Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?

New Evidence from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd

Author(s): William G. Dever
Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 255 (Summer, 1984), pp. 21-
37
Published by: American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357073
Accessed: 04-12-2015 07:37 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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.

American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?
New Evidence from Kuntillet Ajrfid*
WILLIAM G. DEVER
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

INTRODUCTION weh, at least in some circles in ancient Israel.

In 1975-76 Ze'ev Meshel excavated a 9th-8th
It is well known that the Hebrew Bible contains century B.C. Israelite-Judean caravanserai and at-
some 40 veiled references to the cult of the old tached shrine at Kuntillet 'Ajrud (Horvat Teiman)
Canaanite fertility deity Asherah, consort of in eastern Sinai. Early reports of this sensational
El at Ugarit. But her appearance has always consti- discovery noted that the sanctuary had yielded
tuted something of a problem. This is witnessed by: several dipinto dedicatory inscriptions and in-
(1) the confusion already in the MT among "Ashe- scribed votive offerings. But only cautious refer-
rah," "asherim," "asheroth," and the bastardized ences were made to two large pithoi, on which were
form "Ashtoreth"/"Ashtaroth"; and (2) the ambi- painted both Hebrew blessing formulae and cul-
guity in the use of these terms, which may refer tic (?) scenes. The material was seen promptly by
apparently indiscriminately either to a putative many scholars, including this writer, and in 1978
deity or to an enigmatic cult-image, rendering was featured in an Israel Museum special exhibi-
many texts seemingly unintelligible.' tion (Meshel 1978a, b). More recently, Pirhiya
Nearly all later commentators, Jewish and Chris- Beck (1982) published the long-awaited official
tian, have interpreted the texts in a "minimalist" edition of the drawings on both the pithoi and the
fashion, preferring to see in these awkward refer- wall-plaster fragments.4
ences simply the persistence of Canaanite religious Although the editio princeps of the texts has not
practices. However, the possibility that the goddess appeared, Naveh (1979) recently offered a transla-
Asherah may have been personified and actually tion of two of the
pithoi inscriptions, of which
worshipped in ancient Israel as the consort of fortunately nearly every letter is legible (Pithos A
Yahweh has generally been downplayed. The most is partly shown in
fig. 1, here).
extreme view is that recently stated by E. Lipinski
(1972: 116): "It seems that no biblical passage
mentions the goddess Atirat or her emblem."2 But
even A. Lemaire (1977: 607), who has recon- Pithos A: 'mr X 'mr l-Y wlywCsh w[l-Z] brkt
structed an actual reference to "Yahweh and his 'tkm
asherah" in the el-Qom funerary Inscription No. lyhwh smrn wl'srth
III, nevertheless concludes that "the word Asherah
in the biblical texts seems most likely to designate a "X says: Say to Y and Yau'asah and [to
sacred tree placed in the traditional sanctuary of Z]: I bless you
ancient Israel, situated beside the altar and the by Yahweh, our guardian, and by his
stele (massebah)."3 Asherah."
It is the contention of this article that recent
archaeological discoveries provide both texts and Pithos B: ']mr' mryw 'mr I'dny [X] brktk
pictorial representations that for the first time lywh [smrn] wl'srth (line division un-
clearly identify "Asherah" as the consort of Yah- certain)

21

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22 W. G. DEVER BASOR 255

"Amaryau says: Say to my lord [X]: I Although both commentators differ on details of
bless you this exceedingly difficult inscription (and Lemaire
by Yahweh [our guardian] and by his wrote before the cAjrud texts became available),
Asherah."5 they agree on reading "his asherah" in a blessing
formula that also mentions "Yahweh"-as this
Naveh adduces convincing parallel evidence writer was originally tempted to read at el-Qom.
from many dialects of Aramaic, as well as from Both also cite the well-known Aramaic letter from
Phoenician, Thamudic, and Safaitic inscriptions, Saqqarah: "I bless you by Ba'al-Saphon and by all
to reconstruct a continuity of such "dedicatory the gods of Tahpanhes." Thus the 'Ajruid pithoi
formulae" over more than a millennium and a half. may now be regarded-I believe by growing
In particular, Naveh builds on Lemaire's recent consensus-as additional examples of a hitherto
rereading of line 3 of this writer's el-Qom tomb little-known Hebrew dedicatory or blessing for-
Inscription III and thus classes this as yet another mula that couples Yahweh as an agent with some-
example of a typical Hebrew blessing. The respec- thing designated as his "asherah." Few scholars
tive readings of lines 2-3 of el-Qom are as follows:6 have yet ventured further, however, possibly be-
cause of what some Hebraists regard as a linguistic
Lemaire: brk 'ryhw lyhwh difficulty that would be posed by positing the 3rd
wmsryh 'srth hws'lh (for wl'srth m. sg. possessive suffix in use with a personal
msryh ...) name.7 But I shall attempt to show that "Yahweh's
asherah" at cAjrud (and possibly at el-Qom) may
"Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh refer to the goddess herself-that is, to Asherah as
and his Asherah; from his enemies he a hypostatization of the Great Goddess, not simply
has saved him." to the use of the word "asherah" to refer to an
attribute or cult-image. The clue lies in the scene
Naveh: brk 'ryhw lyhwh immediately to the right on Pithos A (fig. 1), de-
nsry wl'srth picting a seated female figure, whom neither Beck
nor anyone else has tried to identify. Who is she?
"May Uriyahu be blessed by Yahweh 1. The garments. The 'Ajrfudfigure is that of a
my guardian and by his Asherah." female, nude from the waist up but wearing a sort

(/44

p.~ ~ C
w
awo

Fig. 1. Partialview of inscription and scene on Pithos A from Kuntillet'AjrOd;apud Meshel (1978b:fig. 12).

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1984 ASHERAH, CONSORT OF YAHWEH? 23

Fig. 2. Bronze figure of a Late Bronze Age seated Fig. 3a, b. Late Bronze II gold pendants depicting
female deity from Ugarit; apud Negbi (1976: fig. two enthroned female deities from Ugarit; apud
103). Schaeffer (1939: fig. 149:1, 4).

of shawl around her neck and an ankle-length
skirt, both of which the artist has represented in his
rathercrude drawing by polka dots (fig. 1). General
parallels for the garments may be cited from a class
of well-known representations of MB or LB
Canaanite goddesses on sheet metal pendants.
Although their breasts are exposed, below the
waist they wear a sari-like garment, sometimes
with a knotted fringe, and above that a similarly
decorated "collar"(or shawl) around the neck. The
clearest and best dated examples of these pendants
are two MB IIC gold foil figurines from Gezer.8
But even closer parallels to the attire of the lady at
'Ajrfud come from several LB female figures at
Ugarit, these shown seated. The first, a seated
figure-in-the-round from a deposit in Room 2 of
the "Sanctuaire"(fig. 2), is bare-breasted but wears
a long, thick tufted woolen skirt and similar shawl,
which may be what the 'Ajrud artist has tried to
depict with his polka dots. The other two close
parallels are two seated repousse female figures on
small electrum plaque pendants (fig. 3a, b) from
below a building north of the "Residence," found
together in a Mycenaean vase from niveau I.9 Both
wear ankle-length garments, that in fig. 3a folded
or pleated, but the one in fig. 3b depicted with
polka dots, exactly as on the CAjrudseated figure.
Negbi (1976: 101) questions whether these figures,
which she attributes to her "Pictorial Enthroned"
group, represent deities or worshippers. But the
parallels, plus the clear use of these objects as
pendants or amulets, certainly suggest that the
semi-nude enthroned figures represent the Great
Goddess (see below, on the throne).
2. The coiffure. The 'Ajrud figure wears either
a long wig or a coiffure of tightly-twisted curls and
ringlets, again represented by polka dots (fig. 1).
This distinctive coiffure obviously recalls the
common 8th-7th century B.C.pillar-base "Astarte"
figurines, as well as the Phoenician style hairdo
of many of the sphinxes and the "Lady-at-the-
Window" (a sacred prostitute) depicted on the 8th
century B.C. ivories of Samaria, Arslan-Tash, and
Nimrud.'o Again, the closest stylistic associations

