowing of an institu-
tion from a later time-period and applying it to a society that did not
know such an institution. In sum, the caravanserai hypothesis does not
accord with the unique features of the site or the reality of the Iron Age
and thus should be abandoned.
24
For bīt mardīti (pl. bīt mardiāti), “road station,” see CAD M/1:278b; Mikko Luukko,
The Correspondence of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud (SAA 19;
Helsinki: Helsinki Univ., 2012): No. 194. For letter ABL 414, see Simo Parpola, The
Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West (SAA 1; Helsinki:
Helsinki Univ., 1987): No. 177; F. M. Fales, “Central Syria in the Letters to Sargon II,”
in Kein Land für sich allein. Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und
Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag (U. Hübner and E. A. Knauf, eds.;
OBO 186; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002):
138–139.
25
See for example: André Lemaire, Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans
l’ancien Israël (OBO 39; Fribourg: Édition Universitaires and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1981): 25–33; Johannes Renz, Die althebräischen Inschriften. Part 1: Text
und Kommentar, in Handbuch der althebräischn Epigraphik (J. Renz and W. Röllig, eds.;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche, 1995): 47–66; Keel and Uehlinger (n 11): 225–248; Ziony
Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London
and New York: Continuum, 2001): 379–400; F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, J. J. M. Roberts, C.
L. Seow and R. E. Whitaker, Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the
Monarchy with Concordance (New Haven and London: Yale Univ., 2005): 277–298;
Shmuel Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical
Period (Jerusalem; Carta, 2008): 313–329.
26
S. Aḥituv, E. Eshel and Z. Meshel, “The Inscriptions,” in Kuntillet ʿAjrud [n 15]:
73–142.
46 MAARAV 20.1 (2013)
27
See for example: Renz (n 25): 61; Dobbs-Allsopp et al. (n 25): 289–292; Aḥituv,
Eshel and Meshel (n 26): 87–91.
28
Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud” (n 1): 302–303.
29
A. van Selms, “The Origin of the Title ‘The King’s Friend’,” JNES 16 (1957): 118–123;
H. Donner, “Der ‘Freund des Königs’,” ZAW 73 (1961): 269–277; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger,
Solomonic State Officials: A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite
Monarchy (Coniectanea Biblica 5; Lund: Gleerup, 1971): 63–69; Udo Rüterswörden, Die
Beamten der israelitischen Königszeit. Eine Studie zu śr und vergleichbaren Begriffen
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1985): 73–77; Nili S. Fox, In the Service of the King: Officialdom
in Ancient Israel and Judah (HUCM 23; Cincinnati: HUC, 2000): 121–128.
30
See for example: Renz (n 25): 62–63; Dobbs-Allsopp et al. (n 25): 293–294; Aḥituv,
Eshel and Meshel (n 26): 95–97.
31
Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud” (n 1): 303.
NA’AMAN: A NEW OUTLOOK AT KUNTILLET ‘AJRUD 47
bless you and may He keep you, and may He be with the lord
of your house(?) (bytk[?]).
With all due caution, I suggest that “the father” (if this is indeed the
correct rendering) refers to Joash, father of Jeroboam, the contemporary
King of Israel. In light of this interpretation, the subject of the blessing
and the person who carried the title “the favorer of the father and his
quiver” is probably Jeroboam II, who participated in his father’s wars
against the Arameans. The writer wishes that YHWH grant him what-
ever he asked of his subjects.
The anonymous writer first blesses an individual, who is likely his
superior, in the name of YHWH and Asherat; then he addresses the King,
wishing him that YHWH will grant all his wishes.
Fragments of five inscriptions written on plastered walls and jambs
were discovered near the two entrances leading from the bench room
and the western storeroom to the central court.34 The inscriptions are
written in the Phoenician script—some/most of them in the Phoenician
language.35 Notably, the corpus of texts discovered at Samaria and oth-
er North Israelite centers is extremely limited, and we know very little
32
Aḥituv, Eshel and Meshel (n 26): 98–100; Blum, “Die Wandinschriften 4.2 und 4.6”
(n 12): 44–47.
33
Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud” (n 1): 306–307.
34
Aḥituv, Eshel and Meshel (n 26): 105–122.