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24 W. G. DEVER
Fig. 4. Late Bronze/Iron I ivory from Megiddo, with processional scene; apud Loud (1939: pl. 4:2b).
are clearly cultic, this time drawn not from more
distant MB-LB examples of female Canaanite
deities, but from contemporary local representa-
tions on the figurines and ivories.
3. The lyre. In our 'Ajrud lady's outstretched
hands is what appears to be a stringed lyre with
sounding-box (fig. 1). There are now a number of
Bronze and Iron Age representations of such lyres,
most of them played by musicians in a procession
arrayed before a king or deity, as on an LB ivory
from Megiddo (fig. 4)." Two examples are espe-
cially instructive. The first is an LB bronze stand
from Episkopi, showing on one panel a figure with
a very similar coiffure (although interpreted as a
male), seated on a short-backed throne like that at
'Ajrfudand playing a lyre.'2
The second example is an 8th century pyksis
from the Southeast Palace at Nimrud, showing a
procession of musicians, including a lyre-player
(Barnett 1935: pi. 26:1). They are arrayed behind a
female deity who wears a coiffure and a long
quilted dress similar to the 'Ajrid lady and is also
seated on a short-backed cherub throne (below).
The Phoenician style, and especially the presence
of Phoenician (or Hebrew) letters engraved on the
back, make it clear that this piece is part of
Assyrian booty taken from sites in Syria-Palestine.
The association of music with the cult of Canaan
is too well known to need comment here. That
does not, however, definitely identify our 'Ajrud
musician with the cult. But the absence of the usual
scene featuring a military or festal procession with
musicians (below) does suggest that the lone figure
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BASOR 255
^tUT? /-^\
~~~~~~ ^?
Q
*1
M
O-
_,?
with the lyre may be either a priestess or a deity.
4. The throne. At first glance the 'Ajrfd figure
seems simply to be sitting on a sort of low "side-
chair" with arms (fig. 1). However, closer inspec-
tion will reveal that even on this relatively crude
dipinto the artist has faithfully portrayed the stereo-
typed features of the sphinx or "cherub-throne"
known from several examples of Late Bronze-Iron
Age Canaan. These features are: (1) the lion's-paw
feet; (2) the panelled sides, representing in all
probability the stylized feathered wings of the
cherub (especially clear in the cloisonnee cherubs
of the 13th-8th century B.C.ivories; cf. fig. 4 here);
and (3) the distinctive short back with a tendency
toward a back-turned flair at the very top, recalling
perhaps the tips of the cherub's wings.'3 Examina-
tion of the 'Ajrud painted sherds themselves
suggests that the published drawing showing an
enigmatic protuberance at the lady's right knee
(fig. 1) may be a crudely drawn lion's head, of
which the neck, nose, and eye are possibly clear.
Only the familiar footstool is missing from our
throne, but even this may be extrapolated from the
fact that the lady's feet do not seem quite to reach
the ground. At Ugarit, a Late Bronze scene depicts
a worshipper presenting offerings to an El-figure
who is seated on a low-back, panelled cherub-
throne very similar to that at cAjrud(fig. 5). A rare
example from Palestine (although the scene is
Egyptian) is the well-known Megiddo ivory panel
that depicts a procession of musicians, including a
lyre-player, approaching a king seated on a cherub-
throne, illustrating all the above characteristics
1984 ASHERAH, CONSORT OF YAHWEH? 25

Fig. 6. Scene from the relief on the sarcophagus of

King Ahiram, 10th century B.C.;apud Mettinger
1982: fig. 1; cf. ANEP:figs. 456-59.

Fig. 5. LB II El-stela from Ugarit; apud Mettinger

1982: fig. 6 (originally published in Syria [1937], feathered wings now apparently represented by
pi. 17). cross-hatching or panelling on the sidearms of the
chair-like throne. The result was the short-backed
(fig. 4).14 The more contemporary throne shown throne of the Ugarit pendants (fig. 3), and, later in
on the 10th century sarcophagus of Ahiram is also the Iron Age, on our 'Ajrfudpithos (fig. 1).17 In any
similar (fig. 6).'5 case, the distant association of the cherub-throne
The background is the conception of a transcen- with the subservient lion as the symbol of the deity
dent deity, surmounting and thus subduing the is clear. This association persists, of course, in
lion, a symbol of ferocity. Depictions of gods early Israelite conceptions of Yahweh enthroned
standing on the backs of lions are very common in on the cherubim (Mettinger 1982).
Old Babylonian, Hittite, and Syro-Phoenician 5. Other cultic scenes. In addition to the seated
art.'6 In an obvious borrowing of this imagery, female deity already discussed, there are other
kings as earthly representatives of gods portray clear cultic scenes (figs. 1, 5) on the two pithoi
themselves sitting on thrones that are borne by two mentioning "Yahweh and his Asherah." Also on
lions, by now stylized into "cherubs"-composite Pithos A are two crude representations of the
genii with the body and feet of a lion, but having Egyptian ithyphallic dwarf god Bes (fig. I), who by
the head of a human and the wings of a bird. New Kingdom times had become both a guardian
Several Iron Age examples of the cherub-throne of other gods, including Horus, and a patron of
still show the lion imagery quite transparently, music and dancing. He was thus associated with
such as the 13th-12th century throne on the the erotic aspects of the Canaanite fertility cults,
Megiddo ivory and the 10th century throne of and in the Iron Age his popularity as an apotropaic
Ahiram on his sarcophagus (figs. 4, 6). Others, figure had spread throughout Syria-Palestine,
however (fig. 5), show that already before the end Cyprus, and especially the Phoenician world.18In
of the LB period the cherub-throne could be highly Iron II tombs in Palestine miniature Bes amulets in
stylized, the head having disappeared and only faience are quite common, often in association
the lion paws (or griffin claws) remaining, the with the "Astarte" figurines; and Bes vases in the

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26 W. G. DEVER BASOR 255

-"owm

,I/ ,

III

Fig. 7. "Sacred tree" or "Treeof life,"striding lion, and other scenes from Pithos A; apud Beck 1982: fig. 4.

Persian period signify his continuing popularity.'9
The appearance of Bes in cultic context at
CAjrfd may be due simply to his common apo-
tropaic function. However, the proximity of the
two Bes figures to the enthroned lady (fig. 1)
recalls an 8th century bronze bowl from the North-
west Palace at Nimrud, which portrays a goddess
seated on a panelled throne, the throne covered by
a canopy supported by two Bes figures (Barnett
1935: figs. 6, 7). There can be little doubt in any
case that in the Iron Age the god Bes played a role
in folk religion, making his appearance at 'Ajrud
significant.
Pithoi A and B also have several scenes featuring
animals (figs. 7, 8). The scenes are fragmentary
and somewhat discontinuous, but the main ele-
ments are clear and constitute precisely the most
familiar, stylized themes of 9th-8th century B.C.
North Syrian and Phoenician art, particularly on
the ivories: (a) the "sacred tree" flanked by two
ibexes; (b) the cow licking her suckling calf; and
(c) a striding lion. There is also a processional

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1984 ASHERAH, CONSORT OF YAHWEH? 27

tinian artisans, to judge from numerous 9th-8th

century ivories featuring this scene at Samaria,
Arslan-Tash, and Nimrud.22 It may be that the
principal female fertility goddesses in greater
Canaan were often associated with cow imagery,
since the chief epithet of their male counterpart
was "Bull El." Several texts from Ugarit seem to
confirm this in the case of 'Anat. Ba'al, her
consort, mates with "a cow-calf in Dubr, a heifer in
Shihlmemat-field" and thus sires Math. Another
text more explicitly describes Ba'al's coupling with
Fig. 8. The "Cow suckling her calf" figure from (apparently) a cow, identified with 'Anat, who
Pithos A; apud Beck 1982: fig. 4.
conceives and bears. With the scene from 'Ajrud
and the ivories in mind, one text (ANET 3, 139a:
scene (fig. 9).20 V 18-19) inevitably is recalled:
(a) The cultic connotations of the "sacred tree"
theme (fig. 7) are well known in ancient Canaan, "Likethe heartof a cow for hercalf,
and its adoption in the art and iconography of Likethe heartof a ewe for her lamb,
ancient Israel has frequently been treated. It may So's the heart of 'Anat for Ba'al."23
be, as scholars have long thought, that a stylized
representation of the "sacred tree" became the And of course Hathor/Qudshu, who in Egypt
symbol of Asherah worship in Israel, as many of comes to be identified with cAnat and Astarte (and
the biblical passages condemning the "asherah" probably Asherah as well; below), is the Cow
plainly suggest.2' Goddess par excellence. The above evidence strong-
(b) The cow licking her suckling calf (fig. 8), ly suggests that the popularity of the cow-and-calf
always very stylized as in our 'Ajrud example, is theme may have been due to its cultic associations.
perhaps the single favorite theme of Syro-Pales- If so, its appearance at cAjrud with our female

Fig. 9. The "processional" scene, from Pithos B; apud Beck 1982: fig. 3.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
28 W. G. DEVER BASOR 255

figure hardly seems fortuitous.

(c) The third scene, featuring a lion (fig. 7), may
be still more significant. There is scant but growing
archaeological evidence indicating that in Late
Bronze-Iron Age Palestine one of the principal
epithets of the female fertility deity was "the Lion
Lady." This is particularly evident with the fused
Canaanite goddesses 'Anat/Astarte, who were
adopted in Egypt and identified as "Qudshu," or
"the Holy One." Qudshu is regularly depicted nude
en face, often grasping lotus or lily blossoms,
standing astride a lion. One New Kingdom plaque
shows Qudshu thus on a lion and actually gives all
three names-Qudshu, 'Anat, and Astarte (Ed-
wards 1955). Another plaque depicts Qudshu on a
lion in the upper panel, while the lower panel has a
scene reminiscent of 'Ajruid-a goddess in a long
robe, with outstretched arms, seated on a short-
backed panelled throne (ANEP, fig. 473). Cross
had earlier suggested (Cross and Milik 1954; Cross
1967: 13) that the 12th century el-Khadr arrow-
heads, several of which read 'abd labi't(u), "Ser-
vant of the Lion Lady," preserve an old epithet of
the old fertility goddess, in this case most likely
'Anat, who is clearly identified with Qudshu and
her symbolic animal. This suggestion is now con-
firmed by a recently recovered arrowhead from the
same hoard; one of the arrowheads of the archers Fig. 10. Terra cotta stand from 10th century
of the guild dedicated to the "Lion Lady" (obverse) Ta'anach; apud Galling 1977: fig. 45.
also bears the patronymic "Bin 'Anat" (reverse;
Cross 1980: 6, 7).24 It is not surprising that the lion deity, both male and female. We might conclude
should become the symbol of the fertility goddesses either that all is meaningless chaos, or that the
in Canaan, since from earliest times the lion had ancients were somewhat less rigidly "logical" than
been associated with deities in general. As we have we. But there is another alternative. It may be that
seen, the stylized lion imagery of the Late Bronze- individual deities could be regarded as hypostases
Iron Age "cherub-throne" shows how persistent of the universal deity.26 In that case Asherah,
this association was. 'Anat, and Astarte would all be personifications of
The lion imagery as sketched above, where we some aspect or aspects of the great "Mother God-
can identify the deity specifically, appears to be dess." This theory would appear to be confirmed
connected with 'Anat and Astarte, not "Asherah" by the ease with which Late Bronze Age Syro-
as the 'Ajrud inscription on the pithos with the Palestinian deities were imported into New King-
female figure would seem to require. However, dom Egypt and/or identified with local deities
Albright, Cross, Stadelmann, and many other com- (Stadelmann 1967); or by the tendency of the
mentators have long pointed out an extraordinary, Hebrew Bible to speak in the plural of the
almost bewildering fluidity in the conception of "Ba'alim" and the "Asherim/ Asheroth."27 Such a
many Northwest Semitic deities, seen in the over- view would go a long way toward explaining why
lap in their roles, their tendency to coalesce and we have so much difficulty in identifying the
split off, and even their ability to combine oppo- LB-Iron Age fertility plaques or other pictorial
sites.25El-Asherah are paralleled by Ba'al-cAnat. representations with a particular deity.28 The
'Anat is both wife and sister to Ba'al; perpetual ancients had no such difficulty, for despite dif-
virgin and mother-figure; goddess of love and of ferences there was an essential unity in roles-
war. Athtar/Athtart is possibly an androgynous which is why these deities reappear in many guises,

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1984 ASHERAH, CONSORT OF YAHWEH?
persisting into the Classical world and even later.
As R. A. Oden (1976: 36) observes of Asherah,
cAnat, and Astarte, "At Ugarit, as in the Hellenis-
tic world and beyond, each goddess retained her
distinct identity, yet could be worshipped with her
sisters as one."29
Although the evidence for the fusion of the three
Canaanite fertility goddesses is far too vast and
complex to be surveyed here, we note some of the
data, since the argument is pertinent to our attempt
to identify the female figure at 'Ajriud.(1) Already
in the Late Bronze Age, there is some confusion
among the three. At Ugarit, Asherah as the consort
of El bears the expected epithet "Elat,"but she also
is called "Ba'alat." 'Anat is the chief consort of
Ba'al, but occasionally Asherah or Astarte seems
to be connected with him.30 In the Tacanach
tablets Asherah, not cAnat, appears with Bacal (as
in the Hebrew Bible; below). At Ugarit "Ba'alat" is
Asherah, but at Serabit el-Khadem in Sinai
"Ba'alat" is identified with Hathor (and thus with
cAnat/Astarte; below). In Egypt, the New King-
dom plaque already noted (Edwards 1955) proves
beyond doubt what extensive other evidence had
already indicated, namely that CAnatand Astarte
had merged there to be equated with Hathor; and
if Albright is correct that the "Qudshu" of the
plaque is Asherah, then we have all three Canaanite
goddesses in a synchronism, equated with Hathor.31
(2) In the Iron Age and Persian period, Asherah
was eclipsed by Astarte (encompassing also the
older role of 'Anat) as the principal fertility god-
dess in Phoenicia and the Levant, including Israel.
But in the Phoenician colonies and in the Western
Mediterranean, however, Asherah prevailed as
"Tannit." An unpublished Phoenician inscription
is dedicated not only to Asherah/Tannit but also
to Tannit/Astarte, another syncretism that em-
braces all three Canaanite goddesses.32 Further
evidence of the coalescence is the way Asherah and
Astarte ("Ashtart"= 'Athirat) interchange as con-
sorts of Ba'al in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Judg 3:7;
2 Kgs 23:4 with Judg 2:13, 10:6; 1 Sam 7:4, 12:10).
Finally, whereas the Tale of Keret from Ugarit
refers to "Asherah of Tyre" and "Elat the goddess
of Sidon" in parallel, the Hebrew Bible substitutes
"Astarte, the goddess of the Sidonians" (i.e.,
"Ashtoreth" I Kgs 11:5, 33; 2 Kgs 23:13).33(3) By
the Classical period, several manuscripts of the
Septuagint confuse "Asherim" and "Ashtoreth/
Ashtaroth" (Judg 3:7; 2 Chr 24:18).34 In Lucian's
De Dea Syria the old fused deity Astarte/cAnat
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
29
reemerges as Aramaic "Atargatis," the Goddess of
Syria.35 She is still associated with lion imagery,
like Qudshu Astarte/ cAnat in Egypt; and a Roman