35
Lemaire, “Remarques sur les inscriptions phéniciennes” (n 11): 94–98; Blum, “Die
Wandinschriften 4.2 und 4.6” (n 12): 29–30, 48–50.
48 MAARAV 20.1 (2013)
2. YHWH of the Te[man] did good [. . . .], set the vine [and
the fig tre]e(??) (hyṣb· [h]gpn [wht¥n]h[??]). YH[WH] of the
Te[man] has [. . . .]
36
Lemaire, “Remarques sur les inscriptions phéniciennes” (n 11): 98.
37
Aḥituv, Eshel and Meshel (n 26): 105–107; see Blum, “Die Wandinschriften 4.2 und
4.6” (n 12): 49.
38
Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud” (n 1): 308–309.
NA’AMAN: A NEW OUTLOOK AT KUNTILLET ‘AJRUD 49
Judah, with a few from the Kingdom of Israel and the Phoenician coast.39
No vessels of Negevite Ware, of the sort commonly attributed to nomads
of the desert regions, were found—suggesting that the site’s occupants
hail from distant regions, and not from among the local nomadic pas-
toralists.40 In this respect, the site differs from all other Iron Age settle-
ments in the Negev Highlands, northern Sinai (including the fortress of
Kadesh-Barnea) and the Arabah, many of which did contain Negevite
pottery.41 Thus, evidently, Kuntillet ‛Ajrud does not illuminate the reli-
gious beliefs and material culture of the local population of the Negev
and Arabah at this time. Moreover, no indication exists that YHWH was
worshiped in Edom in the first millennium b.c.e. The earliest king of
Edom known to date is Qauš-malaka, mentioned in a list of Assyrian
tributaries in Tiglath-pileser III’s 732 b.c.e. inscription.42 The name in-
dicates that already in the eighth century, Qaus was the national God of
Edom. Moreover, not a single Edomite name with the theophoric element
yhw was ever discovered. In light of the absence of pastoral nomads at
the site and the absence of Yahwistic names among the local population,
all efforts to extrapolate from the mid-eighth century North Israelite in-
scriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud to the biblical tradition of YHWH’s origin
in the south in the early Iron Age are methodologically and materially
unlikely.43 The only legitimate conclusion is that the eighth century in-
habitants of Israel considered “YHWH of Teman” to be the god of the
Negev and Arabah regions. Hence, while staying in the southern desert
regions, they sought blessings from YHWH-of-the-south, rather than
from the more remote god of Samaria.
39
J. Gunneweg, I. Perlman and Z. Meshel, “The Origin of the Pottery of Kuntillet
‘Ajrud,” IEJ 35 (1985): 270–283 (repr. in Meshel, Kuntillet ‛Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman) [n
15]: 279–287); Ayalon (n 16): 141–205 (repr. in Meshel, Kuntillet ‛Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman)
[n 15]: 205–273); Y. Goren, “Petrographic Analyses of Ḥorvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud)
Pottery,” Tel Aviv 22 (1995): 206–207 (repr. in Meshel, Kuntillet ‛Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman)
[n 15]: 275–276).
40
Meshel, “The Nature of the Site and Its Biblical Background” (n 15): 67b.
41
For the Negevite pottery, see recently J. M. Tebes, “Iron Age ‘Negevite’ Pottery:
A Reassessment,” Antiguo Oriente 4 (2006): 95–117, with earlier literature; H. Bernick-
Greenberg, “The Negebite Ware Typology,” in Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-
Qudeirat) 1976–1982 (R. Cohen and H. Bernick-Greenberg, eds.; IAA Reports 34:1–2;
Jerusalem: IAA, 2007): 187–210; A. Dagan, “Negebite Pottery beyond the Negev,” Tel
Aviv 38 (2011): 208–219.
42
Tadmor and Yamada (n 10): 123 line 11.
43
Contra Blum, “Der historische Mose und die Frühgeschichte Israels” (n 11): 58–60.
50 MAARAV 20.1 (2013)
44
P. Beck, “The Art of Palestine during the Iron Age II: Local Traditions and External
Influences (10th–8th Centuries BCE),” in Images as Media: Sources for the Culture History
of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE) (C. Uehlinger,
ed.; OBO 175; Fribourg: Édition Universitaires and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2000): 80–181.
NA’AMAN: A NEW OUTLOOK AT KUNTILLET ‘AJRUD 51