coin showing her seated on a lion-throne also bears
the Asherah/Tannit sign.36 In Philo of Byblos'
Phoenician History all three goddesses appear as
wives-sisters of Kronos (El): Astarte, Rhea (Ashe-
rah), and Dione ('Anat?).37
The foregoing excursus has shown: (1) that by
the Iron Age the cults and the roles of Asherah,
Astarte, and 'Anat were not mutually exclusive
and indeed could be combined; and (2) that the
familiar lion imagery, as on the 'Ajrud pithos with
its lions and lion-throne, could be associated with
any one of the principal deities as the "Lion Lady,"
one of the epithets of the great Mother Goddess.38
(d) The last scene is one painted on Pithos B, a
processional of five figures advancing with up-
raised arms (fig. 9). They wear long garments of
some unspecified type. The focus of this scene,
however, is unclear, since the scene does not
continue to the left. General ritual scenes of this
type are among the most common in ancient Near
Eastern art (cf. fig. 4) and always portray presenta-
tions to kings or deities; they can hardly be con-
strued at 'Ajrud or elsewhere as "secular"art, even
if the king or deity portrayed cannot be specified.39
6. The general cultic context. Apart from the
specific features of the pithoi scenes discussed
above, there is the general cultic context of the
CAjriud finds to consider, especially the small rooms
near or in which the pithoi were found (largely
ignored by Beck). Even the preliminary reports
have stressed that this unique, multichambered
complex incorporated into the east entranceway of
the casemate/courtyard fort was clearly a sanc-
tuary. This is evident not only from the general
plan, but from the furnishings and contents, which
included: low plastered benches for offerings;
favissae in the main rooms; many fragments of
frescoes and dipinto inscriptions of a religious
nature; and several inscribed stone votive bowls.
Possibly also relevant are more than 100 textile
fragments, most of them linen and recalling biblical
descriptions of priestly vestments.40
The inscriptions alone would be decisive. Among
those thus far published, in addition to the pithos
texts, one may cite a stone bowl reading "Belonging
to cOvadyau, son of 'Adnah. May he be blessed by
Yahweh." There is also a fragmentary plaster
inscription reading "May Yahweh... favor...."
Finally, another plaster fragment reads "Blessed by
30 W. G. DEVER
Ba'al in the day ... "and "... the name of El in
the day," with Ba'al and El in parallelism. Several
fragments of a stone lintel inscription also mention
Ba'al.41 These inscriptions clearly testify both to
the existence of a sanctuary at cAjrud and to its
syncretistic character. To find Asherah here-
along with El, Bacal, and Yahweh-is hardly
surprising.
Meshel himself argued that while this complex
could not be considered a full-fledged temple, "the
site represents in our opinion a religious center
which had some connection with the journeys of
the Judaean Kings to Elath, Ezion-Geber and
perhaps even to southern Sinai" (1978b). Yet, after
examining the various possibilities for interpreting
"Yahweh's asherah," Meshel concluded that at
'Ajrud the term denotes simply a "cella or holy of
holies (or shrine)" (1979: 31). Although Beck does
acknowledge that the 'Ajrud inscriptions are of a
religious nature and do invoke various deities, she
avoids the problem of identifying the seated female
figure or of interpreting the term "asherah"above
it by arguing that "since the inscription was added
after both figures (i.e., the female and the Bes
scene; WGD) were already drawn, it is doubtful
whether there is any meaningful relationship be-
tween it and the figures."42Of course, even if the
inscription were later, it could be a comment on
the figures. In any case, for the drawings alone,
especially the seated female figure, Beck has not
seriously considered the possibility of a cultic
explanation, and thus is left only with the notion
that these scenes are nothing more than the
"doodles" of passersby-despite the fact that other-
wise she has correctly identified a certain artistic
style. The "graffiti" in precisely the same context
are obviously meant to be intelligible; cannot as
much be presumed of the drawings? If "the Lady of
'Ajrud" is not the Great Goddess, who is she? And
who are the almost identically enthroned females
on the Ugaritic plaques in fig. 3a, b; is it reasonable
to assure that these pendant-amulets simply por-
tray a semi-nude human female? These are ques-
tions that cannot be sidestepped simply because
ancient artistic representations, even when accom-
panied by texts, may often seem enigmatic. To be
sure, the juxtaposition of the several drawings and
the texts mentioning Yahweh and Asherah (Bacal
and El, as well) at cAjrud may be only fortuitous,
in which case my attempt to identify the goddess
Asherah or any other deity is based on circumstan-
tial evidence. All I am suggesting is that methodo-
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BASOR 255
logically one must consider the possibility; and if it
is rejected, one must attempt a more plausible
explanation.
ASHERAH AS THE CONSORTOF EL
The conclusion of our survey of the evidence is
by now obvious. I believe that the "Lady of
'Ajrud" is not simply a representation of the Great
Goddess, but can be identified specifically with
Asherah. Her appearance, both seated on a throne
and mentioned in a text coupling her with Yahweh
and named as an agent of blessing, strongly sug-
gests that she was revered as the consort of Yahweh
in some circles in ancient Israel. Despite Meshel
and Beck, the evidence seems conclusive at CAjrud,
but what about elsewhere?
If we accept the interpretation of Lemaire and
Naveh concerning el-Qom Inscription No. III, the
word "asherah" appears in 8th century Judah in
precisely the same grammatical and conceptual
association, that is, in a reference to "Yahweh and
his Asherah" (above). However, Lemaire wrote
before the 'Ajriudmaterial had become available,
and in any case his view of the "asherah"as simply
a symbol of the goddess would seem to rule out the
interpretation advanced here. Naveh also read "his
asherah" at el-Qom, but he offered no comment on
how the word was to be understood.43
Several scholars accept these readings of both
'Ajrud and el-Q6m but nevertheless hesitate to
identify the goddess herself, presumably on the
grounds that the 3rd masc. sg. poss. suffix (rep-
resented unquestionably in this orthography by the
he) is apparently not attested with personal names
in the Hebrew Bible. Thus they must interpret
Yahweh's "asherah" as some sort of "Asherah-
symbol" or "Asherah-shrine," following, for in-
stance, Lemaire or Lipinski.44 I leave the gram-
matical problem to specialists (see Zevit, this issue,
for one solution, reading the goddess's name as
"Asherata"). Yet it may be observed that the
difficulties are not diminished, much less elimi-
nated, by the alternate interpretations. (1) Is it
logical to suppose that an inanimate object, or
even a sanctuary, could be mentioned on equal
footing with the principal deity as an agent of
blessing, as the context demands both at cAjrfud
and at el-Q6m? (2) Even if so, what was this
"asherah," and where would it have been located,
either at 'Ajrfudor at el-Qom? (3) If the object in
question is thought to be a symbol or shrine
1984 ASHERAH, CONSORT OF YAHWEH? 31

connected with Yahweh, why designate it with the Jerusalem (2 Kgs 21:7; 23:7). But again the absence
awkward term "asherah," given its admittedly of extrabiblical texts or archaeological evidence
pagan connotations-unless these connotations referring unequivocably to the goddess Asherah
posed no problem? Given the new evidence, it has rendered these texts without context.
seems that even with the "minimalist" interpreta- The "silence" regarding Asherah as the consort
tion we cannot avoid the conclusion that in Israel of Yahweh, successor to Canaanite El, may now be
Yahweh could be closely identified with the cult of understood as the result of the near-total suppres-
Asherah, and in some circles the goddess was sion of the cult by the 8th-6th century reformers.
actually personified as his consort. At 'Ajrud this As a result, references to "Asherah," while not
obvious syncretism may be explained partly by the actually expunged from the consonantal text of the
Phoenician and north Israelite influence,45 and MT, were misunderstood by later editors or re-
partly by the fact that the site was far from the interpreted to suggest merely the shadowy image of
centers of orthodoxy and the watchful eyes of the the goddess. In this "innocent deception," they
Jerusalem establishment. were followed by the translators of the Septuagint,
the Vulgate, the Targumim, and the King James
CONCLUSION and most other modern versions, including the
Revised Standard. Indeed, by the time of the
The prophetic denunciations and Deuteronomis- Mishna the original significance of the name
tic reforms directed at syncretistic cults-including "Asherah" had probably been forgotten, not to be
those devoted to Bacal and Asherah-are well recovered until the goddess emerged again in the
known. But until recently the thrust of their attack texts recovered from Ugarit.46Yet the very fact of
has been blunted by the tendency of later interpre- the necessity for reform in ancient Israel reminds
ters to gloss over the persistence of Canaanite us that the worship of Asherah, the "Mother
religion to enhance the notion of "normative Yah- Goddess," sometimes personified as the consort
wism," as well as by the lack of direct, historical of Yahweh, was popular until the end of the
confirmation of the existence of such fertility cults Monarchy.47 The archaeological record has pre-
in ancient Israel. Yet a number of the supposedly served for us an alternate version of events as
enigmatic references to "asherah"in the MT clearly portrayed in the received text-parallel, but not
implied all along the recognition of the goddess necessarily contradictory.48 Indeed, 'Ajrfd and el-
herself. Particularly pertinent are texts mentioning Q6m enhance our appreciation of the prophetic
"Ba'al and Asherah," where the reference can only message, for they provide for the first time a milieu
be to the goddess herself (Judg 3:7; 1 Kgs 18:19; in which we may understand just how crucial a
2 Kgs 23:4); and references to images of or fur- threat the worship of the Canaanite fertility god-
nishings for Asherah in use even in the Temple in desses actually was.49

N(OTES

*l wish to thank Jonas Greenfield,MiriamTadmor,
and mycolleaguePeterB. Machinistfor helpfulcritiques
of earlierdrafts. My first interestin this topic goes back
to studentdayswith FrankCross.Noneof thesescholars,
of course, would necessarilyagree with my views here.
See also n. 4 below for my indebtednessto Ze'ev
Meshel.
'On the use of 'aserahin the HebrewBiblesee Reed
1949, 1962;Patai 1965;Bernhardt1967;Lipinski1972;
Lemaire1977;Angerstorter1982.On the goddessAshe-
rah in the ancient Near East, see particularlyPritchard
1943: 59-65; Pope 1965: 248-51; Cross 1973: 31-36;
Oden 1977:88-99.
2Lipinskiarguesthat Asherahin the ancientNearEast
was not a fertility goddess but was originallya sun
goddess,the consortof a lunardeity;he contendsfurther
that the wordin the OT, in Aramaic,and in Phoenician
almostalwaysmeans"shrine."See furtherbelow.
3See furtherbelow on Lemaire'sreadingof el-Qom,
and n. 43 for Lemaire'santicipation of the 'Ajrfid
material.
4For preliminaryreportssee Meshel 1976, 1978a,b,
1979. An early preliminaryreport (Meshel 1976: 118)
showeda photographof the seatedfemalefigureand the
inscriptionabove, too blurredto be readable.For full
publication of the drawings, see Beck 1982. Beck's
discussion is deficient in that it treats the drawingsin
isolationfrom both theircultic context and the accom-
panying inscriptions on the pithoi. This purely art-
historical approach confines itself to descriptionand
thus deprives the material of the full meaning it
may have when integratedinto the largerCanaanite-

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32 W. G. DEVER
Phoenician cultural and religious sphere. The present
paper was written independently of the views of Meshel
and Beck in 1982 but was made available to them in
manuscript pending the publication of the drawings.
However, since it is now apparent that Beck has not
accepted both the many parallels I had cited and the
explanation I had advanced, it seems worthwhile to
publish my paper, substantially as it was written, as an
alternative to Beck's interpretation. It should be pointed
out that I have held the present view since 1978, when I
saw the 'Ajrfd material with Meshel, and that the title of
Meshel's 1979 article, "Did Yahweh Have A Consort?,"
was suggested to the Editor of the Biblical Archaeology
Review by a lecture I gave in Washington presenting the
evidence. For several of the observations made here I am
indebted to Dr. Meshel, who generously showed me the
material and confirmed several points of fact in oral
communications; naturally he is not to be held account-
able for my interpretations.
5See Naveh 1979: 28. On Naveh's reading of smrn,
clear on the first pithos, as "guardian," where I prefer
"(Yahweh) Shomron," see p. 29, n. 8; and cf. n. 44
below. On Pithos B, in the lacuna where Naveh supplies
smrn, Meshel has now restored tymn (and also in one
other place), i.e., "Yahweh Teman," comparable to
"Yahweh Shomron," but a final decision must await
publication of the photographs. Naveh's reading "our
guardian" is evidently influenced by the apparent paral-
lelism with el-Qom line 3, where he reads (p. 29) nsry
wl'srth, "my guardian and by his Asherah." The latter,
however, is far from certain; indeed, Lemaire (1977: 599)
reads instead of Insry, "from his enemies"; see also n. 6
below. On "Yahweh Shomron," "Yahweh of Samaria,"
see further Emerton (1982), comparing the expression
with "Yahwey Sabaoth," i.e., "Yahweh (the God of)
Sabaoth." On Pithos B, after the introductory formula,
in the lacuna where Naveh reads "X," Chase has restored
hslm. 't, the well known greeting formula "Is it well with
you?" The marks indicating uncertainty about the read-
ing of the first word in the Pithos B inscription derive
from a recent personal communication from Naveh and
Jonas Greenfield, to whom I am grateful.
6On the el-Qom Inscription No. III, see Dever
1969/1970: 158-89, fig. 10, pls. 6, 7; Lemaire 1977: 599;
Naveh 1979: 28, 29; cf. also n. 5 above. Mittmann,
however, has now proposed a new reading of line 3:
wmmsr ydh IP srth hwsclh, "And out of affliction his
servantpraisesGod, who saves him"(1981: 139). Although
the consonantal rendering may be acceptable, the neces-
sary vocalization seems to make for very awkward
syntax. The reading "Yahweh and his Asherah" is also
rejected by Keel (1980: 172); but see Rose (1978: 29).
Ziony Zevit and I have rephotographed the el-Qom
stone, and Zevit shows beyond doubt (this issue) that the
phrase "his asherah" is repeated below the inscription,
on the broken last line (as I suggested tentatively in the
original publication; cf. Dever 1969/1970: 168, pl. 6B).
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BASOR 255
7See, however, Weinfeld (1980), who allows for the
possibility that the goddess Asherah is mentioned at
'Ajrfid and cites (p. 281) Wellhausen's ingenious but
largely forgotten emendation of Hosea 14:9 to read "I
am his CAnat and his Asherah," rather than "I have
spoken and I affirm it." (I thank my colleague Ziony
Zevit for calling this article to my attention, and Prof.
Weinfeld for discussing it with me.) Gilula (1978-1979)
reads "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah," as I do,
but sees the deity's consort in one of the two Bes figurs to
the left, rather than in the seated woman to the right. A
more recent treatment is that of Emerton, who discusses
the linguistic problem at length but concludes only that
"the new evidence does not prove that Asherah was
regarded in some circles as the consort of Yahweh,
though it perhaps strengthens the case for such a view"
(Emerton 1982: 18, n. 5). For the ingenious solution of
Zevit, this issue.
8See Seger 1976: 133-40, figs. 2:a, b; 3:a, b; add now
Negbi 1976: 95-101, 106-9, 114-16.
9Schaeffer 1939: pls. 18-20; Negbi 1976: fig. 103.
Seger (1976: 138, n. 8) takes the "collar" or necklace on
the Gezer gold figurines to be typical of the garb of
Canaanite goddesses. But several examples suggest as an
alternate a shawl; see Negbi 1976: figs. 106, 107, as well
as 108. In any case, the adornment around the neck, as
on our 'Ajrfd figure, is very common. Beck does not cite
any of these parallel figurines but takes the cAjruddots
simply to be a derivative of the "Midianite"style pottery,
with its alternating solid and dotted lines; see Beck 1982:
31-34.
'OSee,for example, A NEP, fig. 469 (typical figurines);
Crowfoot and Crowfoot 1938: Pls. 5, 13 (sphinx and
"Lady-at-the-Window"); Thureau-Dangin et al. 1931:
pls. 19-26, 31, 32 (sphinxes and human figures), pls. 24-
26 ("Lady-at-the-Window"). Beck (1982: 31-34) does
not cite any of these parallels and comments only that
the "dots" represent a hairstyle that possibly identifies
the lyre player as a female.
"On the Megiddo ivory, see Loud 1939: pl. 4. On the
date, see Liebowitz 1980: 166-69; and on the throne, see
further below. For a popular, well-illustrated survey of
ancient lyres, see Bayer 1982: 20-33; and further Beck
1982: 35, 36. Note, however, figs. 3-6 here, as well as
other Late Bronze-Iron I representations, which show
the seated figure grasping lotus blossoms in one out-
stretched hand.
'2Barnett 1935: pl. 28. See further Catling, who speci-
fies the provenance as Episkopi, suggests that the figure
may be either a human or a deity and cites another
undated stand that depicts a figure in a long skirt with
thick shoulder-length hair, seated on a low bench and
playing a lyre (Catling 1964: 204-7; pls. 34:d, 35:d).
13Onthe sphinx motif in general, see Dessenne (1957);
Bisi (1965). The general tendency toward stylization of
this cherub-throne is well known, but the notion that the
common slatted side panels derive from the feathered
1984 ASHERAH, CONSORT OF YAHWEH?
wings is admittedly my own. On the lion imagery in the
background of the cherub throne, see further below.
'40n this scene, see Liebowitz (1980: 165-69), who
prefers on LB date, even though the fragment was found
in a hoard of Stratum VIIA, dated to the early 12th
century B.C.
15Seealso A NEP, fig. 849, for a similar throne from a
banquet scene at Karatepe. On 'Anat/ Qudshu seated on
such a throne, see below and n. 23. Beck notes several
Egyptian examples of such thrones (1982: 35) but does
not venture further on what I consider a most significant
point: the lyre player is not an ordinary individual but
either a priestess, a queen, or a female deity.
'6See, for example, Pritchard 1954: figs. 522-37.
'7Beck notes a few general examples of thrones (n. 15),
but she misses the significance of the lion-throne imagery
behind the object on which the 'Ajriudfigure is seated.
180n Bes, see Wilson (1975); Beck (1982: 27-31).
Gilula has argued that the Ajrfid figure on the left is
Yahweh in the guise of Bes, but that the figure to the
right with breasts represents Asherah. However, Bes is
often portrayed as female, sometimes nursing Horus; see
Wilson (1975: 82 and references there).
'9Wilson (1975: n. 20) does not cite the frequent
Palestinian examples, but see, for instance, Tufnell
(1953: pl. 34:7, 12-14). The Persian period pottery vessels
are treated by Stern (1976: 183-87).
20See Beck (1982: 4-27, 36-45). Beck identifies a
single hand in many of the drawings of the animals and
comments quite properly that all these miscellaneous
scenes are not mere "scribbles" but reflect a particular
"style," in this case drawn from the familiar Syro-
Phoenician world. However, she minimizes the cultic
associations of most of these motifs. On the ivories, see
Kantor (1956); Ussishkin (1969); and Winter (1976). For
convenient illustrations, see de Mertzenfeld (1954). For
the major corpora relevant to this discussion, cf. nn. 10-
12.
210n the "asherah" as a "sacred tree," see Lemaire
(1977). Variations on the theme of the "sacred tree," far
too common to cite, are to be found especially frequently
on the 9th-8th centuries B.C.ivories. On the 'Ajrfudtree,
see Beck (1982: 13-16). On the background iconography,
see, for example, Danthine (1937); Shiloh (1979).
22On the frequency, see Mallowan (1966: 483). For
Samaria, see Crowfoot and Crowfoot (1938; pl. 13); for
Arslan-Tash, see Thureau-Dangin et al. (1931: pls. 37-
41); for Nimrud, see Mallowan (1966: pl. 6, figs. 426,
436, 437).
23See ANET 3: 139-42. Some scholars doubt that
these passages refer to cAnat specifically, but the evi-
dence seems clear enough to most. On 'Anat, see further
Kapelrud (1969); Stadelmann (1967: 88-96); and Oden
(1977: 81-88).
24OnQudshu, see further Edwards (1955: 49-51) and
Stadelmann (1967: 96-123); on cAnat, the references in
n. 23. For convenient illustrations of Qudshu plaques see
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
33
ANEP. figs. 470-73; and add now Clamer (1980). On
the significance of the Edwards plaque as identifying all
three Canaanite fertility goddesses, see Oden (1977: 96,
97, 106).
The "Lion Lady," in our opinion, is actually portrayed
in several recent archaeological finds. A little-noticed
cult stand from 10th century Tacanach (fig. 10) depicts
on the lower panel a nude goddess en face, arms
outstretched, standing between two striding lions-an
astonishingly explicit portrayal of the "Lion Lady," who
can scarcely be anyone but CAnator Asherah, and from
an Israelite context. The two winged lions on the panel
above are cherubs, with human heads that are wearing
what appear to be Hathor headdresses-a further identi-
fication with Qudshu and thus CAnat/Asherah. A second
cult stand, from Sellin's excavation at Ta'anach and
apparently from the same 10th century context, has five
tiers of striding winged lions, some with human heads.
On the above see Glock (1978: 1142-47). As though to
confirm the somewhat surprising association of the
"Lion Lady" and Hathor, another lion-cherub, on a
Megiddo ivory box, also has a Hathor headdress (Loud
1939: pl. 2:h); and fig. 6 above may portray yet another
Hathor-crowned lion. The prominence of the cult of the
"Lion Lady" in the Iron I period in Palestine is under-
lined by her adoption by the Philistines, as witnessed in
the well-preserved skull of a lioness found on the altar of
a 12th century temple in Jaffa (Kaplan 1970). The 11th
century Tell Qasile temple of Stratum XI has produced a
lion-rhyton that may possibly be further evidence of the
borrowing of the cult of the "Lion Lady" among the
Philistines (Mazar 1980: 101-3). Finally, the Hathor-
headdress, associated as we have seen with CAnat/
Asherah, appears now on carved head-niches in an Iron
Age Israelite bench-tomb in Jerusalem (Barkay, Mazar,
and Kloner 1975: 2, 4).
25See Stadelmann (1967, especially 112-15); and note
the most recent and most persuasive treatment in Oden
(1976: 66-73, 94-99, 105-7, 157-58, with full references
there to earlier scholars, particularlyAlbright and Cross).
Oden argues that all three goddesses are seen merged in
Atargatis, the "Syrian Goddess" of the Roman period,
that this fusion is already seen in the Hebrew Bible, and
that in fact it goes all the way back to Ugarit.
26So Oden (1977: 113-15). Cross (1973: 49) believes
that the 'elim of Canaan were not local numina, but
were cosmic deities who could, however, appear in local
manifestations in certain cult places and with special
titles, attributes, or hypostases.
27See Judg 3:7; cf. also Judg 2:3 ("the Baals and the
Ashtaroth," i.e., Ba'al and Astarte also in the plural).
There is growing evidence, as at 'Ajrfd, that even
Yahweh (or El) could be conceived of as a local deity, so
that we may have "Yahweh of Samaria," "Yahweh of
Teman," etc. See nn. 5, 26 above; and cf. Cross 1973:
48-75.
28Pritchard'spioneering study (1943) had concluded
34 W. G. DEVER
that none of the three well known Canaanite goddesses
could be positively identified with the ubiquitous "As-
tarte" plaques and figurines. His negativism has been
adopted by most later scholars; see, most recently,
Tadmor (1981, 1983), whose analysis (particularly the
distinction of a separate group of reclining "mourner"
plaques) is otherwise exemplary. Our point is simply that
the typical "Astarte" figures were no doubt associated in
antiquity with all the Canaanite fertility deities, since all
were representations of the great "Mother Goddess."
29Cf.also the references in n. 25 above.
30See Pritchard (1943: 66); Oden (1977: 94-98) argues
that all three goddesses could be associated with both El
and Ba'al.
31Stadelmann (1967: 113) takes "Qudshu" on the
Edwards plaque not as a third deity, but as an epithet,
"eine bestimmte Kultform der Gottinnen Atirtu, cAnat
und Astarte, i.e., 'the Holiness of A'." Albright is
followed by Oden (1977: 90, 91) in identifying Qudshu
specifically with Asherah.
32SeeOden (1977: 98).
33SeeANET: 145. See also Oden (1977: 97, 98) on this
confusion of the names Asherah and Astarte, both in the
Hebrew Bible and at Ugarit.
34Pritchard(1973: 62, 63, 69); Oden (1977: 97).
35Thebest recent treatment of Lucian is Oden (1977);
see especially pp. 47-107 on Atargatis, with full refer-
ences to the earlier literature. See also Horig (1979),
whose independent study is not confined to the Classical
era but covers also earlier periods; cf. n. 36.
36See Horig (1979: 108-19, and 51-128) for a much
broader summary of the lion-imagery. For the coin, see
Oden (1976: 33, fig. 3).
37SeeAttridge and Oden (1981: 51, 57).
38Seeabove and nn. 24, 25, 26, 28.
3The only completely restored illustration of this
scene that has been published thus far is Beck (1982:
fig. 16); see the discussion on pp. 36-40, which relates it
to the art of Timna and Ourayyah but does not comment
on its obvious cultic import.
40See Meshel (1978b), who includes a special study of
the textiles by Avigail Sheffer, relating them to well-
known passages such as 2 Kgs 23:7; Ezek 44:17-18; etc.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahlstrom, G. W.
1963 Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion.
Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.
Albright, W. F.
1956 Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Balti-
more: Johns Hopkins University.
ANEP See Pritchard 1954.
A NET See Pritchard 1955.
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BASOR 255
4'The fullest publication of the inscription to date is
Meshel (1978b), which unfortunately does not have page
numbers.
42Beck (1982: 46). She states further (p. 61) that it is
not even certain that the site had a religious function.
43Lemaire (1977: 599); Naveh (1979: 28). Lemaire
anticipated the CAjrfidpreliminary report, then forth-
coming, as confirming his view; see p. 602, n. 28. On
Mittmann's attempt to eliminate the "asherah"reading,
however, and on more recent evidences supporting it, see
n. 6 above.
44Fora convenient summary of the grammatical prob-
lem and of various interpretations of "asherah," see
Emerton (1982).
45As evidence, one may note: (1) several Samaria-
ware and Phoenician-style ceramic forms; (2) the "door-
post inscription," not yet published, but to judge from
photographs possibly written in Phoenician script, men-
tioning "Ba'al"; (3) several hypochoristic names ending
in -yau rather than -yahu; and (4) the clear North
Syrian and Phoenician background of the iconography.
Thus the reading "Yahweh Shomron," in parallel with
"Yahweh Teman," is preferable;cf. nn. 5, 27 above.
46Reed(1962: 250).
47In contrast to the "minimalist" views of Lipinski,
Lemaire (nn. 2-3), and most previous scholars, Oden's
most recent and cogent survey of the evidence (1977:
155) concludes by stating that "the old usage of 'aserah
in the Hebrew Bible symbolizes, in part or entirely, the
Canaanite mother goddess 'Agsrah/ Tannit."
48Onthe generally neglected potential of archaeology
in illuminating the cult, see Dever (1983). On the prob-
lem of syncretism in ancient Israel, see Ahlstrom (1963);
Habel (1964); Gray (1965); Keel (1980). On the con-
tinuity of the Canaanite Phoenician cult of the "Mother
Goddess" into Classical times, see Oden (1976: 1977:
157, 158).
49Aspects of popular religion in ancient Israel may
occasionally be illuminated better by folklorists, psycho-
analysts, and scholars in other fields, than by traditional
biblical scholarship. On the "Mother Goddess," see, for
example, Patai (1965); cf. also Barag (1946).
Angerstorfer, A.
1982 Asherah als "consort of Jahwe" oder Ashir-
tah? Biblisches Notizen 17:7-16.
Attridge, H. W.; and Oden, R. A., Jr.
1981 Philo of Byblos. The Phoenician History.
Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
9. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association
of America.
1984 ASHERAH, CONSORT OF YAHWEH?
Barag, G.
1946 The Mother in the Religious Concepts of
Judaism. American Imago 4/1: 32-53.
Barkay, G.; Mazar, A.; and Kloner, A.
1975 The Northern Cemetery of Jerusalem in First
Temple times. Qadmoniot 8: 71-76 (Hebrew).
Barnett, R. D.
1935 The Nimrud Ivories and the Art of the Phoe-
nicians. Iraq 2: 179-200.
Bayer, B.
1982 The Finds That Could Not Be. Biblical
Archaeology Review 8/1: 20-33.
Beck, P.
1982 The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet
'Ajrfd). Tel Aviv 9: 3-86.
Bernhardt, K.-H.
1967 Aschera in Ugarit und im Alten Testament.
Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Orientsfor-
schung 13: 163-74.
Bisi, A. M.
1965 Il grifone, storia di un motivo iconografico
nell'antico oriente Mediterraneo. Studi Semi-
tici 13. Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici.
Catling, H.
1964 Cypriot Bronzeworkin the Mycenaean World.
Oxford: Oxford University.
Chase, D.
1982 A Note on an Inscription from Kuntillet
'Ajrfd. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 246: 63-67.
Clamer, C.
1980 A Gold Plaque from Lachish. Tel Aviv 7:
155-57.
Cross, F. M.
1967 The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alpha-
bet. Eretz-lsrael 8 (Sukenik volume): 8*-24.*
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University.
1980 Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite
and Early Phoenician Scripts. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 238:
9-20.
Cross, F. M.; and Milik, J. T.
1954 Inscribed Arrowheads from the Period of the
Judges. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 134: 5-15.
Crowfoot, J. W.; and Crowfoot, G. M.
1938 Early Ivories from Samaria. London: Pales-
tine Exploration Fund.
Dahood, M. J.
1958 Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and Pales-
tine. Pp. 65-94 in Le antiche divinita semi-
tiche. ed. S. Moscati. Studi Semitici 1. Rome:
Centro di Studi Semitici.
Danthine, L.
1937 Le palmier-dattier et les arbres sacres dans
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
35
I'iconographie de l'Asie Occidentale ancienne.
Paris: Geuthner.
Dessenne, A.
1957 Le sphinx, etude iconographique I, des ori-
gines a fin du second millnaire. Paris:
Geuthner.
Dever, W. G.
1969/70 Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area
of Khirbet el-K6m. Hebrew Union College
Annual 40/41: 158-89.
1982 Recent Archaeological Confirmation of the
Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel. Hebrew
Studies 23: 37-44.
1983 Material Remains and the Cult in Ancient
Israel: An Essay in Archaeological Systema-
tics. Pp. 571-87 in The Word of the Lord
Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David
Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth
Birthday, eds. C. L. Meyers and M. O'Con-
nor. Winona Lake, IN: American Schools of
Oriental Research/ Eisenbrauns.
Edwards, I. E. S.
1955 A Relief of Qudshu-Astarte-Anath in the
Winchester College Collection. Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 14: 49-51.
Emerton, J. A.
1982 New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implica-
tions of the Inscriptionsfrom Kuntillet 'Ajrid.
Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissen-
schaft 94: 1-20.
Galling, K.
1977 Biblisches Reallexikon. Second revised edi-
tion. Tubingen: Mohr.
Gilula, M.
1978-79To Yahweh Shomron and to his Asherah.
Shnaton 3: 129-37 (Hebrew).
Glock, A. E.
1978 Taanach. Pp. 1139-47 in Encyclopedia of
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land,
Vol. IV, eds. M. Avi-Yonah and E. Stern.
Jerusalem: Massada.
Gray, J.
1965 The Legacy of Canaan, 2nd edition. Leiden:
Brill.
Habel, N.
1964 Yahweh Versus Ba'al: A Conflict of Reli-
gious Cultures. New York: Bookman.
Horig, M.
1979 Dea Syria: Studien zur religiosen Tradition
der Fruchtbarkeitsgottin in Vorderasien.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker Keve-
laer.
Kantor, H. J.
1956 Syro-Palestinian Ivories. Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 15: 153-74.
Kapelrud, A. S.
36 W. G. DEVER BASOR 255

1969 The Violent Goddess. 'Anat in the Ras Shamra Eisenbrauns/Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha.
Texts. Oslo: Scandinavian University Books. Mittman, S.
Kaplan, Y 1981 Die Grabinschrift des Sangers Uriahu. Zeit-
1970 Tel Aviv. Pp. 563-65 in Encyclopedia of schrift des Deutschen Palastina- Vereins 97:
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 139-52.
Vol. II, eds. B. Mazar et al. (Hebrew). Jeru- Naveh, J.
salem: Massada. 1979 Graffiti and Dedications. Bulletin of the
Keel, O., eed. American Schools of Oriental Research 235:
1980 Monotheismus in Alten Israel und Seiner 27-30.
Umwelt. Freibourg: Schweizerisches Katho- Negbi, O.
lisches Bibelwerk. 1976 Canaanite Gods in Metal. An Archaeological
Lapp, P. W. Study of Ancient Syro-Palestinian Figurines.
1969 A Ritual Incense Stand from Taanak. Qad- Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv
moniot 2: 16-17. University.
Lemaire, A. Oden, R. A., Jr.
1977 Les Inscriptions de Khirbet el-Q6m et Ashe- 1976 The Persistence of Canaanite Religion. Bibli-
rah de Yhwh. Revue biblique 84: 597-608. cal Archaeologist 39: 31-36.
Liebowitz, H. 1977 Studies in Lucian's De Dea Syria. Harvard
1980 Military and Feast Scenes on Ivories of Late Semitic Museum Monographs 15. Missoula,
Bronze Age Palestine. Israel Exploration MT: Scholars Press.
Journal 30: 162-69. Patai, R.
Lipinski, E. 1965 The Goddess Asherah. Journal of Near
1972 The Goddess Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Eastern Studies 24: 37-52.
Babylonia, and in Ugarit. Orientalia Lou- Pope, M.
vaniensia Periodica 2: 101-19. 1965 Pp. 248-51 in Worterbuch der Mythologie,
Loud, G. Band I, ed. H. W. Haussig. Stuttgart: Klett-
1939 The Megiddo Ivories. Chicago: University of Cotta.
Chicago. Pritchard, J. B.
Mallowan, M. E. L. 1943 Palestinian Figures in Relation to Certain
1966 Nimrud and Its Remains, Vols. I-I1. London: Goddesses Known ThroughLiterature.Ameri-
Collins. can Oriental Series 24. New Haven: American
Mazar, A. Oriental Society.
1980 Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part One. The 1954 The Ancient Near East in Pictures. Princeton,
Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult NJ: Princeton University.
Objects. Qedem 12. Jerusalem: The Hebrew 1955 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the
University of Jerusalem. Old Testament. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Meshel, Z University.
1976 Kuntilat 'Ajrud-An Israelite Site from the Reed, W. L.
Monarchial Period on the Sinai Border. Qad- 1949 The Asherah in the Old Testament. Fort
moniot 9: 118-24 (Hebrew). Worth, TX: Texas Christian University.
1978a Kuntillet 'Ajrid-An Israelite Religious Cen- 1962 Asherah. Pp. 250-52 in Interpreter's Dic-
ter in Northern Sinai. Expedition 20: 50-54. tionary of the Bible, Vol. I, ed. G. A. Buttrick.
1978b Kuntillet 'Ajrfd: A Religious Centre from Nashville: Abingdon.
the Time of the Judaean Monarchy. Museum Rose, M.
Catalog 175. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum. 1978 Yahwe:Zum Streit um den alttestamentlichen
1979 Did Yahweh Have a Consort? The New Reli- Gottesnamen. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag.
gious Inscriptionsfrom Sinai. Biblical Archae- Schaeffer, C. F. A.
ology Review 5/2: 24-34. 1939 Ugaritica I. Paris: Geuthner.
de Mertzenfeld, C. D. Seger, J. D.
1954 Inventaire commente des ivoires pheniciens et 1976 Reflections on the Gold Hoard from Gezer.
apparantesdecouvertes dans le Proche-Orient. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Paris. Research 221: 133-40.
Mettinger, T. N. D. Shiloh, Y.
1982 YHWH SABAOTH-the Heavenly King on 1979 The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar
the Cherubim Throne. Pp. 109-38 in Studies Masonry. Qedem 11. Jerusalem: Institute of
in the Period of David and Solomon and Archaeology, The Hebrew University of
Other Essays, ed. T. Ishida. Winona Lake, IN: Jerusalem.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 1984 ASHERAH, CONSORT OF YAHWEH? 37

Stadelmann, R. Ussishkin, D.
1967 Syrische-Palastinensische Gottheiten in Agyp- 1969 The Art of Ivory Carving in Canaan. Qad-
ten. Leiden: Brill. moniot 2: 2-13 (Hebrew).
Stern, E. Weinfeld, M.
1976 Bes Vases from Palestine and Syria. Israel 1980 Kuntillet 'Ajrid. A Sacred Site of the
Exploration Journal 26: 183-87. Monarchic Period. Shnaton 4: 280-84 (He-
Tadmor, M. brew).
1981 Female Relief Figurines of Late Bronze Age 1982 Additions to the Inscriptions of 'Ajrfd.
Canaan. Eretz-Israel 15 (the Aharoni volume): Shnaton 5-6: 237-39 (Hebrew).
79-84 (Hebrew). Wilson, V.
1983 Female Cult Figurines in Late Canaan and 1975 The Iconography of Bes With Particular
Early Israel: Archaeological Evidence. Pp. Reference to the Cypriot Influence. Levant 7:
139-73 in Studies in the Period of David and 77-103.
Solomon and Other Essays, ed. T. Ishida. Winter, I. J.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns / Tokyo: 1976 Phoenician and North Syrian Ivory Carving
Yamakawa-Shuppansha. in Historical Context: Questions of Style and
Thureau-Dangin, F., et al. Distribution. Iraq 38: 1-22.
1931 Arslan- Tash. Paris: Geuthner. Zevit, Z.
Tufnell, O. 1984 The Khirbet el-Q6m Inscription Mentioning
1953 Lachish III. The Iron Age. London: Oxford a Goddess. Bulletin of the American Schools
University. of Oriental Research 255: 33-41

New fromthe AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch ZV'j

OFy
American Archaeologyin the Mideast:
A History of the American Schools of Oriental Research

by Philip J. King
This is the first history of the American Schools of Oriental Research in
To order:
eighty years and one of the few histories of American Archaeological work in
the Mideast since 1903. ASOR has been in the forefront of archaeological Send your order and payment
research in the region for much of this time. Thus, while the book focuses on to:
ASOR and its history, it is only within the context of the history of the Mid-
east and archaeological work there that ASOR's work finds its significance. Eisenbrauns
P.O.B. 275
Illustrated with photographs of various persons and places drawn from a
Winona Lake, IN 46590
wide variety of sources, the volume introduces the great scholars of the past
as well as recounting the more recent history of American work in the Mastercard and Visa are
Mideast. accepted; please supply your
card number and the expiration
Philip J. King is Professor of Biblical Studies at Boston College and served as date.
President of the American Schools of Oriental Research from 1976 through
1982. If prepaying, add $1.00 per
Pp. xiv + 292. 58 photographs. Indexes. $15.00 copy to your prepayment.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:37:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions