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

B.A.R. All titles available from: Hadrian Books Ltd, 122 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7B:p, England

The current BAR catalogue, with details of all titles in print, post-free prices and means of payment, is available free from the above address. All volumes are distributed by Hadrian Books Ltd.

Table of Contents Acknowledgments Chapter

I:

Chapter

II:

Chapter

III:

A General Introduction

4

History of Research

10

Typology

28

Chapter IV:

Chronology

40

Chapter

Distribution Patterns

43

Chapter VI:

Aspects of Manufacture

49

Chapter VII:

Damage Patterns

54

Chapter VIII:

Archaeological Contexts

57

Chapter IX:

Analogies to the Judean Pillar-Figurines

68

Notes about Function and Meaning

73

Chapter

BAR S636

3

V:

X:

Figures 1-40

The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah

82

Abbreviations and Bibliography

114

Appendixes and Keys

© R Kletter 1996 Introduction and Keys to Appendixes 1-2

ISBN 0 86054 818 X

135

Key 1: The Fields of Appendix 1

136

Key 2: Codes for the Figurines in Appendix 1

137

8L

Key 3: The Location of the Figurines Today

139

AfoO~

Key 4: List of Site Names

Tempvs Reparatvm Volume Editor: Rajka Makjanic

•A~K1)(;\ tI(1C\(p ~\

British Archaeological Reports are published by

TEMPVS REPARATVM Archaeological and Historical Associates Limited

All enquiries regarding the submission of manuscripts for future publication should be addressed to: David P Davison MA MPhil DPhil General Editor BAR Tempvs Reparatvm Tel: 01865 311046 29 Beaumont Street Oxford OXI 2NP Fax: 01865 311047

141

Key 5: The Figurines - Holland's Typology

142

Key 6: The Figurines - Engle's Typology

145

Appendix 1:

Data Base for the Judean Pillar-Figurines

147

Appendix 2:

Catalogue of Judean Pillar-Figurines

177

Addenda: Figurines 789-854

218

Appendix 3:

Judean Pillar-Figurines of Unknown Archaeological Origin

232

Appendix 4:

Transjordanian Anthropomorphic Figurines

237

Appendix 5:

Other Anthropomorphic Figurines

246

Indexes: 1. Authors 2. Geographical Index 3. Biblical Sources

1

288

Acknowledgments

List of Figures

This book originated in a Hebrew Ph.D. thesis, submitted to the University of Tel-Aviv in April 1995. The present work is (Chapter II: History of Research) Fig. 1. Attributes of the use and disposal offigurines (after Voigt 1983) Fig. 2. The quantitative factor in JPFs' studies (Chapter III: Typology) Fig. 3. Typology of other figurines Fig.3b. The Relation between the typologies of Holland and Engle Fig. 4. Typology - whole JPFs Fig. 5. Typology - hand-made JPFs' heads Fig. 6. Typology - moulded JPFs' heads Fig. 7. Coastal and northern moulded types - appendix 5.III Fig. 8. Appendix 5.11 and hand-made coastal and northern types Fig. 9. Phoenician figurines - appendix 5.VI Fig. 10. Transjordanian figurines - appendix 4 Fig. 11. Plaque figurines - appendix 5.V

revised and includes significant additions, especially in chapters II, IX and X.

It is a great pleasure to thank first my two

supervisors, Professors Pirhiya Beck and Nadav Na'aman. To them lowe most of my knowledge at its very best.

During my Ph.D. studies I have received the Wolf Fund Stipend for research students for 1991, a prize from Yad Izhak Ben Zvi for 1995, and the stipend of the Council of Higher Education for three years (1992-94).

I hope that I have not

disappointed my benefactors. lowe a special debt of gratitude to the British Council for a Post-Doctoral scholarship, which enabled me to write this book at ease in Oxford, among whose "natives" I have found much warmth. The advice and encouragement of Dr. P.R.S. Moorey, Keeper of Antiquities in the Ashmolean Museum, and Prof. HG.M. Williamson, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, were very helpful.

I have derived much information from many Scholars and Institutions abroad, allowing me access to material often not yet published. Included among them are the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; Dr. K. Prag, Manchester University; Dr. 1. Zorn,

(Chapter IV: Chronology) Fig. 12. The dating of the JPFs Fig. 13. Amended dating of the JPFs

University of Berkeley, California; L. Keppie, the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow; E. 1. Keal1, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto;

(Chapter V: Distribution Patterns) Fig. 14. The danger of circular arguments Fig. 15. Distribution of 854 JPFs (sites and main sub-types) Fig. 16. Distribution map of the JPFs Fig. 17. Distribution graph of the JPFs Fig. 18. Site hierarchy (main sites and sub-types) Fig. 19. Size of sites, extent of excavations and amount of JPFs (Chapter VI: Aspects of Manufacture) Fig. 20. Size offigurines and heads (mm.) Fig. 21. Analysis of the white-wash Fig. 22. Production of a series offigurines (after Nicholls 1952) Fig. 23. Classification of the moulded heads Fig. 24. Example of a series, type B.3.b

B. Isserlin, University of Leeds; P. Watson, Department of Archaeology and Ethnography, University of

Birmingham; Lori Iliff, Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University, Atlanta; G. Ruffle, the Oriental Museum, Durham; Heather Rice, Weingreen Museum of Biblical Antiquities, Dublin; and G.F. Stone, the Australian Institute of Archaeology, Melbourne.

In Israel the help was no less encouraging, including: Prof. Y. Beit Arieh (Ira, Qitmit and Malhata); Dr. Z. Herzog, Miriam Aharoni and Lili Singer (Arad and Beer Sheba); Nurit Feig (Arad); Miriam Tadmor (Beer Sheba); A. De-Groot (Ramot, Moza and City of David); A. de Groot, Diana Gilbert-Peretz and D. Ariel (City of David); Dr. R. Reich and A. Meir (Mamila); Prof. M. Kochavi (Malhata); O. Borowski (Lahav); D. Amit (Kh. Geresh and Kh. Anim); Uza Zvulun and Yael Olenick (Bretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv); Prof. Y. Meshorer, Tallai Oman and Michal Dayagi-Mendels (Israel Museum, Jerusalem); O. Rimon (Hecht Museum, Haifa); Prof. A. Mazar (Tel Batash); Prof. R. Gophna (Kh. Hoga and Mefalsim);

(Chapter VII: Damage Patterns) Fig. 25. Main points of breakage Fig. 26. Breakage patterns of the JPFs Fig. 27. Breakage pattern of modern clay figurines Fig. 28. A group of modern figurines Fig. 29. A modern figurine Fig. 30. Percentage of broken figurines in ancient assemblages

Prof. D. Ussishkin (Lachish); Dr. G. Barkay (KetefHinom); Y. Dagan (Judean Shephelah survey and Lachish); R. Peled, B. Brandl and B. Brimer (Collections of the Israel Antiquities Authority); G. Horwitz (Collections of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem). I benefited from many talks with Dr. G. Barkay, Orna Zimhoni and G. Kovo.

I thank deeply my friends and colleagues at the Israel Antiquities Authority and its management; all my teachers, colleagues and friends at the University of Tel Aviv, and especially Prof. 1. Yakar. I also wish to thank Mrs. Liora Pik and Sarah Vered;

(Chapter VIII: Archaeological Context) Fig. 31. The archaeological context of the JPFs Fig. 32. The context - wider generalizations Fig. 33. A "model" Judean city Fig. 34. Beth Shemesh - season 1933 (distribution map) Fig. 35. Arad - the Iron Age fortress (distribution map) Fig. 36. Tel en-Nasbeh - northern area (distribution map) Fig. 37. Tel en-Nasbeh - southern area (distribution map) Fig. 38. Tel Beer Sheba (distribution map) Fig. 39. Tel Beit Mirsim - SE quarter (distribution map) Fig. 40. Tel Beit Mirsim - NW quarter (distribution map)

2

Mrs. Shoshana Noy and Mr. G. Shpigel, all from the University of Tel Aviv. I also wish to thank A. Kennedy; M. Cox (drawings, figs. 4-11); A. Pikovski (maps, figs. 34-40) and M. Saltzberg (photographs, figs. 28-29). Last but not least, lowe much to my dear young friends, Y. Mizrahi and lrit Ziffer.

The only apology I can make for writing this book is that it has not been typed by a wife, nor deprived five little children of the attention of a loving father, nor caused grief to a loyal dog. I dedicate it to the memory of my late mother, Haviva. Raz K1etter

3

Chapter I: A General Introduction "It is not about San Michele and your precious marble fragments from the Villa of Tiberius you have been writing the whole time, it is only some fragments ofclay from your own broken life that you have brought to light"

(Axel Munthe. 1929 [rep. 1991]. The Story of San Michele. London: 3). The main aim of this work is a detailed study of the Judean Pillar-Figurines (henceforward JPFs for short), small clay female-figurines dating to the late Iron Age period. A very large number of studies has been made on these figurines during the last hundred years, from monographs and scientific papers to all kinds of secondary literature. Since the discoveries of the inscriptions and drawings at Kh. elKom and Kuntillet 'Ajrud, the pillar figurines have drawn even more attention, being usually interpreted as ex-pressions of Judean religious beliefs. Anything concerning the religion of Judah is bound to arouse much interest and, often, heated debates. Despite the vast amount of research, the relations between the JPFs and the political borders of Judah were never adequately studied, and this forms another major subject of the present work. I hasten to inform the readers that my intention is an archaeological examination, rather than a study of the Old Testament sources about the Asherah. The basic archaeological possibilities - and limitations - were often ignored by archaeologists and historians, who wished to solve the problems of the symbolism and meaning of the JPFs. Many scholars used the figurines mainly in order to prove - or disprove - various interpretations of the Old Testament. For these reasons, I have focused on seemingly "dry" archaeological aspects, such as dating, context and distribution. There is such a vast amount of recent literature on the Biblical Asherah, that it would be superfluous to offer, once more, a review of all the Old Testament verses and interpretations concerning her. I will not, however, avoid taking a clear stand in the debate. Thus, the title of the book, "The Archaeology of Asherah", is not misleading, and I hope to justify this title even if only in a very modest way.

archaeological phasing are not avoided, but will be discussed later (chapter 1.2-3 below). There are several absolute chronologies for Judah throughout the period under discussion, but the differences between them are measured by a few years only. Those differences result from contradictions within the Biblical sources; from the fragmentary state of some Assyrian and Babylonian sources; from chronological problems (Kitchen 1982-3; Spalinger 1973), and from uncertainty about the exact calendar used in Judah and Israel (Tadmor 1963:274279; Thiele 1965; Na'aman 1986c; Malamat 1983:243-247; Galil 1991; Kutsch 1974:544f; Edwards 1992; Donner 1986:370-381). On the other hand, archaeological remains can not be dated accurately within a few years or months, thus most of the differences between the chronological systems are negligible for our purposes. For this reason I will not discuss the absolute chronology, and have followed one common system (Thiele 1965: Appendix B).

The JPFs belong mostly to the 8th and 7th centuries BC. Judah flourished throughout the 8th century BC, and did not suffer from the Assyrian conquests of Transjordan and Samaria (for which see Na'aman 1994:20-24; Becking 1992; Green, A.R. 1993). The great change came with the campaign of Sennacherib against Judah in 701 BC, which forms a sharp divide both historically and archaeologically. This is, therefore, a vital starting point. The lower limit of this research is the end of the first temple period in 586 BC. At this time Judah lost its independence and many of its settlements were destroyed.

4

The picture that emerges from the analysis of these sources indicates how severe was the punishment of Judah: areas were lost (in the Shephelah probably), heavy booty and taxes were taken, and there were mass-deportations and the destruction of dozens of cities. Judah's economy was severely affected, though Jerusalem was not conquered and Judah remained independent.

The Assyrian withdrawal from the West left a vacuum, into which the empires penetrated, first Egypt and then Babylon. This was a highly important event for the history of Judah, only its exact date is debatable. The main reason for this is a gap in the Mesopotamian sources between the latest annals of Ashurbanipal in 639 BC, and the beginning of the Babylonian chronicles in 627 BC. Many scholars assumed an early Assyrian withdrawal, close to the beginning of Josiah's reign. Assyria was indeed troubled by the Babylonian revolt of 652-648 BC (Frame 1992: chapter 8), but it seems that it held the west until ca. 630-620 BC (following Na'aman 1989:54-56; Bloom 1988:68f). Thus, the reign of Josiah does not form a real historical period, as it is divided between the ''pax Assyriaca" and the period of upheavals following the Assyrian withdrawal.

1.2.2. Until the Reign of Josiah (700-639 Be)

1.2.1. The campaign of Sennacherib

This time period is comfortable for discussing the Judean Kings, but does not form a clear historical period. It is within a relatively peaceful period, termed the ''pax Assyriaca" (Na'aman 1987:7-8). Judah remained loyal to Assyria and enjoyed stability. The conquest of Egypt by Assyria in 671 marked its zenith (Spalinger 1974a; 1978; Lambert 1982). There were rebellions in Egypt in 669, but these were suppressed during 667 and 664 BC. The Assyrians were helped by a local dynasty from the Delta, which later became independent under the rule of Psammetichus I. This was probably achieved with Assyrian agreement and not by rebellion (Spalinger 1974a:316-320; 1974b; 1976; also Burstein 1984).

The Old Testament sources about the campaign are varied. Micah 1 might reflect it, but in a very obscure way (Vargon 1994; Schmitt 1990; Mittmann 1990). Kings II, 18-19 is our major source, but it is a composition made of different materials. Kings II 18:13-16 has the character of a

Both Sennacherib's campaign and the Babylonian conquest of 586 BC did not cause a total change in the material culture, of course. Difficulties in the historical and

then added a story about the capture of Manasseh in Babylon and his repentance (II Chr. 33:10-17). Many scholars accepted this as an authentic story (Reviv 1982:136; Elat 1975:66-68; Elat 1977:223; Tatum 1991: 136f; Rainey 1993:147 n. 1, 150ff; Bahat 1981; Barkay 1985: 491-492), but I agree with the view that this is a late, a-historical "Midrash" (Zmirin 1952:29-31; Curtis and Madsen 1910:497-499; North 1974:336-338; Smelik 1992: 188; Williamson 1982:388-393; Lowery 1991:185-89).

1.2. Historical Background

Sennacherib's campaign in 701 BC formed a major break in the former peaceful prosperity of Judah. The Assyrian sources do not describe the event in an accurate geographic or chronological order. Sennacherib conquered Jaffa and Ashkelon, restored Ekron (Padi was only later released from his captivity in Jerusalem) and defeated the Egyptians at Elteke (Honor 1926; Childs 1967; Tadmor 1985; Na'aman 1974; 1979:61-70; Galil 1988). Then, or at the same time, Sennacherib attacked "46 cities" in Judah, with the conquest of Lachish being the centerpiece (as wall scenes from the palace of Nineveh indicate, Ussishkin 1982). The campaign was presented as a complete victory with deportations and transference of Judean areas to Philistia, though Hezekiah remained in power, Jerusalem was not conquered and Judah was not annexed to Assyqa (for the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem see Barkay 1985:67-71; Ussishkin 1979; 1994:59). Some scholars believe that theAssyrians were forced to withdraw (Tadmor 1985:77; Galil 1988). Na'aman suggested that Sennacherib was satisfied with the submission of Hezekiah, and did not aim to annex all Judah _ otherwise he would have returned and surely succeeded in doing so (Na'aman 1993:112-115; 1994:25-26).

1.1. The Absolute Chronology

chronicle, and seems historically reliable (Gray 1964:513f; Montgomery 1951:482-485; Rofe 1983:78-79; Tadmor 1985:66; Smelik 1992:101, 124; cf. Seitz 1993). It fits well the Assyrian sources, except for the minor difference in the amount of booty taken from Judah. Afterwards, we find two separate prophetic stories, describing negotiations between Assur and Hezekiah, with the prophet Isaiah acting as the "real hero". The first story is II Kings 18:17-19:9a, with direct continuation in 19:36-37. The second story is dovetailed into the first (originally II Kings 19:9b-35). Both stories are probably later and less reliable then the chronicle of 18:13-16 (Rofe 1983:80-83, against Cohen 1979).1 The story of II Kings 19:32-35, about the miracle at the end of the campaign, is legendary and unreliable (for the city list of 18:24 see Zadok 1976; for deportations in general see Na'aman and Zadok 1988; Na'aman 1993). The description in the book of Isaiah is mostly similar to Kings II, and need not be described in detail here (Orlinsky 1940; Clements 1983; Westerman 1969; Smelik 1992; Konkel 1993).

The reign of Ammon (643/2-641/640 BC) was but a short interlude of little historical significance (II Kings 21: 19-26; cf. Na'aman 1989:39-40; Galil 1~92:10, n. 28; Elitzur 1994). Ammon was murdered in obscure circumstances (for some suggestions about this episode cf. Malamat 1975:85f; 1994:229).

1.2.3. The Reign of Josiah (639-609 Be)

The Old Testament account of Josiah's reign is focused on his reform (II Kings 22:3-23:27), which has been connected with the book of Deuteronomy since De-Wette in the early 18th century AD. The literature on this subject is immense (for a few monographs see Noth 1943; Weinfeld 1972; Nelson 1981; Spieckermann 1982; Mayes 1983), but here I will discuss only the reform and its political significance. Following the book of Kings, the reform begun in Josiah's 18th year (622 BC), when the book was accidentally discovered. This reform encompassed the following actions: 1. Concluding a treaty between the king, the people, and God (II Kings 23:2-3; for treaties in the Bible in general see Tadmor 1982; McCarthy 1973; Nicholson 1986; Kitchen 1989). 2. Purifying the Jerusalem temple (II Kings 23:4-7). 3. Centralizing the cult by abolition of the other "high places" in Judah, from "Gebac to Beer-Sheba" (ibid: 23:814). Gebac is probably a city in Benjamin (Aharoni 1987:310; Na'aman 1989:37 n. 66), and not in Ephraim (as suggested by Galil 1992:1-2). 4. Purification acts in Samaria, mainly in Bethel (II Kings 23:15).2 This is very significant evidence: it is highly unlikely that Josiah could

The sources about Judah during this period are few. The Old Testament describes Sennacherib's murder immediately after his campaign, as if he was punished for attacking Judah. Actually, Sennacherib was murdered some 20 years later (II Kings 19:36f; cf. Parpola 1980). Manasseh ruled for 55 years, but very few details are known about his reign from the OT, and Assyria is not even mentioned. Manasseh was portrayed as a complete sinner in II Kings 21 (Gray 1964:641-646; Schniedewind 1991; Smelik 1992:131-168). The Chronicler repeated this picture (II Chr. 33:1-9), but 1These twostories led in the pastto the theory that therewere two different campaigns of Sennacherib in the west (Mazar, B. 1964:292; Horn 1966; Shea 1985). Against this theory see Rainey 1982b; Spa1inger 1978; Hutter 1982; Kitchen 1982-3:65, n.33; 1983:243. Cf alsoSme1ik 1992: n. 53; VonBeckerath 1992.

The story about the manof God is probably late: Rote 1983:144f, n. 89;cf Van Winkle 1989:33f

2

5

act in Samaria prior to the Assyrian withdrawal from Israel. 5. Celebrating the Passover feast (II Kings 23:21-23), which was made into a national feast (cf. Deut. 16:1).3 The story of the reform is totally different in Chronicles: there, Manasseh repented, and Josiah could not have had so much to purify. The Chronicler attributed the reform to Josiah's 12th year (II Chr. 34:2-7), separating it from the book, with a second later reform (ibid 34:33). The reform was extended to all "the cities of Manasseh and Ephraim and Simeon and even unto Naphtali" (II Chr. 34:6). Some scholars took this as history (lately, Suzuki 1992:31-37; Weinfeld 1992: 164f, 166f), but again the view that it is a legend, lacking historical significance, should be accepted (Na'aman 1989:50, n. 118; Spieckermann 1982:30-41 with further references). To summarise, the reform began in 622 BC and included acts only in Judah, Benjamin and the Bethel region.

1.2.4. The Story about Josiah's Death (609 Be) When the Babylonian annals re-appear in 627 BC, the situation is already very different from that of 639 BC. Assyria is now fighting for its lif~. The annals are fragmented, especially for the years 622-617 BC, and the Assyrian chronology is not secure (Zmirin 1952: chapter 1; Na'aman 1989:53-56; Na'arnan 1991; Oates 1965; Wiseman 1956:5-23; Brinkman 1984:105ff; Zawadzki 1995). The main line of events is still clear: Nabopolassar became king in Babylon in 626 BC and rebelled immediately. After a few years, Babylon appeared as the victorious side and in 616, when the chronicles are clear, it is attacking Assyria directly. In 615 Assur was besieged by a combined Babylonian - Median army (for Media see Diakonoff 1985; Zawadzki 1988; Dandamayev and Lukonin 1989). Assyria was defeated in 612, but its authority still held in Haran for a few years. During this period, Egypt stood on the side of Assyria and sent forces to help several times, including one sent in 609 BC. Josiah's death should be seen against this background. The description in Kings (II:23:29) is short and enigmatic. Josiah went towards Necho in Megiddo, and Necho killed Josiah when he saw him. The terms are problematic (for the text see Welch 1925; Montgomery 1951:537f; Gray 1964:678-680. For reconstructions see Frost 1968; Malarnat 1975; 1983:233-241; 1988: 120ff; Na'aman 1989: 63-68; Spieckermann 1982:138-153). The story in Chronicles (II 35:20-24) is very different, and again it seems to be a legend without historical value (Zmirin 1952:98-102; Malarnat 1975:88f; Oded 1977:486; Williamson 1982:408ff; 1982b; 1987. Against see Na'arnan 1989:66-68; Begg 1987; North 1974:379-381).4 It is very hard to believe that Josiah would

leave Judah to fight Egypt in the open field, thus it is unlikely that he rebelled against Egypt (vs. Malamat 1975:90; 1988:120-122; Galil1992:11). More probably, he was an Egyptian vassal who came to submit to Egypt, but was killed for reasons not explained by the author of Kings (Na'aman 1989:66-68).

1.2.5. From 609 BC to the Destruction of the First Temple This short period was very dynamic, and there are many references about it in Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and "outer" (especially Babylonian) sources. Egypt probably ruled the land of Israel even before 609. In 606 Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt in the battle of Carchemish in Syria (Zmirin 1952:24f; Malarnat 1983:254; 1988: 122f; Wiseman 1985: 21ff; Wiseman 1956:23-26). This defeat brought about an Egyptian withdrawal from Syria. The land of Israel became the next battleground, and Nebuchadnezzar made repeated campaigns to the west until 601 Be. In Judah, Jehoahaz succeeded Josiah (II Kings 23:20-22), but Necho placed Jehoiakim / Eliakim on the throne instead (ibid: 24-26). Judah became a vassal of Babylon during the days of Jehoiakim (609-598 BC), probably in 604 BC (Na'aman 1992, not 603 or 605 BC, as Wiseman 1985:23f; Wenning 1988:190 n. 88; Worschech 1987; Malamat 1983:256-259). Perhaps this submission was not destructive (Rainey 1975:53-58), but the sources are limited and we lack details. Three years later, Jehoiakim rebelled, probably influenced by the Babylonian fiasco against Egypt in 601600 BC near the Egyptian border (Lipinski 1972). The Bible describes the immediate "punishment" of Judah (Kings II 24:1-2), but in fact the Babylonian retaliation came two years later, in 598 BC. Meanwhile Jehoiakim died and Jehoiakin, his son, replaced him. Jehoiakin surrendered to Babylon (II Kings 24:10-18) and was deported, but kept alive (ibid: 14f, Malamat 1983:269; Begg 1986b). Judah suffered deportation (ibid:13f; cf. Malarnat 1983:259-262; 1988: 124f; Wiseman 1965:32-35; 1985:30-32; Rainey 1975:57f; 1983:17; Green, 1982). The Babylonians placed Zedekiah on the throne as the last Judean king (II Kings 24:17). The reign of Zedekiah (597-586 BC) stood in the shade of Judah's bitter end - the rebellion against Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem in 58t> Be. The prophetic books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel contribute many details to our knowledge, especially about the fate of the capital, Jerusalem (Ma1arnat 1993:275-281). On the other hand, we know little about the exact development of the Babylonian campaign against other Judean cities. Egyptian forces came to the aid of Judah (Jeremiah 37:7-11; 44:30; Malamat 1983:286-288), but were obviously not very helpful. Azeka and Lachish were conquered by the Babylonians (Jer. 34:7; cf. Malarnat 1988:125-128; Wiseman 1985:34-38; Kutsch 1974). Finally, Jerusalem was conquered in 586 (for the exact date see Cazelles 1983; Edwards 1992) and Judah became a Babylonian province.

3 See Montgomery 1951:5351; Gray 1964:6731; Curtis and Madsen 1910:512-516; Williamson 1982:403-408; Spieckerman 1982:130138. Verses 23:24-27, or at least 26-27 are probably secondary (Montgomery 1951:635,Gray 1964:677). 4 Scholars even explained level II at Megiddo as indication of Jo~i~'s presence (Stern 1989b:243, n. 64; Galil 1992: 11, n. 32). This IS baseless (Kempinski 1993:109-111; Ussishkin 1993:84).

6

The .Shephelah. Amost all the sites were destroyed: Lachish level III (see above), Tel Batash level II (Mazar, A. and KeIrn 1980:96; KeIrn and Mazar 1982' 1991' Ma 1985:306ff, 319); Tel Eitun and Tel Beit Mirsim (Zimh: 1985:63ff, 82f; Dagan 1992:64); Tel HalifILahav level VIb (Jacobs 1993:5; 1994:152-4; Seger 1988: 143f); Beth Shemesh level IIc (Wightman 1985: chapter 10; EAEHL ~ew I:25~; D~g~n 1992:53) and Azeka (according to the Azeka inscription": Na'aman 1994:5f, 17-20. cf. also Dagan 1992:27-34; vs. Galil 1995). Tel Judeideh (Goded) was p~rha~s also destroyed at that time (Dagan 1992:44). The situation at Tel Erani is not clear (EAEHL new IV: 1278-1281). Tel Hesi was not destroyed and is probably not a Judean site (Oren 1993; Stem 1994; vs. Doennan 1987: 143ff; Fargo 1987; Toombs 1981; 1983:33).7

1.3. Archaeological Background 1.3.1. The Separation of the Assemblages of the 8th and 7th Centuries BC W,e ~ve see~ tha~ Sennachrib's Campaign is a clear histoncal startmg point, but it is also an archaeological one. In order ~o, under~d this, we have to ask how was Sennachenb.s C~Palgn reflected in the material culture of Judah. Lachish IS the key site in this regard, since today it is clear that level III was destroyed not in 598, as suggested by SW:key. (1937), but during 701 BC (Lachish III:47, 55; US~is~n 1977:52ff; 1982; Aharoni 1976; Lachish V).5 The dating is c~rro~orated by the finding of remains of a siege ramp at this SIte (Uss~shkin 1983: area R; 1989; Eph'al 198~) and by. ~e mention of Lachish in the ostraca found during ~e Bntlsh excavations (Yadin 1985b:142-143, with earlier literature). The rich assemblage of Lachish level III enables us to date other assemblages to the end of the 8th centur,Y BC (Zimhoni 1990; 1995; Wightman 1985) Especially important are the lmlk stamps, which can be no; related safely to the reign of Hezekiah (Ussishkin 1977'56' Na'aman 1979; Rainey 1982). . ,

The N.egev. Sites in the Negev suffered destruction at the same orne or at approximately the same time, e.g., Tel Beer Sheba level II (see above) and Arad level VIII (Rainey 1987:18-20; Herzog 1984:19-22; Zimhoni 1985:84-87; Mazar and Netzer 1986:89f). For Tel Ira see Beit Arieh 1985; 1987; Biran 1985; 1987; Rainey 1993: n. 5). The Judean Mountains. In the Southern Judean mountains the situation is less clear. Remains of the 8th century are known from Beth-Zur (Sellers 1933:53) and Hebron ~Chadwick 1992:124, 127, 199; Ofer 1990:91; 1993), but it is not clear ~ these sites were destroyed. Kh. Rabud may have been nuned.{Kochavi 1.974:16, 18). It is hard to point to clear destruction levels m Benjamin and the Northern Judean Mountains. Jerusalem was not destroyed and it is hard to date exactly its remains (Mazar, A. 1985:317: Barkay 1985:420-421; for the excavations see Shiloh 1984: 1989; Avigad 1980; 1986; Jerusalem I-II). The same is tru~ for many smaller settlements nearby, e.g., Ramot and Moza. Tel en-Nasbeh flourished throughout both centuries without any clear destruction levels (TN I-II; Zorn 1993:114, 161). Ramat Rabel may have been destroyed (Na'aman 1979:72f: . Barkay 1993: 10).

S~nce c~ramic

typology can not be totally accurate, the of dating grow when we head further away from Lachish. . For th~n, we must consider the possibility that changes.m matenal culture may not only be temporal, but also regional. Tel Beer-Sheba is a good example: most scholars agree that the assemblage of Lachish III is similar to Tel Beer Sheba II, but the date of the latter is dependent ~pon ~at of the fi~st, and an exact date can not be fixed by ~ure arch~eologIcal means (cf. Kenyon 1976:63f, vs. BS I.~f, 76; Naaman 1979:75; 1986:13f).6 Also, in areas that did not suffer from Sennacherib's campaign, our ability to separate the 8th and 7th centuries BC is limited. For e~ple, .Jeru~ale~ was not destroyed, and we find a direct contln~tlon in ~ts material culture, while the 586 BC destruction there is much more prominent. The lmlk stamps may. help to date assemblages, but a few jars may have continued in.use a little after 701 BC (Mazar, A. 1985:317; Mazar, Amit and Illan 1984:247f; Eshel 1989: Stem 1994:19~). ~en only the handles of the jars survived, they may be mtrusrve and are less reliable for dating (Barka 1985'419ft) . of the jars may relate toY . . Al so, the diismibuuon ~y other factors (Na'aman 1979:75ff; 1986:14-17; for a ~st of stamps see Garfinkel 1988:70; for the origin of the Jars see Mommsen, Perlman and Yellin 1984). A summary of the m:chaeological effects of Sennacherib's campaign in each region of Judah follows. diffic~tles

The Judean Desert. Destructions were not identified in this area. En Gedi existed already during the 8th century BC (Barkay 1993, vs. Mazar et. al. 1963:33, 57f). So did probably the smaller Buqe'ah sites, which are usually dated only to the 7th century BC (Stager 1975' 1976: also Cross and Milik 1956; Bar Adon 1989; Stem' 1994;· Finkelstein 1~93:64~. It seems that Sennacherib's campaign was not felt directly m this area. To sum up, the campaign of Sennacherib had grave results for the JUde~ Shephelah and the Negev (the Edomites may have. used this opportunity to join in the destruction). It is possible to divide the 8th and the 7th centuries BC well in these areas, but in the other areas of Judah the situation is

5 A f:w scholars continue to object to this dating (Holladay 1976'

~~hin~ 1?79:49-53; 1988; 1992), or even to the identificatio~

. e SIte With Lachish (Ahlstrom 1980; 1983 1985' but ' see 6Th . the e suggestions to lower ~e date of Beer Sheba II to well inside

7.The excavators dated the end of Gezer VI (area VII) to Tiglath Pileser's campaign of 734/3 BC (Seger 1987:1241). It was perhaps destroye~ also.in 701 BC (there are many lmlk stamps, but these were mainly found out of context). For Gezer see also Na'aman 1988:74; Becking 1992:114-118; Reich and Brandl 1985.

Davies 1982; 1985).This view can no longer be held.

7~ centwy BC (Yadin and Geva 1983; Eshel 1986: the appendix:43) are not convincing.

7

The Judean Desert. Here En Gedi level V was perhaps destroyed (Mazar et. al. 1963:33, vs. Barkay 1993:106), and also Vered Jericho (Eitan 1984; 1994). Eitan related the end of this site to the reform of Josiah, but this has no archaeological basis. The situation at Jericho is not clear (Weippert, M and H. 1976:145, 148; EAEHL new 11:680), but in fact Jericho belonged to Israel and not to Judah.

more ambiguous and our ability to phase the material remains much more limited.

1.3.2. The Separation of the Assemblages of the 7th and 6th Centuries BC How well demarcated is the lower limit of the period under research (i.e., the 586 BC date)? This question faces similar difficulties to those seen in chapter 1.3.1 (above), only more powerful. First, there were quite a few Babylonian campaigns to the land of Israel between 604-586 BC, and this complicates the picture. Archaeologically, we can not date any site exactly within these years. The exact dating must be judged historically: the end of Lachish level II will be dated to 586 BC (Lachish III; Ussishkin 1983) while that of Ekron level lb to 604 or 603 BC (Dothan and Gitin 1987:202, 215; Gitin 1989:45, 47; Na'aman 1992). Of course sites can also be destroyed in events that were not recorded, at any given time. For our purposes we can define the whole period of 604-586 BC as one horizon of destruction, and the exact dating within it is not very crucial. Thus, I will use the term "7th century BC" to mark all the assemblages in Judah that can be dated between 700 and 586 BC. One should keep in mind that there is likely to be a "late bias" - i.e., the majority of the finds would relate to the end of the levels concerned, towards the 604-586 BC destruction horizon.

The Negev. This area suffered almost a total wave of destruction after its flowering during the 7th century BC. Destructions were found in Tel Malhata (Kochavi 1970:23, Beit Arieh, personal communication); Arad level 6 (Rainey 1987; Herzog 1987:77; cf. Ussishkin 1988); Tel Ira (Biran 1985; 1987H:26f; Beit Arieh 1985:20, 25; 1987;35); Aroer level 2 (Biran 1987:33; Biran and Cohen 1981) and Uzah level 4 (Beit Arieh 1986:33, 35; 1987:37f; Beit Arieh and Cresson 1991:130, 134; for a detailed historical survey of the Negev in the 7th century BC see Na'aman 1987). Tel Masos was perhaps destroyed as well (Zimhoni in: Masos 1:130, but cf ibid:124; Kempinsky et. al. 1981:167). The small site of Kh. Radum was probably deserted (Beit Arieh 1992). The identity of the destroyers at each site is not clear, whether Babylonians or Edomites, but this is not crucial to our purposes here. Benjamin. The area of Benjamin is somewhat an exception. It is hard to discern destructions there, and this area may have submitted to the Babylonians without struggle, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (thus Malamat 1983:286f; Eshel 1986:16; Barkay 1993:196f; for another opinion see Kochman 1982:26). For the lack of destruction at Tel enNasbeh see Zorn 1993:161-162. 8

The second problem is that there are limited written sources about the details of the Babylonian campaigns against Judah. Most of the evidence relates to Jerusalem and its vicinity, and it is hard to assess the situation in other regions. An even graver problem is the Babylonian period (586-532 BC). It was more or less peaceful, and left a kind of a material "tabula rasa" in Judah (despite the pioneering efforts of Weinberg 1971:204-207; Barkay 1985:298-300; 1989:42; 1993). Sites that were not destroyed in 586 BC often continued directly into the Persian Period (Barkay 1993; Zorn 1993:183-5), and this hampers our ability to define the lower limit of the 7th century assemblage. Despite all these difficulties, 586 BC (or, to be more exact, 604-586 BC) can be set as a clear line for the archaeological phasing, since many sites in Judah were destroyed then (listed, according to geographical regions, below).

1.4. Archaeological Sub - Phasing of the 7th Century BC? Can the 7th century BC in Judah (or, better defined, the period of 700-586 BC) be separated into archaeological subphases? If this is possible, we would be able to date finds much more accurately, and to relate them much better to historical processes. We have seen earlier (chapter 1.2 above) that the reigns of the kings of Judah do not form real historical periods, and that a clear separation should be recognized between the pax Assyriaca (the first half of the.7th century BC) and the period of struggles following the Assyrian withdrawal (ca. 630/620-586 BC). Judah may have gained a certain amount of independence in between these phases, but this would have been a very short and exceptional period, if at all. Of course, archaeological phases are not always dependent upon historical ones. Can archaeological sub-phases be

The Shephelah. In the Shephelah the following sites were destroyed: Lachish level II (already discussed above), Tel Batash level II (Mazar A. and Kelm 1980:93, 96f; Mazar A. 1985:307-320) and Azeka (Dagan 1992:34, 261f). The Judean Mountains. Ramat Rabel level Va was distroyed (RR I; RR 1I:119f; Aharoni 1956:143, 151), as was Jerusalem or at least the city of David level X (Malamat 1988; Avigad 1980:53; Kenyon 1974:170f; Mazar E. and B. 1989). Many small villages surrounding Jerusalem were probably also ruined. Further south one may probably add Beth Zur and Kh. Rabud (Kochavi 1973: 55-58; Sellers et. al. 1968: pls, 18-19; Sellers 1933:53; EAEHL new: 1252).

Barkay has opposed the setting of the end of the IronAge in 586 BC (1993). For our purpose, 586 BC is the only possible date, since we deal only with Judah, which certainly suffered greatly and lost its independence at this date. The question of terminology (i.e. whether the 6th century· BC is part of the Iron Age)is not important in this regard.

established, considering that the separation of the 8th and 7th centuries BC as a whole was achieved only some 20 years ago?

Sease 1993). According to the logic ofYadin and Geva, one sherd of pottery is enough to prove Judean control at remote sites, even at Tel Keisan which was part of Phoenicia. Most of this criticism is true for the work of Eshel as well (1986), but he dealt mainly with ceramic assemblages, which require a separate discussion.

A suggestion for four archaeological sub-phases within the 7th century BC has recently been made (Yadin and Geva 1983; Eshel 1986), but it can hardly be accepted, for the following reasons:

Another alternative was suggested lately by Oren, following his important excavations in the southern coastal plain. Oren separated an Assyrian phase (701-640 BC) from a later "Egyptian" phase (640-540 BC; Oren 1991:13-15; 1993). The excavations at Tel Haror, Tel Shera, Ruqeish and other sites in this region have not been published fully yet, thus Oren's suggestion can not be explored in detail (for preliminary reports see Oren and Netzer 1974; Oren 1982; Oren 1986). However, it seems that this is also an historical separation, based on an early date for the Assyrian withdrawal from the west. Even if this phasing fits Philistia, it may not fit other parts of the land of Israel. Moreover, most of the finds from the so-called Assyrian phase are not typical of Judah; and there is nothing clearly Egyptian in the material culture of the second phase. The basic problem in this phasing relates to the dating of the sites. At first, Oren dated destructions at Tel Haror and Tel Shera to the end of the 7th, or early 6th, centuries BC (Oren 1988:136). Later Oren changed this dating to ca. 640 BC. This was done according to the assumption that the sites were ruined by Egyptian campaigns against the withdrawing Assyrians (Oren 1991). Yet, the Egyptian 26th dynasty was an ally of Assyria (cf. part 1.2 above), thus Oren's reconstruction is unlikely. Perhaps a few sites were ruined in 640 BC, but surely the 604-586 BC destruction horizon would be much more substantial, and should therefore be preferred for the dating of destructions at sites in Philistia and Judah.

1. The suggested phases were built upon the reigns of the Judean kings, rather than on an independent archaeological basis (and we saw that these reigns do not constitute distinctive historical phases, chapter 1.2. above). 2. Archaeologically, dating to a margin of 20 or 30 years is impossible for Iron Age Judah. For example, see the different dating suggested for the end of Tel Beer Sheba level II (chapter 1.3 above), from 720 to 701 BC or even later. 3. The phases noted by Yadin and Geva (1983: table p. 284) are often valid for a few sites, or one site only. These phases often designate only minor changes and alterations in a restricted locality. At no site do all all four phases exist, and only four sites (of the 19 discussed by Yadin and Geva) have evidence of three phases. In some cases, Yadin, Geva and Eshel defined "phases" which are not recognized by the excavators of the sites, e.g., at Lachish (cf. Ussishkin 1993:133f; Zimhoni 1990:47). At Tel Beer Sheba, for example, there is no "level I", other than one wall with scanty remains (BS I:6f). Surprisingly, Yadin and Geva (1983) ignored Jerusalem completely - the capital of Judah. The reason is clear: Jerusalem does not fit their fourfold division at all. 4. Yadin and Geva (1983), as well as Eshel (1986), did not accept the separation of the 8th and 7th centuries BC, as is accepted by almost all the archaeologists today (see chapter 1.3.1 above).

In the future, the 7th century BC may perhaps be divided into two sub-phases, but currently this is not possible. We have to recognize the fact that the first half of the 7th century BC "slips between the fingers", since no large-scale destruction occurred. For the archaeologist this means lack of rich destruction levels and clearly dated assemblages. The remains of the 7th century BC belong mostly to the second half of the century (and the beginning of the 6th century BC). For these reasons, all the efforts to identify king Manasseh's supposed building projects are very problematic, even if we take the Chronicler's version to be historically reliable (e.g., Tatum 1991). The archaeological limitations, unfortunate as they are for scientific scholarship, must be fully acknowledged, otherwise the whole picture might be biased from the very beginning.

5. The suggested fourfold division is combined with very simplistic explanations of material culture, ignoring basic arc~eological limitations. For example, Yadin and Geva claim that the East-Greek pottery can be dated accurately within a margin of 10 years (1983:250). This may be true for later periods, but not for the Iron Age (cf. Bowden 1991: see also the new dating proposed by Wenning 1989; accepted by Waldbaum 1994).9 Furthermore, the East Greek pottery surely has no special relation with Judah, and the same holds true for the engraved tridacna shells (found allover the ancient Near East, Brandl 1984; Reese and

8 Lately,

8

9 For the East-Greek pottery in the Levant and its chronology see Boar~an 1980; 1988; Collombier 1987; Cook 1992. Lately it wasfound alsoat Kabri, see Niemeier 1994. 9

Chapter II: The History of Research "...After such knowledge, whatforgiveness? Think now History has many cunning passages, contrived corridors And issues, deceives with whispering ambitions Guides us by Vanities... Gives too late What's not believed in, or if still believed, In memory only, reconsidered passion"

influential scholar until the end of this phase, signified by the excavations at Lachish (though these were published only in 1953 (Lachish III).

mentioned, but obviously many more "unidentifiable" fragments were discarded (TBM 1II:69). All were ascribed to level A and dated to the 8th century BC and later. More specifically, one figurine from silo 32 was seen as the earliest (cf. app. 2:229), while all the other pillar figurines were said to belong to the last hundred years of level A (pertaining to the 7th century BC, but now commonly dated to the 8th century BC). Albright saw no great differences between pillar figurines from Tel Beit Mirsim and from Megiddo, and discussed the context only for the purpose of dating. Against the explanation of female figurines, Albright explained figurines of horses, males, a woman carrying a child and women carrying lamps as toys or amulets (ibid:142).2 Perhaps more important was the technical report by Kelso and Thorley (in TBM III: 138141). They believed that two JPFs' heads were brought from Phoenicia because of their superior quality over other badlyfired "local Astartes". Kelso and Thorley also related the pillar body with a tree, that was used in the cult of Asherah (ibid:138).

TI.2.t. The Study ofPilz (1924)

(T.S. Eliot, 'Gerontion'). The Judean Pillar Figurines (henceforward, JPFs for short) were discovered in the nineteenth century AD, and since then discussed in many monographs and papers, not to mention the wealth of secondary and popular treatments. These figurines have been found in almost every Iron Age II excavation in Judah. I have defined several phases in the complicated history of research, but the separating lines between each phase are not always decisive, and the publication dates are often more important then the actual dates of excavation. I will comment only briefly on many studies, which are discussed in detail in the following chapters. A simple representation of the quantitative. progress of research is given in fig. 2.

11.1. From the Nineteenth Century to the Excavation of Gezer (1912) One of the first JPF ever found was brought by father Berkeley to the British Museum in 1865, as part of an assemblage from a grave near Bethlehem (app. 2:7). Very little was known about these figurines then, so ClermontGanneau doubted its authenticity and could not date it clearly (1884:224). It was fully published only a hundred years later (Tubb 1981). Other JPFs found their way into private collections, e.g., the Ustinov collection, later donated to the Museum ofUppsala (Supinska-Levset 1976; 1978:1720, no. UT5).

mandate that followed has to be seen as a very different period (chap. 11.2 below). At Gezer, Macalister defined the figurines as cult objects, usually as representation of goddesses (Gezer 11:411) or the Biblical teraphim (Macalister 1915:270f). The figurines were broken on purpose during magical rites (Macalister 1905:270f). Macalister separated plaque figurines, shaped as a rectangular lump of clay with frontal moulding (Gezer 11:411-416), from pillar figurines which are made in the round. He believed that the last are a Cypriot form of a nurturing goddess (dea nutrix - ibid:417). At that time, large amounts of Cypriot Iron Age figurines were already known. Macalister noticed that the pillar type was later than the plaque type, dating this type to his late Semitic IV and Persian-Hellenistic levels (Gezer 11:417). Unfortunately, due to the unfortunate method of his excavations at Gezer, almost all the JPFs that he found there have no clear archaeological context. Mackenzie's work in Beth Shemesh (1912) deserves the highest regards. His report of the first season is clear and detailed, even to the point of giving exact locations for figurines found inside a certain grave (cf. app. 2:8-9). Mackenzie thought that the hand-made, pinched head variation of the JPFs represented a Semitic figure, due to its facial features (possibly the aquiline nose - he did not specifythe reasons for this conclusion). Two figurines from tomb 5 were seen as a pair of gods (cf. below, app. 2:8-9), an idea followed recently by Wenning (1991). For Mackenzie, the figurines were cultic idols of gods that protected human beings. They were put in the graves as an expression of magic (Mackenzie 1912:76-77). Mackenzie, like many other scholars of his generation, separated sharply religion from magic, following the work of Frazer (1890; for criticism cf. Voigt 1984:168 n.I; Versnel 1991; Ritner 1992). I will discuss this question more thoroughly below (chap. IX). Mackenzie (1912:54) also used the name Astarte for the pillar figurines.

Since the beginning of the 20th century the term "Astarte figurines", together with the notion that these are representations of fertility goddesses, became common (for plaque figurines already at the end of the 19th century AD, Clermont-Ganneau 1896:6f, 242; cf. Contenau 1914:94:ff). Vincent suggested that these figurines had been deliberately broken during rituals (1907:161-163). Contenau (1914:94ff, 100) made a general survey of naked female figurines from the Near East, including Cana'an, but mainly pertaining to the 3rd and 2nd millenniums BC (and without mentioning the pillar figurines).

11.2. Between the Two World Wars: the "Astarte Phase"

The publication of Macalister's excavations at Gezer in 1912 marks the end of this phase of research. The excavations at Gezer (Gezer II-III) and Beth Shemesh (Mackenzie 1912) gave access, for the first time, to relatively large assemblages of JPFs. These assemblages could now be dated, at least crudely, and provided some information on their context. Soon afterwards, the first world war caused an interval in the archaeological activity, and the British

During this phase, there occurred a significant acceleration in the quantity of excavations in the land of Israel under the British Mandate, and many studies on the JPFs were published. The changes were not only quantitative (fig. 2 below), but qualitative as well. Albright was the most

10

Pilz made the first comprehensive study of figurines from Israel. It was part of an unpublished thesis titled "Yahweh and the female goddess". Pilz catalogued 123 figurines of all periods, including metal, stone and faience figurines (1924:133-145). He arranged these by the position of the arms (ibid:157), separating "plaque figurines" (his types A, B) from pillar figurines (C), tambourine players (0), etc. (ibid:140). Actually, Pilz catalogued only 12 pillar figurines from Gezer, dated after 1000 BC (ibid:145, 150, 161). He understood most of the figurines as "Gdtterdarstellung", except the tambourine players, which he perceived to be representations of human beings. Pilz offered varied explanations for each type of figurine, and for the pillar figurines he hinted giving milk. by a goddess or a mother, or Cypriot / Phoenician 'Astarte' figures (pilz 1924:161). Nevertheless, he made some interesting remarks. First, he noted that if these were indeed female goddesses, then the monotheistic cult of Yahweh did not suppress her cult (ibid:167); this critical attitude is unusual for archaeologists of this phase. Secondly, Pilz noted the small size of the figurines, thus they were not cult statues (Kultbilder) but only smaller copies of statues, still representing goddesses. Pilz also suggested that the figurines were related to "popular religion" (ibid:161, but without further discussion). He did not try to relate them directly with the Old Testament and his general attitude was cautious:

At Tell e-Nasbeh, all the human figurines were of the pillar type (TN 1:145), and a very clear definition of the two major variations was formulated: the "pinched head" and the mould-made head. Both variations were seen as contemporary. The excavators gave the numbers of all the figurines that have been found, including small fragments not published with drawings or photographs (ibid:246, 273, map fig. 50c). Some 150 JPFs had been discovered, all from level I (except one or two), dated to 750-450 Be. The excavators believed that the JPFs had been deliberately broken (ibid:245), and were amulets or homely icons, not used in official temples. They had not been found in tombs at this site, supposedly because they were not used as concubines or female replacements during internment rituals (but probably the tombs found at Tel en-Nasbeh predate the period when these figurines became common). In the summary, the JPFs were termed Astarte figurines and examples of the prophetic condemnations, but they have also been considered as votive objects and "evidence of the extent to which magic ruled the minds of the ancients". Their crudity and small size indicate that they are cheap tokens, that replace "by magic and ritual the place of the real object in religion" (ibid:248). In the same breath, the authors suggested that the figurines were manufactured by uninstructed potters, perhaps chiefly women, being part of a local worship (TN 1:248).

"Religionsgeschichtlich muss sich unsere Typenvergleichung die Archaologisch so lohnend war, wollen wir auf festen boden bleiben, mit dem wenigen oben Gesagten bescheiden" (pilz 1924:167).

TI.2.2. Major Excavations during the 1920's and 1930's These excavations formed a large data-base of JPFs, for the first time. The final report of the excavations at Beth Shemesh offered a short synthesis, and a date from the 10th century BC and later was suggested for the pillar figurines (AS V:155). This date was based on an early date for tomb 1 at this site.1 The excavators exempted themselves from a detailed study with the excuse that Albright was preparing one on the same subject.

Excavations outside Judah helped to define other types of pillar figurines, especially at Samaria (Samaria 1:348f, #Bl) and Megiddo (May 1935). At Megiddo, all the anthropomorphic figurines were explained in connection with religion (cult, mortuary cult, mother-goddesses, etc.).

This Albright did, but he dealt with the plaque figurines and gave only a short summary about the pillar figurines (Albright 1939:117-119). Albright dated the pillar figurines to the 7th-6th centuries BC and called them "nurturing goddesses". In his view, some of the heads had been made in Cyprus (ibid:120). More detailed was the Tel Beit Mirsim report from 1943 (TBM III). 39 pillar figurines were

2 A somewhat different view was proposed by Albright in his book

"Archaeology and the Religion oflsrael" (1942). There he claimed that Iron Age II pillar figurines have no similarity to the Cana'anite plaque figurines; and that the Israelites used these figurines as amulets for help during birth or as expressions of "sympathetic magic"; thus, "in no case can we label them with the name of a goddess" (Albright 1942:115).

1 Many scholars adopted this dating, e.g., IBM Ill:69; Pritchard 1943:24, no. 203; Holland 1975:330; Engle 1979:20.

11

Even animal figurines were not seen as mere toys, but as related to cults of bulls or herds (May 1935:28, 34). The important thing was the recognition that the type of pillar figurines so common in the south "had little influence" at Megiddo - other than one exceptional figurine (May 1935:31, reg. no. M.I776; app. 2:102 in the present work).

Hooke (1938:25) barely mentioned the figurines: "Vast numbers of Astarte figurines and amulets showed how widespread was the use of such charms for apotropaic or fertility purposes". Burrows (1941:220f) managed to call the figurines every conceivable term, all in the same short section: Astartes, "dumb and helpless idols" (though this is less likely), household deities like the Biblical teraphim, expressions of sympathetic magic, images of the mother-goddess, votive objects and playthings. Otherwise, Burrows just repeated the words of Albright and Pritchard.

11.2.3. The Monograph of Pritchard (1943) This monograph indicates well the state of research at the end of the Astarte phase. Pritchard discussed 249 female figurines of the Bronze and Iron ages in Israel. 52 of these were termed pillar figurines, his type VII (pritchard 1943:56, nos. 189-240). These included many figurines that cannot be termed thus today, like juglets, figurines with legs, women holding birds, etc. (ibid: catalogue nos. 199, 218-221, 225, 236-240).3 Pritchard dated the pillar figurines to after 1000 BC, following Albright at Tel Beit Mirsim." He noted that pillar figurines appear also in private loci, thus being private property (ibid:87). Pritchard though that their origin was Cyprus or Mesopotamia (ibid:53, 87).

Galling thought that all the figurines were goddesses of life and fertility. This is evidence that the war staged by the Israelite religion against the goddesses was not always successful since the Israelites used, to a certain extent, these figurines (Galling 1937:230). Galling also hinted that major goddesses, such as Anat or Asherah, were paredos of the male god - but he did not explicitly identify these goddesses with the figurines: "Sie lebten mit ihrer kleinen Abbilden als kraftgelandes vis natur in der privaten Sphare .des Symbol der israelitischen Hauses. Soweit man die weiblische Gottheiten als Grossgdtter ansprechen darf (Anath, Aschira), sind sie Paredoi des M3nnIichen Gottes" (1937:233).5

Pritchard's conclusions were cautious: the nature of all three major goddess mentioned in the Old Testament, Astarte, Asherah and Anat, is quite similar (pritchard 1943:59-81). Thus, there is no unequivocal evidence for the identification of a specific goddess with the pillar figurines (ibid:2-4, 8587). Pritchard believed that the pillar type was a direct continuation of the plaque figurines depicting a woman holding her breasts, thus perhaps indicating a symbolic representation of womankind, or mother goddess, or private, domestic cult of milk-fertility (ibid:83, 87). In this way, a rather peculiar mix of explanations is given in Pritchard's summary, but his caution is much more appealing then arrogance, which is, unfortunately, not uncommon among archaeologists.

11.2.4. Popular and Other Short Allusions during the 'Astarte' Phase Popular works are not necessarily worse than scientific papers, and are usually simpler to analyze. Driver saw the figurines from Gezer as images of home - gods, especially Astartes, without discussing the pillar figurines in particular (1922:56-58). For Watzinger (1933: 117), the pillar figurines were a direct continuation of the Bronze Age plaque figurines, therefore evidence for the continuation of the domestic cult of the female nature goddess. The specific term Astarte appears only in the labels to the photographs (Watzinger 1933: pI. 40:96, 98; cf. also Reifenberg 1927:9096).

11.3.1. The Contribution of New Excavations

Many JPFs were found in Aharoni's excavations at Ramat Rabel, but were only partly published (RR I-II). Aharoni used the term Astarte, but did not state a clear view about the identity of these figurines. 6 Ciasca's detailed study of the horse-and-rider figurines from this site was important, showing the ability to identify small fragments. She often managed to identify broken parts through changes of color resulting from exposure (or lack of exposure) to oxygen during firing (Ciasca 1964:95-100; cf. her publication of the Tell Erani material, Ciasca 1962; 1963).

Many important excavations have taken place during the present phase, e.g., those at Lachish, Jerusalem (by Kenyon), Gibeon and Ramat Rabel. Tufnell ascribed the JPFs at Lachish to level III-II, i.e., 8th7th centuries BC (Lachish III:374). She lowered the date of the figurines from Beth Shemesh tomb 1, by arguing that only the beginning of the burials there are from ca. 900 BC, but the tomb continued to be used later; thus the figurines are probably later (ibid:377). The Tel Beit Mirsim pillar figurines are distinctive from the Megiddo pillar figurines, although Albright disagrees. Still, many of these figurines are only "crudely playthings" or "homely symbols", lacking any artistic value (ibid:374). The moulding of the heads was technically good, and they were all made in one place, while the bodies were made locally at each site (Lachish III:375). Occasionally, the report glided into unwarranted generalizations. For example, it was suggested that the pillar figurines may have represented the naked goddess, a goddess returning to Israel and to Greece (and having a shared Assyrian origin - ibid:377). Regarding the horse-andrider figurines, Tufnell wrote that: "The simultaneous introduction of equestrian figures is a further sign of northern pressure, commemorating, perhaps, these bands of horseman from the northern steppes [meaning the Scythians] whose descendants had reached Egypt by the middle of the seventh century" (ibid:377).

World War II terminated this phase of research, though not as sharply as did World War I earlier. One l~t wo~d concerns the title of this phase - "Astarte". Dunng this period, the term Astarte was very commonly attached ~o the pillar figurines (as well as to other types of figunnes). Earlier, it was used mainly in respect of the plaque figurines, but these figurines were not yet separated well from the pillar figurines, and the term was used mutually for both kinds. Furthermore, many scholars who saw these figurines as representations of a goddess related them with forbidden or foreign cults; fitting them to the Old Testament's descriptions of foreign, condemned goddesses like Anat or Astarte. The term Astarte remained popular much later, somewhat ironically, and a few scholars use it even today (e.g., Haran 1992:331).

A very large quantity of pillar figurines was discovered in Kenyon's excavations in Jerusalem. Kenyon (1967: 101) was very assured about the meaning of animal figurines: "it is always possible to say that an animal figure has no greater significance than that of a toy." On the other hand, female pillar figurines are mainly "elemental mother - goddess" and "fertility cult objects" (ibid). Kenyon suggested that horse figurines are related to the "sun horses" that are mentioned in II Kings (cf already Samaria III:78), especially because of the applied disc that some horses carry between their ears (though this phenomenon is quite rare among the Judean horse figurines). Many female pillar figurines were found in cave I, which Kenyon believed to be a temple's favissa. These figurines were not related to Yahweh, in her view: "The association of these female figurines with a fertility cult, abhorrent to the worshippers of Yahweh, is very obvious" (Kenyon 1974:141). The fullest publication of the JPFs from Kenyon's excavations at Jerusalem was written by Holland (whose work I will discuss in detail in chap. 11.3.4 below).

3 Of the 52 figurines he termed "pillar", I have defmed only 12 as JPFs in the present study(cf. fig. 2). 5 The secondedition of his book, from 1977, holds no significant changes in this regard.

12

However, they limited the range to the 8th-7th centuries BC (Gibeon WS:15-17).

The opinions of Galling are exceptional for this early stage of research, preceding the "Asherah phase of research" by more than thirty years.

s.

4 His catalogue nos. 191-2 from Megiddo were dated to the Iron AgeI, but these are not JPFs (following my detinitions).

11.3. From World War II until 1975

A very important contribution was made at that time by Gophna (1970), despite its brevity. Following small scale surveys, Gophna defined clearly a pillar type of figurine typical of southern Philistia (1970:27, 29). This type is clearly different to the simple, pinched, hand-made type of figurine which is typical of Judah and rare in the coastal plain (ibid:29, pI. 6:6; cf. app. 2:68 below). Gophna dated the figurines and the sites to the 7th-6th centuries Be. He also suggested precise dating to Josiah's reign, but it was made via historical considerations, and did not depend on archaeological evidence (Gophna 1970:30). Excavations outside Judah, especially those at Hazor, Ta'anakh, Samaria and Ashdod, were also important to the study of the JPFs. At Ta'anakh, the figurines are earlier than the JPFs, but Lapp noted the lack of the "Dea Nutrix figurine, typical of the Iron Age II in southern Palestine" (Lapp 1967:37; cf. Lapp 1964). Assemblage E207 at Samaria contained many figurines (Samaria III:76), explained as votive objects related to different goddesses. Horse figurines were related with a sun cult; pillar figurines with a mother goddess; a woman and child figurine with Isis, etc. (Samaria III:77-78). The figurines were supposedly signs of foreign, non-Yahweistic cult: "These poor relics do help to quicken our understanding the of the mingled scorn and pity which they [the OT prophets] pour on the people of Samaria - scorn of their adultery, and pity for their desperate state under the threat of the Assyrian invasion" (Samaria III:79). Ashdod is important for the definition of the assemblages of the southern coastal plain. Most of the figurines from Ashdod were found in area D which was termed cultic, while the figurines were called Astartes (Ashdod I:137-139). In the following report (Ashdod II-III: 125), Hachlili related the figurines from area D to domestic and industrial contexts. The comparisons that she found to the figurines from Ashdod lack examples from Judean sites, but she did not make an explicit allusion to this fact. She suggested that the variety of figures indicates that they were not gods, but

In Gibeon, 54 JPFs were found in the great public pool (of which only 27 were published with a photograph or drawing: Gibeon WS). The excavators tried to date the figurines by their relative depths within the pool, but following Pritchard (1943), they suggested that the pillar type was used in Palestine in the IOth-6th centuries BC.

6 The same is true for his textbook "The Archaeology of the Land ofIsrael" (Aharoni 1978)and his Tel Beer ShebaReport(BS I). In a popular book, though, Aharoni defmed a JPF from Arad ~ Astarte, a fertility goddess of Cana'anite origins (Aharom 1971b:l13-114).

13

functions. Even the "unenlightened and tolerant circles in Israel" understood that Yahweh cannot be worked in a similar way (therefore one does not find similar representations of a male god). All this proves the antiquity of the first two commandments (Wright 1957:118).

individual human beings (Ashdod II-III: 128, 132). At the same time, female figurines were explained by Hachlili as votive objects, which were used to enhance fertility or to assure female safety by sympathetic magic (ibid: 113). Animal figurines were explained in various ways: as burial gifts, as symbols of sacrifices of animals (of the species represented by the figurines), and even as toys (Ashdod 11III:134-135).

A similar view was expressed by Heaton (1974:232); the figurines were mother goddesses that belonged to women. They were not idols but "lucky charms" - maybe the famous teraphim. Heaton (1974:232) liked one of these figurines from Lachish, which "is more pleasant than usual, but when she had her cheeks painted red, she must have appeared distinctly garish". Much more important were the short remarks made by the Frankens, who noted the difficulties in the AstartelFertility explanations. The variety of female types of figurines calls for different represented figures. Furthermore, it is hard to see all the animal figurines as related to fertility, since pregnancy or sexuality were usually not stressed, and some species of animals are missing (Franken and Franken-Battershill 1963:143). The Frankens suggested a comprehensive research of figurines according to the different types and following detailed statistic analysis and study of distributions and contexts. One should ask is any type of figurine limited to a certain segment of the population? What is the relation between the distribution in cities versus agricultural villages? This ideal plan of research, however, did not materialize.

D.3.2. The Research of Reed In an important study, Reed (1949) discussed the problematic nature of the Asherah, which seems to appear in the Old Testament sometimes as a female goddess and other times as a cultic object. Reed concluded that the Asherah was a cultic object in temples, both in the cults of Yahweh and Ba'al. This conclusion was based on the places and the verbs which are related to the Asherah in the Old Testament, as well as on other cultic objects mentioned beside it. In some instances, Asherah is an image of a goddess called Asherah (Reed 1949:53, 95). Reed (1949: appendix 1) rejected simplistic identifications of the Asherah with various material objects. He wrote that even if the Asherah was made of wood, it does not imply that every wood, tree, or pole is an Asherah (1949:37). He criticized harshly, and rightly, the many identifications of the Asherah with all kinds of trees, groves and poles, since:

Ahlstrom warned about seeing the figurines only as part of popular religion, since some had been found in the royal palace at Ramat Rabel (1963:51). De-Vaux (1958:82) thought that these figurines were toys:

"When one assumes, as he has no right to do, that the Asherah was a tree or a pole, then the field becomes a large one and every stylized tree or upright pole may be called an Asherah" (Reed 1949:3).

a

"Le petit Israelite passait le meilleur de son temps jouer dans les rues ou sur la place avec les garsons et les filles de son ~ge... Ils chantaient, dansaient, s'amusaient avec des modelages de terre cuite comme on en a retrouve dans les fouilles; les petits filles ont toujours jou~ ~ la poupee, "

Reed separated small figurines found in domestic buildings and large Asherah statues that stood in public temples (1949: 72 n.14). The clay figurines are not "Asherim", though Reed did not cancel out the possibility that some of them represented goddesses, which we can not yet identify specifically. Reed did not discuss the JPFs in particular, but his study presented a well balanced and critical attitude to the question of the Biblical Asherah (as opposed to many of the later "Asherah studies").

Exceptional among the popular literature of those years was a book by Patai, called "The Hebrew Goddess" (1967).7 Patai argued that the written sources imply that Asherah and Astarte were not part of a foreign cult or magical phenomena, but kosher Hebrew goddesses - even if their first origin was, perhaps, foreign (1967:25-26, 34-52). He went as far as to state that Asherah was Yahweh's consort, and the pillar figurines were used to support this theory. Patai took it for granted that the naked female figurine belonged to ritualistic, or religious contexts (1967:30). The Late Bronze Age plaque figurines, or the Middle Bronze Age figurines from the temple at Nahariya, were explained as representations of Astarte. 8 On the other hand, pillar

D.3.3. General Allusions and Popular Literature Many allusions to the JPFs have been made during this phase of research, but only a selection is presented here. Wright (1957: 117f) claimed that archaeology confirmed the Biblical ban of idols, since figures of Yahweh were not found in Israelite sites. The female figurines that were found there in plenty are only mother goddesses, though less sensual then their Cana'anite predecessors. Wright perceived them to be evidence of large scale syncretism within the common people, verging on polytheism. The figurines were the property of the common people, who used them as "good-luck charms" for magical, rather then theological,

7 The first chapterof this book appeared originally in JNES 1965. For a short later summary, but without significant changes, cf Patai 1987:379. 8 The reason for identifying Astarte with the Nahariya figurines was their horns. Patai claimed that the homs were related to the place name "Ashtarot Kamayim" and henceto Astarte (ibid:56, nn. 24, 58-59, 98).

14

grouped as type N, with sub-type N.II defined as moulds of pillar figurines (ibid:314-316). Holland occasionally used the term Astarte for various sub-types within his A type (ibid:49, 62, 97, 102, 133, etc.).

figurines represent Asherah as a domestic goddess which also has an aspect of fertility. The figurines are not the large, wooden cult idols, but Patai saw no great differences between the two. The large quantities of pillar figurines indicates the extreme popularity that the Asherah had in all levels of Israelite society. This was perhaps due to the belief that Asherah helped in giving birth and encouraged fertility (patai 1967:32-35). Critical scrutiny would show that Patai's theory is simplified and lacks an understanding of the archaeological material. Patai quoted from other archaeologists without criticism (e.g., the view of Albright that the moulds were imported, Patai 1967:60). For some reason, the Asherah figurines were discussed in the chapter on the kingdom of Israel and not in relation to Judah. Nevertheless, Patai has influenced many of the later archaeologists (see below), despite the general popular, often even grandiose, tone of his book: "Is the Hebrew goddess dead or does she merely slumber, soon to awaken rejuvenated by her rest and reclaim the hearts of her sons and lovers?"?

Holland followed Albright's chronology, attributing type A figurines entirely to Iron Age II, until the 6th century Be (1975:16, 319). He did not discuss separately the date of each sub-type within group A, and accepted the chronology of various excavators, or amendments suggested by Kenyon to various levels. The one JPF from Beth Shemesh tomb 1 was defined as the earliest of its kind (ibid:30). Holland noted that his type B was not popular "in the heart" of the Israelite culture (ibid:319); its appearance at Megiddo and Samaria was ascribed to a large foreign population that supposedly lived in these Israelite cities. Even the material and finish of the figurines from Samaria are different from those in Judah (Holland 1975:163). The appearance of type B at Tel Gemmeh was explained as having an Egyptian, or Phoenician influence (ibid:319-320); although this is its homeland (together with the areas of Samaria and a few figurines from Transjordan, ibid:330f).

Worthy of note, and on a totally different scale, is an extensive work by Ucko (1968) dealing with prehistoric figurines from the Near East and the Aegean. I have mentioned this work here because of its theoretical importance. Ucko discussed varied explanations given to figurines which lack historical sources: mother-goddesses, dolls, concubines and magical figures (1968:409-414, 420423). He made extensive use of anthropological material (ibid:424fi) and criticized sharply the "mother-goddess" explanation (ibid:417-419). Ucko thought that in any assemblage of figurines, there are some types of figurines that can have more than one explanation; on the other hand, no one explanation can fit all the figurines in a given assemblage. It is logical, that the same figurines had several functions (ibid:426). Important also was the statement that figurines which have a similar outlook may have represented different figures (ibid:423-425).

Holland thought that type A was mainly Judean, but it appeared also a little in the north. Jerusalem seems to be its homeland (ibid). When discussing the separate types, Holland did connect directly some sub-types of A with Judah (1975:181, 183, 187, types AI, A.IV.e, AI.g, etc.). Furthermore, he quite often used the definition "Judean" in regard to different specific figurines (ibid: 105, 106). Thus, Judean figurines at Tel Gat [i.e., Tel Erani] imply that this was a Judean site (ibid:96). Moulds type N.II were also called Judean (ibid:324), but as there are almost no moulds, this conclusion must have been formulated on the basis of differences between the types of moulded heads. The archaeological context of the figurines was not really discussed, other then a general statement that they are found in various contexts (1975:325, 331). Holland thought that the figurines were deliberately mutilated, since whole vessels and broken figurines were found in the entrance to cave 1 in Jerusalem (ibid:330, 337-338). He believed that figurines from graves were mother-goddesses which served as burial gifts. Cave 1 in Jerusalem was a favissa (ibid:327329, following Kenyon). Horse figurines may relate to a sun cult (ibid:342). Even figurines from domestic houses are cultic (ibid:325); thus, the many figurines from Ashdod area D strengthen its definition as a cultic area (ibid:55, but this is rather a circular argument: one has first to prove the cultic nature of the figurines themselves!). Rarely, Holland made unwarranted generalizations, e.g., that the large quantity of pillar figurines at Tel Beit Mirsim shows the Israelite love of cult-idols, against which the Biblical prophets complained so much (ibid: 142). The more elongated face of type A.lV.f figurines is perhaps a hint about the ethnic origin of the settlers in the coastal plain (ibid: 189).

D.3.4. The Dissertation of Holland (1975) This monumental work is the most thorough study on figurines from Israel so far, and it marks the end of the present phase of research. Holland presented 2711 artifacts, of which ca. 1000 were not published earlier. This work remains unpublished, other than a short summary (Holland 1977, without significant changes from the dissertation). Holland separated the discussion into two parts: review by sites (1975:39-177) and review by types of figurines (ibid:178-318). This was followed by a short summary (ibid:319-346). Anthropomorphic figurines were divided into solid pillars (type A); hollow pillars (type B) and plaques (type C). 572 specimens were counted in type A (Holland 1975:319), including hand-made heads (type AI) and mould made heads (types A.II-AIX). Body fragments and heads without clear classification where gathered thereafter (types AX-AXIl, ibid: 194-197). Moulds were

A few matters impaired the extensive work of Holland. First, the cumbersome structure; although Holland's main aim was to give a full catalogue, there is none in his work. A

Is the tone, in a way, a retlection of the eventful year of publication - 1967?

9

15

reader interested in a specific figurine must recollect the material about it from various chapters in Holland's work. The type table (Holland 1975:20-36) is disconnected from the second volume, where only part of the figurines were fully described (mainly new, unpublished ones). Many details are still missing from Holland's work, especially for the many figurines from Kenyon's excavations in Jerusalem. So far, Holland's thesis is the main publication of these figurines (a few were published in the Jerusalem I and II volumes). Regrettably, Holland often did not give the loci or registration numbers of these figurines, which are now spread allover the world. 10

about Asherah. From the beginning, the basic assumption is that the JPFs represented the Asherah (Engle 1979:1-2). This identification was made earlier by Patai (1967, see II.3.3 above). For the Old Testament sources, Engle relied heavily on the work of Reed (cf. chap. 11.3.2 above). Engle stressed the principle that a common type is much more important for study than the various, "obscure" pieces, and therefore set severe rules for defining what he termed as "classical pillar figurines". This definition excluded the pillar types of figurines found at Megiddo (Engle 1979:9, II). Engle's classical type included most of Holland's types A II-AIX, 11 while all the other types of pillar figurines were defined as foreign (ibid:9). Engle excluded from the discussion at least 183 body fragments (i.e., Holland's types AX-AXI), claiming that these could not be classified since the heads were lacking. Holland's types AXII-AXVlI were also excluded by Engle as being irregular or miscellaneous. Even the pinched, hand-made heads (Holland's type AI) were omitted by Engle, on the pretense that they were too "featureless" for classification (Engle 1979:10). Nevertheless, Engle criticized the typology of Holland as artificial and suggested a typology of seven sub-types according to minor changes in the shapes of the eyes (ibid, but cf. already Kelso and Thorley, TBM III:140). Another type of pillar figurine was called "foreign" (type VIII) and ascribed to figurines from Phoenicia, Ammon, Moab and Philistia (Engle 1979:14-15).

A second major limitation is the typological scheme: Holland's type A included not only pillar figurines, but any solid figurine, even those with legs (AXIlI), sitting figures, peg figurines and even hollow, double-moulded figurines (Holland 1975: type AIV.g.2-3). This mixture prevented Holland from reaching clear conclusions about the date and the distribution of each sub-type. But the major limitation is the lack of a synthesis for the huge number of artifacts. Almost no general conclusions were offered (other than ibid, 319-325; 325-329). There was no statistic analysis (Holland is hardly to be blamed for this, as this would have been hard to achieve before the era of private computers). Only the major types (A, B, C) were discussed, but not the many subtypes; thus, for all the figurines of type A one can find only a few sentences in Holland's summary (1975:319-320). Only a few type A figurines from cave 1 were discussed in more detail, but even this was done briefly. What is the value of a very detailed typology, if it is not used for synthesis? For these reasons Holland's work, despite its wide scope and thoroughness, marks the end of a fruitful phase of research (rather than the beginning of a new phase).

Engle (1979:19) adopted Aharoni's Iron Age chronology, yet continued to accept an early date for Beth Shemesh tomb I, like Albright. Engle also dated figurines from level IV at Beer Sheba early (ibid:20), thus concluding that the beginning of the JPFs was around the late 10th or early 9th centuries BC. Most of the JPFs are from the 8th century BC, with gradual decline until the 6th century BC (evidence for such a decline, or explanations why it should have occurred were not given). Engle suggested that typological differences were related to chronology: type I may be early, while type V is late - but he accepted the dating of many sites without any criticism. He discussed the distribution of the figurines only briefly, but clearly associated types I-VII with Judah, since only 2 of the 147 "classical pillar figurines" were found outside Judah. Therefore, these were Judean figurines, while type VIII was foreign (Engle 1979: 16 and fig. 13).

11.4. 1975-1995, The Asherah Phase The last two decades have been very dynamic concerning the research of the JPFs. The prosperity of this research has much to do with the Asherah inscriptions found at the sites of Kh. el-Kom and Kuntillet 'Ajrud, and the growing interest in the study of the religion of Judah and Israel during the First Temple period.

The discussion of the contexts was also very limited (Engle 1979:27ft). Engle wanted to prove that the JPFs had religious function. He admitted that many figurines came from domestic contexts, and that a few figurines were found in public or industrial contexts (ibid:29-30). A dozen were found in tombs, and in his view this is at least a "quasireligious" context. Three other JPFs were found in favissa,

n.4.1. The Dissertation of Engle (1979) This work marks the new phase of research, both chronologically and thematically. The JPFs are discussed in the opening pages (despite the use of the word Israel in the general title of the work). Then Engle reviews the sources 10 The drawings and photographs in the photocopy of Holland's thesis are not always clear, and many figurines were not drawn or photographed. Thus, despite the correspondence with many institutions and the kind help of Prof. K. Prag, head of the Jerusalem project today, it is sometimes hard to identify figurines in Holland's work with the records kept by Museums and Institutions.

11 Holland (1975) had a total of 159 figurines of these types; Engle had a total of 147 "classical pillar figurines", including a dozen newfigurines published after 1975.

i.e., a religious context.12 Engle also tried to find a religious background for JPFs from cisterns, pools and silos, assuming that they had been thrown there deliberately. However, this deliberate throwing was claimed first because only heads had been found, and later because whole figurines had been found (cf. ibid 30-31). In explaining the figurines as Asherah, Engle suggested an analogy to Greece, where figurines seem to be small copies of large cultic statues (ibid:35). The situation in Greece is much more complicated than what he assumed to be (cr. Alroth 1988), and analogies cannot form decisive proof (see more about analogies in chapter IX below). In summary, Engle (1979:50-52) suggested that his classical pillar figurines represented Asherah, since she was the only serious candidate for identification. He even claimed that the logic should be turned around: instead of learning from the Old Testament about the JPFs, the JPFs can teach us about the identity of the Biblical Asherah. Engle (1979:62-63) also connected the Biblical plural form Asherim with the JPFs.13

represented Asherah? The Old Testament, regrettably, gives no evidence that relates Asherah with small clay figurines at all. Where is, then, the archaeological proof for this identification? Engle's efforts to attribute religious functions to JPFs found in cisterns, graves, etc. are feeble and unconvincing. Even if we adopt them, most of the JPFs still come from domestic contexts, lacking any clear religious, or cultic function. As a matter of fact, Engle simply adopted the old view that figurines were cultic artifacts, and just changed their title from Astarte to Asherah. True, this fits more the. date of the pillar figurines, but the proof for the identification is still lacking.

n.4.2. New Excavations An impressive number of important sites have been excavated during this phase of research. Many JPFs were found at Tel Ira, Tel Beer Sheba, Arad, Jerusalem, Ramot and other sites. Many of these figurines have not yet been published, but I was able to include them in this work through the kindness of the excavators. Among the publications, the Jerusalem volumes are important for an understanding of cave 1. The authors explained the cave as a phenomenon of popular religion: "this cave fits in with the general picture of popular religion in that period" (Jerusalem II:127, also 44, 48-50, 125ft). The female figurines were explained as representations of women who came to the cave seeking help during illness or birth; but also as magical objects (Jerusalem II:128; cf. recently Franken 1995). It is actually the bird figurines who are thought to have represented Asherah (Jerusalem II:128; for the pottery from the cave cf. Lagro and Noordhuizen 1987). Figurines from Mazar's excavation in Jerusalem were explained otherwise, as foreign cult. It was claimed that they have been deliberately mutilated by religious reformers (Nadelman 1989:123). Lastly, a group offigurines from the Kenyon's excavations have been republished as "new" (Amr 1988; but cr. Franken 1989 and app. 2: nos. 364,371,373, 385, 388, 389 [possibly], 411).

Engle no doubt contributed to our understanding by defining clearly a Judean type of pillar figurine, and by stressing the value of a standard type as the main subject of research, but, there are many drawbacks in Engle's work. It is mainly a Biblical study, and the JPFs were brought in as outside support for his theory about the Asherah. The figurines occupy a minor part of the work (Engle 1979:5-28), and are not discussed for their own sake. Engle did not check JPFs with his own eyes and admitted that only someone with direct access to the material could make a detailed typology (ibid:10). Nevertheless, he dismissed the detailed typology of Holland, who had far better direct access to the figurines. Holland's typology was rejected in favor of a new - though admittedly an arbitrary - one (Engle's own acknowledgment, 1979:13-14). A major set back is the exclusion of all the fragments of body-parts and hand-made heads, not to mention every other doubtful item. It is a very convenient method, but it left Engle with only a small portion of the whole corpus of figurines, up to the extent that one wonders whether the general conclusions can be considered valid. The so called foreign type was not studied closely, but presented like an unimportant leftover. The geographic discussion was simple, and Engle did not even raise the question of the relations between the JPFs and the borders of Judah. For example, he took the JPFs and the lmlk seal impressions to be contemporaneous and claimed that they fitted the evidence in the Old Testament - but the use of the JPFs began much earlier and continued well after the lmlk stamps, according to Engle's own dating (1979:24-26). The moulds (or their lack) were not discussed at all.

n.4.3. Collections, General Allusions and Popular Literature Regarding collections, I will mention only one example to show the problems involved. It concerns a large group of figurines offered for sale in Jerusalem's antiquity market. One part of this group was taken abroad, reaching the collections of a museum and was published, at least partially (Jeremias 1993; cf. below, App. 3:77-78). Other figurines of this group were bought by a rich Texan (thus complained Jeremias). Archaeology suffered a double damage: the figurines surely came to light as a result of robbery, inflicting much damage on the robbed site/s (such a large number of figurines are unlikely to be a "family inheritance", as often claimed by merchants). Furthermore, we do not know the archaeological origins (date, nature of context, site, etc.) and cannot rely upon anything told by antiquities dealers. Only the artifacts remained, devoid of any context.

The main problem about Engle's work is, however, different. Where is the basis for the main argument that the JPFs 12 Only because Engle accepted the definition of Jerusalem cave 1 as a ''favissa'', and the same for a ''favissa'' in Aharoni's excavations at Lachish. 13 His attitude towards the Of verses is far from being critical, e.g., his tendency to accept without questioning the versions in Chronicles (ibid:63, 68-69).

16

17

This criticism should not be seen as general disaproval of the quality of publications of such finds - these can be valuable and one good example was offered by SupinskaL~vset (1976; 1978; on the difficulties of studying figurines without context see Bailey 1994:323; for the possibility to identify modern forgery of figurines see Moorey 1994).

208; 1990:166) dated the pillar figurines to the 8th-7th centuries BC. According to his view, they functioned within domestic fertility cult, related to Astarte or Asherah (1990:191). Often, a group of several figurines is found together. The figurines have been deliberately mutilated, perhaps in relation to Josiah's reform or to the activity of the Deuteronomistic school. Barkay also suggested that the hand-made heads were made in the 7th century BC, and are later than the moulded heads (1990:192).

Many studies during this phase of research examined the JPFs. Ahlstrom believed that the JPFs were religious objects, casting doubts on the picture of "pure", monotheistic Yahwehism. Ahlstrom was one of the few scholars who warned that not all the figurines belonged to popular religion and as something opposed to the official cult. This was based on the fact that some figurines had been found in the royal palace of Ramat Rabel (1984:136; 1991:129; cf. already 1963:51-54). In any case, our ability to separate popular from official religion is very limited (Ahlstrom 1982:83; cf. 1984:18; 1991:127-129). Ahlstrom accepted the identification of the JPFs with Asherah and explained the animal figurines as representations of Yahweh or Ba'al. He even claimed that the figurines and other archaeological finds "can correct the picture of the religion which has been presented by the Old Testament writers" (Ahlstrom 1984:135), since the Old Testament "has turned things virtually upside down" (ibid:138). Unfortunately, he did not differentiate between the Judean figurines and other types, e.g., those from Samaria or Megiddo (ibid:136). It also seems that he did not fully grasp the limitations of archaeology, thus his "explicitly archaeological approach" is not a very profound one. For example, one mouse figurine led him to the conclusion "this mouse figurine may indicate that the cult of Beth Shemesh may have been influenced by the Philistines" (Ahlstrom 1984:121). One head of a horse from Hazor "indicates that the religion of Israel during the time of Omri and Ahab included sun worship" (Ahlstrom 1984:127). To derive such general conclusions from so few, humble and unclear archaeological finds can only be termed speculative - if not worse. 14

Briend called the figurines naked idols of a goddess, and related them to fertility cult. He claimed that they cast doubts in regard to the depth of the belief in Yahweh among the common population (Briend 1992:37-38). Whitt just echoed Ahlstrom's and Dever's opinions: "Archeologists commonly identify the naked goddess with a fertility goddess, that is, Asherah ... therefore it is reasonable that the symbols of horses, bulls and naked women, so common in Jerusalem, are the symbols of Yahweh and his mate, the goddess Asherah (=Anat =Astarte)" (Whitt 1992: 48; on Dever see chap. 11.4.6 below). Haran (1992:331) tried to identify the Biblical queen of heaven with Mesopotamian Ishtar, and wrote that: "Some say that in the land of Israel this name [queen of heaven] was transferred to the Cana'anite comparison of Ishtar, whose figurines were found in plenty in archaeological excavations". For Bloch-Smith, the pillar figurines may have represented Asherah, but also perhaps teraphim, or "mother of generation" whose breasts gave milk to babies in the family (1992:218f, following Bird, for which see chap. 11.4.9 below). Tigai thought that the figurines were not goddesses but magical figurines, and that they did not imply polytheism. The evidence for this is the lack of theophoric names of goddesses from late Iron Age Judah (Tigai 1986:91f, 1987:192f, n.116). It is doubtful, though, if one can rely so much on the onomastic evidence, especially as it is negative in character. Hestrin (1991:57) saw the pillar body of the pillar - figurines as a symbol of the tree trunk of Asherah, and the breasts as a symbol of life and nurture given by the mother goddess. At the same time, the pillar figurines belonged to popular cult. Coogan (1987:119) explained the figurines as companions to the national male god, but as part of a popular religion (without mentioning the specific names of any goddess). Fritz (1994: 163-5) made a well balanced summary, seeing the pillar figurines as cultic, but without stating if they were goddesses or amulets. Miller (1986:245) thought that the figurines were goddesses, but not Asherah. For other allusions to the JPFs, without significant contributions, see Dearman 1992:89f; Halpren 1987:82ff, n.25; 1991:77f, n.I.

Helga Weippert described the pillar figurines briefly and cautiously. She thought that they were part of an assemblage, which included miniature models of furniture. The meaning of Samaria locus E207 and Jerusalem cave 1 are not clear, but perhaps from the temple at Sarepta one can suggest a connection of the figurines with cult (Weippert 1988:629-631). In a later criticism of Keel and Uehlinger, Weippert (1994:22, 27) accepted their dating for these figurines to the lOth century BC and later (for Keel and Uehlinger see chap. 11.4.7 below). However, Weippert rejected the assumption that the pillar body is related to the Asherah. A. Mazar mentioned briefly the identification of the figurines with Astarte and the difference between figurines from Israel and from Judah (1990:501-502). Barkay (1985:

Some of the allusions to the JPFs are quite amusing. Mitchell (1988:73) defined a JPF figurine as "the sort of thing that could not have been in the hands of any faithful worshipper of Yahweh" and therefore the owner of the grave where this figurine was found was "a heretic", one of those condemned by the prophets. Pettey's thesis was greatly influenced by the work of Engle, though he acknowledged the fact that there is no direct proof for the

14 These are not isolated examples, but a general trend. Ahlstrom

(1984: 131) also claimed that the an-iconic standing-stones in the

temple of Arad represented Ba'al, Yahweh and Asherah (sic); and that two objects depicting lions from Tel Beit Mirsim indicated that there was a temple in that city (Ahlstrom 1984:131-2).

18

identification of the JPFs with Asherah (1985:218, 220). The trouble is that Pettey identified all kinds of "Asherah objects", from "Hathor" head-rests in Judean burials to plaque figurines and seals - without dealing with the JPFs at all. This system mixted the Judean Asherah (mentioned in sources from the first millennium BC) with archaeological finds from periods as early as the Middle Bronze age. Indeed, Pettey (1985:261) claimed that most of the "Asherah objects" were Cana'anite and only few belonged to the Iron Age II - a very strange conception. Kyle mentioned the figurines simultaneously using every possible term (Astarte figurines, heathen relics of gentiles, amulets in association with superstitious beliefs), except the possibility that they are part of a foreign cult of idols (since it is inconceivable that Jews made idols). Kyle (1977:76) was obviously more worried about the fact that "sometimes one is terrified to think that ancient Palestinian people were as superstitious as some modern Americans".

weder die Benutzung weiblicher Terrakotten noch ihre Verehrung bzw. die der sie reprasentierenden Gottheiten aus" (Hubner 1989:54). In a later article, Hubner (1992:123:fl) claimed that the Asherah was venerated in the temple of Apollo-Hylates in Kourion, since there was a circular structure with a sacred grove and "poles" there. But it is necessary to state that the date of this structure is late, and its meaning is open to various explanations. Moreover, by this time HUbner (1992: 128-129) had identified Asherah with the JPFs as well as with figurines of tambourine holders and motifs on seals. Hubner's attitude is perhaps close to that of Dever (see chap. 11.4.7 below); but for both the basic problem is the same: there is a lack of prooffor the identification of the JPFs with the Asherah. In one case Hubner (1992: fig.2) mentioned a unique figurine of the fourth century BC from Chitroi as evidence for a cultic dance around an "Asherah pole". It is a pity that he did not pay much attention to what Reed already had to say about the same object in 1949:

Many scholars followed Kenyon in relating horse-and-rider figurines with a sun-eult. This may be important in relation to the study of the JPFs, but I will not discuss it further here. For some recent contributions on this subject see Taylor 1993; 1994; Worschech 1992). In my opinion, the most precise and agreeable presentation of this subject was offered in an unpublished dissertation by Holloway (1992: 501-509).

"No inscription accompanies this scene, hence there is no justification for calling the tree an Asherah, except as one might call any representation of a tree an Asherah" (Reed 1949:4). Surprisingly, in a book about games, Hiibner presented a different picture, that the figurines represented both goddesses and children's toys (1993:92-97, fig. 46). It is almost impossible to separate these two functions, claimed Hiibner, since the uses of a cultic object and a toy are overlapping. One must question what the evidence is for the use of the JPFs as toys? Hiibner has no shred of proof for his theory, and the best he could manage was to bring in anthropological or historical analogies for the use of figurines as toys. This was done much earlier (cf. Ucko 1968), but cannot constitute a solution. 16

II.4.4. Hubner, Holladay and Wenning These three scholars produced papers dealing with the JPFs from varied viewpoints, which merit detailed discussion. Hubner (1989) formed very wide generalizations from a rather narrow data-base of only one JPF head, found on the surface at Tel Malhata in the Negev. He suggested that the JPFs had many functions. Basically they were objects of popular religion, but in graves they relate to burial cult and in houses to private piety (ibid:53 and n.53). The JPFs from the pool at Gibeon were broken in an iconoclastic action (ibid). Generally they may have represented female goddesses and been venerated as goddesses. The fact that they were meant to be seen from the front implies that they were idols of Gods ("GiJ"tterbilder'').15 It is hard to identify them with specific goddesses (ibid:54 and n.62), since the figurines were really "power figures" ("Kraftbilder''), not defined as specific goddesses. The figurines were among the most common cult remains and therefore very significant, since they shed clear light on the variety of religious levels in Israel and on the close relation of Yahweh to Asherah:

Totally different is Holladay's study (1987), a detailed review of cult in Iron Age Israel and Judah from an "explicitly archaeological" viewpoint. In the course of his study, Holladay discussed different cult objects, including stone altars, incense stands and clay figurines. His archaeological review was given an ambitious theoretical framework, the base of which lies the assumption that many different levels existed within ancient religions. Holladay separated an "established worship" from what he unfortunately termed as "tolerated nonconformist worship". This term is unfortunate because one immediately thinks about underground, or forbidden cult. The "nonconformist" cult was expressed in Jerusalem cave 1 and in Samaria locus E.207 since, in opposition to "established" cult-sites, these places were inconspicuous, found outside cities and included many small figurines (Holladay 1987:267-270, 274-275). In this way, Holladay related figurines with "nonconformist" cult. Later he made a statistical analysis of cult objects from

"Gleichzeitig werden sie ein deutlich Licht auf die Vielschichtligkeit der religiosen Verhaltnisse in einem Israel, in dem fUr den einen Landes - und Hauptgott Yahwe enge Beziehungen zur (s)einer '!rt bellegt sind". The figurines represented goddesses, and therefore have been banned by Yahwehism: "Die Verehrung Jahwes schloss

16 Only one "toy" is mentioned from Iron Age Judah (ibid: 94 n. 10), and it is not a JPF. One must also note that the form of the JPF head from Malhata is not typical to Judah, and it is perhaps not a JPF but a plaque - figurine (see app. 2: 103).

15 This reasoning I found hard to follow, or perhaps misunderstood it.

19

form an overwhelming part of the data base. His main conclusions are very problematic. What is the evidence that the JPFs are goddesses and not magical artifacts or figures of mortal beings? Why should the standing-rider figurines designate a god? It is much more probable that the difference in the types of the horse-and-rider figurines is only stylistic: when a rider has a pillar-base, he cannot be depicted as sitting! Furthermore, the standing riders held the neck of the horse, unlike gods. Wenning claimed that this was done only to support the riders during firing, and that these supports (which are not real hands) were broken on purpose after firing. This is a very unusual idea, which does not seem likely. If fact, the riders hold reigns, and the extension of the hands to the horse's neck is only a convention of the potters (cf. Tatton-Brown and Crouwel 1992:291). Wenning also thought that the "bird" handmade heads were made in order to avoid full anthropomorphic representation, thus suggesting that these were not mortal beings but gods. Again, there is no proof for such a theory (cf. a similar idea for Cypriote figurines, Orphanides 1990:48, 50ff, but lacking evidence). Si~lar hand-made heads are very common in the whole ancient Near East, and it seems that they are only a simple, easy (though schematic) way of portraying human heads.

four sites. His conclusions in regard to the figurines were that they usually appeared in domestic quarters (ibid:276), one in each house. They were related to small "house shrines", but represented a goddess, and the only possible identification was with Asherah (ibid:278). This identification did not prevent Holladay from also calling the figurines nurturing goddesses, suggesting that mainly women indulged in this cult and defining the whole phenomenon under the term "popular religion", e.g., something different than the official cult that, in his view, was an-iconic (Holladay 1987:278-281). The importance of Holladay's study is that it raised questions and gave a contextual analysis, though not a very thorough one and only for four sites. The conclusions were perhaps too hastily reached, and the theoretical framework is cumbersome; it seems to have been attached to the evidence post factum. The separation of the two religious levels is plausible in itself, but problematic in regard to the figurines: why should these be termed "nonconformist", if they are found in so many living houses? Although Holladay referred to the important theoretical study of Voigt (1983, cf. chap. 11.4.5 below), it seems that he did not apply much of her work to his study.

Most speculative is Wenning's explanation of the two figurines from Beth Shemesh tomb 5 as a heavenly pair: ~e absurdity of this approach is best understood by accepting ~t for a minute. If this was a heavenly pair, and the goddess IS Asherah than surely the god must be Yahweh (in Judah). But isn'tit surprising that only one pair was found in one grave, among 336 graves known to Wenning, and 854 JPFs known today? Were the Judeans so atheistic, that they avoided putting representations of their main gods in their burials? What is the evidence that the figurines from Beth Shemesh tomb 5 constitute a pair? It is a family tomb, with many burials over a period of a few generations at least. There is no evidence at all that these two figurines were put together, side by side. Furthermore, if the horse-and-rider is the main male god, it is somewhat surprising that his figure is smaller then the female Asherah figurines: usually, the size is an indication of importance in ancient art, and it is unlikely that the Asherah was more important than Yahweh (for criticism cf. also Keel and Uehlinger 1992:392).

Altogether different is the study of Wenning (1991), who dealt only with JPFs from burials (this was a secondary product of his larger research about burials). The custom of putting JPFs in burials was not compulsory, since only 23 of ca. 336 Judean burials contained JPFs (Wenning 1991:89). Usually there was one JPF per family grave. Jerusalem cave 1 and Samaria E207 are not graves, and thus were not discussed (ibid: 90, n.l). Some pillar-figurines were found whole, thus probably the rest were not broken deliberately. Wenning (1991:91) claimed that the Beth Shemesh burials indicated that the JPFs were not icons, i.e., put in the grave as venerated figures; nor were they votive objects, toys or representations of human beings. The figurines represented a nurturing goddess, with stress on nudity and sexuality, but not fertility and birth (since the lower body is not portrayed). They are, in his view, "Segensbild", which may be identified with the Biblical Asherah.

An innovation by Wenning was the separation of the horseand-rider figurines into two types. The first was a sittingrider type which was, in his view, a human figure, while the second was a standing-rider type, which represented a god. This god has only pinched face, thus a full anthropomorphic representation was avoided. Two figurines were found in tomb 5 at Beth Shemesh, one JPF and one standing-rider figurine, and Wenning claimed that the two were a god and a goddess, perhaps a heavenly pair ("Gottes Paar"). However, at the last moment Wenning (1991:96-97) declined from naming them with the specific names of Asherah and Yahweh, and wrote that the god may also have been a general sky- or sun-god ("Himmelsherr" or ~~).

11.4.5. Theoretical Studies and the work of , M. Voigt (1983) Some studies about figurines are important to us for their theoretical value (cf. the work of Ucko, mentioned earlier), even though they do not deal directly with the JPFs. ~or example Fowler (1985:343) claimed that not every figurine was a g~ddess, thus the places where fi~nes were !ound were not necessarily cultic places. To Illustrate this, he provided evidence of figurines functioning as toys or magical objects. Fowler (1985:335) cautioned. that "the truth is we simply do not know what these figurines were, nor, for that matter, what purpose they might have served." His conclusion was similar: "archaeology has not thrown light whatever [sic] upon the purpose and function of any

Wenning's study is highly interesting, but very speculative. He did not consult the main work on the JPFs (Wenning 1991:96 n.2), that is, the study by Holland (1975). Wenning dismissed all the JPFs that were not from burials - yet these

20

Palestinian figurine supposedly of a deity, nor has it demonstrated beyond doubt the latter's identity" (ibid:343). There is truth in this, but the conclusion that figurines are not necessarily sacred is not very new.

Many other studies of figurines can contribute to our understanding, even when dealing with Minoan, Cypriot or Bengali figurines (e.g., Pilali-Papasteriou 1989; CarlessHulin 1989; Bhattacharya 1989).18. Theoretical studies of symbols and iconography may also be useful (Skorupski 1976:116-124; Morris 1987:218-234; Kippenberg 1985-6; Gudison 1989; Carless-Hulin 1989; Duff, Clark and Chadderdon 1992). However, the explanation of visual forms as a symbolic system is possible only when there is enough "external evidence", i.e., historical or ethnographic sources, to help to break the symbolic code (Kippenberg 1985-6:vii; for a theoretical study of archaeology and cult cf. Renfrew 1985; also Garwood et.al. 1991; on fertility cult in the Mediterranean see Bonnano 1986).19

A highly important study was made by Voigt (1983) in regard to prehistoric figurines from the site of Hajj Firuz Tepe in Iran, and it merits a careful review. Voigt classified the functions of small figurines, which are known from ethnographic sources, as follows: 1. Cult figures, representing supernatural entities, usually as their symbols or cultic objects. 2. Magic vehicles, related with rituals of fertility, birth, protection from evil spirits, damaging enemies etc. Voigt warned (1983: 186 and n.l) that magic and religion cannot be separated clearly, and that it is wrong to create a dichotomy between the religious and the "secular" domains. 3. Didactic or educational figures, for teaching values or sexual facts during initiation rites and other ceremonies. 4. Children's toys, used for amusement. 5. Representation of deceased people, people related to the deceased and animals, which served as burial furniture (Voigt 1983:186). Burials had not been discovered in Hajj Firuz Tepe, so Voigt did not discuss this category.

11.4.6. The Archaeological Approach of W. G. Dever In an early book, Paul and Dever (1977:267-271) barely mentioned the small anthropological figurines ("images"), and did not relate them at all to the Asherah. But following the discovery of the inscriptions from Kh. el-Kom and Kuntillet 'Ajrud, Dever became one of the "Asherah priests" and an opposite pole to the negative opinions of Fowler (chap. 11.4.5 above). For Dever, archaeology is omnipotent and the key to solving Biblical issues. Archaeology, in his view, proves that there was an Asherah cult in Israel, sinc~ the figure playing the lyre in the Kuntillet 'Ajrud pithoi drawings is the Asherah (Dever 1982:38f;. 1984:23-24). The coiffure of this figure is identical-to that of the SyroPalestinian Astarte figurines of the 9th-8th centuries BC (Dever 1982:3~). The last are "no doubt" a representation of the mother-goddess, thus the coiffure is a proof that we are dealing with a religious scene - and with a goddess.

The use of figurines from categories 1-2 is well known from Mesopotamia. Categories 3-4 are known only from modern ethnographic evidence, but were probably used in ancient times as well (Voigt 19lB~187). Voigt surveyed-the work of Ucko (1968), and outlined the difficulty in distinguishing between the categories of function in cases where there are no written sources relating to ancient figurines. She suggested that some attributes might help to determine the function of a figurine, among them are patterns and degrees of wear, points of damage, breakage patterns, evidence of burning, disposal patterns, types of archaeological contexts, and relations to other artifacts (Voigt 1983:191-193). Figure 1 (below) shows the attributes according to categories of function, as suggested by Voigt (1983: table 29).

I

Dever (1982:39) claimed that Asherah was related also to artifacts representing a women on a horse, and that she was a mixed Cana'anite goddess: Asherah-Anat-Astarte. The merging of the goddesses was taken from former studies:

Of course, the difficulties of defining the function of a

"Albright, Cross, Stadel mann and many other commentators have long since pointed out an extraordinary, almost bewildering fluidity in the conception of many Northwestern Semitic deities, seen in the overlap in their roles, their tendency to coalesce and split off, and even their ability to combine opposites" (Dever 1984:28).

figurine are enormous. This is obvious if a list of clear, different attributions between the categories of function is made: there are very few clear cut attributes.l? For example, figurines which show exaggerated sexual attributes might represent fertility goddesses or ritual vehicles, but also figurines used for initiation rites and even children's toys (Voigt 1983:189). Similar forms may be used for various functions in the same society (ibid: 191).

18 For example, Bhattacharya (1989) dealt with the cult of the snake Goddess Manasha. This cult changes from area to area, and may lack an iconic figure of the goddess itself. Votive figurines of horses and elephants may be used. It seems that in this case an iconographic, or stylistic analyses would hardly have helped to find the connection between these figurines and the snake goddess (known from written sources and ethnographic evidence).

The discussion of Voigt is remarkable. Although she was not able to suggest clear answers for many problems, she has made a significant contribution by raising issues and by being conscious of the implied difficulties. It is a wonder that Voigt's study has not been used thoroughly in regard to the research of the JPFs, despite its importance.

19 If the figurines represented gods, questions about the Israelite Monotheism and the Biblical ban of idols are likely to rise. On these subjects see Haag 1985; Dohmen 1985; Lemche 1992; Mettinger 1994; Dietrich 1994.

17 If one takes table 28 of Voigt and removes the similar attributes between the categories, very few differences would be left.

21

Dever probably paid no attention to what Reed (1949:4) had to say about such methods of study: "It is apparent that the pictographic material relating with the subject of the Asherah can be helpful only after the nature and the function of the word have been established by a critical study of the epigraphic and literary evidence available".

11.4.7. The "Iconographic School":

According to the Kuntillet- 'Ajrud inscriptions, Dever had no hesitation in identifying the figurines as Asherahfigurines, but because of so-called overlapping between the all Cana'anite goddesses, the figurines could have represented Anat and Astarte at the same time. Dever rejected, though, the attribution of the Jerusalem cave 1 figurines to heathens only, and suggested that: "it is tempting to see in these figurines dramatic evidence of the background of reforms such as that of king Josiah" (Dever 1990:159).

Asherah is also understood by Dever as part of popular religion, and as syncretism; this is supposedly documented by archaeology, which gives a realistic and balanced picture of religion in ancient Israel (Dever 1982:39). Asherah was a mother-goddess in the 8th-7th centuries BC, while earlier she was related with the cult of the "Lion-Lady". Her function as a goddess was proved by the large number of Israelite fertility figurines: "Hundreds of female terracottas of the so-called "Astarte" (more accurately, "Asherah") type have been found, mostly Judean pillar-base figurines" (Dever 1983:573). The figurines were not just the goddess Asherah, but functioned as talismans to aid conception and childbirth. We "desperately need a current and systematic treatment of all the data on Late Bronze and Iron Age figurines," stated Dever (1983:579, n. 11; cf. Dever 1982:40). One should remember, though, that only a few years had passed since Holland's extensive Ph.D., which was probably not consulted in detail by Dever.

In the following publications, the tone became even more boastful. It seems that Dever had convinced himself completely. Asherah was related by him to almost everything, from the Ta'anakh cult stand, to doves, to plaque figurines of playing women, to the lyre player of Kuntillet 'Ajrud. There were hundreds of Asherah figurines in small household shrines already during the Iron Age I period (Dever 1991:110f, 112). Asherah is called the great Cana'anite mother-goddess, and all the goddesses are the same: Anat, Asherah, Astarte, Elat, Kudshu (Dever 1994:121f). For Dever (1994:122), "There is simply no way around it: these are Asherah figurines". Above all, Dever even suggested that the small bronze lion found at Arad is, "no doubt, an Asherah symbol" (1994:109; cf. 1991:111). Unfortunately, this artifact is not a figurine but an Assyrian type of scale-weight, well known from Assyria (and from other regions). This was noted by Bron and Lemaire (1983:765, n. 20), followed by many scholars (Holladay 1987:257, and table 2; Rose 1975:192; Barkay 1990:190; KIetter 1991:132). This artifact has no obvious relation to the Asherah (cf. Rose 1975:189), there is nothing else which is surely related with the Asherah in the temple of Arad, and we do not know the circumstances in which this weight reached the temple. Obviously, it is necessary to refer the readers, and Dever, once again to the appropriate warnings of Reed (1949, cf. 11.3.2 above).

Dever (1990) was even more resolved in his popular book, where chapter four is titled "Archaeology reconstructs the lost background of the Israelite cult". On the one hand, "in Israelite agricultural villages, the modeling of common farm animals in clay was probably a natural impulse [sic], so not all of the zoomorphic figurines need be interpreted culticully" (Dever 1990:157).20 On the other hand, the anthropomorphic Iron Age figurines represented a "dea nutrix", similar to the former Bronze Age plaque figurines.-! they adopted motifs from the Cana'anite cult of a mother-goddess. They were not something forbidden, because they may have been used in conception, birth and breast-feeding rituals. In opposition to this, we do not find male figurines, according to the Biblical second commandment. Through a new kind of mathematics, Dever somehow discovered thousands of pillar figurines:

Dever's attitude creates a confused mixture, which includes every possible term and definition for the figurines at the same time: mother-goddess, nurturinggoddess, lion-lady, Asherah (which is also Anat-AstarteElat-and Kudshu), a phenomenon of popular religion, and fertility cult (against pasting such attributions to Asherah see Wiggins 1991:383). This way, the Aherah becomes a complete "mischwesen, " which can include practically everything. Once Dever used the pillar figurines in order to explain the figure on the Kuntilled 'Ajrud pithoi (argued by the similarity of the coiffure and pre-supposing that the figurines represented goddesses); but later the figurines were explained by the Kuntillet 'Ajrud figure (cf. Dever 1982:38 vs. Dever 1990:157-159). A much more careful attitude to the Kuntillet 'Ajrud material is needed (see Beck 1982; also Hadley 1994:274f). The identification of the figurines with Asherah was suggested much earlier, and much more clearly (Engle, Patai and others, see above). Perhaps this identification "is correct, but Dever fails to provide the evidence.

"Thousands of these terra-cottas have been found at Israelite sites" (1990: 157); "...the pillar base, or so-called Astarte figurines ...that are prevalent throughout Israel and Judah... As many as 3,000 or more are now known, some 2,000 from Jerusalem alone ..." (1994:121).

20 This is just a smallexample of carelessness. Why "villages"? Are Jerusalem, Tell e-Nasbeh or Lachish, where many JPFs and animal figurines were found, villages? Furthermore, what exactly is a "natural impulse", and why must such a "natural impulse" be associated with a non-cultic figurine? 21 Indeed, the sameexplanation was suggested for bothkinds of figurines (Dever1987:2261).

22

Winter, Keel and Uehlinger

1

I have grouped together in this section a line of studies, which stress iconography as the main theme. The largescale work ofUrs Winter (1983) about the iconography of women and goddesses in the ancient Near East is prominent among these studies. This book actually focuses on understanding the Old Testament material, and it is a common approach for many of the iconographic studies. Often, they do not aim at explaining iconographic material per se, but discuss it in order to solve Biblical, or theological, problems. Winter (1983:93-134) reviewed the appearances of a "naked goddess" on cylinders seals (I will not deal with these) and figurines. He (1983:95) believed that figurines usually represented goddesses: "meine vermutung geht... dass es sich in der Mehrzahl den Fiille um Gottinen handelt". The main types of figurines were classified by the position of their arms (Winter 1983:96-97). The pillar type was seen as common to the land of Israel during the lOth-6th centuries, but especially during the 8th-7th centuries BC (ibid:107-109). Its origin lies perhaps in Cyprus, but it is actually a unique Palestinian type (ibid:124). The moulds may have been foreign (phoenician? - ibid:127). Winter claimed that the figurines were related to women: "Ohne weiteres darf man annehmen, das diese vor allem fUr die hier lebenden Frauen eine besondere Function gehabt haben miissen" (Winter 1983:127). This is not very convincing: what is the evidence that relates the figurines with female burials ("Frauengra"bem")? Every tomb contained mass-burials, and there is no such evidence, unfortunately. Winter rejected the general explanations of mothergoddesses or fertility-figurines, since a more precise definition is possible. Following the excavators of Tel enNasbeh, where figurines were found in domestic buildings, Winter (1983: 131) suggested that they were domestic icons or amulets, that helped to make the atmosphere of the house erotic. In other cases, figurines were given to a temple as ex voto, or were burial gifts to ensure female magic (ibid: BOt). The figurines belonged to popular religion, but were not opposed to the official religion: "Fiir den Kontext der israelitischen Religion ist wichtig, dass solche Figiirchen, die ihren 'Sitz im Leben' in der Privatfrdmmigkeit hatten, den offizielen JHWHKult nicht zum vomeherein getahrdeten" (Winter 1983:131t). Winter found the proof that the JPFs were goddesses in the figure of the naked goddess on Syrian cylinder-seals, despite the differences in time, materials and geographical areas: "...es sich bei den Figiirchen um aus der Privatfrdmmigkeit erwachsene Gotterdarstellungen handelt. Das wird durch die Siegel bestatigt" (Winter 1983:192, cf. ibid: 134).

The figure on the seals is a goddess, since she sometimes appears with a horned cap, or standing on animals, or "accompanied by wings and a god (though these attributes are known from a small percentage of the naked goddess seals). Winter concluded that the figurines represented not toys, but a goddess, that originated in private religion. Even if a few figurines represented playing, or praying women, these were exceptions (Winter 1983:192t). It is impossible to identify the goddess, but Winter called her "the Syrian goddess" - a central goddess in the pantheon, paredos to Hadad and Amurru, a defending, praying and inter-mediating goddess (Winter 1983:193-196). She was also a sky goddess, whose nakedness symbolized female power.22 The importance of Winter's study lies in its wide background, but this is also its major deficiency (as criticized already by Lipinski 1986; Van den-Toom 1986). Can we compare phenomena that are so different? Winter compiled second millennium seals from Syria with figurines and written evidence from first millennium BC Israel. He took the whole Near East as one unified, cultural entity. However, not all the figurines are necessarily goddesses and their mixing into a "Syrian goddess" is problematic. There is a strong opposite view, which calls for the use of inner, contemporaneous evidence only, rather than making analogies to other places, times and cultures (Renfrew 1985; Carless-Hulin 1989:95. Against the theory of the naked goddess see Bretschneider 1991:24; also Wiggins 1991). Regarding the JPFs specifically, Winter made no new discoveries and relied on rather old literature. He did not use Holland's thesis, and referred very briefly to Engle (Winter 1983:97, 108 n.68). Keel and Uehlinger (1992) took the iconographic theory to its extreme. Keel formulated the main principles much earlier (Keel 1972). The study of the OT had exhausted itself and reached a dead end, it being dependent on problematic OT sources: "Da die biblischen Texte immer dieselben bleiben... entartet die Diskussion manchmal zur repetition von Hingst Geschriebenem, von Schulmeinungen und Pauschalthesen" (Keel and Uehlinger 1992:,0). The study of iconography was neglected, but it could produce a rich source of information. Iconography is superior to written sources, because it is authentic and immediately yielding: "Iconography compels us to see through the eyes of the ancient Near East" (Keel 1972:8; cf. Keel and Uehlinger 1992:,0). This is problematic, since there is no direct, "innocent eye" and the beholder's part is always crucial: "what we see depends on our interpretation" (Wittgenstein quoted in: Kippenberg 1985-6:vii). From the very beginning, the aim of Keel was not an iconographic study per-se, but to enlighten OT and historical sources through iconographic studies. Keel's school of thought has 22 Regarding the Biblical Asherah, Winter took her to be a goddess who was suppressed by Yahwehism and later reinstalled (for more references aboutthe Asherah, see chapter X below).

anu . stamps.

They ""tbought that the seal portrayed a goddes$beside a branch, thus being the "vegetation goddess" which continues the Middle Bronze Age traditions. A limestone statuette from Megiddo, or Ammonite statues, are mixed up in the discussion without any reserve. The full breasts of the pillar figurines implied an aspect of a nurturing goddess (Keel and Uehlinger 1992:380). This is further proved by the woman and child figurine from Tel Beth Mirsim (ibid:381; here app. 2:232.).24

~;wuable;Lwill

only; on-aspeetswmch are relevant to the pillar·figurines, discussed in detail in a recent monograph by Keel and Uehlinger (1992). The line of argument of Keel and Uehlinger was as follows:

A. Dove figurines of Iron Age II in Palestine indicate an attribute of "the goddess" (meaning a goddesses in a sense of "the mother goddess", or "the naked goddess" of Urs Winter).

Keel and Uehlinger (1992: #195) saw the pillar figurines as a representation of Asherah. That they were goddesses was concluded from the identification of dove figurines with a goddess (see above). It was Asherah, because in Iron Age Judah she was the only possible candidate. The figurines are not Asherim, which were cult objects in temples. The figurines were part of a general tendency towards iconic representation in the 7th century, versus an earlier an-iconism (1992:384f; but cf. the Hebrew seals, mostly of the 7th century, which are an-iconic: Sass 1993). In other areas, the pillar figurines are Astartes (1992:385).

B. The evidence for A is that dove-figurines were found in the Middle Bronze Age temples of Nahariya and Megiddo. These doves figurines represented "the messengers of love between the god and the goddess".

C. The evidence for the last interpretation was described in an earlier work (Keel 1977:143-168): in some ancient Syrian seals there is a scene of a dove between a god and a goddess (cf. Keel and Uehlinger 1992:36, 370). In this way, Iron Age dove figurines were related to Middle Bronze age figurines, and then to Syrian cylinder seals, though, claimed Keel and Uehlinger (1992:26, 370), the dove figurines were not found together with the female pillar figurines of the goddess, and thus the dove figurines were only attributes or substitutes for the goddess.

A detailed criticism of the methods of Keel and Uehlinger deserves a whole monograph (cf. Weippert, H. 1994; Caquot 1994). In regard to the JPFs, there are many limitations in their theory, some of which have already been mentioned above (I will discuss further limitations in the following chapters). The work of Schroer also belongs to the iconographic school, but she accepted Winter's conclusions about the JPFs and discussed them very briefly (1987: 45 n.120; 343f n.189; 387 n.170). Schroer thought that the Old Testament term "om7N" (god) encompassed all human and animal representations, including the small clay figurines: "Unter die Pauschalbezeichnung om~:1N nicht nur plastische Darstellungen mannlicher Gottheiten, sondern z.B. auch all die weiblichen Terrakottafiguren, die bei ausgrabungen in Israel/Palastina in so engen Mengen gefunden wurden, fallen" (Schroer 1987:343fand n.189-190).

Regarding the pillar figurines, Keel and Uehlinger did not consult the thesis of Holland (Keel and Uehlinger 1992: n.388) but called for a new catalogue: "Die Publikation eines Katalogs aller Belege ist ein dringendes Desiderat" (ibid:374). Reflecting on the scarcity of the moulds, they suggested that these were used in extra-mural potter's workshops (ibid:372·374; against see evidence for workshops in Wood.1990:33f, fig. 16). They believed that the heads were imported and only the bodies made locally at each site (following Albright). They also claimed that heads were used separately as whole artifacts (ibid:374), but this claim is baseless.P Keel and Uehlinger dated the figurines from the end of the 8th to the 7th century BC, but included figurines from Northern Israel within the corpus. Only one figurine was used at each house or burial (1992:376). Therefore, these were household icons, related to private, or family, religion - but not to a popular religion of the lower social strata only (ibid, and n. 345). There is a time gap between the PFs and the earlier plaque figurines, thus the origins of the PFs lies elsewhere, perhaps in Assyria or Phoenicia (ibid:376, but without corroborating evidence).

II.4.8. Other Figurines and the Neighboring Areas At present we have quite a large quantity of data about different types of clay figurines, which were found in areas neighboring Judah. This situation did not exist 20 or 30 years ago, so that now we are in a better position to judge possible comparisons, or differences between these figurines and the JPFs.

The identification of the PFs was strengthened by a scaraboid seal from Lachish (Keel and Uehlinger 1992:376·378, fig. 323). Keel and Uehlinger were not worried about the fact that this seal was unstratified and had no other comparison among Hebrew Iron Age seals

Transjordan. We have a D.Phil. by Amr (1980), but it is a very problematic study. Otherwise, our knowledge is

new work on magic in Egypt (Ritner 1992; 1993; cf. chap.

still limited (lsserlin 1976; Dornemann 1983:129-137; Beck 1995; Bienkowski 1991b).25

IX below). From all these areas, figurines are found that are either contemporary or earlier than the JPFs. Some later figurines are important to us because of implied theoretical aspects. Figurines from various periods can be used for analogies, or for the study of the origin and continuation of motifs. For Example, the Late Bronze age plaque-figurines (Ben Arieh 1983; Beck 1986; Conrad 1985; Tadmor, M. 1982), or the Persian period figurines (Stern 1973:159-181; Linder 1986; Stern 1989).

Phoenicia. Figurines are now better known through excavations at Sarepta (pritchard 1988:31-71), Tel Keisan (Keisan 1:331-335) and Achzib (partly unpublished). We also have many collections and a few syntheses (Culican 1969; 1975~; Ganzman et. al. 1987; Gubel 1982; 1986; 1991; in general see Ward 1994). Philistia. There have been important new excavations in. the southern coastal plain, at Tel Shera, Tel Harer, Rukeish, Ekron, Ashkelon, etc. Their publication will no doubt enhance our -understanding greatly. (for 'some preliminary reports see Oren'1986; 1991; 1993; Dothan' and Gitin 1987; Gitin 1989; 1993; 19'95).

II.4.9. Gender and Feminist Approaches

Cyprus. Cyprus is the richest area in regard to clay figurines (also large clay statues). There is a wide range of studies on Cypriot figurines, pottery workshops and relations with other areas (Beer 1991; Bisi 1979; 1989; 1991; Carless-Hulin 1989; 1989b; Caubet 1991; 1992; Connely 1989; Karageorghis 1977; 1987; Meerschaert 1991; Sophocleous 1985; S~rensen 1991; Vandenabeele 1986; Yon and Caubet 1988; Uhlenbrock 1993). There are interesting assemblages of figurines in Cyprus already in the Chalcolithic period (Goring 1991; A-Campo 1994). A very extensive work is being made by Karageorghis (1993; 1993; 1994; unfortunately, the volume about Smal figurines of the 7th-6th centuries BC is currently i . press).

" 1

The Aegean world and Greece. Varied and rich literature exists on figurines from this area (Ammerman 1991; Haag 1981; Higgins 1969; Nicholls 1952; 1970; Pilali-Papasteriou 1989; Price 1978; Romano 1988). The publication of the Philakopy Temple is important from a theoretical point of view (Renfrew 1985:1-25, 417419). For naked female figurines there is now a new monograph by Bohm (1990; for review see Hermary 1992). A very interesting work deals with the placing of small figurines in Greek temples and their relation with the large cult statues (Alroth 1988; 1989; cf. Van-Straten 1992).

Often, the feminist literature takes it for granted that the pillar figurines represented Asherah, other goddesses or teraphim (TeubalI984:91-93; for the teraphim see Loretz 1992), and that they were related specifically to women (for which there is no decisive archaeological proof). For example, Gadon (1989: 172ff, fig.96) sawall figurines as goddesses and pillar figurines as Asherah, which testifies to the existence of a very important Hebrew goddess. Often, the archaeological contribution of these studies is limited, as they tend to adopt archaeological knowledge second hand.

Syria - Mesopotamia. There is also a very rich source for small figurines here (Badre 1980; Barrelet 1968; Blocher 1987; Geller 1989; Colbow 1991; Spycket 1992). For us, the literature about the magical use bt figurines in this area is important (Black and Green 1992; Green 1983; 1994; Wiggermann 1992; discussed in chap. IX below).

Studies of gender can be important from a theoretical point of view, by suggesting new insights into subjects such as the physical place and gender (Ardener 1993, and esp. the study of Hirschon there), or dress and gender

Egypt. Egyptian figurines are known mainly from graves (Noblecourt 1953), but also from. houses and Temples. The assemblage at the Gebel el-Zeit temple is., especially interesting (Gamer-Wallert , 1992; Wilford 1993; Pinch 1983; 1993:198-226). Highly important is

a

23 The only evidence for this was one head with a suspension (?) hole from Hazor. This is an exception, and furthermore, does not belong to the Judean figurines.

26 For general feminist studies of the Bible see Harris 1984; Bird 1987; Day, P.L. 1989; Hackett 1987. Cf. also Goldenberg 1979. Unavailable to me at the moment is a study by Rosemary Ruether (1974. Religion and sexism - hnages of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions. NY).

25 For the general history of Transjordan in the Iron Age II see 24 Despite the fact that this figure has no female breasts at all, and the child is carried on its back.

24

In the last twenty years or so, the impact of feminism and gender studies has been growing in the field of Old Testament studies, and hence in relation to the Asherah and to the pillar figurines.P' Carol Meyers wanted to use the figurines to help reconstruct female participation in the religious life, since in her view they show a connection between women and household cult (1988: 161). Meyers was skeptic about the identification of the figurines as goddesses (then they may have been used also by men); but if they represented mortal women or motherhood symbols, then they are part of women's lives (ibid:162). The pillar figurines stressed motherhood but not sexuality, thus they were perhaps votive objects, which encouraged fertility. They cannot be identified with a specific goddess (ibid:162-3). The figurines represented religious feelings; especially female religious life. This shows that women had a place in domestic religion, furthermore, domestic cult is impossible without women. This analysis shares with some other feminist studies the wish to "beautify" the dominantly male picture of the Old Testament (for an opposite feminist direction see Goldenberg 1979).

Barnett 1989; Bienkowski 1991; Weippert 1987; Dicou 1994; Worschech 1990b; Herr 1993.

25

roles (Barnes and Eicher 1992). Of course, there are also popular feminist studies. One very dubious example is a book about the Egyptian Hagar, not worthy of comment (Teubal 1990). In another study, the figurines are termed widely as "a burst of popular piety", "a visual metaphor" and "a kind of tangible prayer for fertility and nourishment" (Frymer-Kensky 1992: 158ft). These terms only obscure the subject. It must be stressed that publications of this sort are common everywhere and are not an invention of feminist circles.

1987:281; Jerusalem 11:49, 127). Wright related PF with the common folks (1957:117). The use of the term common religion did not prevent the description of the figurines in any other way, from goddesses to magic objects and mortal female-figures. It is important to avoid defining common religion as something which is forbidden or has exceptional norms, or is a phenomenon of the lower levels of society only. Common religion is also not a new subject in OT studies (e.g., Albertz 1978; Segal 1976). A comprehensive bibliographical list is reviewed by Berlinerblau (1993), who also defined popular religious groups in a negative way: "any association of individuals living within the borders of ancient Israel, who by dint of their religious beliefs, political beliefs, rituals, symbols and so on, are denigrated by the authors of the Old Testament" (1993:18).

IT.4.tO. The Theme of Popular Religion In the last ten years the theme of popular-, common- or folk-religion became widespread in regard to the pillar figurines (e.g., Holladay 1987, chap. 11.4.3 above). A good basis for discussing this subject is found in a volume of studies edited by Vrijhof and Waardenburg (1979). The first thing one must note is the lack of agreement as to what exactly is "common religion". The editors used this definition:

Recently, Ackerman (1992) tried to explore common religion in sixth century BC Judah, from a few rather difficult prophetic verses in the OT (for a short review cf. Mulder 1994). Ackerman's definition of common religion is, again, negative: "it is not the religion that is usually presented to us as normative in the Bible. More specifically, it is not the religion of the Deuteronomistic school, the priests, or the prophets" (Ackerman 1992:ix).

"If by official religion we mean beliefs and practices which are prescribed, regulated and socialized by specialized religious institutions, then common religion can be described as those beliefs and practices of an overtly religious nature, which are not under the domination of a prevailing religious institute" (Vrijhof and Waardenburg 1979:2,668).

M. Rose dealt with the pillar-figurines in relation to popular religion in Judah and Israel. Following a short description, he accepted the identification of the pillarfigurines with Ashera as plausible, though not proven (1975:183). Rose did not differentiate between pillar figurines in Judah and other regions, and defined them as cult objects of the Israelite cult. They appear throughout the Iron Age II period, thus are not restricted to a specific period when only Yahweh was worshipped (Rose 1975:185). Rose was in favour of seeing these figurines as part of a popular religion (not "foreign"), perhaps mainly of women who were not satisfied by the official Yahweh-cult:

This is, of course, a negatively based definition. The scholars who took part in the book could not agree about the definition (ibid:669-671, 672-674). Many of them noted that there are close ties between official and common religions, and these should not be viewed as independent, and necessarily opposed phenomena, The terms "official religion" and "common religion" are stamped by doctrinal, institutional religion in general, and Christianity in particular. They are less practical with half-doctrinized religions (Hinduism or Buddhism), and may be totally inadequate with other religions (e.g., agrarian pre-literate African religions, ibid:674).

"Diese Aschera-Statuetten waren Bestandteil des 'Bodensatzes' der Volksfrdmmigkeit, vielleicht waren sie Eigentum der Frauen in Israel/Judah, deren BedUIfnisse der Yahwe-Kult der offiziellen Welt vielleicht nicht befriedigte" (Rose 1975:186).

Sadek suggested simpler and also positive definitions in regard to ancient Egypt (1988:1-2). National religion was the religion practiced in temples, in the name of the King, by a body of professional priests and clerics. It was a religion for the people and on their behalf, but not practiced by them. Common religion included beliefs and customs of the Egyptian people outside the official royal temples, but was not a religion of the poor only. Both had been but different forms of the same basic religion, and not different religions (Sadek 1988:2, 294),27 Is the analysis of Sadek valid for ancient Judah?

Rose (1975:186) noticed that these figurines were found at the Palace of Ramat Rabel, and thus were not related only to low, uneducated levels of society. Furthermore, he noticed the lack of figurines in the temple of Arad, which was clearly an official temple of Yahweh. This casts doubts on the theory that Asherah was Yahweh's paredos: "Ware Aschera Jahwes "inevitable, necessary counterpart", so harte man ihre Prasentz in den Gestalt der weiblichen Pfeilerfigiirchen unter den frommen Jahwe-Verehren Arads erwarten kdnnen. Nichts aber dergleichen konnte fUr Arad beobachtet werden (Rose 1975:192). The perception shown by Rose (1975) is all

The connection between pillar-figurines and common religion is not new (see already Pilz 1924:161; Holladay 27 For expressions of common religion in the workmen's village at Deir el Medina, see Tosi 1988.

26

the more impressive, when it is compared with all the later articles of Dever.

("I bless you by Yahweh, our guardian and by his Asherah", again the reading of Naveh 1979). Scholars debated about the word Shomeron. It could mean the city Samaria or the whole area of Samaria; or perhaps the word comes from the vern "guard" in the meaning of "Yahweh is our guardian". Another debate concerned the ending of the word Asheratah. In correct ancient Hebrew, this ending is impossible if the word means the private name of a goddess. Another mention of Asheratah was found on pithos A. These finds have been the subject of an overwhelming number of discussions (Gilula 1976; Beck 1982; Emerton 1982; Dever 1984; North 1989; Dietrich and Loretz 1992: chapter 3.3; Hadley 1993; 1994:425429; Lemaire 1994:148f - to name only a few). Recently, the word Asherah appeared also in an inscription "kd~ l'rrt" from Ekron (Smith 1994:200; Gitin 1995:72).

Another interesting study was made by Vorlander (1986). His definition of popular religion is as follows: "the term 'popular religion' refers to the popular ideas entertained by the Israelite concerning God's action in the life of the individual, the community, and in nature" (1986:63). This popular religion existed side by side with the worship of Yahweh. It included belief in demons and concerned practical methods of encouraging God's assistance and not theological interest in God itself (Vorlander 1986:65f, 69). Vorlander (ibid:67) saw the figurines as representations of divinities. The popular religion of Israel was criticized sharply by the Prophets (ibid:68f), but only the Exile caused a decisive break, when Yahweh became a close, personal god.

The finds from Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Kh. el-Kom brought up the question of the place of Asherah in Israelite and Judean religion. Was she a great goddess and a mate to Yahweh? What is the relation between the inscriptions and the drawings (Beck 1982)? I will return to these questions in the concluding chapter.

A few scholars have warned against a simplified understanding of common religion in regard to the JPFs (Ahlstrom 1982:83f; 1984; Keel and Uehlinger 1992: n.345; Rose 1975).28 The study of Vorlander is interesting, and many points may be accepted (or denied). Yet, it seems that in a way Vorlander, and other scholars, run the risk of substituting the "good old" Frazerian conception of magic, with what they call popular religion. Is this just "the same lady in a different dress"?

11.5. Summary In this chapter, I have reviewed the development of research in a chronological order. Throughout the last hundred years, most of the scholars explained the JPFs in one of the four following ways: I. As toys. 2. Mortal human beings (both these explanations are rather rare). 3. Magical artifacts. 4. Cultic artifacts, related with goddesses, either representations of a goddess herself, or its attribute, or votive objects. Voigt's (1983) fifth category, related to burials, can be safely ruled out because only a minority of the JPFs were found in burials. In the last years there has been a growing tendency to identify the JPFs with the biblical Asherah. Recently, Dietrich and Loretz (1992) discussed cult statues in Mesopotamia in relation to the Old Testament. The authors deliberately refrain from discussing the pillar-figurines; it seemed to them that archaeologists had hopelessly mixed philological and historic arguments while dealing with the figurines:

IT.4.11. The Inscriptions ofKh. el-Kom and Kuntillet 'Ajrud ' I will briefly describe these inscriptions and drawings, since they are of a crucial importance to the understanding of the Biblical Asherah. A blessing inscription was found in a grave at Kh. elKom, which includes the following Hebrew sentence: "nrn\!lN~1 '"l~) mn» 1m"lN 1"l:1" ("May Uriyahu be blessed by Yahweh my guardian and by his Asherah" - reading by Naveh 1979; but cr. Lemaire 1977). Since then, the inscription has been treated by many scholars (e.g., Mittman 1981; Schroer 1983; Zevit 1984; Dever 1984; . Hadley 1987; O'Conner 1987; Shea 1990; Hadley 1994:242ft). Phitoi with inscriptions and drawings were found at Kuntillet 'Ajrud, a site from the 8th century BC on the border of the Negev and Sinai (for the archaeology of the site see Ayalon 1985; Gunneweg et. al. 1985; Hadley 1993; Meshel 1994). One of the pithoi (B) carried the drawing of a sitting women playing a lyre, and two standing figures (of Bes? - see Beck 1982: fig.5). An inscription was written above the drawings, which included the sentence: "nn"l\!lN~' n~\!l mm~ o:mN rrru"

"Auf diese Weise sind nicht nur Mischargumentationen entstanden, die mehrfach mit Zirkelschlussen durchsetzt sind, sondern auch archaologische Argumentationsmodelle, in einigen Fallen zu philologisch ungenugend fundierten Schlussfolgerungen gefuhrt haben" (Dietrich and Loretz 1992:92). After reviewing more then a hundred years of research, it seems to me that there is no lack of suggestions and speculations in regard to the meaning and symbolism of the JPFs. What we still miss is an updated, systematic catalogue of figurines, and solid evidence for the preference of one specific explanation.

28 Ahlstrom (1982:26) suggested an unusual opposition; common religion as village ritual, versus the official, national religion in cities, as if a sharp line separated the religion of cities from that of villages. On "common Yahwehism", but without connection to the JPFs, see also 01yan 1985:108. 27

Chapter III: The Typology of the JPFs '1 can discover facts, Watson, but 1 cannot change them" (Conan Doyle / Sherlock Holmes: "The Problem of Thor Bridge").

Typology may seem a "trifle", but it is a crucial stage in any study of artifacts. Questions such as what makes a type of figurine, and how can fragmented bodies or heads be ascribed to a certain type are decisive. Typology is the groundwork for any data-base, and determines what is excepted - or excluded - from the discussion. This is not a technical matter, and the effects of typology on dating, origins or meaning of a certain type of figurine can be substantial. Great care, and especially common sense, are essential. Furthermore, defining one type involves its separation from other types, which need then to be mentioned. Therefore, the framework for discussion in the current chapter is wider than the JPFs themselves.

111.1. Former Typologies and Guiding Principles The term "pillar-figurine" is a very common name in the archaeological literature for figurines which are made in the round and have a schematic, pole-like lower body, without a separation of the legs. The base of these figurines is usually wider than the body, to allow them to stand safely. This term is too general for our needs: first, it encompasses a huge geographic area, for pillar-figurines are found in the Aegean, Cyprus, Phoenicia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Israel and even the Punic World. Secondly, the temporal frame is too vague, from the second millennium BC to the classical periods at least.' Thirdly, the definition pillar-figurine is not specific from an iconographic or technical point of view; furthermore, it encourages associations with the 'pole' of the Biblical Asherah or with 'pillar-cult' (associations which, perhaps, have no basis). On the other hand, it is impossible and useless to change such a deeply-rooted term. What we need is a refinement and a clear sub-division of the different types of pillar-figurines. I have already mentioned various definitions of pillarfigurines and JPFs (chapter II), and will concentrate here on the main typologies offered, i.e., those of Holland (1975) and Engle (1979). Holland included the JPFs among the 573 solid figurines of his type A, together with a varied mixture of other types: figurines with legs (AXIII), sitting figurines, peg figurines and even hollow, double-moulded figurines (e.g., his type A.IV.g.2-3). This mixture prevented Holland from reaching clear conclusions, and in fact, he did 1 For Mycenean Bronze Age pillar-figurines see Hagg 1981: figs. 1, 3; Gesell 1985:61f, photographs 61-62, 64-66. For Persian period figurines from Cyprus see Gube1 1986: nos. 47, 49. For Greece cf. Hadzisteliou-Price 1978: pls. 1-6. For an Early Bronze example from Israel see de-Miroschedji 1995: 37 lower left; back cover upper right. See further references in chap. 11.4.8 (above).

not define clearly a Judean form of pillar-figurine, nor did he deal with every sub-type separately (Holland 1975:178ff; 1977:121f). This is unfortunate, since Holland had prepared the ground for synthesis of a very detailed typology, arranged according to the shape and number of curls (for the moulded heads), or applied features (for the hand-made heads; see also chapter III.6 and key 5 below). Engle (1979:9) included most of Holland's types A II-AIX under the term "classical pillar-figurines", relating them with Judah. Engle did not discuss Holland's types AX-AX! (all the body fragments), claiming that these could not be classified; nor Holland's types A.XII-AXVII, which seemed to him irregular or exceptional; neither Holland's type AI (all the hand-made heads), which appeared "too featureless" in his eyes. As a result, Engle (1979:11-12) studied only the mould made heads of the JPFs, ca. 150 specimens. These "classical pillar-figurines" were sorted into five sub-types according to the shape of the eyes. Engle believed that the center of the mould, where the eyes are situated, is better preserved than the curls (1979:13-15). At the same time, he claimed that his typology was harmonious with that of Holland, which he abandoned (clearly not a proper claim, cf. chap. III.6 below). Engle (1979:13-15) admitted that he had no direct access to the figurines and that his typology was arbitrary. It is thus better to retain Holland's typology, and only combine Engle's eye types in it. The eye-shapes are often obscure, and Engle contradicted himself when he suddenly preferred the curls for his type VI (though most of the figurines of this type have clear eye-shapes, cf. app. 2: 92, 94). Engle (1979:14-15) gathered doubtful cases in his type VII, but admitted that the doubts concerned only the eye-shapes, otherwise they were good "classical pillar-figurines". Engle defined one type (VIII) as foreign to Judah - it is indeed so but he was pleased to leave the matter at hand, not explaining in detail the differences between this "foreign" type and the "classical pillar-figurines". Furthermore, this "foreign" type is aetually a combination of many sub-types from different geographical regions (app. 5 below), which Engle failed to discuss. The major limitation in Engle's work was the exclusion of most of the JPFs from the discussion: he was left with ca. 150 artifacts (his types I-VII), or only 100 fit for classification (if we exclude the doubtful type VII). This stands in sharp contrast to the present catalogue of 854 JPFs (excluding ca. 100 more from unknown origins, app. 3). Therefore, the picture presented by Engle is very partial (cf. chap. 11.4.1 and key 6).

28

It must be said that Ruth Amiran (1956) and R. Gophna (1970) preceded Engle with a clear definition for the Judean pillar-figurines, but did not go into details in these short publications, nor discussed the possibilities and limitations of the definition "Judean". Before making further typological definitions, it is necessary to list a few guiding principles that I used.

X, it would be better to include the ten fragments in doubt, even if one is likely to belong to type Y, rather than neglect 9 fragments of X. Of course, statistical calculations such as this require a large amount of any type of artifact, and strictly speaking, this can hardly be achieved for the JPFs. Still, I· would suggest that any consideration is better then nothing, and the results can be tested in the future, when enough finds accumulate.

1. The Common Type One of the main contributions of Engle (1979:9) was the explicit use of the principle of a common type. In any assemblage of figurines, we are likely to find many types of different figurines, one or a few of each type beside many similar figurines which belong to one or a few types. The last are the main, or "common" type/s in the assemblage. Among the other figurines, some may be similar (but not exactly so) to the common type/s, and can be defined as exceptional forms. Other figurines may be totally different from the common type/s, e.g., exports from another site, influences from other types of artifacts, or fruits of the whim of a certain potter. Often, these unique figurines acquire a lot of attention, since they may be much more interesting artistically, than the common type/s (which is often stereotyped). However, since I deal mainly with archaeological and historical questions (distribution, relation to Judah, etc.), and not artistic analysis, the common type is central: it forms the great majority of any assemblage, and the key to its understanding.

111.2. Definition of a Judean Pillarfigurine I will define two major vananons of JPFs, which are common to Late Iron Age Judah. This definition is not new, but based on earlier studies. 1. Hand-made, "pinched" JPFs [fig. 4:1, my type A). The figurines have a simple, solid, hand-made head and body. They are all made from simple clay, usually covered with white-wash. Above this appears often the remains of painted decoration, usually simple bands of red or yellow. The painting marks anatomical details (eyes, pupils, face, etc.), or jewelery (necklaces, bracelets, etc.). The size of the figurines vary from 10-16 em. The head and the body are formed from the same lump of clay. The head was pinched by the potter's fingers to form two shallow depressions for eyes and a protruding nose. All the figurines portray a standing woman who holds her hands under her breasts. The fingers of the hands are not indicated, except rarely by paint. The arms may meet each other or even merge as one continuous band across the chest. They may support the breasts or be placed a little beneath them. The lower body is shaped as a pillar. The base is usually concave and always slightly widening, to enable the figurine to be free standing. There is no indication of feet, legs or sexual organs.

2. The Importance of Whole Figurines Most of the figurines, except perhaps in burials or favissa, are found broken, i.e., heads or bodies detached from each other. How can one be related to the other? Engle chose a convenient solution by ignoring all the body-fragments and many of the heads (see above), but this results in a large loss of data. One should try to learn from the whole figurines about the fragments (below), hence the great value of whole figurines. Whole figurines are also the starting point for the study of the archaeological context (chap. VIII below).

This type of JPF can be sorted into several sub-types, according to features which were applied to the heads (cf also key 2 below). These are my types A.l (simple heads); A2 (heads with "turbans'); A.3 (heads with "turbans" and side-locks); A4 (heads with hats) and A5-6 (few exceptional heads, app. 2:53, 367, 368).

3. Main Typology according to the Heads This is not a universal principle, but a result of the nature of the JPFs. Most JPFs are found broken. Their pillar bodies are hand-made, very schematic and standard. The heads are much more varied in details, especially the moulded ones, thus enabling a more detailed - and better - typology. It does not mean that the body-fragments are neglected, only that they form a secondary component within the main typology.

2. Mould-made face JPFs [fig. 4:2, my type B]. The body of this variation of figurines is similar to that of type A, showing a women holding her breasts, but the head was made separately and attached to the body by means of a peg, fitting into a deep depression in the upper body. After the attachment, the clay of the neck was smoothed upwards to hide the joint, often making the neck thick (out of proportion). Sometimes the smoothing blurred the line of the chin. These figurines are larger then their hand-made sisters, varying between 14-21 em. in height. The head was formed from a rounded lump of clay, stamped in an open mould to form the face and the hairdress. The face is usually round and full, with a smiling mouth and large eyes,

4. Statistical Considerations Exact definition of fragments is not always possible. Often, a certain fragment may have belonged to two or three different types of figurines. If the distribution-proportions of these types are known, it may be meaningful. For example, let us assume that a common type X appears 10 times more than a rare type Y (the proportion may be judged from the whole figurines, or from well-classified fragments). Statistically, from every 10 fragments which may belong to both X and Y, only one belongs to Y. When discussing type

29

often exaggerated.? The lids are usually arched. The face is surrounded from three sides by a curly hairdress.P There are as many as 6 ridges with rows of curls above the forehead (though one "linear" sub-type has only ridges without curls). The curls vary in shapes, and the variations of the number of rows and shape of curls enable a detailed typology (Fig. 6; following Holland 1975; for more details cf. key. 3 below). Usually there are protruding side-locks, descending to the chin but never further down. These side locks are also curled (unless they are simple or worn out). There is no indication of ears, as if they are covered with the side-locks. The use of white-wash and painted decoration in yellow and red is common, (like in type A, above). The back of the head is roughly made by hand. The head may be round at the top or pointed, as if having a cap, but there is never an applied hat (unlike the hand-made A.4 heads).

must stress that my aim is not to produce a detailed catalogue of these 900 figurines, but just to study them as far as they are useful for the understanding of the JPFs. For this reason, I present the results briefly. Readers who may wish to avoid this rather technical section can continue directly to chap. 11.4 (below).

m.3.t. Transjordanian Figurines (Appendix 4) Information from Transjordan is still limited, and a detailed, reliable catalogue is lacking. The Chronology is often not clear, as are the contexts. In general, the Transjordanian figurines are closer to the Phoenician and Coastal types than to the JPFs (Dornemann 1983; Gubel 1991:137; HomesFredericq 1987:92f). I have not tried to stress regional differences, but these probably existed.

All the body fragments which belong to types A and B are termed here as type C. They are further divided into three sub-types: whole bodies (C.l), middle body fragments (C.2) and bases (C.3), and all will be discussed later. Often, body fragments cannot be associated with one specific type of head.

Drum players. App. 4.1 [Fig. 10:1-2]. 8 specimens. The northern ones are similar to Phoenician figurines (app. 5.VI.2), with hollow, pillar bodies and drums held perpendicular to the body (for the ridge on the body of nos. 1-2 cf. another figurine from unknown origins, app. 3:16). The fragments from Amman are hard to define (nos. 4-5), but probably belong to the same type. No. 3 from Gebel Qal'ah is solid (?). For other types of drum players see app. 5.1.3, 5.V.I. For the identification of the drums see the discussion in type 5.VI.2 (below).

In the following pages, I wish to show that these figurines (my types A-B-C) are indeed the common type of anthropomorphic clay figurines in Iron Age II Judah. This involves the definition and cataloguing of other types of figurines.

111.3. Typology of Other Figurines

Moulded heads. App. 4.n [fig. 10:3-5]. 26 specimens, but cf. note at the end of app. 4.11. The bodies were not preserved, and the heads may have belonged to different types of figurines. They are all different from the JPFs: the face is much more elongated and the hairdress includes long side-locks, reaching the shoulders (or at least the chin). Large ears are usually represented (except nos. 1, 13?, 25). Some of the heads have necklaces with crossed pendants (nos. 16, 17, 20). Nos. 18, 23, 24 have a special hairdress (cf. mould 5.VIII.9 and figurines 5.VIII.6-8, 10, 16). The painted decoration, when it survives, is white and black or red and black. It seems that some of these 4.11 heads belonged to type 4.1 figurines [fig. 10:2] and others to type 4.III or even to horse-and-rider figurines. As far as I know, none of these Transjordanian heads is comparable to the Judean heads (excluding one or two doubtful cases, when inadequate publications or a bad ,preservation state prevent exact classification).

Ca. 900 anthropomorphic figurines from Iron Age Israel were catalogued in appendixes 4-5, and presented in the format of a table (fig. 3 below).4 Most of these figurines have archaeological contexts, or at least the sites of origin are known, and very few figurines are of unknown origins. The last were added for the sake of completeness, or in cases where whole figurines from secure origins were not found. I have listed all the anthropomorphic figurines, including all of Holland's types A-C and many new ones. The fragments are separated from whole, or nearly whole, figurines. 5 I have focused on defining common types, and often grouped together the various exceptions and irregular figurines. I 2 This is often called an archaic smile, after Greek figurines and sculptures. It certainly does not indicate any direct connections

with the west. 3 I am using the term "hairdress" for convenience sake. It is not always clear whether these heads show the natural hair, an artificialwig or even some sort of a headdress.

Pillar bodies. App. 4.m [fig. 10:6]. 17 specimens. The hollow bodies, nos. 13-17, have various positions: hands on the stomach, on the breasts (?), holding a dove (?), etc. Most of them come from northern Transjordan. The solid bodies (nos. 1-12) include gestures of extended hands (no. 8), hands on the stomach (no. 4), along the body (no. 1), on the breasts (no. 2), etc. All these bodies are different from the JPFs, except two or three fragments, which look similar to the JPFs but are too battered for exact classification (nos. 6, 7, 10).

4 No doubtmore female figurines exist (in private collections, new

excavations which were not yet published, etc.). The number here is still large enoughto present a validgeneral picture. 5 By "nearly whole" I mean figurines, of which at least the head and the upper body survived, to the extent that the position of the arms can be recognized. For example, the position of the arms of JPF no. 251 (app. 2) is not clear, thus it is not included among the "nearly whole" figurines.

30

m.3.2. Exceptional/Other Figurines, mainly

Male figurines. App. 4.IV [fig. 10:7]. 7 specimens. As in other areas, male clay figurines are rare. The only whole figurine is "the traveler", no. 1, which has a hollow body. Nos. 5-6 have solid bodies, but may had been rider figurines. Nos. 2, 4, 7 have ate! (Egyptianizing) crowns. Daviau and Dion (1994) suggested that these three heads represented the godEl.

from Judah (Appendix 5.1) Included here are some types of figurines, that are similar (but not identical) to the JPFs (5.1.1, 5.1.3). These have a few different traits that mark them as variations, but are still included in the JPFs' catalogue (app. 1-2). Other types are not similar to the JPFs, though they were found in Judah; these are presented below (5.1.2, 5.1.4-5.1.6).

Hand-made, whole figurines and heads. App. 4.V [fig. 10:8-9]. 15 specimens. This is not a homogenous group, and the differences between the sites are great. In general, incised and applied decorations are common. The heads are not similar to the JPFs, except perhaps in one case (no. 12). The body of no. 1 is hollow, while those of nos. 8-9 are solid, but not of the pillar type. No. 15 is unique. For the rest of the figurines, the exact type/s of bodies are not clear.

Type 'Be' figurines. App. 5.U [fig. 4:5]. These figurines have a typical JPF moulded head (my type B), but hollow, wheel-made pillar bodies (my type E). Since the main classification of the JPFs is done by heads, I have included this type in the JPFs' catalogue. Only two whole figurines are known of this type (app. 2:78, 183). A few similar figurines from unknown origins may be added (see app. 3:16,87), but there is a danger that they are forged. This is especially true for app. 3:16, which is perhaps "modelled" on figurines from Transjordan (cf. app. 4.1.1-2 above; the unique form of the lower body with a ledge).

Hand-made body fragments. App. 4.VI. 15 specimens. All are not of the pillar type; most are fragments of legs, which cannot be further classified. Nos. 14-15 are exceptional, being fragments of large-sized clay sculptures. Large clay sculptures are known from Cyprus and Edom (Connelly 1989; Beck 1995), but not from Judah.

Hollow pillar body-fragments. App. 5.L2. Only 8 specimens are known from Judah, 7 from Jerusalem and one from Tel Beer Sheba. They could have belonged to figurines like VI.1 (above), but also to types 5.111.1-6 or 5.IV6 (below).

Plaque figurines. App. 4. vn. 11 specimens, some made in the traditions of the second millennium BC, with wide clay backgrounds around the figure (nos. 1,4,5). Other figurines lack the background (nos. 2, 10). A mould of a plaque figurine is known from Tawilan (app. 5.VIII.5 below). NO.3 holds a drum, perhaps (if so, it belongs with type 5.V.l below). For plaque figurines from Israel cf. app. 5.V25.V.ll (below).

Female drum-players. App. 5.L3 [fig. 4:3-4]. 10 specimens, 3 of which are in doubt. The figurines portray a woman, who holds a disk of clay close to the chest. All the other details are typical of the JPFs: solid pillar bodies and simple hand-made heads (of type A). More specimens are registered from unknown origins (cf. app. 3:12, 99). The identification of the disk is discussed in relation to type 5.VI.2 (below). For other figurines of female drum-players cf. types 4.1,5.111.6, 5.VI.

Plaque figurines of pregnant women. App. 4.vm [fig. 10:10]. 16 specimens. This type is very different from the Late Bronze and early Iron Age plaque figurines, and more similar to the coastal Iron Age II plaque figurines (type 5.V.9 below). It seems that it belongs to the late Iron Age II as well; a large group of three figurines was found in Buseirah, which flourished mainly during this period. The hands survived in 8 specimens, always grasping the breasts, with the thumb separated from the other fingers. The faces are quite crude, with side-locks reaching the shoulders. There is no proof that heads 10-16 belonged to these figurines, but it is possible. No. 16 is exceptional, since it has perhaps a peg (and thus belongs with type 4.11 heads).

Miscellaneous heads. App. 5.L4. 24 specimens. The heads are moulded (nos. 1-11) or hand-made (nos. 13-24), but are all different from the JPFs' heads. They vary much and do not form a homogeneous group. A few are badly preserved or inadequately published, preventing further classification (nos. 3, 4). No.8 may belong to the classical periods. No. 16 is similar to Persian period figurines. No. 22 is similar to the coastal heads of type 5.1V (below). Most of the heads were found in Jerusalem and Lachish.

Unique plaque figurines. App. 4.IX. 4 specimens. Three of these figurines hold a child and one portrays a pregnant, dressed woman. All come from the Jordan valley. For discussion see Beck 1991. Leg-fragments of plaque figurines. App. 4.X. 12 specimens. Nos. 1,2, Tl, 8 belonged possibly to type 4.VIII. The rest cannot be classified any further.

App. 5.L5. 24 Miscellaneous solid body parts. specimens. All are different from the JPFs' pillar bodies, e.g., in the position of the hands, in applied features, or in the holding of an object. A few bodies seem quite similar to the JPFs (nos. 1, 5, 13, 19, 20), and may be defined as variations. Yet, they are not identical to the JPFs and are not included among the last.

Unclassified. App.4.XI. 8 specimens. Most of them were found at Tell el-Mazar, but the quality of the preliminary publication does not allow certain classification.

Unclassified Fragments. App. 5.L6. 9 specimens, mostly coming from Beth Shemesh. Bad preservation and inadequate publication prevent further classification.

31

can be made. The grouping of the coast and the north is done since on the one hand there are many similarities in the form of figurines from both these areas, while on the other hand the quantities of (published) figurines are not so great as in Judah.

ID.3.3. Figurines with Pillar Bases, Mainly from Judah (App. 5.II) I have grouped here figurines with pillar bases, which are definitely not female JPFs. It is necessary to discuss them in order to settle the status of the pillar base fragments (my type C.3, chap. 111.5). To this group must be added riders with pillar bases (type H.l.p in the original Ph.D thesis. I will use the data collected there without discussing these figurines further). Most of the figurines of types 5.11 are similar to the JPFs in manufacturing techniques, clay, white-wash and painted decorations.

Heads with long, uncombed locks. App. 5.m4 [fig. 7:6]. 4 specimens. These are similar to type 5.III.3 (above), only simpler and without the combing. They are more crude in appearance. Types 5.III.7-8 may possibly belong here too. Most of the 5.IIIA heads were found at Megiddo. They resemble some of the hollow heads from the same site (5.VI.5-8 below), but the technique is very different.

The female pillar figurines of these areas are usually more elaborate than the JPFs. They have long side-locks, reaching the shoulders or the neck at least. The ears are large and often exaggerated. Moulded necklaces are common, and sometimes there are pendants on the forehead. The faces are more delicate than the JPFs faces, with better, more elongated proportions. In many cases, the head was formed from a lump of clay larger thqJt the size of the mould, leaving a sort of an un-moulded circumference around the face. Usually the body is wheel-made and hollow. Apart from these general traits, there are many variations in the shape of the figurines. 6

"Lamp" figurines. App. 5.ll.1. [fig. 8:1]. 4 specimens. The figures carry lamps above their heads. This peculiar type is rare, with two Transjordanian and two Judean examples. No.3 is exceptional, similar to 5.1V types and not to the JPFs. Lamp figurines are known from the Punic world, Phoenicia and Cyprus (Beck 1991:91, nn. 24-26; Isserlin 1976; Gubel 1986:120 no. 5; 1991:134; Vandenabeele 1986:354, 356; 1989:266; Homes-Fredericq 1987:92; Yon and Caubet 1988:30).

"Delicate" coastal type. App. 5.m2 [fig. 7:2-4]. 12 specimens, all from the southern coastal plain. Only one has remains of a hollow body. The heads are similar to type 5.111.1 (above), but much more delicate, without the crude lines. Heads nos. 1-7 are very similar and may have been made in the same mould (or mould-series, for which see chap. VI below). Unfortunately, many of the photographs of these heads do not show the details clearly. There is a necklace, with a large central pendant featuring a rosette. Heads nos. 8-12 vary a little from each other [fig. 7:3-4]. The center of production of these heads may have been at Tel Gemmeh (Gophna 1970), but central Philistine sites, such as Ekron and Ashkelon, may prove otherwise.

Male figurines with hand-made (type A) heads. App. 5.ll.3 [fig. 8:3]. 5 specimens. The definition of males is based on the appearance of beards, since none of the figurines are whole. The exact identity is not always clear, and some of these figurines may have been riders. In Trandsjordan, even what looks like a male beard is sometimes only an elongated chin, which is common also for female figurines. There are also hermaphrodite figurines, though these are few (Beck 1991).

Heads with long, combed locks. App. 5.m3 [fig. 7:5]. 9 specimens, all from the southern coastal plain. Only one (no. 6) has part of a hollow body and hands under the breasts. The head from Kh. Hoga is the most beautiful [fig. 7:5]. The hair is collected in thick side-locks, which curl alongside the face and almost meet under the chin. The locks are delicately combed with vertical lines (except no. 7, perhaps). Figurine no. 2 was dated to the Persian period, and the manufacture of these heads may have continued later then the Iron Age period. No. 9 from Ekron was said to have "Egyptianizing" features (Gitin 1995:73), but it is a local coastal head.

11.3.4. Coastal and Northern Moulded-Face Types (App. 5.111) I have classified here many figurines from the coastal plain and northern Israel, including most of Holland's (1975) type B. The majority of the figurines are from Iron Age levels, but for some of the older excavations the dating is not clear. The classification is based on the heads (instead of the position of hands, like Holland's classification). The final publications of new excavations, such as Tel Shera, Tel Haror, Ekron, Dor, Megiddo and Hazor will surely contribute greatly. Until then, only a preliminary typology

6 For another whole figurine with hollow body and moulded face, ofa "northern" type, see Oman 1986:34 (origin unknown). Another example is now in the Hecht Museum, University of Haifa (reg. no. H.792).

32

Fairly whole pillar figurines. App. 5.IV.1 [fig. 8:4]. 8 specimens. Unfortunately, the data from Tel Gemmeh and Tel el-Ajjul is very partial. Most of the figurines have hollow pillar bodies. No. 3 probably holds a drum. Nos. 4-5 have typical coastal type heads (of type 5.111.3 above). It is not clear whether their bodies are hollow or solid (the same is true for no. 6). Nos. 6-7 from Megiddo are different. No. 8 holds a drum perpendicular to the body; its face is mould made (?).

Heads with "crescent" hairdress. App. 5.m5 [fig. 7:7]. 4 specimens. This is not a homogeneous group. No. 3 has a hollow body and holds a drum in its hands. The heads of this group are quite similar to the heads of the JPFs, more than any other coastal group. Some do not have ears, like the JPFs, but most have a wide "frame" of clay around the moulded face (unlike the JPFs).

Peg figurines. App. 5.IV.2. 10 specimens. The term "peg figurine" was coined by Petrie, for very crude hand-made figurines whose lower body is pointed and solid, like a peg. They were probably stuck into the earth. Often they feature women, but some examples do not have clear signs of sex. The heads are usually similar to type 5.IIIJ (above). Some of the figurines are from the Iron Age I, featuring wailing women with their hands on their heads (Dothan 1982: 237ff). Other figurines are dated to the Iron Age II, and have stump hands or hold their hands on their breasts.

Northern drum players. App. 5.m6 [fig. 7:8]. 7 specimens, 6 from Megiddo and one from Samaria. Only one (no. 1) has remains of a hollow, wheel-made body. Unlike bodies of JPFs and southern coastal types, this body is shaped as a cylinder with ridges, and its section is very thick (like pottery juglets). The face is rather crude and the hair is indicated by many horizontal lines. The position of the arms of no. 7 is like the Phoenician type of drum players (5.VI.2 below), but its head is similar to the heads of type 5.V.l (for a similar head from Samaria, without body, cf. 5.III.7.28 below).

"Schematic" coastal type. App. 5.m1 [fig. 7:1]. 6 specimens, all from the southern coastal plain. Only one figurine has part of a hollow body (no. 2). The faces are elongated and characterized by an abundant use of incised lines (some may have been added after the moulding). In this type, the lines are rather crude. The hairdress flows in long side-locks behind the ears, until the beginning of the neck. The locks are marked by horizontal lines. There is a necklace made of a few short lines, and sometimes a pendant on the forehead as well.

Bird figurines with pillar bases. App. 5.ll.2 [fig. 8:2]. 34 specimens (no. 34 is from an unknown origin). All the figurines are solid and hand-made (type E.I of Holland 1975). 25 clearly have pillar bases, while the situation of the rest of the figurines is not clear. Most of the figurines were found in Jerusalem (17), Tel en-Nasbeh (6) and Tel Beer Sheba (3). Only one figurine from Tel es-Safi (no. 23), and one from Hazor (no. 3), were found out of Judah. The figurine from Hazor cannot be classified clearly, and its similarity to the Judean bird-figurines is not clear. Holland included figurines from Megiddo in his E.I type, but these are different from the Judean ones (for details see the end to app. 5.11.2; for an iconographic discussion of birds in the ancient Near East see Keel 1977).

ID.3.5. Coastal and Northem Hand-made Head Types and Miscellaneous (App. 5.1V)

.

(

"Ashdodite" coastal heads. App. 5.IV.3 [fig. 8:5-8]. 21 specimens, all from the southern coastal plain. They are very common at Ashdod, hence the name "Ashdodite". Usually they are flattened from above (it was suggested that they had applied hats, but there is no proof for this). The eyes are indicated by small clay pellets (or disks), applied to the depressions formed by hand. The aquiline noses are also applied. Usually there are representations of applied ears and mouths; sometimes there is an incised line across the mouths. All these details are not found among the JPFs' hand-made heads. The Ashdodite heads belonged to more than one type of figurine: to peg and pillar figurines (nos. 12), as well as solid female figurines (no. 10), solid figurines with legs (riders? - nos. 7, 9); playing woman (no. 12) and even a naked male [fig. 8:5]. Comparisons to the Ashdodite heads are known from Cyprus and Phoenicia (Courtois 1984: pls, 9, 10; fig. 24; Karageorghis 1993: pI. 18:7, 10).

Northern moulded heads. App. 5.m 7 [fig. 7:9]. 41 specimens. Many figurines of this group were inadequately published or badly preserved, and cannot be classified clearly. Most of the heads have long side-locks and some have ears (nos. 7, 8, 10, etc.). NO.6 may be a male figurine. No.7 has a hole (for suspension?), but it is the only case known among the 900 figurines in appendixes 4-5. It is not a hole for firing, of the type found in hollow heads [cf. fig. 9:6 and type 5.VI.5 below]. Body parts are preserved in no. 11 (hollow body and stump hands, extended sideways); nos. 12,36 (solid body, one hand on the shoulder holding a veil); and no. 39 (hand-made body). No. 20 from Megiddo is reminiscent of heads from the Jordan valley (4.11.18,23,24 above). No. 25 may be later then the Iron Age. For no. 28 cf. figurine 5.111.6.7 (above).

"Ashdoda" heads. App. 5.IV.4 [fig. 8:9]. 7 specimens. This type is fairly close to type 5.IV.3 (above), but more schematic. The only whole figurine of this type (no. 1) is the famous so-called "Ashdoda" [fig. 8:9], showing a women with a body shaped as a rectarigular chair or bed. The heads are flattened from above, cylindrical and without any clear separation between the neck and the head. The eyes and the nose are applied. The connections between the "Ashdoda" and Aegean figurines are obvious (cf. especially no. 4, and Dothan 1982 for discussion). It is possible that type 5.IVA heads are the forerunners of type 5.1V.3 heads (the whole Ashdoda figurine is dated to the Iron Age I period). For Cypriote comparisons cf. Courtois 1984: figs. 24:14; 26:9.

Coastal moulded heads. App. 5.mS. 40 specimens. It seems that most of these heads belong to female figurines with hollow bodies (cf. types 5.111.1-5.III.5 above). No. 17 is the only whole one, a women playing a string instrument. Like the other 5.III types, the heads are different from the JPFs' heads: they have ears and long side-locks (notwithstanding the many cases of badly preserved or inadequately published specimens, which cannot be classified). Most of the heads were found at Ashdod and Tel Gemmeh. A few have an Aegean "Daedalic" type of coiffure (nos. 1, 7, 8, 15; cf. Schwartz 1989: pl. 49:6-8).

Miscellaneous heads. App. 5.IV.5. 41 specimens. Many heads in this group cannot be adequately classified. No.4 is hollow. Body parts were preserved in 17 specimens, and

33

they are usually solid. They include figurines with legs (nos. 6-8, 10, 21?, 22, 34, 38) and other forms (nos. 9, 14). Another figurine is holding an object (28). There is also one pillar shaped body (no. 20, in doubt) and one hollow body (no. 23). Heads nos. 12, 13, 17? and 19 form a special group, probably of male figurines. Almost all the heads of type 5.1V5 have incised or applied features. Only no. 24 from Tel Gemmeh is close in form to the hand-made JPFs' heads, but unlike them it has incised nostrils. Some of the heads from Tel Gemmeh are close to type 5.1V.3. No.9 is similar to no. 39, and both belong, probably, to the Iron Age I period.

below (in type 5.VI.2). The moulding of these figurines is shallow. The women wear bracelets and often rings on the ankles. The figurines were made from different moulds and vary in details. No. 9 from Tel Ira is unique: it portrays a Hermaphrodite figure (Beck 1991). The figurines were dated to the Iron Age I and II. It is possible to discern within them one group, which is more deeply and crudely moulded. The figurines in this group hold a small drum, usually with both hands (unlike the more common position of one hand holding the bottom of the drum and the other hand beating it). Most of this group was found in Transjordan, it is less decorated and has simpler hairdresses (without curls around the face).

Hollow body-parts (of types 5.rn-5.1V). App. 5.IV.6. 23 specimens. Nos. 1, 4-18, 21 are certainly hollow. A few of them hold their breasts, others hold a drum (nos. 14-16,21) or some other, unidentified object (nos. 17, 18?). Nos. 2-3 are very similar to each other, but it is not clear whether or not their bodies are hollow. For no. 9 cf. 5.1II.6.1,above.

Plaque figurines in the tradition of the second millennium BC. App. 5.V.2 - 5.V.6 [fig. 11:3-9]. 73 specimens. Almost all of these figurines have a wide, unmoulded clay background around the moulded part (except type 5.V6). The moulding is shallow. There are many variations in the position of the arms (on the chest, along the body, uplifted, holding lotus branches, etc.). I have sorted the figurines according to the hairdress styles (unlike Holland), since in many cases only the heads survived and the position of the arms is unknown.

Solid body parts. App. 5.IV.7. 28 specimens. They are all made in the round, but have varied arm positions: on the chest (nos. 4, 12?, 13, 16?); on the stomach (nos. 2, 3, 7, 17, 23, 28); lifted (nos. 1, 14, 26, 27); behind the back (no. 5); alongside the body (no. 8, 18) and holding an object (no. 24). Two or three fragments resemble the JPFs, to a certain extent (nos.'8, 10, 27), but they all have features which do not appear among the JPFs.

"Hathor" hairdress. App. 5.V.2 [fig. 11:3]. 33 specimens, all having wide clay backgrounds and shallow moulding. 18 of them depict a naked woman with the arms extended sideways and holding lotus branches (nos. 1-2, 8-11, 12?, 13-16, 21-23, 25-27, 29). Other figurines are holding their breasts (nos. 4-7, 24). Few figurines hold one hand on the chest and the other along the body (nos. 3, 31), both hands along the body (no. 28), or both hands on the belly (no. 30).

Solid fragments, unclassified. App. 5.IV.8. 11 specimens. All have remains of legs, except no. 1, but each is different from the other.

"Hathor" hairdress with a cap of "feathers". App. 5.V.3 [fig. 11:4]. 7 specimens from Gezer. They all have a wide clay background. The "feathers" appear as vertical lines on the forehead, but the meaning of this hairdress is not clear. No. 5 does not have "Hathor" side-locks, but the drawing is not very good. When the bodies have been preserved, they show naked females with their hands on their breasts (except no. 1, which has one hand along its body). No.7 from Gezer dates probably to the Late Bronze Age. For the "feather" hairdress cf. also type 5.V5 below.

m.3.6. Plaque Figurines (App. 5. V) Plaque figurines are made of shallow, rectangular (or somewhat oval) lumps of clay, moulded in the front with a shallow mould (usually). They were very popular during the Late Bronze Age. At Gezer, many were attributed to the early Iron Age period, and Holland accepted this dating. Today, it seems that some at least belong to the Late Bronze Age, following better dated examples from newer excavations at Gezer and elsewhere. In any case, there are also plaque figurines from clear Iron Age I contexts. During the Iron Age II, they are restricted to a few types, which are very different from their Bronze Age predecessors. I have classified the plaque figurines mainly by the shapes of the heads, consistent with the classification of the JPFs. Drum players. App. 5.V.1 [fig. 11:1-2]. 42 specimens (cf. also 4.VII.3 below). Most of these figurines have already been discussed by Beck (1991). They hold a disk of clay close to the chest, usually covering one breast. The edge of the disk is often decorated with geometric patterns of incised lines," The identification of the disk as a drum is discussed

"Crescent" hairdress. App. 5.V.4 [fig. 11:5]. 22 specimens. The side-locks descend straight downwards, and are usually shorter then those ofthe former types. They do not curl outside at the lower end like the "Hathor" hairdress. There are some variations, with many figurines having narrow clay backgrounds and hands on their bellies. Nos. 14 from Tel Beit Mirsim were found in level B of the late Iron Age I period. Nos. 12-14 from Gezer have a special hairdress. Nos. 15-16, 18, 22 are made in the tradition of type 5.V.II. Some of the drawings and photographs are poor, . preventing exact classifications.

7 The identification of plaque figurines is much easier then round figurines, since the head forms a direct continuation of the body, and a small body-part may suffice. Also, plaque-figurines are more sturdy then round ones (chap. VII and fig. 30 below).

"Feathers" hairdress without side-locks. App. 5.V.5 [fig. 11:6]. 4 specimens, including one mould. Unlike type 5.V3, the heads protrude from the plaque and lack clay backgrounds. No. 4 is the only whole figurine, with its

34

hands holding its breasts. This is probably a northern group, found at Ta'anakh and Megiddo.

Leg fragments. App. 5.V.H. 10 fragments, too battered or small for further classification.

"Uraeus symbol" hairdress. App. 5.V.6 [fig. 11:7-8]. 7 specimens. They have no clay backgrounds. Part of the body survived for no. 2, with hands holding breasts. The symbol on the head is not really identical among all these figurines. Sellin (1904:74) suggested that this symbol was an Egyptian uraeus (viper), followed by Giveon (1967). This explanation was criticized by Lapp (1964:40).

m.3.7. Phoenician Figurines (App. 5.VI) I am using the term Phoenician for convenience sake, to avoid a long geographic term such as "the Coast of Northern Israel". The number of excavations in central Phoenicia (Lebanon) is limited, and published reports are few (in general see Ward 1994). Many of the figurines below deserve the "Phoenician" label, while in some cases it is more a matter of an accepted convention. The chronology of each type is not easy to define, with some types continuing well into later periods.

Other plaque figurines. App. 5.V.7 [fig. 11:9]. 38 specimens. This is not a homogeneous group. No. 1 is a double flute player; nos. 2-4 carry a child; nos. 5-7 are exceptional, perhaps indicating western influences. Nos. 814 from Beth Shean form a special group of simple, crude figurines from tombs (cf. perhaps 5.V.4.21, but the photograph is bad). The figurine from Tel Zeror, no. 17, has a "Hathor" hairdress, but the body is almost without a clay background (unlike type 5.V2 above).

In general, the figurines grouped here as Phoenician are technically superior to the JPFs. Many are made in a double mould, with hollow heads and bodies. They tend to be more realistic, with the faces better portrayed. Also, some unique types appear in this group, such as the so-called dea Tyria and the daily life scenes.

Body fragments with background. App. 5.V.8. 31 specimens, probably of types 5.V.2 - 5.V6 (above). Only a few can be classified exactly (e.g., nos. 4, 23, which were holding lotus branches). The fragments from Ashdod may have belonged to type 5.V9 (below).

"Dea Tyria", App. 5.VI.1 [fig. 9:1]. 16 specimens. The bodies are hollow and made in a double mould. The figurines depict sitting, pregnant women, holding one hand on their bellies and the other on their knees. Some of these figurines are later then the Iron Age (nos. 8-10, 12? 13-14). Many are derived from illegal excavations; and their origins are unknown (not included here, except no. 15). Their name was coined by Culican (1969), and they are common in Phoenicia (Culican 1969; 1975-6; Gubel 1986:113 nos. 3638; 1991:131; Pritchard 1988:49-52, fig. 12; Vandenabeele 1986:351f). They are also common in Cyprus, at sites like Kition and Amathos (Beer 1991:78; Caubet 1991: fig. 4a-b; Gubel 1991:131; Sophocleous 1985: pI. 18:1, figs. 7-9; Vandenabeele 1986:35lf; 1989:266; Yon and Caubet 1988: 3lf, figs. 2a, 7a, 8a, 9), and in the Punic world (Gubel 1991:131, with references).

Pregnant plaque figurines in deep moulding. App. 5.V.9. 21 specimens. This appears to be quite a common type in the southern coastal plain (for comparable Transjordanian figurines cf. type 4.VIII above). It seems to be a late Iron Age II development. 8 A large group of these figurines was found in Ashdod (nos. 1-7). The hands lie on the chest, or one hand lies along the body and the other on the chest. Some figurines were found in levels 1-3 of area D, while others were not stratified. A second group from Tel Gemmeh is different from the Ashdodite group. These figurines are made from large clay lumps, stamped in a smaller mould (thus leaving a clay background). The photographs in the report are, unfortunately, not very good. The classification of nos. 19-20 is not clear. I have included here also the Tel Batash plaque figurines, which are unique (19-21), but share the deep moulding, the long side-locks and the suggestion of pregnancy.

Women playing drums. App. 5.Vl.2 [fig. 9:2-3]. 15 specimens. Most of these figurines have hollow, wheel-made bodies (my type E). The body of nos. 11-13 is also hollow, but the position of the arms is different. No. 11 holds a dove (?), cf. fragments 5.VI.5.27-28 from Tel Keisan (below). All the faces are made in a mould. The hair is collected in long side-locks, often ending with a large "bun" or "earlobe" shape on the shoulders (nos. 5, 9). In other cases, the side-locks are twisted (no. 7) or simple (cf. Elgavish 1994:64). The figurines hold a large disk perpendicular to the body.

Miscellaneous body fragments. App. 5.V.10. 29 specimens. Nos. 1-8 have no backgrounds (from Ashdod, Ta'anakh and Megiddo). The other figurines include a wild range of peculiarities or unclassified fragments. Nos. 10, 16 and 25 have a peculiar decoration on the belly. They are perhaps fragments of female drum-players.

Formerly, the disk was explained as a sacred loaf of bread or as a cake (e.g., Glueck 1945). Meyers claimed that the disk was a drum only when it was perpendicular to the body (like in my types 4.1, 5.VI.2). When it was fastened to the breasts, it was not a drum (thus Meyers 1987:117f; 1991:18f; cf. Meerschaert 1991:183f).

8 It seems that the general trend in development of plaque figurines began with figurines with clay-backgrounds (first wide and later narrow). The next stage were figurines whose heads protrude from the background; fmally the figurines lost the background completely. Technically, there is perhaps a movement from shallow moulding to deep moulding. This is nothing but a tentative suggestion.

35

Miscellaneous. App. 5.VL6. 7 specimens. Most of these are hollow fragments of figurines, whose archaeological origins are unknown.

I find it hard to agree with this view: the decoration at the edges and especially the way in which the hands are portrayed (one holding the lower side of the disk and the other beating flatly against it) fit the position of a drum. It seems to me that both types convey the same theme, and only the technique is different (round figurines vs. plaque figurines). In coroplastic art, it is harder to depict a drum perpendicular to the body; furthermore, such a depiction is impossible for the manufacturing of plaque figurines, which are flattened lumps of clay stamped in a very shallow, frontal mould. It seems that in both cases we are dealing with drums, only the style of presentation is different. Another argument in favour of this conclusion is the fact that there are female figurines in Cyprus and Phoenicia, which do hold loaves or cakes, but these are different from drum-holding figurines (Yon and Caubet 1998:30; for drums in the Bible see Keel 1972:335ff; Schmidt-Colinet 1981; Mitchell 1992).

The conclusion is clear: apart from very few figurines of type Be, heads of types A and B are always related with solid pillar bodies of type C.

different (having large ears, long side-locks of hair, necklaces etc.). Even the simpler hand-made common types of female figurines are different from the Judean ones (e.g., in the use of incisions and applications).

m.5.2. The Possibility that Heads of Type A Belonged to Disk-Holding Bodies

m.3.8. Miscellaneous (App. 5.VB - 5.VDI) Figurines from later periods. App. 5.VILI. 23 specimens. Holland (1975) included all these figurines in his work. I have listed them in the appendix, only to show that they are later from the Iron Age and therefore have no direct relation with the JPFs. They need not be discussed further here. Miscellaneous. App. 5.VIL2. 6 specimens. Holland (1975) included them in his work. They are either made of stone or faience, or belong to periods other than the Iron Age II. A few represent fragments of animal figurines, or fragments whose archaeological origins are unknown.

In any case, drum-holding figurines are very common in Cyprus and Phoenicia (Gubel 1986:120 no. 49; Karageorghis 1987:17-19, nos. 7, 27, 29; Yon and Caubet 1988:30f, fig. 6a; Bisi 1989:259f; Vandenabeele 1989:266, 268; Meyers 1991:20f; S~rensen 1991: pl. 68e; Meerschaert 1991:183-186; Caubet 1992:262). They are also quite common in the Punic World (Ferron 1969; note that also there the disk is fastened to the chest).

Moulds. App. 5.vm. 21 specimens, excluding 7 other specimens already included in appendixes 4-5 (for details see note in app. 5.VIII). It was necessary to present these moulds in relation to the questions of production, mouldseries and origin of the technique (discussed in chap. VI).

IlIA. The Classification of the Whole Figurines

Daily scenes. App. 5.VL3 [fig. 9:4]. 3 specimens. This is a rare type in Northern Israel. It depicts kinds of daily activities: a woman kneading dough, a bathing women and a women holding an object (a phallus?). Similar daily scenes in clay are known from Cyprus and the Punic world (Bisi 1979: fig. 4; Karageorghis 1987: group 1, pl. 1:1-4; Vandenabeele 1986:354-357; 1989:267).

I have catalogued 53 whole, or nearly whole, JPFs (appendixes 1-2, excluding the addition to app. 2). Six of these figurines are defined as exceptional (four have drums, type 5.1.3; and two have hollow bodies, type 5.1.1). This leaves 48 "regular" whole JPFs of my types Ac-Bc (a few are nearly whole, my types A+, B+. One figurine lacks breasts, app. 2:8; and another carries a child, app. 2:232). All these 53 figurines were found in Judah, except perhaps one or two from sites on the western border, whose exact political affiliation is not clear (cf. chap. V below). There is only one exception - a figurine from Tel el-Oreimeh, but it has a hollow body (type Be, app. 5.1.1). It does not matter if one excludes type Be for being exceptional or includes it with the JPFs, since there are so few figurines of this type (app. 5.1.1). The conclusion is clear: according to the whole figurines, the definition of the JPFs as Judean is valid. These figurines are indeed the common (anthropomorphic) type in Iron Age II Judah.

Other, fairly whole, figurines. App. 5.VL4. 4 specimens. The exact type to which these figurines belong is not clear (perhaps 5.VI.l?). Miscellaneous fragments. App. 5.VL5 [fig. 9:5-8]. 42 specimens, including heads and body fragments. Nos. 1-24, 36-38 are heads, mostly hollow and made in a double mould [fig. 9:5]. The hole in the back side of the head was called a ventilation hole (Holland 1975; Keisan I:335f). Its function is to prevent explosion of the head when the air inside is heated during firing. Few heads are solid (nos. 3, 4?, 11, 13), and as for the rest of the heads, the structure is not clear. Most of the heads have long side-locks behind the ears. Vertical lines above the forehead mark the hair. The facial features are delicate.I'' Some heads are reminiscent of the famous "woman at the window" ivories. Head no. 5 [fig. 9:5] belongs, probably, to a rider. The body parts, nos. 24-35 and 39-41, are hollow and wheel-made (as far as can be judged). They were found at Tel Keisan and Kabri. One similar head is dated to the Persian Period (no. 42).

It is possible to start to see regional assemblages according to the evidence of the whole figurines. The Judean coroplastic assemblage includes the JPFs, but also the much rarer types 5.1.3, 5.11.2 and 5.11.3. Characteristic of all of these is the simple, solid, pillar body, usually covered with white-wash and often decorated with simple bands of yellow and red paint. Most of these traits are shared with other types of Judean figurines, such as animal figurines (not discussed here). On the other hand, in the coastal plain, Phoenicia and Transjordan, the assemblages are different. The common types of female figurines in these areas have hollow, wheel-made bodies; and the moulded heads are

10Holland (1975)placeda head from Gileam(here app. 5.VI.5.3) in his type A.IV.a (among JPF figurines). It seems that it belongs to a type found in Shiqmona (cf app. 5.VI.5.13, 17, etc.) and is different from the JPFs. 36

111.5. The Classification of Heads and Body Fragments of the JPFs

When we judge by the whole figurines, most of the types of female drum players do not have A type heads at all (see 5.VI.2, 5.V.l and 4.1). It is clear that the possibility of type A heads and disk-holding bodies applies only to type 5.1.3. There are currently 27 whole JPFs with type A heads and type C bodies (app. 1-2, types Ac, A+), versus only 3 whole, or nearly whole figurines of type 5.1.3.12 If we rely on this relation, ca. 11.5% of type A heads could have belonged to drum-players of type 5.1.3.

The conclusion about the differences in the assemblages of the whole figurines (above) is valid also when considering the figurine fragments. Among the ca. 850 figurines in app. 4-5 (excluding the Judean types of 5.1.1, 5.1.3 and, of course, the figurines of app. 5.VII), only a handful look similar to the JPFs (e.g., 4.111.6-7; 4.Y.12; 5.111.5.1-2, 4). Furthermore, it is likely that most of these figurines are not really similar to the JPFs, but belong to other types of figurines. The "similarity" is only a result of inadequate publications or bad state of preservation, which prevent us from noticing differences. Certainly, there are very few JPFs' fragments outside Judah - while the opposite is also true: there are few "foreign" figurines in Judah.

The fragments may help us here again: there are 123 JPFs' body fragments, that show a clear position of hands supporting the breasts (app. 1-2, among types Cl-C2). On the other hand, there are only 7 body fragments in app. 1-2, which hold a drum (three of which are doubtful). This 123:7 relation means that ca. 5.7% of type A heads could have had drums, a fairly low percentage.

Before continuing, we must first sort some problems regarding the identification of the fragments of the JPFs themselves.

I would further argue that type 5.1.3 is a Judean type of figurine. Apart from the drum, all the other features are exactly similar to the JPFs. Thus, including this type in the JPFs' corpus (as I did) would not matter in regard to the discussion about the borders of Judah (chap. V).

m.5.1. The Possibility that Heads of Types A-B belong to Bodies not of Type C It is clear that in a few rare cases the type B heads appear with a hollow pillar body (type Be, App. 5.1.1, cf. fig. 3 above). There is no other type of figurine that I know of, inside or outside Judah, which has heads of type B with bodies that are not solid pillar bodies (type C). There are 22 whole JPFs with B heads (Be, B+, app. 1-2) versus only 2 whole figurines of type Be (app. 5.1.2). If we rely on this relation, some 10% of the B heads may have been connected to hollow E bodies. In absolute numbers, it would mean ca. 14-15 heads. 11 Type Be seems to be a hybrid form between the JPFs and the coastal or Phoenician pillar figurines. One of the two whole Be figurines was found at Tel el-Oreimeh, outside Judah. The other was found at Lachish, near Philistia.

m.5.3. The Possibility that Heads of Type A Belonged to Solid Rider Figurines The hand-made type A heads are very similar to heads of horse and rider figurines from Judah (but not from other areas). The Judean riders were discussed in the original Ph.D work as type H.l. Without the body, the classification of the head is often not clear. But it is enough to have a small body part, or even the section of the neck. The necks are rounded in the JPFs, while they are much thinner and crescent shaped in the riders. Unfortunately, information on this is missing from many of the early excavation reports.

In any case, the body-fragments present the same picture: I have found only 8 fragments of hollow pillar bodies in Judah (app. 5.1.2), versus 245 solid, regular JPFs' bodies (types Cl-C3 in app. 1-2). In other words, hollow pillar bodies are extremely rare, forming only ca. 3.3% of the bodies in Judah. This is, no doubt, a negligible percentage (based on a large enough amount of artifacts).

Against 27 whole JPFs with type A heads, there are only 2 whole riders with the same type of head (one from Lachish, Lachish III: pl. 29:18 and Holland 1975: D.VI.a.l1 = D.XV.a.6; the other from Beth Shemesh, Mackenzie 1912: 88 pls, 53, 54:3 and Holland 1975: D.VI.a.2). This is a fairly negligible relation. Differences of size may help to distinguish the two types: the riders are significantly smaller than the JPFs. Heights of heads of Judean riders vary between 13-23 mm (17 specimens with an average of 18

11 Again excluding the addition to app. 2, which, if included, would further support my argument.

12 Thesethreewholefigurines are app. 1-2: nos. 45,118,359. 37

mm), while those of type A JPFs' heads vary between 15-32 mm (104 specimens with an average of 26 mm).13

other types and not to the JPFs. The current number of C.3 bases is considerable (43 in app. 1-2, and much more with the addition to app. 2), thus their fate must be decided. IS Despite the problem, I have retained all C.3 bases as JPFs' bases (in app. 1-2). Most of them did belong to JPFs, and their exclusion would be a loss. A more substantial reasoning is the fact that almost all the other types mentioned above (5.ll.1-2 and H.1.p) are also Judean figurines, found in Judah and having the same coroplastic tradition. They all share with the JPFs the solid, hand-made pillar body, the white-wash and simple painted decoration, the schematic rendering, the lack of incised and applied details, etc. Thus, even if I had included a few bases of these figurines among the JPFs' corpus, this is a well calculated risk that would have no effect on the Judean definition of the JPFs.

ID.5.4. The Problem of Relating the Body Fragments (types C.1-C.2) to the Heads The question is whether C.I-C.2 body fragments can be related to heads, which are not of types A-B? If so, it would mean that perhaps not every C body is a JPFs. This seems a very rare possibility, if at all. Inside Judah, there are no whole examples for this (among all the figurines in app. 5.1 and 5.11. Of course, there is nothing of this sort in app. 1-2). This is true for figurines from other areas (app. 4-5), which have hollow bodies or different arms positions (unlike C.lC.2). Theoretically, few figurines of this kind may exist (perhaps among type 5.1V), and are perhaps unknown to me because of poor photographs or partial publications, but at the moment we can consider this to be a purely theoretical possibility.

Following the conclusions of sections 111.5.1-5, I have defined 578 figurines in app. 1-2 as JPFs, and they will serve as our basic data-base for any further discussion. These figurines include 150 hand-made heads of type A, 183 moulded heads of type B and 245 body parts of types C.I-C.3. With the addition to app. 2, the total is 854, of which there are 198 hand-made heads, 208 moulded heads and 448 body parts.

Therefore, we must discuss the pillar bodies of types Cl-C2 in relation to the JPFs. One should not dismiss them as impossible for classification, as did Engle (1979). On the contrary, they are quite distinctive. Furthermore, whenever the upper end of the body remains, it is possible to classify it more exactly than assumed so far. Type A heads were made as part of the body, and when broken would leave a simple section at the neck. Type B heads have a peg, and when broken would either leave a distinctive depression in the body (if the peg remained intact with the head), or appear as an inner circle in the section of the neck. This enables us to associate body fragments with types A or B exactly, but regrettably, earlier excavators missed this opportunity and did not present the necessary evidence in most of the publications. 14

111.6. Comparison to the HollandEngle Typologies Having established the present typology, I will comment briefly on its relation to the former main typologies of Holland and Engle.

ID.6.1. The Relation between the Typologies of Holland and Engle

ID.5.5. The Problem of the Definition of the Pillar Bases, Type C.3

There is no clear correlation between the two systems, and that of Holland is much better, being more detailed and encompassing a larger number of figurines. Therefore, Engle's eye types can only be added as a secondary component, but cannot form the base of an independent typology.

are basically different in every other aspect. In a few cases, I have classified figurines differently to Holland (usually after seeing the figurines themselves; see app. 2: nos. 57, 72, 73, 79, 144 167, 308, etc.). In two cases, Holland mistook two different photographs of the same figurine as two different figurines (Holland 1975, figurines AIII.b.2=AII.e.3; AIV.e.2=AVI.a.3). Engle used this as an argument against Holland's whole typology, but this was unjust. These are only simple errors, that are bound to happen in every study of such a magnitude. The blame lies in bad photographs and inadequate textual descriptions. It surely does not imply a basic fault in the typology of Holland.

ID.6.2. Holland's Typology compared with the Present Work 359 figurines were included in app. 1-2 (below) from Holland's types All-AX In fact, included are all the specimens from Holland's types Al.a-g, All, AlII, AIY.ad, AV, AVI.b, AVI.e; AVII; A VIII; AIX; AXb; and AX.c (except five specimensj.P The following types are partially included: ALi (3 of 12); AIV.e (4 of 7); AVI.a, AVI.d; AXa (5 of 12); AX.i (1 of 2) and most of AX! (except fragments which cannot be clearly classified). None of the figurines from Holland's types ALi, k, 1; AIV.f, g, h; AVI.b; AX.d-h; AX!I-AXVII was included in my JPFs corpus (but appear in app. 4-5, of course). The classification was done strictly by form, and never according to geographic considerations. The figurines which were excluded are typologically different, to a substantial degree, from the JPFs. Details and discussion for each case are presented in the appendixes.

ID.6.3. Engle's Typology compared with the Present Work

There is thus no good correlation between my typology and that of Holland, despite the mutual basic principles (typology based on hairdress styles: the number of rows and shape of curls for moulded heads; applied additions for hand-made heads). The reason for the lack of correlation is the mixing of different types in Holland's type A (types that I do not define as JPFs). For example, in Holland's typology figurines from Megiddo or Buseirah can be put with JPFs, if they have the same number and shape of curls, but

I have rejected Engle's typology, and it has no apparent correlation with my typology. There are 146 figurines in the JPFs' corpus (app. 1-2 below), which appear in Engle's work, including all his types I-VI, most of his type VII and very few of his foreign type VIII (app. 1-2: nos. 11,86, 161, which seemed to be "kosher" JPFs to me). I have not included Engle's figurines 1:6, VII:4, since their origins are unknown. Another figurine which was not included is Engle's VI:6, which he saw in the [now closed] Beer-Sheba Museum, but gave no registration number. I assume that it is a figurine from Aharoni's excavations at Tel Beer Sheba, already included in my catalogue. Excluded are a few other figurines, which seemed to be mistakn classifications.l? Most of Engle's type VIII is included in app. 4-5. To sum up, Engle dealt with only 146 JPFs, which form about a quarter of the JPFs known today (in app. 1-2), or only a sixth (including the addition of app. 2).

18 These are Holland'sAll.d2, AIX.b.l, AX.bA8, AX.c.1-2.

19 Engle's type Vll:37 looks very different to a JPF. His Vll:40, Vll:42 have ears, and should have been defined as his "foreign" type VllI. Figurine Vll:36 is a plaque figurine, wrongly classified by Engle. It does appear in Holland's work, where it should be, among the plaque figurines (Holland's type C.IX.g.9).

Engle claimed that his typology corresponded well to Holland's typology, but keys 5-6 and fig. 3b (below) prove otherwise. Almost all of Engle's types were spread among several of Holland's types. Furthermore, each of Holland's types has more sub-types, which are different (not detailed in fig. 3b below). For example, Engle's type III is scattered among seven types and sub-types of Holland's, 16 and Engle's type V is scattered among ten of.Holland's types and subtypes.!? The 15 specimens of Engle's type VII seem, at a first glance, to accord well with Holland's type All, but actually they are scattered among 6 sub-types (Holland 1975: types AII.a, Allc, AII.d, A.lI.e, AIl.h, A.lLi).

This is the hardest problem, since bases C.3 could belong not only to the JPFs, but also to lamp figurines (type 5.11.1), bird figurines with pillar bases (type 5.11.2) and riders with pillar bases (type H.1.p in the original Ph.D). The ratio between the whole figurines, JPFs on one hand and all these other types on the other hand is 49:9. We can compare body parts (only those that have the base) as well; JPFs' fragments of types Cl and C2 versus the other types mentioned above. Then the ratio is more in favour of the JPFs. Still, quite a large proportion of C.3 bases could have belonged to the 13 Unfortunately, I have studied these differences at a rather late stage, after including all the type A heads in app. 1-2. It is possible that a few of the smaller heads among them are riders, but it was senseless to start all of the appendixes and tables from the beginning because of a few items.

15 There are also differences of size between the larger JPFs and the smaller riders' bases, but I have not used these for the classification of the fragments. 16 Holland's types AII.a, All.h, AN.a, AN.b, AN.d, AVll.a, AVll.b.

14 In app. 1: field "breaks", a small letter "p" indicates a depression of a peg in a body, or an intact peg left with a head. Of course, it appears only when the neck is broken (code 1).

17 These are: All.a, All.c, All.d, Am.b, AVI.a, AVI.c, AVI.d, kVle, AIX, AXil.

38

39

peaceful continuation in the area between the Iron Age and the Babylonian period are correct (chap. 1.3.2 above). Zorn (1993) dated some loci from Tel en-Nasbeh, in which JPFs were found, to a "Babylonian-Persian" level (cf. app. 2: nos. 126, 138, 148, 152?, 171?, 172?). It must be pointed out that these loci are often mixed, and that Zorn could not date artifacts with certainty to specific sub-phases within the Iron Age. Nor could Zorn (1993:967) present coherent, detailed building plans for each phase, though not through any fault of his own.

Chapter IV: The Chronology "The psychoanalyst, like the archaeologist in his excavations," the WolfMan recalled Freud telling him, "must uncover layer after layer ofthe patient psyche, before coming to the deepest, most valuable treasures" (Gray, P. 1989. in: Sigmund Freud and Art. ed. L. Gamwell and R Wells. New York 16). 2: nos. 33, 98, 276, 598,600).2 A few other JPFs' fragments were dated to the 9th century BC (app. 2: nos. 99, 187, 188, 280. Add, maybe, no. 457 from Arad).

IV.t. The Data The dates of the archaeological phases and levels of the Judean sites were discussed in chap. 1.3 - 1.4 (above). The dating of each JPF was investigated carefully and registered in appendixes 1-2. There is no need to repeat the technical details of dating here. I was very careful in dating the figurines, perhaps too careful, but caution is surely better then adopting "exact" dates which lack solid archaeological evidence. Only 251 of the 578 JPFs have any dating data (app. 1: field "date"), i.e., ca. 43.6% of the total corpus (excluding figurines 614-854 in the addition to app. 2).1 All the rest of the JPFs lack clear stratigraphy, having been found on the surface, in earth debris, on slopes outside the settlements, and in varied secondary contexts (such as late building fills and pits). It is suffice to cite a few examples. Kenyon's excavations at Jerusalem produced a very large assemblage of JPFs, but only a small part of it is securely dated. Most of the figurines were found in a secondary, or late contexts (such as "Early Jewish Iron Age Ic-Id" , cf. Jerusalem 1:2). This is, of course, not through any fault of the excavators. In Tel en-Nasbeh, the levels and sub-phases of the Iron Age were not distinguished well, and today it is hopeless to try and date exactly many of the figurines, since one cannot date exactly even whole rooms and houses (cf. Zorn 1993). We begin the study of chronology with the already much reduced data base of 251 JPFs (fig. 12 below).

To be honest, we cannot differentiate the 10th century from the 9th century BC in Judah. There is a growing tendency to lower the dates of levels which were dated to the 10th century BC, to the 9th century BC (e.g., Jericke 1992:219 n.17 for Tel Beer Sheba V; for the Negev in general cf. Na'aman 1992b:83; Haiman 1994:59-61).3 In some cases, there are doubts regarding the archaeological stratigraphy of early dated JPFs. For example, it is clear that Grant hardly understood the Iron Age levels at Beth Shemesh; Wright did a marvellous post-mortem analysis - but of finds from one area only (AS V). As a result of the careless excavations, we cannot date securely many JPFs from Beth Shemesh, since most of the loci are mixed. In Arad the registration of the loci is usually clear, but scholars debate about the chronology of the Iron Age levels (Herzog 1984; 1987; Mazar and Netzer 1986; Ussishkin 1988).

During the Persian period, a totally different picture emerges. New forms of figurines appear, many of which show clear Aegean or Persian motifs. A new technique of double-moulding of hollow figurines becomes common. Most of the figurines are found outside settlements, in pits or favissae. The distribution patterns are very different from the Iron Age: the large assemblages of figurines are found outside Judah, along the coast (Stern 1992:159-174; Stern 1989). It would be safe to conclude that the JPFs went out of use before the Persian period, presumably ca. 586 BC. This conclusion is based on the meager number of JPFs which can be dated later than 586 BC, and on the great changes that occurred in the typology, context and distribution of figurines in the land of Israel after 586 BC.

Many JPFs cannot be dated accurately, except a general dating to the Iron Age II (15 figurines, including a few from mixed loci). 4 I defined the date of not less than 84 JPFs as tentatively 8th-7th centuries BC, since their contexts are not secure. Included here are 33 figurines which probably date to the 8th century BC and 36 figurines which probably date to the 7th century BC (fig. 12: rows "8?", "17"). 15 other figurines can only be dated tentatively to both these centuries (fig. 12: row "8-7?").

IV.2.2. Post Iron Age dating Only two JPFs have been dated to the Persian period (nos.' 185, 482), but they are exceptional in other ways as well. The head from Tel Michal (app. 2:482) is probably hollow, and thus belonged to one of the coastal types and not to the JPFs. It was found in an area which had remains of the Persian period, but actually its archaeological context is not clear. The stratification of the Tel Erani head (app. 2:185 ) was not published.

IV.2.1. Early dating (10th - 9th centuries BC) In the past, many scholars claimed that pillar-figurines appeared already in the 10th century BC (e.g., Pilz 1924:140, 161; Pritchard 1943:57; TBM 11I:69; AS V:155, n.28). In many cases, the early-dated figurines were not JPFs according to my definition. In other cases, the dating was not based on sound archaeological contexts. Early dating of the JPFs continued to be popular and is found even today (Keisan I: 346, #BIb; Engle 1979:20f; Winter 1983:107; Lachish V:16; Bloch-Smith 1992:219 n.17). According to the present data (app. 1-2), this view must be questioned. One can count on the fingers the number of "early" figurines dated to the 10th century BC. To be more precise, we are dealing with fragments of figurines (see app.

A certain continuation in the use of the JPFs into the sixth century BC is possible, since surely the destruction of 586 BC could not affect each and every artifact in Judah. From an archaeological point of view, the sixth century BC (Babylonian period) is almost a terra incognita. For example, few of the figurines from Benjamin could have belonged to this period, if the assumptions about the 2 No. 598 is somewhat exceptional. It was dated to the Iron Age I period. 3 This has nothing to do with the JPFs themselves, but with historical considerations about the campaign of Shishak (for the Negev). In other areas, it is the debate about the united Israelite kingdomand the so-called "myth" of king Solomon.

I 297 JPFs have some registration in the Locus field, and 191 in the square field - perhaps since squares were not used in all the early excavations (cf app. 1).

40

Regarding sub-type distributions, the moulded (B) heads are dominant in the 8th century BC (31 specimens). The handmade (A) heads clearly existed then, but in fewer numbers (6 specimens). 13 body fragments exhibit remains of a peg or depressions for a peg, i.e., they once had B heads. 8 of them are dated to the 8th century BC. 7 In the 7th century BC there is a continuation of type B, but a slight dominance of type A. There may be varied explanations for the differences between the centuries, e.g., that the hand-made heads were cheaper (fitting the less wealthy 7th century BC in Judah), or that this is a question of individual taste (a "fashion"). Since the numbers of securely dated JPFs available for comparison are limited (especially for the 7th century BC), the differences may be purely accidental.

IV.3. 8th-7th Centuries BC

The stratigraphy of excavators should be respected, unless there is solid evidence to the contrary. In any case, the amount of "early" dated JPFs is so meager, that their importance is negligible. The JPFs are recognized as a common, substantial phenomenon starting with the 8th centuryBC.

IV.2. The Early and the Late

53 of the securely-dated 143 JPFs can be dated only generally to both the 8th and the 7th centuries BC. Only 90 JPFs could be clearly dated to one specific century, and most of these are from the 8th century BC (70 JPFs). It is clear that the JPFs were very popular by then, unlike the inscribed weights and the rosette stamps, which are basically from the 7th century BC (KIetter 1991; KIetter in press A). Only 20 JPFs were dated to the 7th century BC, somewhat surprisingly. The pillar-figurines of neighboring Phoenicia, Transjordan and Philistia also belong mostly to the 8th-7th centuries BC. An indication for this can be seen in the area of the Kingdom of Israel, where many sites suffered destruction during the Assyrian conquests of 732-730 and 720 BC. Very few pillar-figurines were found in large Israelite sites that had been destroyed in the 8th century BC and not reoccupied to a large extent later (the best example is Hazor). On the other hand, relatively large assemblages of pillar-figurines were found in sites that prospered in the 7th century BC (e.g., Samaria and Megiddo). Of course, these are not JPFs.6

IVA. Amended Dating Data

I.

I

Despite this, there is do doubt in the dating of the JPFs to the 8th-7th centuries BC. This is based on the secure dating of 143 JPFs (fig. 12, row "total secure"). The next question is, can we separate the JPFs of the 8th century BC from those of the 7th century BC? It is not an easy task. Many of the JPFs were found in early excavations, when the separation of the two centuries was not yet possible. In some areas, such as the Judean Desert and the Judean mountains, it is difficult to separate the centuries even today, presumably because Sennacherib's campaign in 701 BC was not very destructive in these areas (chap. 1.3.1 above). Scholars usually thought that there was no chronological pattern within the JPFs, or avoided this question completely. Few scholars made some suggestions (Barkay 1990; Engle 1979),5 but only in a tentative way.

The archaeological dating data can be improved to a certain degree. If a specific site existed only in one century (either the 7th or the 8th) but not in both, then all the JPFs found in this site may be accurately dated, even if they lack clear archaeological stratigraphy. This is a very mixed blessing, since one-period sites are few. We do find 8th century Be sites which were destroyed in 701 BC and left unoccupied

is no real archaeological proof for chronological differences between his two types. Engle also relied on doubtful dating, made in someexcavations. 6 For example, there are no pillar figurines in the relatively early graves in Samaria, but there are many in later loci (such as £.207; Samaria ill:72). In Ashdod, most of the Iron Age figurines belong to later levels of the 8th-7th centuries Be (AshdodII-ill: 135).

4 Mixed loci appear as "mix" in field "date" of app. 1. Of course, this does not mean anything in regard to their dates. Among the 15 "Iron Age II" figurines, I have included also the 4 fragments from Bethel.

7 The 13 are app. 2: nos. 29, 182, 215, 222, 269. 271, 297, 387, 403, 420, 457, 477, 578. There are many more, no doubt, but the published data is incomplete. Sometimesthe lack of peg can show that a body had a hand-made, type A, head (e.g., app. 2: 31, 360, 361,384).

5 Engle(1979:20f) claimed that his type I may be early and type V later; but his typology is problematic (chapter ill.6 above). There

41

little change for the 7th century BC (only 24 dated JPFs). Thus, the main problem remains; without a large assemblage from each century, inter-comparison cannot be made.

(or almost unoccupied) later, mainly in the Shephelah.f The main sites are Tel Beit Mirsirn, Beth Shemesh and Tel Halif (Lahav). One can add Tel Beer Sheba in the Negev. It is safe to assume that all the JPFs from these sites are from the 8th century BC at the latest. There are also sites where the JPFs can be dated to the seventh century BC, though these are fewer in number (mainly sites in the Negev, such as Tel Malhata, Tel Masos and Tel Ira). Areas such as the Judean Mountains, the Judean Desert and Benjamin did not suffer violent destruction during Sennacherib's campaign. These areas would be "late-biased", i.e, their material finds would mainly point towards the 7th century BC.9 Unfortunately, there is no way to translate this conclusion into absolute numbers. It is impossible to say which figurine in the rich JPFs' assemblages of sites like Jerusalem, Tel en-Nasbeh and Gibeon is "early", and which is "late" .. Most of these figurines can only be dated generally to the 8th-7th centuries BC.

I hasten to stress that the relatively small number of well dated JPFs from the 7th century BC should not be taken as evidence for a substantial change in the manufacture or use of the figurines. Of course, it should not be related with any "cult reform" in a simplistic manner. The differences between the phases are quantitative, and not necessarily qualitative. Most of the JPFs were found in the northern Judean Mountains, where it is almost impossible to distinguish between the 8th and the 7th centuries BC (above). As for the Judean Shephelah, the decline in the numbers of JPFs in the 7th century BC may be a result of the general population decline there.

It is not clear why so few body fragments are dated to the 7th century BC, but since the heads required bodies, it must be accidental. Certain regional differences are apparent in some of the variations of JPFs' heads, but matching chronological evidence is not apparent. These regional differences are further discussed in chaps. V.4.2, VI.2.3 (below).

I have presented the amended dating evidence in fig. 13 (below). As earlier or later dating can now be safely ruled out, I will discuss only the 8th and 7th centuries BC. The amendment of the data increased our knowledge about the 8th century BC (127 dated JPFs, fig. 13), and showed again the prominence of type B during this period. It made very

Chapter V: Distribution Patterns and the Relation with the Borders of Judah "Einen Stiefelvoll Him in den Regen geste/t: Es wird ein gehn sein, ein grosses, weit Iiber die Grenzen die sie uns Ziehen" (paul Celan, from: 'Zeitgehoft', 1976).

V.I. The Borders of Judah and the "Heartland" Conception

is not clear. Mittmann (1990) suggested a maximalist view, according to which Hezekiah annexed Ekron and a large part of the territory of Ashdod. Ashkelon and its Jaffa-Azor enclave probably became part of the anti-Assyrian alliance. Hezekiah may have achieved control over Gat as well (Na'aman 1979:67; 1974:27; but more likely Ekron was concerned here instead: Mittrnann 1990:98f).

V.1.1. The Borders of Judah between 701-586 BCI

The archaeological evidence, especially the distribution of the Judean /m/k stamps, strengthens the picture of Judean control in Ekron, and perhaps also in Gezer (Na'aman 1974:35; 1979:75-76; 1986:10-11; 1988:74; Rainey 1983: 15; cf. also Shavit 1992:34ff, 140ff; Kempinski 1993b:178180).

The borders of Judah had been more or less stable since the reign of Asa until 701 BC (Kings 15:16-20; cf. Kallai 1960; Mazar, Amit and l11an 1984; Aharoni 1987; Na'aman 1989:19, 54-55). Judah's northern border passed between Jericho - Mizpah (Tell en-Nasbeh; Aharoni 1958; Kallai 1960; 1986). Its eastern border, the Dead Sea, as well as its southern border, the Arad - Beer-Sheba valleys, were natural borders. Jericho belonged to Israel (Weippert, M. and H. 1976), and the border passed south of it, but probably north of Vered Jericho (Eitan 1984; 1994). These borders remained more or less stable, though Judah had some periods of expansion eastwards and southwards: it ruled Edom until the days of Jehoram, son of Jehoshafat. Later it struggled for the control of the Arabah and Elat (Na'aman 1987b:214-216, with references). The Chronicler claimed that Abiyah conquered southern Samaria (Chr. 2:13), but the historicity of this event is doubtful (Klein 1983, vs. Jones 1994; Deboys 1990). Formerly, it was thought that Judah expanded greatly under Uziah, who was equated with a Syrian king named Azariah; but Na'aman (1974) showed that this equation was baseless.

After his campaign, Sennacherib tore areas from Judah and delivered them to the rule of Ashdod, Gaza and Ekron. The exact extent of these areas is not clear. Formerly, scholars thought that most of Judah had been affected, leaving only a small enclave around Jerusalem and Bethlehem (Alt 1930:242-243; Noth 1960:268-269). It now seems that only the Shephelah, or parts of it, were lost (Na'aman 1979:83; 1986:17; Mittrnann 1990:104; Rainey 1983; Galil 1988:11 n.35; cf. Dagan 1992:260-262). The centralization of the oil industry at 7th century BC Ekron may also reflect the loss of oil producing areas in the Judean Shephelah (Dothan and Gitin 1987; Gitin 1989; 1990; Eitam 1990; Finkelstein 1993:64). Gezer probably returned to Assyrian hands (Reich and Brandl 1985; Becking 1992:114-118). Historical sources on Judah's borders during most of the ''pax Assyriaca" period (700-630/620 BC) are lacking (cf. chap. 1.2.2). Many scholars believe that Manasseh reclaimed the areas lost in the west in 701 BC (Ginsberg 1950; Bulbach 1981; Tatum 1991; Lowery 1991:169; Finkelstein 1993:64; Rainey 1993:160-162). This reconstruction is based, to a large extent, on accepting the Chronicler's story about the repentance of Manasseh (II Chr. 33:10-17; against which see chap. 1.2.2 above). It is also plausible that the return to the "traditional" border was achieved later, by Josiah, contemporary with the Assyrian withdrawal from the west (Na'aman 1989:85).

The western border of Judah was the most unstable of its borders. It passed in the Shephelah, encompassing the Judean cities of Beth Shemesh (Na'aman 1987b), 'Azeqa (Na'aman 1974; 1994; against Galil 1992b:117; 1995) and Lachish (Lachish III; Ussishkin 1977; 1983). Gezer belonged to Israel and later to the Assyrian province of Samaria (Na'aman 1986:7, 10; 1988:74; 1987b:211). The identification of sites in the southern Shephelah is a well known problem, but an approximate border can be deduced with the help of geographic features and settlement patterns (Gophna 1981; Dagan 1992). It is clear that Ekron and Gat belonged to Philistia (Dothan and Gitin 1987; 1994; Gitin 1989; 1990; 1993; 1995; Dagan 1992:34-41). 8 On the settlement deterioration in the Shephelah after 70I Be see Dagan 1992:259-263; Na'aman 1993:113f, with further bibliography.

Hezekiah expanded outside (west) of Judah's "traditional" border in the Shephelah. The exact extent of his expansion

9 Following the archaeological rules that most of the fmds belong to the later years of each level, and that violent destruction of a level leaves a higher nwnber of fmds than peacefulabandonment.

1 ThiS is . a shortened version of a forthcoming paper (Kletter in press A).

42

According to a very common view, Josiah conquered vast areas of the land of Israel and established a kind of a "mini empire" (for the latest adherents to this view see Galil 1992b; Weinfeld 1992:146; Stern 1994; Suzuki 1992:32-37; Laato 1992:76). This theory is based on an early date for the Assyrian withdrawal from the west, while following the Chronicles' version about the geographical extent of Josiah's

43

reform (II Chr. 34). Since the Chronicler's version should be rejected (Chap. 1.2.3 above), it seems that Josiah expanded only into the southern part of Samaria, to the region of Bethel (following II Kings 23:15).2 The death of Josiah at Megiddo (II Kings 23:29, cf. chap. 1.2.4 above) does not imply Judean rule there.

and Yisrael 1995); the appearance of Edomite pottery in the Negev (Mazar, E. 1985) and written evidences (e.g., in the Arad ostraca: Aharoni 1981: nos. 24:20; 40:15).

V.l.2. The Danger of Circular Arguments and the "Heartland of Judah"

A central source in the debate about the kingdom of Josiah is the town list of Judah (Joshua 15; for the basic treatment see Alt 1925b; for a thorough recent discussion see Na'aman 1989). The geographical scope of this list fits well a small kingdom of Josiah, and the dating of the list to his reign is based on the appearance of Bethel, Ophra and Jericho in the list: Judah controlled these cities only during Josiah's reign (Na'aman 1989). The dating of Garfinkel (1987; cf. Galil 1987; Ahituv 1994) is not convincing.

As the historical evidence regarding the borders of Judah during the late Iron Age period is often partial or obscure, the use of archaeological information as a filler for historical lacunae is inevitable. The binding of these two disciplines together carries the danger of tautological, or circular, arguments (fig. 14). One danger is related to the assumption that material remains can indicate political borders (fig. 14: the fourth clause). This question has not been explored much in the archaeological theory of the last 30 years or so. Throughout this period, the so-called new archaeology emphasized the lack of correlation between what was called "pots and people" (e.g., Renfrew 1984; Clarke 1968). Many archaeologists stressed social changes and conceptions about frontiers and peripheries, and not the study of actual border lines. There was also a tendency to ignore historical periods and historical sources. The focus was put on ethnicity, which is hard to define (Green and Perlman 1985; Hodder 1982; 1986; Rowlands et. al. 1987; Renfrew and Cherry 1986, etc.).

Archaeological remains have been seen as proof of the "empire" of Josiah, especially since the excavation at Mesad Hashavyahu in the 1960's. This one-period coastal site was explained as a Judean fort of Josiah (Naveh 1962; Reich 1989), leading to the conclusion that Josiah controlled access to the sea and parts of the coastal plain of Philistia (for criticism see Na'aman 1989:56-57, 00.147-8). Recently, Wenning lowered the date of Mesad Hashavyahu to around 600 BC, following lower dating of the East-Greek pottery found at this site (1989:183-189, cf. Dion 1992:86-88, n.103, Waldbaum 1994:59). If true, the fort had nothing to do with Josiah.3 Wenning (1989:189fi) suggested that king Jehoiakim ruled it, but in view of the weak position of Jehoiakim (who is featured in the Bible as a subservient king to Egypt and Babylon, II Kings 24:1), it is hard to accept this suggestion.

If one shifts the focus from "people" as ethnic units to

"polities" or political units, the relations between artifacts and political borders must be implored. Borders are important for a wide range of purposes: political (maintaining relations with neighboring polities), military (declaring wars, border disputes, etc.), and economic (taxation, return of refugees, trade relations, etc.). Many ancient Near Eastern sources indicate the importance of political borders and the great care taken in establishing and maintaining them. Ideological conceptions regarding borders were also very clear (see esp. Liverani 1990), and in fact universal, from third millennium BC Mesopotamia (e.g., Cooper 1983) to the first millennium BC Biblical sources (e.g., Na'aman 1986b). I have dealt with the relations between artifacts and polities elsewhere (Kletter in press A), and will not repeat the details. The main conclusion is that archaeology can ,indicate political borders with the help of historical sources. At the same time, each polity and each artifact must be studied on its own merits: there are no "covering laws".

Different reconstructions of Judah's borders can be made for the period between 609-586 BC. The archaeological and historical evidence from this period indicates no great changes in the borders. In the Shephelah, Lachish and 'Azeqa remained in Judah (Jeremiah 34:7 and the Lachish ostraca). So did En Gedi in the east and Arad in the south (the Arad ostraca, Aharoni 1981). Certain areas were perhaps torn away from Judah, but only during its very last days. The loss of Bethel - Benjamin to Babylon, and the Negev to Edom, are likely candidates; yet there is no clear evidence for this (Malamat 1982; 1988; Na'aman 1992; Wiseman 1985; Beit Arieh 1995:310-315). Edomites perhaps infiltrated into the Judean Negev at the very end. This is seen from the Edomite site at Qitmit (Beit Arieh 1987; 1989; 1995); the shrine at En-Hazevah (Cohen 2 II Kings 23:19 mentions a reform throughout "the cities of Samaria", but the historicity of this verse is doubtful (Na'aman 1989:55, n. 138; Ahlstrom 1993:752,763-766).

It is more specific to our case that the danger of circularity exists if we do not pay close attention to the definition of Judah in the first and second sentences (in fig. 14). How are the borders of Judah defined there - the very same borders, that we try to define later (in the fourth sentence offig. 14)?

3 Wenning did not discuss the erection date of this fort, which, from a theoretical point of view, can easily be 20 or 30 years earlier than its end. In any case, it would be historically impossible to claim that Mesad Hashavyahu remained in Judean hands from Josiah until ca. 600 Be without interruption. The ostraca from the site cannot date it exactly (Young 1992; DobbsAllsopp 1994, with furtherreference).

Historical sources are the means to overcome this difficulty. This is not an easy process, since the interpretation of the historical evidence is disputed; but it is not possible to rely

44

solely on archaeological evidence. One must first state an opinion about the historical sources independently (chap. 1.3, V.U above). One should also remember that archaeology and history are only a modern dichotomy of only one past: even the dating of archaeological strata is dependent upon historical evidence, e.g., the 701 and 586 destruction horizons.

JPFs, and the northern part of Israel only 7 JPFs (in accordance, ca. 0.5%, 0.8% of all the JPFs). If we adopt the heartland of Judah concept as base for our

discussion, then 822 JPFs (ca. 96%) were found within this area. This number is so high, that there is only one possible conclusion: the JPFs are Judean figurines, found in the kingdom of Judah. This conclusion is not merely possible, it is necessary. The distribution picture is so clear, that even if we misjudged a few sites in regard to the definition of the heartland of Judah, it matters little. Outside Judah, almost no JPFs were found, i.e., in the kingdoms of Israel, Phoenicia, Philistia and Transjordan (below). Local figurine assemblages appear in all these areas, and this also strengthens the conclusion above.

Another working solution involves the geographical conception of the "heartland of Judah".4 This is the area that was always under Judean control, i.e., a minimal definition. Inside this area, Judean population was the overwhelming part of the entire population, and political control was wielded by Judeans. The heartland of Judah included the Judean mountains, Benjamin, the Judean desert and the Biblical Negev. Clearly, Transjordan, Northern Israel, Phoenicia and Philistia had never been a true part of Judah. Only the Shephelah presents a problem, due to the unstable border in this area (chap. V.l above). One can separate it into two parts. The eastern Shephelah is safely attributed to the heartland of Judah (Tel Beit Mirsim, Tel Halif, Tel ej-Judeideh, etc). We have historic evidence for the Judean political affiliation of other sites there (Lachish, Azeka and Beth Shemesh). The western Shephelah (Gat, Ekron) is ascribed to Philistia. A marginal zone remains, where the affiliation of sites such as Kh. Hoga, Tell Erani and Tell Burna is left open for the meantime (Kletter in press A: map 3).

To sum up, the JPFs (as classified here) are Judean. These figurines were manufactured and used by Judeans in Judah, though this does not necessarily mean each and every figurine: a few could have been used outside Judah by nonJudeans (see below). Again, the reader should remember that I am speaking about Judah and the Judeans here as political (and not ethnic) entities.

V.2.2. The JPFs Outside Judah Outside Judah (as defined above) only 32 JPFs were found (ca. 4% of the whole corpus). A great many of these 32 figurines are really cases of doubtful classification, but I have nevertheless included them in the catalogue. This was done to overcome any suspicion of begging the question by excluding finds which do not fit the theory, by defining them as "exceptional". But doubts do exist.

The conception of the heartland of Judah is far from being perfect, and is used only as a working tool. The idea is that this conception may help in the definition of artifacts as Judean: even if Judah expanded outside its heartland, it would only strengthen a definition of artifacts as Judean (leaving less of them outside Judah). On the other hand, it seems that Judah never lost this heartland, except perhaps in its very latest days.

Of the 32 JPFs outside Judah, there are 4 doubtful fragments from Bethel, which cannot be classified due to lack of information (app. 2:3-6). One head from Tel Michal (no. 482) is probably a hollow head, part of the typical coastal figurine types (app. 5). Unfortunately, the report is not specific in regard to this head, and its location today is unknown. Two body fragments from Samaria (app. 2:147, 293) do not look like JPFs, but like northern figurines of females with long side-locks, reaching the shoulders. The body fragment from Tel Qasilah (app. 2:280) is exceptional in form, holding an object with both hands (a drum?). One of the Shechem heads (no. 337) does not look like a regular JPF. The figurine from Tel el-Oreimeh, my type Be, has a hollow, wheel-made body (no. 183, defined as type Be and discussed in chapter III above). One head from Megiddo was defined as a JPF, but it lacks archaeological context and the quality of the published photograph is low. Apart from these, we are left with figurines from Ashdod, Tel elOreimeh, Kh. Hoga and Tel es-Safi (App. 2: nos. 2,68, 181, 182).6

V.2. The JPFs and Judah V.2.1. The JPFs inside Judah In order to achieve the maximal database, I have discussed here all the JPFs, including the addition to app. 2 (nos. 579854). The distribution is presented in a table (fig. 15) and a map (fig. 16). The table is arranged by geographic regions, with an alphabetic order of sites within each region. In total, 854 JPFs were found in 42 sites. The vast majority were found in the Judean mountains: 628 figurines (or 75.3% of all JPFs).5 The Judean Shephelah comes next with 126 JPFs (or 14.8%), and third the Negev (89 JPFs, or 10.4%). These are the only areas in which a significant quantity of JPFs has been found. The coastal plain (philistia) yielded only 4

4 This is surely not a new concept - it was used in different contexts (e.g., the kernel defmition ofAlt 1925:159; 1930:222).

6 A few other fragments, that could not be defined clearly, are included in app. 4-5. Theoretically, it is possible that some ofthese are JPFs, but evenso it would not change the general picture.

5 This number includes the 4 fragments from Bethel, app. 2:3-6. Their classification is not certain.

45

These figurines are scattered as isolated "foreign" inside large assemblages of figurines, which are types (see app. 4-5 and chap. III). The same is true like Megiddo, Ashdod, or Samaria; the JPFs exception there.

artifacts of local for sites are an

In the Coastal Plain, Northern Israel and Southern Phoenicia, the number of JPFs is meager (11 figurines in total), even if we disregard the doubts concerning the identification of a few of these. Thus, these figurines cannot testify on any significant trade or cultural influence, not to speak of political domination and conquest (for trade in Israel under Assyrian rule see Elat 1977; 1990). The figurines could have reached these areas in varied ways: through Judeans traveling abroad, by small-scale immigration of individuals and families, or as "mementos" brought from Judah by local people. In any case, these few Judean objects do not support the view about Judean conquests in the reign of Josiah. The picture is somewhat different in the western Shephelah. Single JPFs were found in some sites in this area, outside heartland Judah (e.g., at Kh. Hoga). Of course, it is possible that "the blame" lies on the cautious definition of the heartland area (above), and that some of these sites belonged to Judah. In any case, the number of sites and figurines is so small, that it has no real significance. On the other hand, groups of JPFs were found in Gezer (7 figurines) and in Tel Erani (8 figurines). In Gezer, there is also a large assemblage of other types of figurines (see app. 5.III-IV), while at Tel Erani the JPFs seem to be the dominant type of anthropomorphic figurine. It would be hazardous to conclude that Tel Erani belonged to Judah, and Gezer to Israel and later to Assyria (for historical evidences on Gezer cf. chap. V.l.l above). The evidence consisting of a few figurine fragments is too precarious to indicate political affiliation of sites of such magnitude. In any case, a different explanation to that suggested for northern Israel and the coastal plain is required for the western Shephelah. It is possible that sites in the western Shephelah had mixed populations, a conceivable situation for a frontier zone between Judah, Philistia and the kingdom of Israel (later Assyrian Samaria). Another possibility is that the JPFs indicate cultural contacts in sites near the Judean borders. Keeping in mind the Judean intervention in the western Shephelah during Hezekiah's revolt, the JPFs could be some sort of a "secondary product" of this event. Whatever the reason, these little groups of JPFs in the western Shephelah cannot prove any theory about Judean conquest of this area. Trade in figurines is known from later periods in Israel (Linder 1986). Despite this fact, I have not suggested trade as an explanation for the occurrence of JPFs outside Judah. First, the coastal and northern types of pillar-figurines are more elaborate and technically superior to the JPFs. Had there been inter-polity trade of figurines in the Iron Age II period, one would expect it to follow the opposite direction into Judah. Second, there is really no evidence for such trade, not in the form of many 'foreign' pillar-figurines within Judah (cf. app. 4-5), nor in the form of many JPFs outside Judah. Third, it is plausible that the JPFs had

religious meaning (chap. X below), which would make them less appealing for other religions (it does not have to be very different religions - local or national groups can reject religious artifacts of another, quite similar, neighboring group). The last two arguments are not decisive, but the quantity of JPFs outside Judah is in any case too small to sustain an explanation of trade.

V.3. Inner Judean Distribution Pattern and Site Hierarchy V.3.t. Main Sites and Main Sub-Types The main sites where JPFs were found are shown in figs. 17-18 (below). Details of the main sub-types, A, B, and C (without the addition to app. 2) are given in fig. 18. At each of these sites, both types of heads and body fragments have been found. More B heads - versus A heads - were discovered at Lachish, Tel Beit Mirsim and Beth Shemesh. The numbers are balanced, more or less, at Gibeon, Tel Beer Sheba and Arad, whereas A heads are more prominent at Jerusalem and Tel en-Nasbeh. It may be a regional difference: a preference for the moulded heads (B) in the Shephelah versus a balance, or a slight superiority of hand-made heads (A) in the Negev and the Judean mountains. On the other hand, perhaps it is only random occurrence, resulting from incomplete data. There was a tendency to publish every head in the older excavations in the Shephelah , but many body fragments were neglected. This happened because the heads are more impressive in photographs or drawings. Also, scholars believed that the JPFs were toys, without much artistic, or symbolicvalue. For example, at Tel en-Nasbeh 19 of the 34 hand-made heads were only mentioned in an appendix (TN I: app. A), while all the 28 moulded heads were published adequately'? For other sites, a similar appendix is perhaps missing, and we are left with a partly misleading picture. Chronological factors can also be involved: the Shephelah flourished in the 8th century BC, while the Negev flourished in the 7th century BC (Na'aman 1987, cf. chap. 1.3 above).

V.3.2. Sites, excavated Areas, and the Quantity of the JPFs The relations between the quantity of the JPFs at each site, its size and the extent of the excavated areas are shown in fig. 19. The data about the size of sites and excavations is in many cases an estimation. Wherever possible, I quoted the figures from excavation reports or the EAEm.. A few estimations were suggested verbally by the excavators, or estimated from maps. I included sites with 5 or more JPFs, but excluded extra-mural areas (e.g., cemeteries, settlement quarters outside the walls, etc.; fig. 19). Whenever possible, 7 One B head lacks a photograph in the figurine plates, but probably does appear in a separate plate.

46

I indicated the size of the Iron Age II levels, or the size of excavated areas in those levels (otherwise, it is the size of the whole site / excavation).

scholars. The majority of the rooms and a very large percentage of the buildings seem to have functioned without any of these figurines.

As expected, there is a correlation between quantities of JPFs, size of sites and extent of excavation. It is not always a direct relation, since many other factors are involved here, e.g., the wealth of each site, the nature of excavated areas within a site, the different fate of the levels and the methods of excavation and publication. For example, a wealthy quarter, or a violent destruction of a level, can yield many more artifacts in comparison with poor areas and peaceful abandonment. The small, agricultural village of Ramot is a good example: here the relatively large quantity of JPFs does not reflect a great size or wealth. Rather, it is the result of cautious, modem excavation methods, detailed registration systemand the availability of each fragment, however small, for direct study (courtesy the excavator, A. de-Groot). Beth Shemesh can probably illustrates the unfortunate opposite. The 1933 season was well published by Wright (AS V), and most of the JPFs from Beth Shemesh are from this season. From the huge areas of Grant's former seasons in the west of the city, very few figurines are known, certainly not because these areas are poorer.

V.3.3. Site Hierarchy The distribution of the JPFs (figs. 17-18) can teach us about site hierarchy and regional diversity inside the kingdom of Judah. The assumption that the quantities of JPFs indicate wealth and importance of sites is, of course, simplistic. Again, we can overcome these limitations by treating the statistic as a very general, tentative picture. Regarding geographic regions first, the northern Judean mountains are very dominant. The southern Judeari mountains (south of Bethlehem, until the Negev) appear almost blank on the distribution map (fig. 16). Even Hebron, a central site in this region, is disappointing (despite the excavations, Ofer 1990b:203-204; Chadwick 1992). This area was poorer than the northern mountains, and the number and size of excavated areas are smaller. The Judean Desert is also poorly represented, probably since it was a marginal area for settlement (Bar Adon 1989; Broshi and Finkelstein 1992:52).

Different population estimates exist for ancient Near Eastern cities, but following some common ones, one dunam of domestic buildings was occupied by ca. 25 persons or 5.4 houses (Stager 1985:17-18; Broshi and Finkelstein 1992:48, with further references). The total excavated area of all the sites in fig. 19 is 140-163 dunam, while 531 JPFs have been found in these sites." This means that one excavated dunam yielded 3.5-3.8 JPFs in average. Some factors imply that this average is too high. All the JPFs from burials should be excluded, thus the JPFs' density inside settlements is lower. Furthermore, at many sites the JPFs are separated by a few levels (e.g., Arad and Lachish), and are not contemporaneous. The quantity of JPFs at a certain temporal point is therefore considerably lower. However, an exact statistic is not possible, nor is it crucial. It does not matter much if the average above is even doubled or halved, since we only need a general scale of order.

Regarding site hierarchy, Jerusalem stands isolated at the top of the distribution list, with 405 JPFs (including the addition to app. 2). This is easy to explain on grounds of its large physical size, its status as a capital, and the large extent of excavated areas (fig. 17). Tel en-Nasbeh comes second with 143 JPFs. This can be partially explained by the large extent of excavations there and the relatively good publication (TN 1: app. A). On the other hand, Tel enNasbeh is not larger than Lachish or Tel Beit Mirsim. Its higher quantity of JPFs may indicate a higher concentration in the northern Judean mountains in general. The third level in the hierarchy is occupied by 6 sites, with a few dozen JPFs (between 23-43 at each site): Gibeon, Arad, Tel Beer Sheba, Beth Shemesh, Lachish and Tel Beit Mirsim. These sites can be seen as local centers of their immediate surroundings, or as regional centers. All the sites in this group are walled cities, except the fortress of Arad. It is interesting that the distribution in the Shephelah is more or less equally divided between Lachish, Beth Shemesh and Tell Beit Mirsim (all more or less equal in size). Usually, Lachish is considered as "the capital of the Shephelah", according to the historical sources and its impressive archaeological remains (e.g., Garfinkel 1984:43, 48-49 and table 4). It is possible that Lachish was an administrative center, while the JPFs indicate daily, "unofficial" activity (unlike the lmlk impressions). The JPFs are perhaps better indicators of size and population-density, while the lmlk stamps indicate better political and administrative status.9

At a first glance, the average reached above is quite low, and it is tempting to conclude that there was only one JPF per family (or per one domestic house) at any given time. Such a conclusion would be very important, strengthening the assumption that the JPFs represented the same figure, and not many individual, different figures. Otherwise, we would expect to find groups of JPFs together; whereas if all the JPFs represented the same figure, there would be no need to put two (or more) together in the same place. Yet, caution is needed. First, the evidence we have is partial: many figurines were missed, not registered or not published. Second, the JPFs' fragments indicate disposal patterns, rather than patterns of use (see chaps. VII, VIII below). The conclusionabove remains tentative. In any case, the quantity of the JPFs is not so overwhelming as was assumed by some

9 Garfinkel's studies (1984; 1985) about the "private" impressions are problematic. First, they are not an independent phenomenon, but are part of the lmlk corpus (Na'aman 1988:76). Second, Garfinkel assumed direct relations between distribution and the activity of the officials named on the seals, but all the jars were

8 Gibeon was excluded from the average, since the JPFs there were found in one pool.

47

In the fourth level of hierarchy we find many sites, where small JPFs' groups were found (4-12 figurines at each site). These sites are not homogeneous. Some are small, agricultural sites; others are big cities, that were excavated on a small scale (or are not yet fully published). The fifth and final level of hierarchy groups together sites in which few JPFs had been found (1-3 figurines at each site). This level includes the largest number of sites (21), but with the lowest quantity of JPFs. It includes small sites, random surface finds, burials near settlements, etc. A few large sites are included as well, but these were little excavated (like Kh. Rabud).

Shephelah after 701 BC, but the JPFs were still in use (e.g., in Lachish level II). The Negev flourished in the 7th century BC, but JPFs appear there also in the 8th century BC (e.g., Tel Beer Sheba). We simply do not have enough data to study the chronological patterns of distribution.

V.4.2. Distribution and Sub-Types The question is, whether certain subtypes of the JPFs ~e related to a specific region of Judah, or even to a certam group of sites? Some regional distinctions can be suggested for the heads (the bodies are very stereotyped and do not help much).

Outside Judah, the quantity of JPFs bears no relation to the wealth and size of the sites. For example, the few JPFs in Ashdod and Megiddo (one JPF) teach us nothing about the settlement hierarchy of these sites. For the hierarchy of such sites, we must study the local assemblages.

The hand-made JPFs' heads may be rounded or pointed at the top, but both these forms are common and show no difference in the distribution pattern. Other features are more indicative. It seems that the "hammer" shape (sub-type A.l.Ah) is common in the Negev, with 4 specimens from Arad and Beer Sheba (app. 2: 251, 252, 475, 481 [ef. fig. 5:2]). Only one head like this was found elsewhere (app. 2: 10 from Beth Shemesh). Heads with "turbans" (type A.2) are found only in the northern Judean mountains, at Jerusalem (app. 2: 332, 362-365, 433), Ramat Rabel (app. 2: 117) and Tel en-Nasbeh (app. 2: 131, 137, 488-489). The same is true for heads with "turbans" and side-locks (type A.3), found at Jerusalem (app. 2: 333-336, 435) and Tel enNasbeh (app. 2: 128, 133-136; 138), except one head from Jericho (ibid: 71). Most of the heads with applied hats, type A.4, were also found in the Judean Mountains (app. 2: 5152, 366, 369, 139-140 [cf. fig. 5:5-6]). The only exception is one head from Tel Masos (app. 2: 241).10

To sum up, the distribution pattern of the JPFs contributes to the study of the site hierarchy in Judah. Most of the former analyses were based on size of sites, or on the official lmlk stamps. The use of other criteria for activity may contribute to a better picture (cf. the section on Lachish above). For example, the inscribed Judean weights (Kletter 1991) may indicate economic activity and trade; industrial installations may indicate manufacturing processes, while everyday pottery vessels may indicate population density. This subject is certainly beyond the scope of the present work.

VA. Relations between Distribution, Date and Sub-Types

The differences in distribution noted above are probably only typological. That is, these are differences between regional workshops, each producing some minor changes in "design" of the JPFs. It does not seem likely that the differences are related to separate sets of symbolism and function, or to chronological factors. In any case, our data is too scanty and there is no need to add speculation. I have not mentioned the moulded (B) heads, which will be studied separately (chap. VI.2 below).

V.4.l. Distribution and Date Since currently the exact dating of most of the JPFs is not clear, it is too early to draw separate distribution maps of the 8th and the 7th centuries BC. The outer limits of distribution and the relation to Judah's borders seem to be similar in both these centuries, as the JPFs were used in all parts of Judah. There are differences, e.g., the decline in the

Chapter VI: Aspects of Manufacture "Everything one was to become must have been there, for better or worse. One's future might have been prophesized from the shape ofhouses as from the lines ofthe hand... Here in Berkhampsted was the first mould ofwhich the shape was to be endlessly reproduced" (Graham Green. A Sort of Life: 12). The basic study of the manufacture of the JPFs was carried out by Kelso and Thorley (in: TBM ill: 138-141). I have already referred to their work (chap 11.2.2 above), and need not repeat their conclusions here.

relatively low temperatures, ca. 600-700 degrees Celsius. 1 This accounts well for the high fragility of the figurines. The firing usually gave the outer surfaces a red-brown colour, while the core remained gray or black (Gibeon WS: 15). Early scholars believed that the material culture of Israel was impoverished, therefore attributing any artifact with outstanding technical or artistic qualities to foreign countries (usually, Phoenicia or Egypt). It was suggested then, that all the heads of the JPFs were moulded in one center and that the moulds were foreign imports (Albright, TMB ill:69, 83; Kelso and Thorley, ibid:139f; followed by Patai 1967:60, n.41; Winter 1983:127; cf. Lachish III:375). Negbi (1966) suggested a separation of figurine groups by petrography in a pioneering study of Persian Period figurines from Tel Sippor (for criticism cf. Keisan 1:349). Large scale petrographic analyses of JPFs have not yet been published. Small scale analyses seem to imply local manufacture in each region (or even in each town), since JPFs from Jerusalem were made from local terra-rosa clay, while JPFs from Tel Ira in the Negev were made from local loess clay (Kletter, in press B: nos. I, 3; here app. 2: nos. 245, 249; the petrographic tests were made by Y. Goren). JPFs from the Shephelah have not yet been analyzed, but a few animal Iron Age figurines from Maresha have been. Their clay was found to be very different from that of later figurines, and was probably local. Exact geographic origins cannot be established yet (courtesy of A. KIoner and the Maresha team). We also lack petrographic or neutronactivation analyses for the few JPFs found outside Judah.

VI.I. Aspects of Manufacture VI.I.l. Height Measures The measurements of whole figurines and body fragments are listed in Field "Hal" (app. 1), while the heights of the . heads are listed in field "Hh" (app. 1). All measurements are in millimeters. The height of the moulded heads are measured from the lowest point of the chin until the beginning of the hairdress (i.e., only the face; for the reasons for this see chap. VI.2 below). The hand-made heads are measured from the top of the head (including applied parts) to the lowest point of the nose. The data is presented in fig 20. It is not complete because the measurements of many JPFs are unknown. Note that whole figurines appear twice in fig. 20, once measured as whole figurines, then as heads only. So far, the size of the JPFs has not been studied, except for some suggestions being made regarding a few figurines. For example, the excavators at Gibeon suggested that the JPFs vary between 8 and 14 em in height (Gibeon WS:15f). From Fig. 20, it is clear that the type B figurines are larger than the hand-made type A ones, both in body and in head size. Furthermore, note that only the face is measured for moulded JPFs in fig. 20; the whole heads are considerably larger. There are sharp variations in the size of each subtype. Hand-made heads vary from between 14-40 mm, excluding a very few exceptionally larger ones. Moulded faces are vary from between 19-41 mm .

Moorey and Fleming (1984:77f, cf. Spycket 1992:227, n.395) suggested that hand-made figurines were made in domestic areas by women, but were careful when writing that each case must be treated on its merits. The excavators of Tel en-Nasbeh made a similar suggestion for all the JPFs, because of their cheap materials and crude workmanship (TN 1:273). This view was adopted by scholars from the feminist school (Teubal 1990:43; Meyers 1988:161-163; Gadon 1989:177ff, 186). The last attributed the JPFs to women, but it seems to be based on the pre-eonception that female figurines belong to female religion or to "female house cult". As far as the JPFs are concerned, there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever for this view. The crude design (unlike other pottery vessels) does not indicate production by women. The figurines did not have. to withstand pressures (unlike cooking, storing and eating vessels), and perhaps this is the reason of their "lower manufacturing standards". The model of each woman making her own household figurines at home can hardly be accepted for the JPFs. It does not accord with the fact that

The measurements are important for two reasons: the study of the moulds (below, chap. v.z) and the classification of the figurine fragments. They can also help to separate JPFs' type A heads from the similar rider's heads, which are usually smaller (18 mm in average). I have not used this difference to exclude heads from the JPFs' catalogue (app. 12), because it became evident at a late stage of research, too late a stage to change all the tables and catalogues because ofa few items (cf. also chap. III.5.3 above).

10 The quantity of some sub-types is too small for detailed study. Two Heads from Jerusalem were defined as type A5 Cappo 2: 3678), but are really quite exceptional in comparison with the other JPFs. One head from Gibeon was defined as type A6 Cappo 2: 53), and is even more exceptional. The classification of two other heads from Tel en-Nasbeh (app. 2: 488-489) is not clear.

stamped in the Shephelah. Third, he amalgamated Ramat Rahel and Jerusalem, creating a severe bias in the distribution pattern.

48

VI.1.2. Clay and Firing The clay of the JPFs was not well sifted, and it has a high degree of grit and often remains of straw. It was fired in

1 I wish to thank Y. Goren of the Israel Antiquities Authority for this observation.

49

the JPFs are very homogeneous in shape. Also, the use of moulds indicates mass manufacture at a rather high technical level and not dispersed, domestic production.

As far as can be judged at present, there are no significant differences in the painted decoration between the various JPFs' sub-types.

VI.1.3. White-Wash and Painted Decorations

VI.1.4. The Nakedness

199 out of 578 JPFs show remains of white-wash (marked by the sign "+" in app. 1, field "Ws").2 Probably many other figurines were white-washed, but this was not always mentioned in publications, e.g., at Tel en-Nasbeh (Zorn, verbal communication). Also, The surfaces of many figurines are so eroded, that the white-wash is no longer present. The white-wash is found on all sub-types. Two animal heads from the 7th century BC level at Tel Ira, typical of Judah, were analyzed by I. Segal (fig. 21 below).3 The chemical component of the white-wash was analyzed as CaC03, i.e., a deliberate lime wash (and not a natural encrustation of salts). The white-wash was probably done in order to give the figurines a light, smooth finish, facilitating and stressing the painted decorations (cf. TMB III:106; for Cypriote figurines, Caubet 1992:261).

The lower body of the JPFs is schematic, without any indication of sex. Perhaps it was not meant to convey nakedness. The upper body seems to be naked, but some scholars claim that it is hard to separate nakedness from a transparent cloth. It seems, though, that there is not much of a difference between the two. Figurines which have painted decoration on the body are probably not naked (Hermary 1992:183). Furthermore, Egyptian figurines were covered with mat-clothes (Posener-Krieger 1985; Pinch 1993:224). Thanks to the dry climate, the clothes did not deteriorate, otherwise leaving what would appear to be naked figurines. There is no indication of paint on the body of the JPFs (other than on shoulders and arms, probably signifying jewels). Therefore it seems that at least the breasts are presented naked.

It seems that most of the JPFs were decorated by paint (Hubner 1989: 51 n.35). So far, I have found 91 JPFs with remains of paint (App. I: field "CL"). The painting was done by brush on the white-wash. Usually, red paint was used (52 specimens: 14 type A, 28 type B and 10 type C).4 Yellow paint appears on 6 specimens; brown on 4 and black on 3. White paint was reported for five figurines, but I suspect there is some confusion with white-wash. The decoration is often bi-chrome, red and yellow (9 specimens) or red and black (2 specimens). The decoration is almost always composed of simple bands on the neck, shoulders, upper breasts and arms, probably symbolizing jewelery such as necklaces and bracelets. The whole face is often covered by red paint, and sometimes details of eyes, brows, and hairdress are painted. In a few cases, yellow or brown is used for the upper edge of the heads. More elaborate decorations appear rarely, with the use of two or three colours.! For example, one figurine from Gibeon has yellow colour on the face (a mask? - thus Gibeon WS:15), yellow coloured fingers, and alternating bands of yellow and red on the shoulders, neck and arms (app. 2:42). Kelso and Thorley suggested that yellow paint symbolized gold jewelery (TBM III: 140). It is important to note that in some cases, the painted decorations were limited to the front, and do not continue on the back of the figurines (TBM III: 138; Gibeon WS: 15). This leads to the conclusion that the figurines were supposed to be seen from the front. Further proof for this is found in the moulded (B) heads, where the back side is often left crude (TMB III: 140; Keel and Uehlinger 1992:380).

VI.1.5. Other Aspects The separate parts of the JPFs and their joining together have already been described in detail (Kelso and Thorley, TBM II: 138ff; Gibeon WS:15; Lachish III:374; Engle 1979: 11-12; Winter 1983:107). Many other questions relating to the manufacture of the JPFs are still left open. We know that there were at least a few centers of production, but were there regional centers, or (more likely) local workshops at each large site? Was the manufacture done in the usual potter's workshops, where other clay vessels were made (this seems reasonable)? What was the "life expectancy" of a figurine, i.e., how many years did a figurine survive? Did it last a short while, like average daily pottery vessels, or more? (for a short period of use see Winter 1983:131). If the figurines were made in the usual potter's workshops, what were the mechanisms of marketing? Were they sold like any other commodity, and at what "prices"? For all these questions, the information we have at the moment permits only speculation.

VI.2. Moulds and Moulded Heads VI.2.I. The Moulds Very few moulds for anthropomorphic figurines are known from the Iron Age period in Israel. Holland counted 17 moulds of anthropomorphic figurines, mostly plaque figurines (1975:314-317). I have counted 28 now (app. 5.VIII). Moulds for solid pillar-figurines are very rare (Holland's type N.II.a). Only three of these moulds bear some resemblance to the JPFs (app. 5.VIII: nos. 1, 2, 14). The most similar is the one from Beth Shemesh, but even this mould is not identical with any of the JPFs' heads.

2 In five further figurines, the nature of the wash or decoration is not clear (app. 2: 86, 184,338,369,479). 3 The specimenswere given courtesyofI. Beit Arieh. The analyses were done using SEM at the Geological Institute, Jerusalem. 4 Red burnish was reported for 7 specimens, but perhaps it was confusedwith red paint. 5 Marked by code "8" in App. I: field "CL".

50

A few moulds were found after 1975, but none of a JPF.6 Three moulds were found at Tel Batash in 8th century BC contexts (app. 5.VIII: nos. 19-21), but these are not JPFs' moulds either.

which come, directly or indirectly, from the same "archetype mould", or "patrix" (see also fig. 22 belowj.? During the manufacturing process, the first stage is the making of an archetype figurine, from which first moulds are made. After firing, these moulds produce the "first generation" of figurines. So far, it is likely to be the production of one potter or one workshop. Anyone can produce from the figurines of the first generation more moulds ("second generation moulds"), and from these more figurines ("second generation figurines"). Further generations are then possible, and Nicholls identified up to five generations emerging from one "archetypal" mould (1952:219-220; cf. fig. 22 below). All generations after the first are "derivative generations", which could have been manufactured in other workshops and from varied clays (Nicholls 1952:221, with evidence from Greece). The identification of the generations relies not only on style, but also on the shrinkage of the heads when they are dried and fired. Nicholls (1952:220 n.21, n.23) produced modern figurines from an ancient mould, and concluded that moulded figurines lose some 13-14% of their size with each successive generation.

Keel and Uehlinger claimed that the lack of moulds was a result of not finding the potter's workshops (1992), but some workshops were excavated (Wood 1991:33fI, fig. 16). Holland (1975:324; 1977:131) concluded that the moulds were Judean, but this was deduced from the moulded heads, not from moulds themselves. The lack of moulds forces us to study the heads carefully (below).

VI.2.2. Basic Principles for the Study of Mould-made Figurines Kelso and Thorley were the first to discuss the technique of the moulded JPFs heads (TBM III: 138-141). In their view, the heads were made from a better clay than the bodies, since this was necessary for achieving the little moulded details (they are also better made than usual pottery vessels). The moulds were made of clay, baked in very low temperatures. This made the moulds more porous, shortening the time needed for drying the heads inside them. The slow drying process necessitated the use of many moulds, though each mould could produce up to 200 heads or so. Kelso and Thorely thought that one especially beautiful JPF head was made in a bronze mould, which is more durable but also more expensive. In bronze moulds, the drying is quicker and thus the whole production process is shorter. Kelso and Thorley believed that the moulds were foreign, because of their superior quality. They noted the phenomenon of shrinkage during production, and estimated that a head was ca. 15% smaller than the mould in which it was produced (TBM III: 138). Since the work of Kelso and Thorley, little progress has been made. Scholars repeated their conclusions, or offered short technical discussions (e.g., Hachlili in: Ashdod II-III: 125f). Other scholars only referred to the many difficulties in this field of study (e.g., Hubner 1989:50).

The picture is more complicated because of the "horizontal" dimension of the series. Varied details (such as the treatment of the hair, eyebrows and ears) were incised or worked by hand in the moulds ("intaglio" work, or "in the negative"), and are therefore not produced automatically in all the figurines (Nicholls 1952:221f). This may lead to the appearance of variations in shape of moulds and figurines, especially after the first generation, although all of them originated from the same archetype. The moulds of a certain generation, with these hand-made changes, were termed by Nicholls "parallel moulds". The whole picture of production by moulds is, therefore, rather complex (fig. 22); not to mention other possible factors such as bad manufacture or distortion of the clay while it is still soft. Nicholls warned that it is more practical to follow the main lines of production, rather than be lost in the maze of small, "unprofitable" details (1952:223-224). Ammerman (1985) based a study of figurines from Medma in Italy on the principles formulated by Nicholls: "Every terra-cotta figurine cast from a mould holds a specific place within a family of mechanically related mould and casts whose ancestry can be traced back (at least theoretically) to a common source or model" (Ammerman 1985:10). At the same time, she was conscious of the fact that only a fraction of the entire ancient production was found, and that a "prototype" (Nicholls "archetype") was never identified. Usually we would find first generation figurines and later derivative generations (ibid: 11-12). Ammerman (1985:12) claimed that up to 5 generations and 7 variants exist in one mould-series from Medma, and that clay analyses indicates an "active exchange of terracottas between Medma and her mother and sisters colonies", up to a third of the figurines of certain types.

With this background in mind, Nicholls' study (1952) is highly important, though it dealt with Greek figurines from the Archaic periods. Nicholls adopted the term "group", meaning: "pieces that resemble each other in such a way as to suggest that they are the work of the same modeller" (Nicholls 1952:218). Since it is hard to define the groups exactly when dealing with ancient figurines, a larger definition for the group is needed, i.e., figurines from the same workshop - "a mass of material closely related stylistically, though not always quite certainly, because it is the work of the same modeller or, at least, of the same workshop" (Nicholls 1952:219). The groups are composed of "series", a technical (not stylistic) term for figurines

6 Cf. a Middle Bronze age mould (Keisan 1:350, c.2.22); a Persian period mould from Dor (Stern 1992:60, photo 72); two moulds from unknown origins (app. 5.VIII: nos. 11, 21) and two moulds from Amman (ibid: nos. 6-7).

7 Often, a series and a group coincide, ibid:224. Another study by Nicholls (1970) deals with Greek figurines,but not with moulds.

51

Two observations of Ammerman are important. First, that trade was likely to be in figurines, and not in moulds. However, in the archaeological record one is likely to see not the exchanged figurine itself, but derivative figurines which were copied from it (through moulds taken from the exchanged figurine). Second, that the adoption of a certain type of figurine implied the adoption of its imagery: "for votive terracottas, the adoption of a mould series by the coroplasts at a new site implies that their imagery was considered to be appropriate at some level for the cult at the second site" (Ammerman 1985:13-14). If the Judean JPFs were religious artifacts, it could explain the fact that they were not copied as a mould-series outside of Judah, nor were moulded heads from neighboring kingdoms copied in Judah (cf. chap. Y.2.2 above).

suggested very cautiously (ibid). Fig. 23 helps, at the most, to discern the technical connections between the heads. The minimal number of JPFs' moulds is 24, being the number of all the sub-types (fig. 23: left column). Possibly, some of the unclassified heads and "exceptional" heads belonged to other moulds. Furthermore, some of the heads in the same sub-type are clearly different from each other, in both shape and size, to the extent that they must have been made in different moulds. Thus, a cautious estimation ofa few dozen moulds for all the JPFs is more than likely.? This estimation alone signifies that we are dealing with massproduction, of which only a small part has been discovered so far. It also hints that the figurines were made in a number of centers (otherwise, why would one center need so many moulds?). Unlike Nicholls, I had to measure the height of the moulded heads from the chin to the beginning of the hairdress, i.e. along the whole face. Since I was unable to check every head, I had to define the clearest possible measure. It had to be useful for photographs and drawings (often in small scales), and as long as possible (for accuracy). This is not an ideal measure, for sometimes the potter obscured the lower chin when he joined heads to bodies. Also, the chin is a line and not a specific point, thus less accurate for measurements.

VI.2.3. Application for the JPFs? The principles, so well described by Nicholls, were applied in figurine studies, mainly in the Aegean realm (Nicholls 1952:220f; Ammerman 1985; 1991:210-213; Caubet 1992:216f; Vandenabeele 1989:269f; etc.). But are they applicable for the JPFs? So far, no trial has been made to apply them. Scholars assumed (though often not explicitly) that there was no chronological development within the JPFs. Putting the matter to test is not so simple. Basic details are missing in the early reports, and the facial details of many heads are obscure because of inadequate photographs or drawings. Nicholls, and other scholars who dealt with mould production, had direct access to large assemblages of figurines. They could check the moulded details with their own eyes. For the JPFs, it is very hard to collect a large assemblage of moulded heads for direct study. In Israel, the larger museums hold not more than a dozen JPFs each; while figurines under display cannot be removed for long periods. The largest collection is with the Israel Antiquities Authority, but it is devided between various stores. Abroad, the JPFs are scattered between some 30 institutions, from the U.K. to Australia and the U.S.A. The study of the moulds and moulded heads is important, thus at least the central questions must be asked: How many moulds can one identify? How many "mould-series" came from one mould? Are there regional or temporal variations between the moulded heads, and what can these teach us about production, distribution and relations between the sites? These questions may also contribute to a better understanding of the meaning of the JPFs.

Were the publications full, and the data base complete, it would have been possible to draw an accurate matrix of heads. Then, one would easily find the mould-series and distinguish early and late heads within each series (according to their size). At present, the data permits only the technical arrangement of heads from the same sub-type, by descending size (example shown in fig. 24).

Furthermore, the location of the head from Jericho is unknown, and it may even be the same head as that in the collection. Working by photographs and drawings makes the definition of mould-series almost impossible. A mistake of no more then 15% in the height of a head, or missing one line of curls above the forehead, will cause a misplacement of a head in the series, or even its transference to a completely different mould-series.

that the technique of moulding heads, while the bodies are hand-made or wheel-made, arrived to the Levant from the Aegean world (Albright 1939:120; Kelso and Thorley, TBM III:138ff; Patai 1967:60). Currently, all the scholars agree that the origin of this technique is in the Levant, from where it spread to Cyprus, the Aegean world, and thence to Italy and the western Mediterranean. Some scholars date the spread of this technique to Cyprus to the 8th century BC, and as for plaque figurines, even to the 9th century BC (Caubet 1991:136; Vandenabeele 1986:352f, 355; 1989:266). Other scholars lower this date to the seventh century BC, especially for the appearance of this technique in Greece (the "Daedalic" style, Higgins 1969:10, 14f; Morris 1992; Schwartz 1989; Vafoloulou-Richardson 1981:3f, fig. 192; Reyes 1994:35). It is common to think that other "oriental" motifs appeared in the west together with this moulding technique, e.g., the motif of the naked woman and the woman playing the drum. Many scholars explain this as a result of Phoenician inter-mediation (Ammerman 1991:208f; Bisi 1989:263; Meerschaert 1991: 186; Sorenson 1991:233f; Vandenabeele 1986:351, 359; Yon and Caubet 1988:29ff, 33).10 On the other hand, it is also realized that the coroplastic art of Cyprus had contacts with the Levantine coast, thus ideas and motifs traveled both ways (Bisi 1989:289; 1991:88. Such an influence is not apparent in the JPFs).

Even if the study of the mould production of the JPFs proves unsuccessful at the moment, I hope that it paves the way for future studies. When the importance of this subject is realized, excavators will publish all the necessary data. Then we will be able to judge the mould-series and the chronology of the heads within them. We will understand better the relations between production centers and sites, and perhaps learn more about the origins of the moulding (below). One feature in regard to the moulded heads has not yet been mentioned. This is the "edge of the mould" line. The edge of the mould, when stamped into a somewhat larger lump of clay, leaves a line like a very shallow ridge on the heads. This line surrounds the moulded part, but is clearest at the top of the head, above the lines of curls. This "edge of mould" line can be seem in some of the moulded heads (app. 2: nos. 19, 26, 210, 245, 246, 263, 308, etc.). It may help to measure the moulded part exactly and to identify heads from the same mould-series.

The information from the Phoenician coast is still very partial (Brown 1992; Ward 1994). The difficulties of defining what "Phoenician art" is exactly, as well as its exact chronology, deny an unequivocal conclusion in regard to the origin of the technique of moulded heads (for some discussions on this subject see Beer 1991; Culican 1969; 1975-6:50ff; Ganzmann a.o. 1987:86, 91-94; Gubel 1991; Pritchard 1988:5-55).

VI.2.4. The Origins of the Moulding Technique The use of moulds for clay plaque figurines was known from the late third millennium BC in Mesopotamia and in Syria (Spycket 1992:36, 54, 233f). Formerly, scholars believed

I have put the word "series" in brackets in the title of fig. 24, since it does not represent a real series (in Nicholls' definition). The photographs of some of these B.3.b heads from Lachish are bad, and do not permit comparisons to other heads in this "series". One figurine from Lachish is exceptional- it looks different from all the other B.3.b heads (app. 2: 86). Another figurine from Ramat Rabel is so badly preserved, that it can not be placed in the typological sequence with any certainty (app. 2: 120). At a first glance, one can assume that fig. 24 indicates a homogeneous series, with three or four generations of linked figurines, all from the Judean mountains and the Shephelah. But in fact, it could be a collection of figurines from different moulds, without direct connections. The same situation applies to the other sub-types, thus there is no point in presenting a whole set of similar tables. Very rarely can we make a case for direct dependence, e.g., a head from Jericho and a head from the collections of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem (app. 2:70 vs. app. 3:91). The shape is clearly the same - but even in this case, the head from the collection may be modem, based on the ancient head.

In total, 183 moulded (B) heads were found so far, but many cannot be neatly classified into sub-types.f There are only 129 classified heads, presented in fig. 23. Kelso and Thorley remarked that the 13 moulded heads from Tel Beit Mirsim were made in at least 11 different moulds; whereas only two pairs of heads were supposedly produced in two moulds (a pair in each mould: TBM III:139f). Due to the bad preservation state, even this was

10 The origin of the later double mould technique is also thought to be in the "Dea Gravida" and other figurines from the Levant (Caubet 1992:261f; Yon and Caubet 1988:31).

9 It is currently hard to estimate the influence of "horizontal"

variations in regard to the number of moulds, but it cannot be very significant.

8 These include heads without any classification, other than "B".

52

53

Chapter VII: Damage and Breakage Patterns "Even so will I break this people and this city, as ones breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again" (Jeremiah 19:11).

figurines against a wall, or on a floor, what evidence should we look for?

VII. I. Evidence of Burning Remains of black soot, indicating burning, are found on the surface of only four JPFs (i.e., only 0.7% of the whole corpus). These figurines are marked by "+" in field "BU" of app. 1 (and app. 2: nos. 157, 246, 247, 269). These four figurines were most probably burnt when their relative sites and levels were violently destroyed (e.g., no. 269), or in accidental fires. It does not seem likely that they were burnt during deliberate cultic, or magic rituals, since their quantity is so meager.

Some of the JPFs' fragments suffered badly, at more than one point. Still, even this is not certain proof of deliberate mutilation. It may have been the result of successive, accidental damages. Many JPFs' fragments are so badly worn, that their surfaces are obscure and cannot reflect the causes of damage.

There is evidence about mutilation of figurines from the ancient Near East. One clear case is a figurine from Kisonerga in Cyprus, dating to the fourth millennium BC (peltenburg 1988:292; Ioannides 1992: esp. 39, nn. 7-8). VII.2. Breakage Patterns The clarity in this case is achieved because it is a stone figurine, and the marks of mutilation are easy to identify. Many Scholars assumed that the JPFs were deliberately . Another clear case of mutilated figurines are the execration broken or mutilated (TN 1:145; Jerusalem 11:128; Hubner figurines from Egypt (Ritner 1993:148ff; in the Aegean 1989:53; Ashdod II-III:132; Vincent 1907:163; Holland world cf. Talalay 1987). I will mention them again in 1975:137; Macalister 1905; Barkay 1990:191; Jeremias chapter IX, but even in this case, the written inscriptions on 1993:59). Some scholars even connected the broken JPFs the figurines show that they were mutilated, and not any specifically with Biblical "reforms". They believed that the particular form of the broken figurine fragments. 2 JPFs represented a foreign, un-Yahwehistic cult, therefore the Biblical reformers took special pain to mutilate these One possible way to know if figurines were deliberately figurines (Mazar, E. 1979:152; Nadelman 1989:123; cf. mutilated is by finding indicative breakage patterns. That is, Dever 1990: 159). All these theories are built on two bases: evidence for a high percentage of broken points, which are one, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the JPFs not natural weak points. It must be high enough to be were found broken; second, the assumption that such a high considered unlikely for accidental breakage, and it must be percentage of damage cannot be accidental. In support of evidenced in a large number of figurines. The breakage this theory, it was noted that thick body parts were broken as patterns of the JPFs are shown in Fig. 26 (below). The only well (Barkay 1990:191), or that the peg-less type A heads point which can be considered an "unnatural" weak point is were neatly cut across the neck, as if on purpose (TN 1:245). the thick body, between the base and the chest (fig. 26: code Yet, there is no decisive archaeological evidence for any 5; even this is not beyond doubt). There is no evidence that deliberate mutilation of the JPFs, nor any Biblical evidence this part was broken in a significantly higher rate that would about mutilation of small clay figurines in ancient Judah and suggest mutilation, compared with necks (code 1), for Israel. I example. The damage patterns of the JPFs were never closely studied. I have concentrated on breakage which is easier to see, but in the future other damage patterns should be studied (small "chipping", scratches, rubbed surfaces, etc.). Broken parts were registered in codes, in field "Break" of app. 1. The codes refer to main breaking points (see Fig. 25 below). The problem is that almost any point in the JPFs is a weak point, thus it is extremely hard to decide if any part was broken accidentally or on purpose. I have checked personally some 120 figurines, but nowhere was there a clear sign for deliberate mutilation (with the addenda to app. 2, I have checked ca. 300 figurines, but the results are the same). The problem is also to define what we are looking for. If one searches for marks of cutting by knives, for example, there are none. But if the mutilation was done by smashing the

Although the evidence gathered is very preliminary, a few observations can be made. Necks were not broken at a specific point, but at any point along their entire length. Of course, hand-made heads (type A) have no pegs (and no breakage along the pegs, fig. 26: code "lp"). There are few attested broken noses and bases in fig. 26, but this reflects only the limited registration and not real breakage patterns. Composite fractions are important, but their registration is even more preliminary. Many of these registered composite fractions are minor, e.g., combinations of necks and noses (codes 1+7), or necks and other facial damages (codes 1+8). Thus, they do not prove the assumption of deliberate mutilation. The impression is that the arms are the most vulnerable part of the body, but one should combine at least 2 Kerestz (1976) suggested that artifacts were broken in the cult of Hathor, but cf. the study of Pinch (1993:214, 341). Mutilation of "magical" figurines is discussed in chap. IX (below).

There is evidence for metaphorical breakage of pottery vessels, though (Jeremiah 19:1,11). I

54

some of the broken points 2+3 (fig. 26), which may relate to the same arm.

21-38). The modem figurines are probably stronger than the ancient ones, being fired in a modem kiln with temperature control (and having good, homogeneous clay). Almost a half remained whole (fig. 27: nos. 1-38).5 The comparison group (fig. 27: nos. 40-49) shows that the weakest points are first the arms, then the neck, and then the body and the nose. This more or less applies to the early trials (nos. 1-38). The arms are very vulnerable since they are thin and protruding from the body (also, each figurine has two arms). The breasts of the modem figurines were damaged very little, but I suspect that is because they were much too small and hardly protruding from the body (in comparison with the ancient JPFs).

There are many other limitations, e.g., do we have enough figurines to make this statistic reliable? We also do not have the original figurines (except the few whole ones), only different fragments, thus the registration of broken parts is very partial.

VII.3. Experimental Research of Breakage There are many possible ways of deliberately breaking a clay figurine: throwing it with force towards a wall or on a floor, cutting it with sharp tools, smashing it with a hammer, etc. On the other hand, only one form is possible for accidental breakage - an accidental fall of the figurines. Possibly, figurines can suffer also from violent destruction of sites, and from secondary damages occurring later, e.g., when dumped with other debris or during later building activities. However, if the JPFs were broken accidentally, then most of them would have been broken by accidentally falling. This would have occurred from heights of 1.5 m or so at the most (ancient four-room houses were not much higher).3 Furthermore, the figurines would fallon hard earth floors (the usual Iron Age floors, unless it happened in the cobbled courtyards).

The modem figurines sustained less neck fractions, but all of them have hand-made heads, made as a direct continuation of the body. They are probably stronger than the ancient moulded (B) necks (because of the peg). Furthermore, the modem figurines have very solid and thick bodies, probably exaggerated in comparison with the JPFs (Figs. 28-29). All the breaks in the modem figurines appear "new" and are sharp. The JPFs are perhaps worn out, maybe because of gradual wear through the years, or due to differences in material and firing. All the above may be correct for the modem figurines, but we cannot be certain that it applies to the ancient ones. The quantity of the experiments is really too small, enough only to raise some questions. I believe, though, that the experiment had everlasting impact upon some of my neighbours, as it was conducted in an open-air laboratory (or, more exactly, a backyard between some lame shrubs and laundry wires).

By using modem made figurines of roughly the same shape and size, results of such accidental falls can be studied. Some 40 figurines were manufactured from terra rosa clay, selected in the vicinity of northern Jerusalem (fig. 28-29 below). The figurines were hand-made and fired in low temperatures, ca. 600-700 degrees Celsius.f I hasten to point out that these modem figurines do not necessarily resemble the ancient ones in strength or elasticity. Exact imitation of this sort is hardly possible. On the other hand, it seemed a bit unlikely that archaeological institutes and museums would lend me ancient figurines for use in breaking tests.

VI.4. Percentage of Broken Figurines and Summary The assumption about deliberate mutilation was made not only in regard to the JPFs, but to other types of ancient figurines. For example, for figurines of different periods from Susa (Spycket 1992:235). Spycket did not explain how this assumption fits with the evidence that some figurines were mended by bitumen (ibid: 235, cf. Ucko 1968:419). Among the JPFs, about 5% remained whole (chap. 11.4 above; there, the number includes "nearly whole" figurines, even if all the lower body is missing. Here, I am speaking really about whole figurines). Most of the whole JPFs were found in tombs, where they were not deliberately mutilated (see chap. VIII below). The reasons why very few whole JPFs were left in other contexts can be varied, and they cannot prove an assumption of deliberate mutilation (nor, of course, refute it for the JPFs in general).

The modem figurines were dropped from heights of 1.5-2 m onto a hard earth surface. One group was dropped from a height of 3 m onto a cement floor, in order to neutralize the factors of strength and height, checking only the breaking point after severe damage. Different initial positions were tested. Then, the fragments were collected and significant breaking points registered. The results are listed in Fig. 27 (below). It appears that the position at the beginning of the fall (or rather, at its end) has great effects on the results. Figurines that hit the base or the head were less damaged (fig. 27: nos.

The question is whether a rate of 5% of whole figurines in an assemblage is unusual, and thus indicates deliberate mutilation. An answer is suggested in fig. 30 (below).

3 Possibly, a figurine could fall from a second floor, but it would be hard to calculate exactly the resulting effects. 4 The clay was selected with the help of Y. Goren. The figurines

5 Cracks were not counted, but in some cases they were very close

were manufactured by E. Kamayski.

to full ruptures.

55

Another argument against the assumption that the JPFs were mutilated is the lack of deliberate mutilation of the face. The faces of many JPFs are well preserved and intact. We know that it was customary to mutilate faces of anthropomorphic figures in many periods and cultures. Anthropomorphic representations were feared (as, indeed, other representations), since people believed that they owned the powers of those represented. Mutilation of these figures symbolized their "killing"; it denied them the ability to act in the real world. Within this context, the head is especially important, as it enables. a person to see, talk, smell, and hear. This is the reason for mutilation of statues, paintings, etc. in Mesopotamia (Brandes 1980; Nylander 1980), Egypt (Ritner 1993: nn. 671-675) and elsewhere (e.g., mutilation of eyes in the Dura synagogue, Kelley 1994). This conception of mutilation does not imply that the mutilated figures were negative, or "bad": in many cases the mutilators do not understand or do not care about it too much. There is no sign of systematic, deliberate mutilation of the faces of the JPFs (except broken noses and other damages, which seem accidental). Again, one can argue that the analogy to large statues and art scenes is misleading, and that perhaps small clay figurines escaped face-mutilation because it was considered enough just to break them (but cf. evidence about small figurines from Egypt, Ritner 1993: nn. 671-675). It is possible, but one would rather expect to find at least some mutilated faces if the JPFs were really mutilated in the course of "zealous Biblical reforms".

Though the number of cases is not great, it is enough. The data clearly shows that a low percentage of whole figurines is the usual pattern. It is not an exception, but a norm for small clay figurines, regardless of the period or the type. I do not mean that the form is not important - probably the fact that a larger percentage of plaque figurines survived whole relates to their shape, a compacted, "lump" like form which is less vulnerable.f Apart from form, what really counts is the context. In burials, there is a higher percentage of whole figurines of any kind - since the figurines were put there cautiouslyand not disturbed after the burials went out of use (unless they were robed). Grave goods were damaged when new burials were added, but probably it was not violent, deliberate damage - just a pushing of the older burials out of the way. On the other hand, whole figurines are very rare in fills and refuse debris. Following this conclusion, it is very unlikely that the JPFs were deliberately mutilated during a Biblical (religious) reform. Similar breaking patterns appear elsewhere, in assemblages that were surely not subjected to the rage of "Biblical reformers". There are a few more points to be made. The JPFs appear as good figures (the smile, the full face, the breasts which may be portrayed as being offered). If they also functioned as good figures, it is hard to see why they should be mutilated in ritual acts. Mutilation of "magical" figurines is likely to occur in "black magic", where the figurines represent enemies or bad spirits. It is also possible in burial contexts, where good figures may be broken as signs of grief. But surely this cannot fit the JPFs, which are mainly found in domestic contexts (chap. VIII below). Of course, one must be aware of identifying too simply the outer form and its appeal to our eyes, with the function and meaning in ancient times. I am only pointing out that the rope cannot be pulled from both sides. If one claims that the JPFs represented Asherah, which was certainly a "good" entity, then it is impossible to suggest that the figurines were mutilated in "magical" rites (and as for "Biblical reforms", see above).

To sum up, the study of breakage pattern is complex, and does not lead to unequivocal answers in regard to the symbolismand function of the JPFs. It does indicate that the JPFs are not fundamentally different from any other assemblage of clay figurines in regard to damage patterns, and there is no real evidence for their deliberate mutilation. On the contrary, it seems that accidental breakage is a better explanation.

180 whole plaque figurines are mentioned in fig. 3 (andchap. ill) This must not be confused; many "nearly whole" figurines are included in fig. 3 (including evenupper halves of figurines, as long as the position of the arms and the head survived). Note that most of the whole figurines are plaque figurines. Furthermore, the tendency was to publish every whole figurine, while small fragments were often neglected or discarded. This causes a certain biasin ourdatabase in favour of the whole figurines. 6

Chapter VIII: The Archaeological Context ''Does the Eagle know what is in the pit? Or will thou go ask the Mole?" (W. Blake. The Book of Thell. Viking. [1955]: 279)

The only former study of the context of the JPFs, which is worthy of mentioning, was made by Holladay (1987). Even this study encompassed only four sites, and the JPFs were examined as a very secondary component in the discussion. When dealing with the contexts, the quantity and the reliability of our data are especially important. The data is incomplete, and the questions which arise are very complicated. Who where the owners of the figurines? How can one determine who used the loci where figurines have been found? Was the owner of the place necessarily that of the figurine? Does the context indicate the meaning of a figurine? Sometimes, scholars tried to pull the rope from both sides simultaneously (cf. the criticism of Fowler, chap. 11.4.5 above). Can the same type of figurine serve for varied functions, depending on the contexts (e.g., in a temple it would have been a cultic figurine, in a tomb it would have been a tomb gift and in a children's burial- a toy)?

The data regarding contexts is presented in fig. 31 (below). I have separated the whole figurines (types Ac, Be) from the "nearly whole" ones (types A+, B+), which for the study of contexts must be treated with the other fragments. The context is registered in two fields of app. 1. Field "context. 1" includes a short verbal definition of the context, while field "context.2" is used for a general definition, discussed further below. In all, 71 different entries (or definitions of contexts) are registered in field "context.1". These definitions are sorted into a more workable form as 19 categories (fig. 31: left column; cf. the discussion below). As mentioned earlier, all this pertains only to the 255 JPFs which have at least some information about context. There are 27 whole JPFs, of which the context of 20 is known (i.e., 74% of the whole figurines). This is a high rate, compared with the fragments, amongst which only ca. 40% have known contexts. Of course, the few whole figurines were always better published and described. The whole JPFs are divided almost equally between the hand-made type (A) and the moulded type (B).

Only 255 JPFs have any contextual data and in many cases this data is partial or obscure. I will start with the whole figurines.

• Graves 12 of the 20 whole JPFs were found in graves (including app. 2: no. 7). This high percentage is expected, because whole artifacts were usually put cautiously inside graves. Even if later thrown into a repository to m.ake room for later interment, it was done from low heights and without much violence. Once a grave ceases to function and is sealed, the finds remain in peace (unless disturbed by robbers or by natural causes). Unfortunately, the exact locations of the whole JPFs within the graves are rarely known. We know the specific room inside a grave in Lachish, but not the exact location in that room (app. 2: nos. 75,80,82). We know that one figurine was found at the left back side of a room in a grave at Beth Shemesh (app. 2:8), but this is all.

VIII.t. The Context of the Whole Figurines It is important to separate the whole figurines from the fragments. One can assume that the context is related to usepatterns only for whole figurines, and even then this must be checked for each individual case. The situation is different with fragments. First, there is a higher danger of mistakes in stratigraphy, and small fragments might "migrate" between loci and levels, and be found out of context. Second, it is unreasonable that the heads, or the bodies, where used as separate parts. Heads may indeed represent a whole figure, and are often used for that purpose (e.g., heads of rulers on coins). This is not valid for the JPFs: their heads could not be used independently, as they cannot stand without the body. The moulded heads cannot stand, because of the peg; the hand-made heads cannot stand, because they were made as one piece with the body. This negates the suggestion of Keel and Uehlinger (1992:374), that heads were used independently.1 It follows that the fragments indicate disposal patterns after use, rather than actual usepatterns. The places where we find the fragments are more likely to be secondary places of disposal. Still, even disposal patterns may be fruitful for the understanding of the JPFs.

All the graves are common Judean Iron Age family graves (cf. Barkay 1994). To the best of my knowledge, there is not even one whole JPF, that can be safely related to a specific skeleton. Thus, we do not know if the JPFs belonged to females, males or both sexes. At Lachish, tomb 106 had at least 25 skulls, but these could not be preserved. Tomb 120 held remains of ca. 1500 persons. The bone finds from tomb 102 were not published (Lachish III:179, 193, 229). There are no osteological reports from the earlier excavations at Beth Shemesh (Mackenzie 1912). The burials of Mamila (Jerusalem) are still being studied.e All of these are family burials, or mass-graves. The finding of one or two JPFs in a grave indicates that it was not put customarily with each

I Keel and Uehlinger had only one perforated head in favour of their suggestion, but it was found at Megiddo and is not a JPF head. There is noteven one JPF headwhich is perforated.

56

2 Stromberg (1993) studied Greek burial[rods as indicators of the sex of the buried. TheJudean mass-graves do not enable a similar study.

57

Most of the whole JPFs (other than in tombs) are related to domestic contexts, except the one from the public storehouse (above).. Unfortunately, we do not have exact details of the nature of these contexts. At least in some cases, like at Tel Beer Sheba, the whole figurines survived by chance, when the level was violently destroyed. There is no clear evidence for cultic contexts of the figurines (whether religious or magic). The figurines are found in regular domestic assemblages, without obvious cultic vessels in the vicinity (for example, stone altars, fenestrated cult stands, and exceptional luxury artifacts).

burial, but only rarely (cf. Wenning 1991:89). Nor was a figurine put in each grave; there are hundreds of Iron Age II graves from Judah (Barkay 1994), but only 28 JPFs were found in these graves (including the figurine fragments). It is probable that the JPFs were not intended to be used in graves, as specific grave goods. They could be occasionally (and quite rarely) put in a grave as objects which belonged to the deceased before hislher death and were to "accompany" him/her afterwards. This is like many other daily artifacts found in burials. The fact that a figurine was placed in a grave does not associate it with any cultic or magic meanings, as is true for any other daily artifacts in the grave. Lately, there have been many discussions about the cult of the dead in Ugarit and Israel (Loretz 1992; 1994; Dietrich and Loretz 1992:39-76; Smith 1994:214-223; Bloch-Smith 1992). Even if the Judean burials were accompanied by religious or "magic" rituals, and even if these burials expressed certain beliefs in after-life, we have no reason to connect these beliefs and rituals specifically with the JPFs (versus Engle [1979:29-31] and other scholars, but cf. Ucko 1968:419).3

of Gibeon. This 'public' pool obviously served the needs of the whole population of Gibeon for a considerable period of time within the Iron Age II. Not even one whole JPF was found there, only fragments that could not be mended (Gibeon WS:22f). If is thus likely that the JPFs' fragments reached the pool at different times, and not as one homogeneous group. The distribution of the fragments in different depths of the pool can strengthen this conclusion. But how did the fragments get into the pool?

If the JPFs were thrown whole into the pool, we would have expected some to survive whole; the water would have absorbed the shock of the fall. Therefore, it seems that the JPFs were thrown after breakage, as fragments. This does not reveal, whether they were deliberately broken in a ritual and then thrown (thus the excavators, also Hubner 1989:53), or only broken accidentally and thrown as waste. In favour of the last assumption, one can compare the many other broken pottery vessels from the same pool. 5 Furthermore, the pool itself served daily needs and does not prove there is any religious or "magic" function of the JPFs - just as the JPFs do not prove (currently) a religious or "magic" role for the pool itself. 6

Figurine no. 252 from Tel Beer Sheba represents the only case of a whole JPF from a domestic context whose details are more or less clear. It was found together with daily pottery vessels and two miniature clay models, one a lamp and one a stool or a bed (BS 1:36). Does this constitute proof for a cultic assemblage, as suggested by the excavators (or, to use a term more common now, a "house cult", for which see chap. X.7.1 below)? Regarding the architectural form, the room is part of a regular house, without any special attributes to suggest religious or "magic" functions. It seems that the cultic explanation was again based on the pre-conception, that the JPFs have cultic meaning, or that they represented a goddess (called 'Astarte' by the excavators). I do not claim that this explanation is impossible, but only that it was not proven in regard to the figurine from Tel Beer Sheba, nor indeed any of the JPFs.

The fact that whole JPFs were found in graves contradicts the theory that all the JPFs were deliberately mutilated. JPFs were carefully put in graves, obviously in order to function as whole objects, and certainly not to be broken in a ritual. 4 • Other Contexts The remaining 8 whole JPFs have been found in varied contexts. Two whole JPFs were found in water cisterns, at Tel en-Nasbeh and Tel Beit-Mirsim (app. 2: 125, 232). It seems that these cisterns were part of the domestic quarters, but there is no evidence that connects them with a specific house. Two whole JPFs were found in a pit at Tel Beit Mirsim, either a silo or a waste pit (app. 2:197-198). The pit is located in a domestic area, but its exact position is not clear. Garbage was usually thrown outside the houses, in the streets or outside the city walls, thus it is more likely that this pit was a silo or some other installation. Only two whole JPFs were found in domestic rooms: one on a floor which does not have a clear function (app. 2: 11 from Beth Shemesh); the other in room 369 of a four-roomed house (app. 2: 126 from Tel en-Nasbeh). This house is situated near the big city gate, and its owner possibly belonged to the higher classes of society. Only one figurine was found in a casemate room, on the floor (app. 2:252 from Tel Beer Sheba, see further below). The last of the whole figurines was found in a storehouse (app. 2:253 from Tel Beer Sheba), and is the only whole JPF from an unequivocal public context.

I will follow the order of fig. 31 (left column), explaining the various categories of context when necessary. The location of JPFs and other figurines from selected sites is mapped out in figs. 34-40 (below).

3 One can quote Barkay (1994:153) in relation to graves from Judah: "fmds from graves should not be explained as special fmds, destinedto serve as burial gifts, or as objects of magical meaning; but as part of an assemblage of artifacts, which surrounded the peopleand were used by them during their lives" (free translation from the Hebrew).

Some 1300 artifacts were found in cave I, including animal figurines, miniature models of furniture and quantities of daily pottery - vessels (Holland 1975:328; 1977:136). The cave was probably used in the 8th century BC (Jerusalem Large quantities of broken pottery were found in the pool, but only two whole jars (Gibeon WS:16). Some of the figurinefragments could have been part of debris fill, dumped or washed into the pool.

5

,

• Water Pools (27 Fragments). One figurine from Lachish was perhaps related to the "large pit" (app. 2:60), but all the other fragments in this category were found in the large pool

Thus, these are not objects whose main function is to be mutilatedin "magical" rituals.

4

58

• Tombs (8 fragments, in addition to 12 whole figurines discussed above). The only information in regard to the context of two fragments from Tel Beer Sheba and Jericho is found in the cards of the Rockefeller Museum and Romema (app. 2: nos. 73, 481). As far as I know, graves were not excavated by Aharoni at Tel Beer Sheba, so there is probably a mistake in the card or in my own registration (for app.2:481). Three other fragments include one from Beth Shemesh tomb I (app. 2: 15); one from the left bench of Beth Shemesh tomb 5 (app. 2:9); one from Lachish tomb 120 (app. 2:79) and three from Mamila, Jerusalem (app. 2:467469). Two body fragments were found in the repository inside tomb 5 at Mamila (app. 2:467-468). Were they put there after deliberate breakage (as a sign of mourning, perhaps)? It is possible, but they could also be remains of whole figurines that were damaged or lost after the interment for one reason or another.

• Caves (16 fragments). Four of these fragments were found near the entrance to Jerusalem cave 1, and could have been connected with activities outside the cave. Two fragments were found in caves, of which the nature is not clear (app. 2:472 from Maresha and app. 2:41 from a cistern or burial in Gezer). All the rest of the fragments are related to Jerusalem cave I (except one fragment in doubt, app. 2:430). This brings us to the complex question of the nature of this cave.

VIII.2. The Context of the Fragments

• Cisterns (14 fragments). Usually, the cisterns concerned are small and related to domestic buildings. Some of these cisterns open into rooms or courtyards of houses. Other cisterns are situated in open areas, or in areas poor in building remains within the settlements {app. 2: 133, 139, 153,232). Two figurines were found in cistern 25 at Beth Shemesh (nos. 10, 29). This cistern is situated near a junction of two streets, and could have been a public cistern - though probably used by everyone (i.e., by 'private' persons). Regarding typology, there is no obvious connection between the cisterns and any specific sub-type of JPF(all the major sub-types were found in cisterns).

Again, my impression is that the JPFs themselves are the main reason for the cultic label attached to Jerusalem cave I. This clearly forms a circular argument: once the figurines are removed, what archaeological evidence is there of a cultic function for cave I, whether Yahwehistic, unofficial or "popular"? Only three or four artifacts, out of some 1300 found in this cave, can be termed cultic: one broken cult stand (Holland 1977: fig. 9:23; Jerusalem 11:44, C270); two small stone altars and one pottery model, perhaps of a temple (Holland 1977: fig. 9:20-22). Perhaps cave I was used for usual, domestic activities, just like the domestic function of the nearby rooms. I will conclude with this remark, and return to discuss cave I later (chapter VIllA. 1 below).

• Silos and Other Pits (14 fragments, almost all of subtypes B and C). Apart from the fragments, few whole figurines were also found in silos and pits, which seem to belong to domestic dwellings." It is important to know if JPFs were found in waste pits, for this may prove that they had no special sacred status during disposal. Unfortunately, . there is no clear evidence for this. The exact function of many pits is unknown. It seems that most of the pits concerned have been used as silos, or as other domestic installations. This is likely for pits inside houses, since refuse was usually thrown out of the houses.

To sum up, there are very few whole JPFs, hardly enough to present a general picture of the use of the JPFs. The JPFs from burials negate the assumption of deliberate mutilation, and there is no clear evidence that suggests religious contexts for any of the figurines.

• Rooms in Houses (49 fragments, in addition to two whole figurines, discussed further below). This is by far the largest group among the JPFs' fragments. Part of this group could have been broken during emergency times (e.g., a violent destruction of a level), and therefore left broken in the houses. This cannot apply to all the group (not all the levels were violently destroyed, and there is no case were fragments from the same locus could be mended together).

6 For clarification, one has only to compare with a really cultic

pool, the Mayan cenota in Chichen Itza. The differences are clear, and show that it is the JPFs themselves that, when assumed to be cultic, lead to the cultic explanationof the Gibeonpool. 7 I have excludesfragment no. 456, found in the secondary context of a Hellenistic pit.

I

II:49f). Kenyon defined the cave as the favissa of a nearby temple, but evidence for the existence of such a temple was never found. Currently, the cave is explained as a center for house cult, or domestic cult, i.e., related to "magic", "popular religion" or "unofficial cult" (e.g., Holladay 1987; Dever 1990:159; Jerusalem 11:49, 125; Franken 1995; cf. also Bourke 1992. I have reviewed all these opinions in chap. II above). Kenyon and Holland thought that the finding of broken JPFs beside whole pottery vessels indicated that the first were deliberately mutilated (Holland 1975:330,337; but cf. chap. VII above). On this basis, some scholars even related cave I with Biblical reforms, especially that of Josiah (chap. III; e.g., Dever 1990: 159f; Barkay 1990:191; cf. Nadelman 1989:123). This is all too far fetched: figurines are much more vulnerable than daily pottery vessels (cf. chapter VII above). If the JPFs were broken in the cave during rituals, why were only fragments found there, without even one case of two figurine fragments that could be mended together?

59

Thus, it seems that part of this group, if not most of it, indicates disposal patterns after use. If true, then the fragments were not considered holy or sacred when discarded, at least not to the extent that one would bury them in specialfavissae (like broken cult statues). Most of the houses are three- or four- roomed houses (the exact architectural plan is not relevant). Some of the figurines were used perhaps in upper stores, and fell down when the houses were ruined. Thus, their place of discovery will not always indicate the place of use. Generally, there is not enough information in order to indicate the exact function of each room. Very rarely do the rooms belong to a later period, and it is obvious that the fragments had nothing to do with them (app. 2:240, perhaps also nos. 295-297).8 Some of the buildings are bigger or different in plan from regular domestic houses, and perhaps these were public buildings (app. 2:118, 276, 262). Two whole figurines (app. 2:11, 216) were found in what look like regular domestic buildings. They prove that the JPFs were indeed used in such buildings, as does the large amount of fragments. The fragments originated in whole figurines, and it is likely that the last were used in the houses. After being broken, the fragments were dumped nearby; some thrown outside houses (below), some left inside. Other figurines were broken when sites suffered conquest and destruction (for the question of deliberate mutilation see chap. VII above).

Of course, the whole population passed through the gates, thus this "public" location teaches us nothing about the owner of the fragments in question. • Storehouse (7 fragments). Four fragments, as well as one whole figurine (chap. VIII.1 above) were found in the public storehouses at Tel Beer-Sheba and Beth-Shemesh (the so called "tripartite buildings"). In both these sites, the buildings clearly functioned as storehouses and not as stables. The fragments were found both in the storage areas and in the central passages. Two other fragments were found in a public storehouse (but not tripartite) at Tel Ira, close to the gate. All these buildings were not related to cult. The figurines could have been part of the "furniture" of the buildings, or personal belongings of the staff that worked there. It is also possible (though much less likely) that they belonged to 'private' people who came to deliver / accept goods. If the fragments indicate only disposal patterns, then they were dumped, without any special holiness, in the storehouses. Another possibility is that they were broken when sites were destroyed by violence, and the other parts were not found in the excavations (this is less likely, especially in the case of Beth Shemesh, where there is no clear evidence of a violent destruction in the 8th century BC).

• Streets and Alleys (8 fragments). The streets are simply the wider thoroughfares between quarters, or along the inner side of the city walls (fig. 33). The alleys are narrow passages, usually between domestic buildings. The fragments from streets and alleys are important for understanding the disposal patterns. It seems that the fragments were thrown into the streets and alleys after the figurines were broken. It is hardly possible to imagine whole figurines thrown into the streets, and none were found there (neither were fragments that could be mended). There is no element of holiness or sacredness here, but rather what happened is the dumping of domestic waste after it went out of use. Refuse of bones, broken pottery, ashes, etc. is commonlyfound in street fills of the Iron Age II (e.g., Hazor area B and the new northern cut in Beth-Shemesh). The origin of the fragments is not certain. Probably, most were thrown from domestic buildings, but few perhaps from public buildings (e.g., app. 2:273 from Tel Beer Sheba, found near the public storehouses). Fragments can also be carried away, e.g., inside sewage trenches of the jnain streets. In any case, the disposal of JPFs' fragments in streets and alleys casts doubts on the assumption that the JPFs represented a venerated, high goddess (cf. Voigt 1983, chapter II.4.5 above). On the other haad, we must not forget that objects lose a great deal of value (both economic and symbolic) after they are broken, thus a direct equation of disposal patterns and use patterns is dangerous.

• Courts (10 fragments). This group of fragments was found in open courts, and not in rooms. Almost all of them are from domestic buildings (except app. 2:205). Whole JPFs were not found in courts, perhaps because the last were used for cooking and other household industries, while the JPFs functioned in relation to the roofed living / storage areas. After the figurines broke, the fragments were thrown and a few ended up in the courts (or in the streets, see below). This is only a likely scenario, since the quantity of fragments from courts is small. We need much more information in order to attain clear answers. • Other Domestic Contexts (19 fragments). A few domestic categoriesin fig. 31 (left column) are grouped together here. Two fragments came from houses that are probably domestic, but further information about the exact place in the houses where they were found is lacking. Other fragments were found in doubtful contexts that could not be better specified: "room or court" (app. 2:144, 149, 455); "room or alley" (app. 2:17, 35, 131,447); "room?" (app. 2:20, 26, 100, 166, 228, 272, 454) and "house?" (app. 2:69, 477). It is likely that most of these cases concern regular, domesticloci. • Gates Only two fragments can be numbered in this category (app. 2:165, 224). Another fragment (app. 2:96) was found in proximity to a gate, but on the surface (it is included in the category of surface finds, mentioned below).

• Open Areas (9 fragments). These fragments were found in open areas inside sites, but usually the nature of the area is not clear. In one case, it seems that it is an area of a gate and public buildings (app. 2:136). In most of the other cases, the areas are situated close to domestic quarters.

8 These are cases of mixed stratigraphy from early excavations. Generally, I asswned that the stratigraphy of the excavators is valid, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

60

storehouses (or stables), fortifications (walls, towers), water systems and large silos. Public building, such as palaces, are recognized by their special plan, large size, prominent position and the appearance of luxury objects. There are doubts in regard to houses which have the usual domestic plan, but are larger and well-situated: in this case, clear separation of 'public' from 'private' is impossible. It is probable that all the public areas mentioned above, except perhaps palaces and "secret" military institutions, were open to the general public (i.e., for all or most of the "common" population). Furthermore, daily domestic vessels can be used in every public loci.9

• Outside Settlements (12 fragments). At least 3 JPFs fragments were found in the glacis outside the city walls. They were probably thrown outside the walls, or transferred inside fills that were used to repair the fortifications (app. 2:246, 248, 449). Fragments could have related also with extra- mural quarters of domestic buildings, such as those found at Tel en-Nasbeh, Lachish area 500 (and the western slope of the fortress of Arad?). Other fragments were perhaps related to caves (app. 2:167, 143). One fragment was found near a cemetery, but perhaps it was thrown above the city wall and rolled down the slope (app. 2:24). The fragments from area 500 at Lachish, mentioned above, could also belong to nearby cemeteries (app. 2:83, 84, 90, 93, 95).

Sacred or cultic buildings are little known from Iron Age II Judah. Excluding for the moment the question of a "house cult", cult was practiced in temples and "high places", and very few of these have been found in excavations. As a matter of fact, from Iron Age II Judah we only have the temple of Arad (for other doubtful cultic assemblages see Holladay 1987; for the definition of temples in the ancient Near East cf. Lundquist 1983; Shiloh 1979; Nakhai 1994). Of course, sacred structures from Israel and other neighboring kingdoms do not help here.

• Fills, Surface Finds, Debris and Miscellaneous (37 fragments). 11 fragments were found in fills of later periods from Kenyon's excavations in Jerusalem, i.e., in secondary contexts. 8 fragments were found in debris of an unclear nature. 10 fragments were surface finds, but sometimes the general nature of the area was known from the excavations. The last 8 fragments were found in various contexts: one above bedrock (probably from a domestic assemblage, app. 2:462), one from the surface of a public building which may belong to a late period (the so called "tower" at Tel enNasbeh, app. 2:171), one from the "western tower" of Tel Beit Mirsim (app. 2:225), one from a secondary context of a Hellenistic foundation trench (app. 2:444), two from debris at Tel en-Nasbeh (app. 2:145, 154) and the last two from unclear contexts (app. 2:2, 448).

It would be safe to say that domestic contexts are by far the best represented in any excavation. These contexts include not only houses, but small cisterns, silos and pits as well as open courts. Furthermore, though casemate rooms were architecturally part of public city walls, they served for domestic purposes, as part of four-room houses. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the assemblages found in casemate rooms should be treated as domestic in nature. It is hard to define the general nature of streets and alleys in terms of public or private. The. population as a whole used these streets and alleys, without clear social separations. Their waste fills can come from any building. Even if the nature of the adjoining building is known, it can not be applied, since small fragments can be moved large distances in the streets (e.g., by sewage trenches).

VIII.3. A General Analysis of Contexts It is not easy to translate the detailed observations about the contexts of the fragments (above) into clear conclusions. Definitions like "cistern", "room" or "house" do not indicate the general nature of such loci. Is it a domestic room, the room of a temple, or perhaps of a military fortress? Rarely, the picture is different: we know the general nature of an area, while the exact locus and stratigraphy of the figurine are not clear (e.g., a figurine found on the surface of an area that was used only for domestic buildings). In order to achieve a wider picture, I have defined a few general categories of contexts: private, public, sacred and burial (app. 1: field "context.2"). The difficulties inherent in such a definition are, of course, formidable. My intention is to use the simplest definitions, in order to avoid the difficulties and achievea general picture, though somewhat simplified.

The general context of 173 JPFs, including a few doubtful cases, can be determined. The picture is presented in fig. 32 (below). Most of these JPFs are related to domestic (private) contexts: 70 specimens, plus another 42 doubtful ones. This is natural, since most of the excavated areas are domestic, or include daily artifacts. Still, the obvious conclusion is that the JPFs were not expensive objects, and that they were used by the population as a whole (or, by the so called "common" people). 19 JPFs were found in graves. 17 other figurines were found in caves, mostly from Jerusalem cave 1 but also from caves which could have been tombs. Only 9 JPFs could be ascribed to public contexts (with 11 more in doubt). There is hardly any evidence for JPFs in sacred contexts (5 JPFs at the most, including app. 2: 238, 252, 446, 448). One figurine from Lahav was found

A schematic plan of a Judean city of the Iron Age II is presented in Fig. 33 (below). It is not an accurate plan of any specific city, but a more or less representative plan, expressing features known from many excavated cities in Judah. The burial assemblages of such cities are usually well defined: whole cemeteries of rock-hewn tombs, cut in the slopes of the city itself or in the nearby slopes. Only rarely do doubts arise about the function of a certain cave, whether domestic, industrial or burial. The public areas of a Judean city are also quite well defined, including gates,

9 Even a palace would use daily pottery vessels, e.g., for the use of

its servants. The opposite is also possible: the use of royal commodities outside the royal circles, e.g., in times of danger. Thus, the Imlk jars from Lachish could be used to feed the whole population during Sennacherib's siege.

61

together with carved limestone blocks and a fenestrated clay stand in a domestic context (Jacobs 1992; Borowski 1995; cf. app. 2:238), which was called a "house shrine". I have not included the finds from Jerusalem Cave I here, since I do not define it as a cultic assemblage (see chap. VIII.2, section "caves" above). The scarcity of JPFs in sacred assemblage may be due to the scarcity of excavated sacred buildings, or to the difficulties of defining sacred and cultic in the archaeological record in general.

discussion that follows, buildings are designated by one prominent room number (e.g., Beer Sheba building 32) or a combination of a few rooms (e.g., Beth Shemesh house 370374). Groups of JPFs appear with their catalogue numbers and "+" signs (e.g., app. 2: 13+15).

I must stress that the categories private, public and sacred, as detailed above, define the buildings and the physical places, and not necessarily the finds and the people concerned. In other words, even if a building can be termed sacred, it does not imply that each and every artifact found within it is necessarily sacred.

• Burials. 2-4 JPFs were found in a few burials, i.e., Beth Shemesh tombs 1 (app. 2: 13+15), Beth Shemesh tomb 5 (app. 2: 8+9); Lachish tombs 106 (app. 2: 75+80+82) Lachish tomb 1002 (app. 2: 76+77+78+81) and Mamila tomb 5 (app. 2: 467+468). I cannot define these JPFs as groups, since there is no evidence that they are real groups, in a sense of figurines used together at the same time. They were found in the same places, but it is much more likely that these figurines belonged to different persons, and were put in the grave when those persons died, i.e., at different times. The JPFs from Mamila were found in the repository pit of the grave, probably thrown there when new burials have been added. The figurines were probably personal property (cf. Pritchard 1943:87), and not a group which belonged to the whole tomb as such, or even to one of its rooms. The assumption of personal property fits a head of a horse figurine from Samaria that carries an inscribed name, presumably of its owner (Chapter IX.2 below; of course, it is not a JPF). Since personal ownership can be possible for religious or "magical" objects, it does not negate the explanation of the JPFs as such.

vm.4.1. Groups of JPFs from Single Loci

One clear conclusion that can be drawn is that the JPFs were found, and probably used, in all types of contexts, or at all levels of human activity, and especially in the daily, domestic realm. Another interesting fact is, that female pillar figurines are missing, or extremely rare, in the few clear sacred buildings (of "official cult") of the Iron Age II. In Edom, two clear Iron Age cultic assemblages have been found so far: Qitmit (Beit Arieh 1995) and En Hazevah (Cohen and Yisrael 1995). In both assemblages, the cultic vessels are mainly large pottery stands, and small, handmade female figures are applied to these. Only three heads (among hundreds of vessels and fragments) from Qitmit belonged to free standing figurines, probably of the pillar type (Beck 1995). There are none from En Hazevah, as far as I know. In Judah, the temples were perhaps an-iconic (Beck, ibid). At Arad only two JPFs' fragments, at the most, could be related to the temple (app. 2:446, 448). A similar situation probably existed in the earlier precincts of Tel Qasileh (Iron Age I, Philistia) and Dan (Iron Age II, northern Israel). 10 Is this accidental, since the number of sacred Iron Age II buildings is so small? Or perhaps the small, clay pillar figurines had no role in sacred public places? If so, it is a different situation from the Greek world, where small figurines were dedicated in temples (Alroth 1989). At present, an unequivocal answer about any function/s of the JPFs in the public cult is impossible.

• Cisterns. A few JPFs were found together in domestic cisterns at Tel Beit Mirsim (app. 2: 197+198, perhaps also 217+218), Tel el-Ful (app. 2: 193+194), Tel En-Nasbeh cistern 216 (app. 2: 133+139+153+492+493) and Tel enNasbeh cistern 159 (app. 2: 142+170+179+180). Add cistern 25 in Beth Shemesh, which could have been a public cistern (app. 2: 10+29). According to Zorn, a few figurines were also found in cisterns 176 and 300 at Tel en-Nasbeh (personal communication). Like the mass graves (above), the cisterns indicate only disposal patterns, and there is nothing to prove that the figurines were thrown into them as real groups, i.e., at the same time. This holds true for the Gibeon pool as well (cf. chap. VIl.l-2 above).

VIII.4. Groups of Figurines

• Domestic Quarters and other Residential Areas. Unfortunately, only a few domestic loci can be considered for the present purpose. These arei

So far, I have only discussed the context of single JPFs. It is time to ask whether there existed groups of JPFs, which testify to the use of more than one figurine at the same time and place? The answer is not simple, and I will begin with data concerning single loci. I will not deal with loci whose nature is obscure, nor with surface finds, nor with general areas (such as Lachish loci 500 and 1500), as these cannot contribute anything to the discussion. 11 Throughout the

1. Beth Shemesh, locus 374 (app. 2: 14+35). The trouble is, that there are two loci with this number on the map, thus the fragments were not necessarily found in the same place (Fig. 34 below). 2. Kh. Geresh, locus 19 (body fragments, app. 2: 459-461).

10 Quantities of small figurines were found in Jerusalem cave I and Samaria locus E.207, but the definition of those assemblages as culticis doubtful (chap. VIII. 1-2above).

2: 295-296). Street 38-39 at Tel Beer Sheba is very long, therefore the fragments found there do not make a real group (app. 2: 257, 470).

room 44 from Crowfoot's excavation in Jerusalem is probably late, and the figurines belonged to an earlierlevel (app. 11 For example,

62

3. Arad, locus 350 (app. 2: 446+453). The figurines concerned are a hand-made head and a body fragment, and they are the only finds from a little room in the temple (fig. 35 below).

very clear: the lack of JPFs. Remove the JPFs from cave I, and its presumed cultic nature dissolves almost completely. In view of the conclusion above, what is the evidence of cave I regarding groups of JPFs? At a first glance, it is tempting to see the JPFs from the cave as a group. Once this view is taken (it was taken for granted), it is easy to believe that this group of figurines formed the focus of religious, or "magic" rituals inside the cave. This view is tempting altogether because it is so romantic. At last, there is evidence of Judean religious (or "magical") beliefs of the Iron Age period, from Jerusalem itself and from a mysterious place. 12 But is this view true?

4. Tel Beer Sheba, locus 443 (app. 2: 262+268). In this case, it may be fragments from different rooms of the same building (fig. 38 below). 5-7. Tel Beit Mirsim, locus SE.13.32 (app. 2: 203+229; cf. fig. 39), locus NW.32.10 (app. 2: 210+216, two moulded heads, cf. fig. 40) and locus NW32.12 (app. 2: 220+221, two body fragments). 8. Ramot, locus 131 (app. 2: 464+309, two body fragments).

One must ask is it probable that all the 1300 artifacts from cave I were in use at the same time? Regardless of the cultic definition of these artifacts, how can this be possible in such a small cave? A casual look in the plan shows how small it is (Holland 1977: fig. 6). What free place could the cave offer for performing any cultic rituals, with all these objects? It seems to me that there is no escape from the conclusion that cave I is a storage assemblage. As a matter of fact, this is not so far from the former explanation of Kenyon "favissa" - only she labeled the artifacts as cultic.

Dr. Zorn kindly handed me a list of figurines from Tel enNasbeh, based on the excavators' diaries at Berkeley. A few more groups should perhaps be added on the basis of this list, as follows:

9. Room 64, a body fragment (museum no. 311) and a pillar base (app. 2: 569). 10. Room 438, a head (app. 2: 150), two pillar bases and a body fragment.

If this definition is true, all the artifacts were not used inside cave I, but deposited (or dumped) there, perhaps during a prolonged period of time (say, 20-30 years). We do not know the identity of those who put the finds in the cave, nor the circumstances involved, neither .the origins of the finds (nearby buildings? of what sort? disposal of waste?). We cannot even be sure that all the artifacts originated from the same place. Cave I, unfortunately, is a secondary context, and its value for understanding the JPFs is more limited then previously thought. All the JPFs from the cave are fragmented, possibly in a disposal context. There is no clear evidence that these figurine fragments formed one real group with direct relationships between each member.

11. Room 513, two pillar bases. 12. Room 616, two heads (app. 2: 496+497; for the room see Zorn 1993:360). Possibly, a few more pairs exist in the following rooms: 221 (app. 2:136 and museum no. 906); 366; 372; 393 (app. 2:134 and a body fragment); 398 (app. 2:152 and another fragment) and 445. I have not seen the other figurines that are mentioned in the list, and am not certain that they are all JPFs. In any case, even together with all of these figurines, the number of JPFs' groups is very small in relation to the general quantity of JPFs.

• Summary. Unfortunately, most of the contexts discussed above fall into the category of general, mass contexts (graves, pools, cisterns, pits and caves). As such, they do not indicate the existence of meaningful, contemporaneous groups of JPFs at the same locus. Furthermore, most of these contexts relate to disposal patterns rather than to use patterns. As for loci from "living" levels, there are only about a dozen domestic loci in which 2-4 JPFs' fragments have been found together. So far, no two whole JPFs were found together in one "living" loci (such as rooms, courts, storehouses and casemate rooms). Certainly, larger groups never appear in the archaeological record. It is true that the present data is very partial, and that its nature is mainly "negative", but the picture seems quite clear - the JPFs were not used in groups.

• Jerusalem Cave 1. With this cave we reach another challenge. All former scholars did not dispute the cultic character of this cave, whether defining it as a favissa of a temple (Kenyon), or as a center for "popular religion", "magic", or "house cult" (e.g., Jerusalem II; Franken 1995; Holladay 1987; for discussion of ritual in archaeology cf. Barrett 1991). It seems that this explanation rests on the assumption that the JPFs are "magical" or "cultic" figurines (chap. VIII.2 above). The assemblages of nearby caves II-III seem to strengthen this conclusion. They are not fundamentally different from cave I, except for rather minor differences in the appearance of certain pottery types and their relative quantities per cave. JPFs were not found in caves II-III, and I suspect that this is due to an earlier date of these caves - before the use of the JPFs became common (but the reason can also be accidental). Not surprisingly, caves II-III were never defined as cultic (Jerusalem II: 125; the explanation in relation with "guest houses" is awkward, but this is beyond the scope of the present work). The reason is

12 Caves are mysterious, romantic places. I say this not out of scorn, but out of deep conviction.

63

VDI.4.2. Groups of JPFs in Whole Buildings (Figs. 34-40)

The list includes only a short verbal description, and I have not seen these figurines.lf Furthermore, in many cases it is impossible to define the houses with certainty (Zorn 1993).

Since each domestic building served one family, the question of whether each house had more than one JPF might be important (for a study of the family in Israel see Stager 1985, with further references). Did one family use only one figurine at a time, or a few spread in different rooms of the house? The study of single loci alone (above) would not answer such questions. The problem is, that even if we find a few JPFs' fragments in the same building, how can we know for sure that they were used at the same time? If they are only fragments of figurines, perhaps these were imbedded in floors and fills after being broken. The data is very preliminary and the search is time consuming. I have concentrated on main sites, and used distribution maps (figs. 34-40 below). I will not discuss here mass loci such as graves, cisterns and caves, because these will be useless for our purposes. The following is a list of JPFs found in the same buildings. It is surely a very incomplete list.

The conclusions are still clear; there is no significant evidence for the use of groups of JPFs together at the same time and place. The "groups" found above include mainly fragments that do not necessarily imply use-patterns. The quantity of groups is small, as is the number of figurines within each group. It thus seems that each JPF functioned separately, and not in "scenes" composed of groups of JPFs together (for relation to other finds see chap. VIII.5 below). This conclusion fits the assumption that the figurines were "private" property. It is also important, since it strengthens the view that all the JPFs represented the same figure, and not many independent figures. If all the JPFs symbolized the same figure, it explains why there was no need to repeat this figure in the same "scene". This is the most likely explanation for the lack of contemporaneous groups of JPFs.

VIII.5: The Relation to Other Artifacts

1. Beth Shemesh, house 370-374 (app. 2: 14+17+35). Only the area of season 1933 was published adequately, but the plan of house 370-374 is incomplete (fig. 34 below).

Holladay (1987:275fi) was the first scholar to discuss the relation between the JPFs and other finds. His study was limited to four sites only, and to the level of whole buildings (rather then loci). This is problematic, since when each loci is checked, most of the "house groups" dissolve. Houses cannot form good units of study regarding relations between the artifacts. Holladay claimed that the JPFs served in "house shrines", situated in the upper storeys. When the houses collapsed, the JPFs were dispersed in the ground floor. This theory is complicated, and surely it cannot apply to all the JPFs. Holladay (1987:276) believed that all the figurines (including animal figurines) are religious artifacts that imply a cult practiced in about half of the houses of Tel Beit Mirsim. He did not distinguish at all between fragments in secondary locations and whole figurines in situ, and ignored the acute problem of whether the place of find reflects use-patterns, or only disposal patterns.

2. Arad, locus 350 (app. 2: 446+453, already discussed above; cf. fig. 35 below). 3. Arad. A house in the south of the fort, formed if the casemate wall is removed (app. 2:57+451, perhaps also 477; fig. 35 below). The casemate wall is probably later (for the debate about it see Herzog 1984; Mazar and Netzer 1986; Ussishkin 1988).

cr.

4. Tel Beer Sheba, house 443 (app. 2: 262+268, already discussed in chap. VIII.4. 1 above). Fig. 38 (below). 5. Tel Beer Sheba, the eastern storehouse (app. 2: 251+254+266). 6. Tel Beer Sheba, a room (?) east of the "cellars house 32" (app. 2: 259+269). If this room was part of the cellars house, add app. 2:276. Fig. 38 (below).

If data and time were unlimited, we could have looked for every possible connection between the JPFs and any other artifact. Some limits are inevitable. I have concentrated on a few types of artifacts that seemed more promising. For example, one finds daily pottery vessels almost everywhere. A registration of all the vessels found beside the JPFs would be cumbersome and perhaps unrewarding. If one specific type of vessel is related to the JPFs more than another type, it will be meaningful but it would be very time consuming to find that specific type. For the present study I have used two fields in app. 1. The first field lists relations with other figurines (field "FGRP"), while the second field lists relations with other types of artifacts ("LFND"). All the codes in these fields are given in key 2 (below). I have used the distribution maps for the main sites (figs. 34-40) and the data in appendixes 4-5 (below).

7-9. Tel Beit Mirsim, two groups from single loci, already reported above (app. 2: 210+216; 220+221). The third group is from two separate loci in a house (app. 2: 211+231). 10. Tel en-Nasbeh, building 634+639 (app. 2: 177+156).13 11. Tel en-Nasbeh, building 399+670+398 (app. 2: 148+ 152). A few more groups may have existed at Tel en-Nasbeh, according to the list made by Zorn. These are: house 661+656+655 (app. 2: 87 + pillar base F); house 432+ 453+430 (app. 2: 57+60 + base fragment B); and finally house 370+439 (app. 2: 494+169). The data is incomplete.

14 Of course, this is all my fault and has nothing to do with Dr.

13 For JPFs' fragments A-G see app. 2: note after no. 576.

Zorn.

64

The discussion is very preliminary. I have only checked singe loci, since the study of whole buildings is less rewarding but even more time consuming (above).

216 (one HR from the list of Zorn and JPFs 169, 494); 10. Tel en-Nasbeh rooms 408+402 (HR 148 and JPF 92); lI. Tel en-Nasbeh room 513 (HR 105 and JPF "0"); 12. Tel enNasbeh cistern 370 (HR 147 and JPF 494).

VDI.5.1. Relation to Other Types of Figurines Cappo 1: field "FGRP

Wenning (1991) claimed that the HRs and the JPFs represented a pair of gods, but the archaeological evidence does not support this claim. Most of the "groups" of HRs and JPFs are from general, mass locations, e.g., cisterns, pools, streets and mass-burials. These loci do not prove a real, direct relation between these two types of figurines. Against the dozen "groups" (above) there are hundreds of figurines from both types, that were found separately. There could have been some connection between the JPFs and the HRs, but it was not a very binding one.

fI

)

A. Female Figurines (other than JPFs) Outside Judah, female figurines are common (appendixes 45), but these had, of course, no physical contact with the JPFs. Most of the plaque figurines (app. 4.VIII-4.IX, 5.Y) are earlier than the JPFs. A few plaque figurines are contemporaneous, but very rarely found in Judah. Other than JPFs, there are not many female figurines in Iron Age II Judah (app. 5, types 5.1.2, 5.1Y.4, 5.IV.5, 5.1.6), even if we include heads and bodies whose sex in not very clear. IS I have found no meaningful connections between these other figurines and the JPFs. As usual, the location and date of many of these other female figurines is not clear, or inadequately published. It is a moot point whether these other, differently rendered types of female figurines portrayed the same figure as the JPFs, or perhaps different figures.

D. Animal Figurines Animal figurines form the majority of figurines in almost any assemblage of figurines from Israel. I have registered some cases where animal figurines were found together with JPFs in the same loci (app. 2: 18, 22?, 23, 25, 29, 41, 80, 128,197,198,218,266,459,461,462,467,468). No doubt this is a very partial registration. Many details are missing for early excavations, while recently found figurines are not yet fully published. So far there is no proof for a direct connection between animal figurines and JPFs, such as a building loci where two whole figurines of these types were found together. In many loci, only one JPF was found alone. Most of the "groups" listed above are derived from mass locations, which do not prove direct relations. Therefore, there is no archaeological proof for the assumption that the animal figurines were attributes of the JPFs (if the last represented a goddess), though it is not impossible (for animals and gods cf. Gorg 1993). A close study of the species of the animal figurines will help to provide an answer (most of them represent household animals, such as equids and cattle, but many are very schematic). I have found no meaningful relation between the JPFs and the hollow, zoomorphic vessels. The last are not very common, and some of them seem to be earlier than the JPFs.

B. Male Figurines The number of male clay figurines from Judah is meager (app. 5.11.3). A few of these have been found with JPFs but only in mass contexts. The places are Tel en-Nasbeh ci~tern 216 (app. 5.11.3.2 and JPFs nos. 169, 494) and Jerusalem tomb or cave 6015 (app. 5.11.3.4 and JPF no. 439). There is no real evidence for the use of pairs of figurines, i.e., combinations of one female JPF and one male figurine. This is also clear from the scarcity of male figurines in comparison with the many JPFs. Hence, the JPFs did not have a male counterpart, at least not in clay (nor in metal, cf. X.7.3 below).

c. Horse-and-Rider Figurines

E. Bird Figurines

An obviously male figure is that of the horse-and-rider figurines (henceforward HRs for short).16 HRs figurines have been found with JPFs together in the same loci in a number of cases, as follows: 1. Arad locus 380 (HR 80 and JPF 448); 2. Beth Shemesh room 373 (HR 4 and JPF 17); 3. Beth Shemesh cistern 25 (HR 3 and JPFs 10, 29); 4. The pool at Gibeon; 5. Jerusalem cave I (HRs 31, 35, 36, 50, 64, 68, 71; for the JPFs see app. 1 and chap. VIII); 6. Lachish tomb 1002 (Hrs 75, 76 and JPFs 76-78,81); 7. Lachish tomb 106 (HR 77 and JPFs 75, 80, 82); 8. Tel Beer Sheba street 38 (HR 224 and JPFs 257, 470); 9. Tel en-Nasbeh cistern

Many scholars claimed that bird (dove?) figurines are related to a popular - or common - religion, and that they were an attribute, or a symbol, of the Biblical Asherah (for an iconographic study see Keel 1977). For that reason, I selected the bird figurines for a closer study, based on the data in app. 5.11.2 (birds with pillar bases); on Holland's thesis (birds without pillar bases, Holland 1975: types E.lIE.III) and on recent material from new excavations and publications. Altogether, these sources produced ca. 50 solid bird figurines from Judah. Other types appear in neighboring areas, but I will not discuss these, because they have no direct archaeological contact with the JPFs. In nine cases, JPFs and bird figurines were found together:

IS It is logical to include these, since the number of male figurines among the clear cases is meager.

1. Beth Shemesh tomb 1 (app. 5.11.2.13 and JPFs nos. 13, 15).

16 Discussed in chapter IV and app. 6-7 of the original Ph.D. work (Hebrew, 1995).

65

2. Beth Shemesh room 373 (app. 5.11.2.17 and JPF 17). 3. Beth Shemesh room 374 (app. 5.11.2.14 and JPF 14). 4. Jerusalem cave 1 (seven bird figurines, Jerusalem 11:48; for the JPFs consult app. 1). 5. Lachish tomb 1002 (app. 5.11.2.15 and JPFs 76, 78, 81). 6. Arad locus 450 (head of a bird, reg. no. c456/1, not yet published, and JPF 451. It is not certain that the two originate from the same level). 7. Tel en-Nasbeh cistern 159 (app. 5.11.2.17 and JPFs 142, 170,179,180). 8. Tel Beit Mirsim pit 33A.15 (app. 5.11.2.27 and JPF 232). 9. Tel Beit Mirsim locus NW.32-13 (JPF 205 and a bird figurine, TBM III: pI. 58; Holland 1975: E.II1.34).

rituals (cf. Rystedt 1992). Of course, rattles could be used for music without religious connotations. Rattles were found near JPFs nos. 41, 169,439, but from mass loci (tombs and cisterns), which are not very helpful.

contexts. Heads of type A were not found in courts, while heads of type B were not found in fills. These and other minor "differences" seem accidental, and probably reflect only the incomplete information at the moment. As far as the contexts can testify, there does not seem to be any difference of function between hand-made heads (type A) and moulded heads (type B). Probably both types represented the same figure.

(extent of excavations, relative wealth of sites, methods of excavation and publication, etc.). As a general impression, it seems that the JPFs were found in similar contexts in every region of Judah, i.e., there are no apparent regional differences (such as certain contexts which appear in one specific region but not in another).

B. Miniature Models of Furniture At least 11 JPFs were found with clay models of furniture in the same loci (app. 2: nos. 13, 15, 32, 142, 197, 198, 217, 218,232,252,259). Most of these are from pits or tombs, i.e., general locations, but a few were found in domestic loci at several sites. Miniature models of furniture, usually beds, are known from very early periods in the ancient Near East (Spycket 1992: chap. VI: nos. 735-743; chap VII: nos. 1307-1369). They appear in Israel in the Early Bronze Age, perhaps representing birth stools (Beck 1993). In Mesopotamia, they are found in both temples and domestic buildings, starting with the Early Dynasty period (Cholidis 1992:172ff, 180ff; for a short review cr. Dietrich 1992, UF 24:499). Sometimes, figurines of naked women and even couples in erotic positions are applied to these beds, but it is not clear if these represented mortal persons, or supernatural figures (Cholidis 1992:175ff; for beds in the OT see Weippert 1976).

In relation to the rather limited number of bird figurines from Judah, this is substantial evidence for some sort of relationship. But again, most of it is from mass locations, which do not indicate real groups, nor clarify the nature of the supposed relationship.

VIII.S.2. Relation to Other Finds (app. 1, field "LFIND") 105 JPFs were registered in field "LFIND", i.e., they were found with other artifacts. This is a very preliminary registration, limiting the ability to draw conclusions. 103 JPFs were registered as having been found with daily pottery vessels, but as noted earlier, this does not contribute much to our understanding. Sometimes, JPFs were found together with Imlk seal impressions (app. 2: 23, 87, 89, 168, 169, 484-486); with jewelery (app. 2: 7); with weapons (app. 2: 10, 13, 303, 305, 308) and with inscribed weights (app. 2: 142, 169, 225). Most of these "groups" are from mass loci and not really indicative. Furthermore, the quantity of loci with these "groups" is small, not exceeding what can naturally be expected from finds of the same period (Iron Age II) and place (Judah).

Following the present data (figs. 31-32), the main sub-types of the JPFs (A-B-C) are well devided between the varied

It is interesting that the Late Bronze age and Iron I age plaque figurines include a group of figurines, which probably portray women lying on beds (Tadmor, M. 1982). The origin of this group is Egypt, where similar figures appear as both figurines and in wall scenes (cf. chap. X.7.4 below). One can also refer to the "Ashdoda" figurine, whose body is shaped as a bed (app. 5.1Y.4.1). If the miniature models represented birth stools, does it indicate that the JPFs are connected with birth? It is possible, but then why is the lower body of the JPFs so schematic? These clay models from Iron Age Judah are also much less common than the JPFs, thus they could not really form "pairs". So far, only few loci exhibit remains of both a JPF and a clay model. There is not even one case where a figurine was actually found standing on such a bed (the JPFs could not lie on the beds because of their round bases). On the other hand, it is not necessary for the figurines to actually stand on the beds. Perhaps they stood nearby and "endowed" the beds without direct physical contact. Much more material is needed, especially whole figurines from "living" loci (such as app. 2:252), before we will be able to achieve clear answers in these matters.

A. Cult Vessels The problem is, of course, how to define cultic vessels. If we do not want to beg the question, we should limit the definition to the really clear objects: stone altars, large fenestrated cultic stands, and standing stones ("m:l~y')"). JPFs were found with these finds in the same loci only in very few cases. I have found four places where JPFs were found with cult stands: 1. JPF 133 (from a cistern); 2. JPF 238 (in a room), 3. JPF 18 (in doubt). 4. The JPFs from Jerusalem cave 1 (but cf. chap. VIllA above). Only one JPF was registered with a standing stone (app. 2: 32 from Beth Shemesh, room 305). This stone was called "beatyl", but is probably a regular building stone and not a real "standing stone". Add now one JPF head from Lahav (app. 2: 238, Jacobs 1992; already discussed in chap. VIII.3 above). One must remember that the quantity of these cult objects is very small.

VIII. 6. The Context in relation to Date, Distribution and Typology The study of context in relation to date, distribution and typology is rather brief - we simply do not have the required data for such a study, and must leave it for the future. Regarding date, we lack the ability to compare between assemblages of the 8th and the 7th centuries BC (chap. IV above), not to speak of inner phasing within each century. Many factors can be involved in the distribution pattern

Clay rattles should perhaps be added here, since these musical instruments could have been related to religious

66

67

Chapter IX: Analogies to the Judean Pillar Figurines? "Claypit, clay pit, you are the clay pit ofAnu and Enlil, the clay pit ofEa, lord ofthe deep, the clay pit ofthe great gods... your gift you have received, and so, in the morning before lama'! I pinch off the clay ofNN son ofNN; may it be profitable, may what I do prosper"... (Wiggermann 1992: 13, text I: 151-157).

In the former chapters, I have often mentioned other types of figurines, albeit briefly. The only exception concerned the typology, where I classified a large quantity of other figurines (chap. III and app. 4-5), though I have been careful not to use these figurines as a direct analogy to the JPFs. In other chapters, e.g., while discussing the relations between the distribution of the JPFs and the borders of Judah, there was no need to make analogies. Analogy may contribute to this study, if the group which is used for analogy can furnish clear evidence on the subject for which it is evoked for comparison. In other words, there is little sense in comparing one group of finds to another group, which is even less well known. A comparison between two unknowns will not help. One should also bear in mind that analogies can never constitute proof, but only serve as a tool for bringing up suggestions and possibilities.

A figure of a naked female, standing on a lion, is depicted on the famous Egyptian stele from Winchester college (England). The figure holds a lotus (and a snake?) and probably wears a crown. On her side, three names are inscribed: Kudshu, Astarte and Anat. The relation between the scene and the inscribed names is not so simple. Does the figure represent all of the goddesses, or only one? Some would claim that all these goddesses are forms of one "basic" goddess (for the stele see Wiggins 1991:386ff, fig. 1; Hadley 1994: n.64, with further literature there). I mention this stele only to show that in certain cases even an inscription does not solve all the problems.

I have tried to find analogies from places and periods as close as possible to the JPFs, since larger temporal and geographical distances usually weaken analogies. I will not discuss figurines made of other materials (such as stone or metal), large scale sculpture and other forms of art (such as seal impressions and carved ivories). Of course, with a motif as common as the JPFs, analogies can be found in all of these fields. Indeed, extensive analogies were offered by scholars of the "iconographic school" (chap. III.4.7 above), but their success in explaining the JPFs is questionable.

There is a figurine of "Isis with Horus on her knees" in the Cairo Museum. It probably dates to the sixth century BC, and carries a Phoenician dedication: "to my lady, to Astarte" (/lmnl!J)l~ m:l'~/I. See Lipinski 1984:109f, nn. 139-141; museum no. CGC.39291).

IX.2. Inscribed Figurines with Known Functions

Egyptian figurines of cows are sometimes inscribed with the name of Hathor (pinch 1993:161f), since the cow is an attributive animal of this goddess. Finally, figurines for "magic" uses are well known from Egypt, and a few are inscribed (for further discussion, see chap. IX.3 below).

Very few small clay figurines from the ancient world carry inscriptions that clarify their function (or at least partially). In a few other cases, written evidence can indicate the function of such figurines although they may not be inscribed themselves. Following are a few examples.

IX.2.2. Mesopotamia Figurines of gods were placed in foundation deposits of temples, and texts indicate the ways of producing and depositing such figurines. The figurines were meant to protect the temple from storms. They vary between 10-20 em. in height, and carry a formula: "The vizier of the gods, the leader who conquers all the storms". These figurines may represent a minor god called Ninhibur (Borger 1976; cf. also Green, AR. 1988).

IX.2.1. Egypt Two Egyptian figurines of a woman with a child from the second millennium BC carry inscriptions that indicate that they were used in order to encourage birth. The origin of these two figurines is unknown. The first figurine is made of limestone and exhibited today in Berlin (reg. no. 14517). Its inscription is an appeal: "may you grant birth (or

68

IX.2.5. The Fragment from Samaria As far as I know, only one fragment (among the thousands of figurines and figurine fragments from Iron Age Israel) carries an inscription. It is the head of a horse from Samaria,. which carries one word inscribed before firing: "(7N ?iJlY~". This is presumably a private name (to cz[I?]), which marks the ownership (Samaria III:16, no. 3, pI. 1:3a3b; 81: no. 29). It strengthens the assumption that the figurines were owned by individuals.

IX.2.3. The Seville Figurine

conception) to your daughter, Seh". It seems that the appeal was made to the dead father, asking him to help his daughter and thus secure the continuation of his family in future generations (Noblecourt 1953:37-39; Tooley 1991). The second figurine is now in the Louvre. It is inscribed with a wish addressed to the KA of NN, to endow birth to a women named Tita (Noblecourt 1953:37-39). Noblecourt explained these figurines as concubines, but today ~e tendency is to see them as fertility figurines, related WIth birth (Pinch 1983; Pinch 1993). Small (uninscribed) figurines from the temple of Gebel el-Zeit were explain~d as representations of the goddess Hathor (posener-Krieger 1985:297f; Gamer-Wallert 1992:90).

IX.t. The Use of Analogies

Figurines were used for a wide variety of magical functions in Mesopotamia. Sometimes such figurines were inscribed (discussedin detail in chap. IX.3 below).

The Museo Arqueologico de Seville (Spain) acquired a small bronze figurine in 1963. It depicts a naked, sitting female, but its origin is unknown. The head of this figurine is quite similar to heads of the "women at the window" ivories and to Phoenician clay figurines (cf. app. 5.VI.1-2, 5.VI.5 below). On the base there is a Phoenician inscription, dated by Cross to the 8th century BC. Other scholars lower the date to the 7th or 6th centuries BC. This inscription tells us that two brothers dedicated this figurine to the goddess "tzltrtl}r" (line 4), which fulfilled their wish. It is not clear if "I}r" means the l:Iurrians, the region Hurru (i.e., Syro-Phoenician coast), or a cave (Cross 1971; Teixsidor 1975; Lipniski 1984; Hvidberg-Hansen 1986:172; Ammerman 1991:219; Vance 1994:118; Lemaire 1994:130, 132). Recently, Puech (1993) suggested that "hr" means a window, thus reading "Astarte in the window".

IX.2.6. Conclusions The inscribed figurines testify that female figurines served a wide range of functions in the ancient period. Some represented goddesses and could even replace large c~t statues in times of crisis; other figunnes were votive dedications in the form of the gods (but possibly in the forms of venerating women as well). Yet other figurines were used for so-called magical purposes (see below). I have not found inscribed figurines that were used as toys or as initiation figures (cf. Voigt 1983). It is perfectly possible that they existed, since one can hardly expect to find explanatory inscriptions on such objects.

IX.2.4. Classical Literature There is evidence in classical sources about putting small figurines in temples as dedications to the gods (Romano 1988:128; Alroth 1988:195). From one source at least, it is clear that the figurine represented the goddess:

IX.3. The Magical Use of Small Figurines IX.3.t. Egypt

"To thee I dedicated a very beautiful image of thy form, Cypris, since I have nothing better than thy form..." (Ammerman 1991:203; cf. Romano 1988).1 Atheneaus tells a story about a merchant named Herostratos from Naukratis, who bought a small figurine (or statuette) of Aphrodite while visiting her temple at Paphos. On his way back to Egypt by ship, a storm broke, and Herostratos and his friends prayed to the figurine, asking the help of the goddess. The storm subsided. After reaching Egypt safely, Herostratus dedicated the figurines to Aphrodite in a temple at Naukratis (Ammerman 1991:223, Atheneaus 16:675). Even if this story is only a legend, it is most interesting. It shows that small figurines were manufactured in relation with temples and sold to private peoples. These figurines could be dedicated at temples (cf Alroth 1989). At times of crisis, the small figurine could "personify" the goddess; but 'probably at other times Herostratos and his friends would apply not to a figurine, but to large cult statues in the temples. From the story it is clear that, at least in this case, the figurine represented the goddess (and not women venerating her).

Recently, Ritner (1993) offered a thorough discussion ~f magic in ancient Egypt. Ritner stressed the fact that magic was legitimate in Egypt, and practiced even by priests and kings. For example, Papyrus Lee deals with a conspiracy against Ramesses III, and blames the rebels (among other things) not for practising magic, but for using it a~ainst the king. As a matter of fact, the rebels used the magical books of the King himself (Ritner 1993:13 n.46; 199ft). Magic and religion were two sides of the same coin (ibid:28), and there was even a god of magic with his own cult (HK', ibid:14ft). Indeed, magic could have been effective in a society that believed it (ibid:189). One can not differenti~te between private and public magic (ibid:183). The official priests were in fact those who practiced magic, since they knew how to read and write. They also controlled the magical scripts, held in "the house of life" in the temples (Ritner 1993:204ff, 220ft). The same magical document could be used for both royal needs and private needs. Verbal magic (spells) were as important as the material expression (the rituals), quite the opposite of the common tendency evident in modem anthropological studies (ibid:68). The attitude towards magic changed into a negative one only with the Roman conquest, when magic became an underground, illegal occupation (ibid:217ft).

1 Female figurines appear on fronts of clay models of shrines. These were explained as goddesses, but they are not free standing figurines and, as far as I know, none carries an inscription (Culican 1976; Seeden 1979:15,23; Mazar, A. I 985b; Bretschneider 1991).

Ritner showed the widespread use of figurines for magical purposes in Egypt. One use was the making of enemy

69

figurines from various materials, and then mutilating or melting them in the course of a ritual (Ritner 1993:113:tl). This act symbolized the killing and annihilation of the enemy (wax figurines and their melting - ibid:199ff, 158f, 209, n. 968. Clay figurines - ibid:153ff. Stone figurines ibid: 116£ Beheading figurines - ibid:161f). This custom continued during many periods and well into Roman times, as one bound female figurine stabbed by metal arrows shows (ibid: 112 fig. 2; cf. similar figurines from Maresha: Bliss and Macalister 1902:154ff, pl. 85). Sometimes the figurines were buried (Ritner 1993: 172:tl). Figurines made by priests were found in foundation deposits (ibid: 13, n.48) and two female figurines were found in a "magicians" box (ibid: 222:tl). The coffin texts give examples for making such figurines:

different demons (Wiggerrnann 1992). The house could be protected by complicated rituals, involving interment of protective figurines (Wiggerrnann 1992:xii).2 The rituals lasted for a few days and included many purification acts, preparing the materials, producing the figurines and purifying the figurines on a river bank. The figurines were probably endowed with life by performing the "opening of the mouth" ritual (that was performed for large cult statues as well). Then the figurines were buried in the house, combined with more purification acts. The manufacturing orders of the figurine are very specific. For example: "Seven statues of sages whose clay is mixed with [wax], furnished with [wings] and the face of a bird, holding in their right hand a cl[eaner,] in their left hands a bucket; they are clad in white paste, and endowed with feathers by hatchings in the wet paste - you shall make" (Wiggerrnann 1992: text 1, lines 170-173).

"To be spoken over a figure of the foe made of wax and inscribed with the name of that foe on his breast. .. to be put up in the ground..." (Ritner 1993:173, Coffin texts spell 37).

In the specific case quoted above, the figures can be identified with the "guards" on Assyrian reliefs (for the "cleaner" and the bucket, cf. Wiggerrnann 1992:66:tl). Other figurines hold branches of dates, clubs, or daggers. The "names" of the figures were sometimes inscribed on the shoulder of the figurines, specifying their function (ibid, text 1: lines 195:tl). They represented a vast number of varied entities: from gods in anthropomorphic forms (Sebettu, Lugalgirra, Meslamtaea, etc.), through apkallit creatures shaped as animals (bulls, dogs, snakes, etc.), to all kinds of monsters and mythic creatures (e.g., lion-man, scorpionman, fish-man, Wiggerrnann 1992: text 1:180ff; pp. 46-58; Green, A. 1994).

The best example of magical figurines in Egypt are the execration figurines, especially from Mirgissa (2nd millennium BC). These figurines are often inscribed with the names of the enemies and formulas against them (Ritner 1993:137-140). They were probably called rs.t in Egyptian (ibid:187ff, fig. 17). They were made by the ruling regime and used against potential enemies of the Egyptian state (ibid:141). The texts inscribed on the figurines are not magical, but the figurines were used in rituals involving their being "killed" by burying, melting, burning, etc. (ibid:148-153; Koenig 1990; Grimal 1985). Often, the faces of the figurines were mutilated, to prevent them from taking action (Ritner 1993: nn. 671-675). Similar figurines also served private people in Egypt, and were found in private tombs (ibid: 149 n. 671, 183f).

A very interesting difference concerns the materials used for these figurines. Figurines of gods and goddesses were made of tamarisk, and the gods are called the sons of heaven (biniU '!am~). On the other hand, demonic creatures are made of clay, and are related to the earth (ApsG; Wiggermann 1992: text 1:144, pp. 48, 60, 87). Only one exception is known, a lesser god which is not made of wood (Lu/a/, ibid:60). The clothing was also different - the gods and some of the sages usually wear dresses (represented by paint), unlike inferior demons (ibid:53ff; for clothes of cult statues cf. Matsushima 1993:211ff).

IX.3.2. Mesopotamia Many sources indicate the use of small figurines for magic in Mesopotamia and in the Hittite empire, and their remains were found in excavations (Black and Green 1992:81f). They represented varied figures: gods, demons and mythological figures. Some were made in anthropomorphic forms, others were a mixture of anthropomorphic and animal forms, and yet others had purely animal shapes.

The texts specify the exact positions of the figurines in the house, and there were probably fixed rules in this matter. Figurines were put alone or in groups in all parts of the house: the gate, the rooms and tht: courts (Wiggermann 1992:58ff). It seems that gods and. monsters were concentrated in the outer gate area, appkallii creatures in living rooms and various monsters (Lu/a/, Latarak) elsewhere (ibid:99-101).

From written sources, we learn that figurines were made for "black magic", shaped as enemies or victims. To conterclaim them, wax or clay figurines in the shape of the black "sorcerers" were manufactured. These were burnt by fire or drowned in a river (Gurney 1960; Geller 1989; Black and Green 1992:81f). Many figurines were buried whole inside houses, as protectors of the houses. These figurines were sometimes found in excavations (Rittig 1977; Green, A. 1983; 1985; 1988; Green and Black 1992; Holloway 1992:198ff; Wiggerrnann 1992; Green 1994).

The figurines found in excavations (e.g., Green A. 1983; 1985; 1988) show that rituals of the kind described in the written sources were indeed performed. Not every detail in

A new study deals with ritual texts, the aim of which was to protect new houses (or houses under construction) from epidemics and diseases, represented by a varied "army" of

2 These magical texts are not easy to understand, and are often obscure and debated by various scholars. Here I have followed the

translations of Wiggermann.

70

the sources fits the actual figurine - perhaps the manufacturers had some freedom in their actions (Green A. 1983:92f; 1985; Wiggerrnann 1992:50, 63:tl). Figurines appear in private houses at AJlur, Ur and other cities. The archaeological data, especially regarding context, is often incomplete or problematic, and many figurines cannot be identified clearly (Wiggerrnann ibid: 631f, 97, I43:tl). We learn from written sources about the figurines found in excavations, rather than vice versa.

For this reason, I will limit the discussion to female figurines, especially figurines from geographical areas which are close to Judah and are from more or less the same period of time.

IX.4.1. Greece Small pillar figurines (and other types) were found in temples, in niches around the altar and sometimes even on the altar. It seems that some of these figurines represented goddesses (having a high "polos" hat), while others represented women venerating (Ammerman 1991:203; Alroth 1988; for Crete cf. Gesel 1985:61; Van Straten 1992:194). Naked female figurines were cornmon in Greece and in the Aegean world starting with the 8th-7th centuries BC, and it is usually assumed that their origin lay in the Levant (Karageorghis 1987:1-2; Bohrn 1990:119ff; Herrnary 1992; for the eastern influence on Greece during this period see Burkert 1992:20; Morris, S. P. 1992; Osborne 1993; Zimansky 1993). This motif is rare in the western Mediterranean, where it appears during the 7th - 6th centuries BC, surely coming from the east.

The rituals described in these texts are complicated and long, possibly also expensive (producing so many figurines, clothing them, etc.). It is doubtful whether such rituals were performed for each house. Perhaps they were used for houses of the upper classes, while much shorter and cheaper versions were used for smaller houses. The texts studied by Wiggerrnann involve protective figures, i.e., good or "white magic". Even though, some of the figures have a bad, menacing outer form such as monsters and demons. This warns us that the outer form does not necessarily reflect the inner function directly. "Bad" figurines were also used in Mesopotamia, e.g., figures that personalized diseases, epidemics, death, and murder (Wiggerrnann 1992:92). The Maq/b rituals give an example, in which one made representations of "black magicians" and "killed" them by burning, breaking, eating, etc. (Abusch 1987-90). It is important to note that protective figurines were not mutilated; in order to protect the house and its dwellers, they had to remain whole and were therefore buried whole. The probable implication for the JPFs is that if the JPFs represented a good figure (in function, not only in form), it is unlikely that they would have been deliberately mutilated (whether they represented gods, mortal beings or mythical figuresj'

IX.4.2. Cyprus Cyprus is the richest source of coroplastic art in the Near East during the Iron Age II period. All scholars agree that the origin of the naked female motif, as well as the technique of moulding the face, lay in the Levant. This type of figurine arrived in Cyprus in the 8th century BC or a little later. Many scholars believe that Phoenician traders were responsible for the introduction of these figurines in Cyprus (Karageorghis 1987:1-2; Yon and Caubet 1988:30; Ammerman 1991:220ff; S,srenson 1991:23lf; Caubet 1992:261, etc.). There are connections between figurines from Phoenicia, Israel and Philistia, and figurines from Cyprus (Bisi 1989; Gubel 1991). The Cypriot figurines of naked women were usually interpreted as "Astartes", fertility goddesses or naked goddesses, but this is a copy of the labels given to similar figurines from the Levant. 5 In this case, using Cypriot figurines as an analogy for the JPFs is like a dog chasing its own tail. In Cyprus, many figurines are found in burials, but also in temples and in domestic structures.

IX.4. Other Female Figurines The motive of the naked female is widespread throughout human history, with different meanings for different human societies (Auerbach 1992:308). Figurines of naked women, with hands on their chests, are found already by the end of the third millennium BC in Mesopotamia (ibid:31Of; Spycket 1992:36, 54, 234). Spycket believes that the figurines are fitted out according to the customs and demands of the local populations and, with a few exceptions, are not connected with other figurines (ibid:227). Wiggins (1991:392) warned from crossing cultural boundaries, and Renfrew expressed a similar view: "Religious system of a given period has to be interpreted primarily in the light of evidence available for that period, and not on the basis of subsequent belief systems, however well-documented" (Renfrew 1985:3).4

IX.4.3. Neighboring Areas The areas nearest to Judah may prove the most important for comparison. Small clay figurines of naked females appear in all these areas during the Iron Age II period: Phoenicia,

the basis of visual similarity with other cultures across space and time, unless an unbroken link can be proven".

3 Mutilation is possible in this case, only if one assumes a "reform", i.e., an act on behalf of a group of people who deemed that these figures were bad and not good

5 Similarly, Bronze Age Cypriot plaque figurines were termed "Astartes" following the Levantine terminology: Orphanides 1990:48, 50ff.

4 Cf a similarview of Carless-Hulin (1989:95): "It is preferable to interpretsymbols within the contextof the host culture, and not on

71

Philistia, Transjordan and Israel. They share with the JPFs the general motif (standing woman) and technique (the moulded heads), but there are marked differences in details (chap. III above, and app. 4-5). There are varied hand positions among figurines from these areas, but hands on the chest is a quite common one. These figurines are not the only type in these areas, and there is a greater variety of types, at least in Phoenicia and Philistia, in comparison with Judah (e.g., figurines of musicians, daily scenes, and pregnant women). Other figurine motifs appear in these areas as in Judah (horses and riders, animal figurines, etc.), though there are again marked differences in details. The Phoenician figurines relate not only to domestic buildings, but to burials (Achzib) and temples (Sarepta, Pritchard 1988:48f; the Eshmun temple in Sidon: Ganzman et. al. 1987). In that respect, they resemble the Greek world (see above).

of figurines from the neighboring areas is smaller (at least for published figurines). While we have the Bible and Hebrew inscriptions for Judah, we have very little written evidence for neighbouring areas, such as Philistia or northern Israel. The symbolism and function of the figurines from the surrounding areas are not clearer than that of the JPFs. Analogy to the former will not solve the problems concerning the later. Scholars who see the JPFs as representations of a goddess may claim that similar goddesses were venerated in all the vicinity, with minor stylistic variations (Asherah in Judah, Astarte in Phoenicia, etc.). Other scholars say that it is different facets of one "basic" goddess (Astarte equals Asherah, equals Anat, etc., especially Dever 1990). This raises the question, was there a great cosmic goddess, a sort of a universal "mothergoddess" or "general goddess" (see chap. X.3 below)? On the other hand, there is no difficulty in retaining any other explanation for the JPFs (magical figurines, toys), assuming that similar figurines were used for similar purposes in the neighboring regions.

The bad news is that we know less about all these areas, compared to what we know about Judah. A few examples will suffice to show this. In Phoenicia, the excavations are few and the chronology uncertain. Thus, it is not even clear if the Phoenician figurines preceded their Judean sisters, and if the technique of the moulded face appeared there for the first time. Archaeological context and chronology of Transjordanian figurines are often problematic. The quantity

So long as the meaning of the female figurines from the neighboring areas is not clear, they cannot solve the problems concerning the meaning of the JPFs.

73

Chapter X: Notes About Meaning and Function "Out ofreluctant matter What can be gathered? Nothing, beauty at best" (Cheslav Milosz. The Collected Poems 1931-1987.London 1988.Vicking: 123).

The aim of this chapter is to criticize some of the theories regarding the JPFs, and support, to a certain extent, other theories. During the last hundred years, four basic attitudes crystallized in the study of the JPFs, each advocating a different explanation. These four basic explanations are: 1. Toys, used for children's amusement. 2. Mortal women. 3. Goddesses, whether general (such as "mother goddess", "fertility goddess" or "nurturing goddess") or specific (usually Astarte or Asherah). The combination of AnatAstarte-Asherah (e.g., Dever 1990, 1994) stands closer to the conception of a general goddess. 4. Magical figures. No one has suggested that the JPFs were initiation figures (cf. Voigt 1983); in any case, initiation rites can perhaps be considered as part of magical rites (it would be very hard to distinguish the two in the archaeological record). Similarly, it is clear that the JPFs cannot be mortuary figures, since most of them were found in settlements and not in burials. I will proceed from two basic assumptions. First, that the JPFs represented one identical figure and not many individual figures. Second, that the JPFs had one basic function and not many functions (that could interchange according to various factors, such as area, period and context). I will return to these two assumptions later (chap. X.7.6).

X.I. Toys The explanation of the JPF as toyss was made in the early phases of research, but was never very popular. Sometimes it was applied to a few specific figurines, e.g., Albright for one pillar figurine of a woman with a child (TBM III:142; app. 2:232 below). The explanation of toys was often restricted to zoomorphic figurines, as opposed to anthropomorphic ones (e.g., Lachish III:374; Kenyon 1967:101; 1974:142; Franken and Franken-Battershill 1963: 139; Burrows 1941:221). Very few scholars thought that all the figurines were toys (e.g., De-Vaux 1958:82), and some rejected this explanation completely (May 1939:28).

Firstly, JPFs were found in public buildings, where we would not expect to find children's toys (storehouses in Tel Beer Sheba and Tel Ira, the temple area in Arad, the public buildings of Ramat Rahel). Secondly, the overwhelming uniformity - indeed, even stereotyping - of shape does not fit toys. We would expect toys to have a more individual character, either by manufacture or decoration, or through wear by children's handling. Thirdly, the crude manufacture and lack of decorations on the back side of the JPFs indicate that they were meant to be seen from the front, i.e., to stand in a rather static position (perhaps with their back against walls or pieces of furniture). This does not fit toys, which are used for dynamic playing. Fourthly, the JPFs are very vulnerable, while toys require the ability to sustain the wear and tear of playing (if this was needed, better clay and firing were possible). Fifthly, at present there is no archaeological evidence to connect the JPFs with children, or with children's burials.! So far, written evidence for the use of figurines as toys in Iron Age Judah has not been found, and indeed, can hardly be expected. In any case, the arguments put forward seem solid enough to reject the idea that the JPFs were children's toys, There is a growing tendency to reject this explanation in regard to other ancient Near Eastern figurines (e.g., in Egypt: Tooley 1991; orin Greece: Gates 1992:169).

X.2. Representations of Mortal Women The idea that the JPFs represented mortal women has been almost completely ignored, at least in writing. Pritchard (1943:86) raised this possibility, but only as a tentative option, and it was rather superseded by the idea that the JPFs were goddesses. Hachlili made this suggestion for figurines from Ashdod, because their many variations of

During the last three decades, the explanation of toys has not been put forward for the JPFs. Fowler (l985:341f) mentioned it, but only as a warning against believing that every figurine was cultic. Otherwise, Fowler did not prove that ancient figurines were toys, or that the JPFs were in particular (for further discussion see Ucko 1968:422f; on children in Mesopotamia see George 1993; on toys in the Bible see Hallo 1993, but without reference to the JPFs). Hubner (1993:92fI, fig. 46) is the only modem scholar that returned to this old explanation, but without any new substance (cf. chap. 11.4.4 above).

72

The cheap material of the JPFs, the mass production, the popularity in domestic areas and the throwing of fragments into streets may fit the explanation of toys. The (partial) nakedness of the JPFs does not negate an explanation as toys (since modem puppets often have sexual attributes, cf. Voigt 1983:187, 189). Nor does the lack of similar male figurines, since it is possible that female puppets were used by girls, while boys refrained from using any sort of puppets. Yet, other facts do not accord with this explanation.

1 When speaking of toys, I mean children's toys by definition. We, adults, also have "toys" - only we call these gods or magical figures. Therefore, though the separation of children's toys from adult's toys may not be absolute, it can certainly be used in archaeology and is not artificial.

73

shape may imply different women, and not one goddess (Ashdod Il-Ill: 132). The JPFs from Jerusalem cave I were explained as representations of women, who came to the cave to seek help in birth or disease (Jerusalem II: 128; it is quite close to an explanation of magical figures, for which see X.6 below). Perhaps the theory that the JPFs represented mortal women is not appealing, because it lacks the glamour that mysterious magic, or prestigious Israelite religion, have. But is this theory acceptable?

"mother goddess" was most widely used, and often related to fertility (Duncan 1924:180; May 1935:27; Burrows 1941:221; Wright 1957:118; Kenyon 1967:101; Heaton 1974:232; Dever 1982:38; 1990:137; Keel and Uehlinger 1992:381). A few scholars used this term for convenience sake only (Holland 1975:124; Holladay 1987:278). Yet other scholars stressed the fertility aspect, especially in regard to animal figurines (TBM ill:82; Hooke 1938:25; Mazar 1990:501; TN 1:247; Jerusalem II: 128): It was hard to see all the small animal figurines as gods, in opposition to anthropomorphic figurines.

There are some doubts regarding the explanation of mortal women. The great physical and technical uniformity (clay, white wash, decoration, position of hands, schematic lower body) seem to imply the lack of any effort in representing individual women. Even the heads are very uniform. True, ancient art stressed types and not individual portraits, especially when not dealing with gods, kings, queens and the like. The JPFs were probably used separately and not in groups (chap. VIllA above). This hints that they symbolized the same figure, and not many individual women. The possibility that the JPFs represented mortal figures of "fertility" does not fit the lack of pregnancy, children and rendering of the pubic area. Finally, Understanding the JPFs as mortal women does not solve our problem. It gives a title, but not the meaning. Who exactly were these women? Why were they represented in large quantities? How do we explain their wide distribution in all sorts of contexts?

The terms "nurturing goddess" or "suckling goddess" were used by many scholars for the JPFs (TN 1:245; Macalister 1912:417; Reifenberg 1927:97; Supinska-Lovset 1978:2lf; Holladay 1987:278; Wenning 1991:91; Keel and Uehlinger 1992:380f). The term "naked goddess" was less popular (Watzinger 1933:117; Lachish ill:374), and adopted mainly within the iconographic school of thought, which also coined the term "the Syrian goddess" as a universal entity (Winter 1983:127ff, 131, 192-199; Briend 1992:27).

Many scholars criticized sharply such "mother goddess" theories (Franken and Franken-Battershill 1963:144f; Ucko 1968:417ff; Orphanides 1990:45f; ~I'iggins 1991:392; Day 1992:181, 185; Walls 1992:15; Bailey 1994). Lemche (1992:253, nn. 26-27) even went as far asto define the ide of fertility in Biblical studies as a modem, post Freudian bias. Every one of the major known goddesses in the ancient Near East was a "mother goddess" in that she mixed motherly and divine characteristics, much as every male god is, by definition, a "father god". 2 Gods, as imaginary creations of the human race, cannot be completely detached 2 Yet, we do not hear scholars speaking about a general "father god" of unknown name, and of extensive spheres of influence (in the context of Judah). Does the existence of such a Judean "father god" depend upon finding small figurines?

74

If we reject the idea of a "great cosmic goddess", we must also deny the terms "mother goddess", "fertility goddess" and the likes. The main question is do the JPFs represent a goddess? If not, then all these terms are groundless. If the JPFs do represent a goddess, then there is no escape from trying to identify a specific goddess (see above). It is thus clear that these vague terms are superfluous in any way, and we would do much better without them.

X.4. Astarte, Anat and Astarte-Anat-Asherah

X.3.3. "Naked Goddess", "Nurturing Goddess", "Suckling Goddess"

/1·

E

Many scholars suggested that the JPFs represented female goddesses, but did not try to identify them with specific goddesses, believing that this was impossible (pritchard 1943; HUbner 1985:53; Miller 1986:245; Barkay 1990:191). Other scholars continued to use "general terms", though they identified the JPFs with a specific goddess. The term

Behind terms such as "mother goddess", "fertility goddess", "nurturing goddess" and "naked goddess" lies the assumption that there existed a certain great cosmic goddess or "general goddess", worshipped by a large number of societies. This goddess was usually related to the prehistoric periods. Perhaps she could have some minor temporal and geographic variations, but it was claimed that she was one "basic" goddess. In my view, this theory cannot be accepted for Iron Age II Judah. There may have been syncretism and influences between different goddesses at different places. There may have been common origins in some distant past. But, once a population adopts a goddess at a certain time and place, it cannot be "a general goddess"; it is adopted for the specific needs and circumstances of a specific population, thus becoming unique. That goddess is not identical with any other goddess, although she may have similar traits, a similar "history", or a similar physical form. After all, there must be some general similarity between all the goddesses (all this holds true for gods as well, and is not meant to be discriminative in any way).

This term, popular with the iconographic school, is even more problematic. I have already referred to the problems of mixing sources from nearly 2000 years and treating the whole Near East as one cultural unity (chapter 11.4.7 above). Furthermore, what is Syrian in the JPFs? They have no relation, whatsoever, with Syria. As long as the JPFs are discussed, this term is misleading and must be discarded forthwith.

The notion of a prehistoric "mother goddess" was very widespread at the end of the last century and the beginning of this century, together with the idea of fertility. It was believed that prehistoric figurines represented a goddess, but without written sources this goddess could not be named (Ucko 1968:409-416). Complex theories were built on the idea of a general "mother goddess", especially for Europe and the Mediterranean areas. Scholars even reconstructed matriarchal societies ruled by women and later suppressed by males, on the basis of the female "mother goddess". How absurd this is can be seen from the JPFs; they are all female, but the Bible shows that Judean society was dominated by men. That is, the sex of the small figurines tells us very little about the status of the sexes in ancient societies.

X.3. Mother Goddess, Fertility Goddess, Nurturing Goddess and Naked Goddess

There is much more to be said. During the Iron Age II period, several goddesses are known from Judah and the neighbouring kingdoms (e.g., Astarte, Asherah). Never do we hear about some "general mother goddess", worshipped by everyone. Is it possible that another major goddess existed in Iron Age II Judah, without being mentioned in any written source (including the OT)? Furthermore, is it conceivable that the only feature of this goddess is that she is "a mother goddess", in other words, lacking any characteristics (since she is 'just like any other goddess")? The same is true also for the term fertility and its abuse: it is such a vague term, and every goddess has some kind of fertility. 3 It is worth quoting the expression of Handy about the idea of a "mother-goddess":

X.3.2. "Syrian Goddess"

X.3.t. "Mother Goddess" and "Fertility Goddess"

On the other hand, if the JPFs had some symbolic meaning, they had to "act an action", even if only a symbolic one. This makes them very similar to the so-called magical figures (cf. part X.6 below). Also, we must return to the former questions of who is symbolized by these women and why? In other words, seeing the JPFs as mortal women cannot constitute a full explanation, since it does not answer the question of what the meaning of such figurines was.

believers are her "children". It is such a basic idiom in almost any human society. As far as the JPFs are concerned, there is hardly an indication of motherhood (except one figurine, app. 2: 232, which carries a child on its back - but it is the only one among 854 JPFs).

"a topic, overused since the nineteenth century, which is "in" now, but it is a lazy way to deal with the variety of female deities known from the ancient world" (Handy 1993:158).

It seems to me that all these terms are vague and contribute nothing to the understanding of the JPFs. The reasons for this are explained below.

Theoretically, it is possible that such mortal figures were made without any deep meaning, but for aesthetic reasons only. This explanation was never suggested, perhaps because it is so simple; everyone tried to find a hidden meaning! From an archaeological point of view, it is extremely hard to test such a theory, since with only "fashion" for meaning and function, any archaeological context is possible. But an explanation of mortal women without symbolism does not fit what we know about ancient art, which was a rigid way of expressing (mainly) royal and religious messages.

from human mortal life, and reflects aspects of the later as a mirror. Any scholar who explains the JPFs as a goddess must strive to identify this goddess specifically. If he/she believes that it cannot be done, then adding "mother" and "fertility" to the definition "goddess" contributes nothing.

I , I

Many scholars identified the JPFs with the goddess Astarte," beginning with the early stages of research (Vincent 1907:161; Gezer II:412; Driver 1922:33ff; Pilz 1924:161, 166). At first, the name was used for both plaque figurines and pillar figurines, but later some scholars termed only the plaque figurines as "Astartes" (patai 1967:58-60, 98ft). Many scholars used the name Astarte only for convenience sake, as a general name for the JPFs, without really claiming that they represented the goddess Astarte (Barkay 1990:191; Phytian-Adams 1923:80; Watzinger 1933:117, photo; TN 1:245, 273; TBM III:138; Holland 1975:42, 62, 97; Holland 1977:154; Kyle 1977:76; Aharoni 1978: photo 37; Keisan 1:350; Mazar 1990:501; Jeremias 1993:44). Some scholars created an amusing situation, by calling the JPFs Astarte on one hand, but explaining them as Asherah on the other hand (Ahlstrom 1963:53f; 1984:138; Oded 1994:126f).

The term "naked goddess" is similar to that of "mother goddess", and related with fertility. The "naked goddess" was identified mainly in Syrian seal impressions and plaque figurines of the second millennium BC as the "rain goddess", mate of the storm god (Blocher 1987; Van Loon 1990; Auerbach 1992). Even if the identification of the Syrian seal impressions is correct, what is their relation to Judean figurines from the later Iron Age period? The JPFs are only partially naked, and have very schematic lower bodies. Furthermore, the term "naked goddess" and the likes may describe the figure superficially, but does not really explain it (like "fertility" or "mother goddess"). These are all very vague terms, since almost any goddess has some aspect of motherhood. Any goddess is a mother, thus her 3 For example, the Greek goddesses:

"almost every single Greek goddess has a fertility aspect of one kind or another" (HadzisteliouPrice 1978:3; for fertility cult cf. Bonanno 1986).

4 I am using the more common English spelling Astarte, though the Biblical form "Ashtoret" is more appropriate for figurines from Judah.

75

During the last few decades, the Astarte explanation lost its popularity. Today Astarte is mentioned in relation to the JPFs mainly as part of a combination of the goddesses Astarte, Anat and Asherah together, by scholars who claim that all these goddesses were, more or less, the same goddess (Dever 1982:38; 1987:226f, nos. 1-3; 1990:157f; 1994; Hestrin 1987; Hvidberg-Hanson 1986:176, etc.). There is no need to review here the written sources about these goddesses, already studied in detail elsewhere. 5 None of the scholars identified the JPFs with Anat along, since it is clear that Anat flourished mainly during the second millennium BC (on Anat see Hvidberg-Hansen 1986: 172f; Deem 1978; Smith 1990:61ff; Walls 1992; Day P.L. 1992; Smith 1994:204, n. 45).

the identification with Asherah is that if the JPFs represented a goddess, it must have been Asherah. She is the only likely candidate in later Iron Age Judah, in the light of her dominant position in the Old Testament (versus any other goddess) and her appearance beside Yahweh in the inscriptions from Kh. el-Kom and Kuntillet 'Ajrud (chap. II.4.11 above).

domestic waste (chap. VIII) may seem a problem, if Asherah was a high, venerated goddess. But the status of Asherah is not clear; there is a great difference between disposal patterns and use-patterns; and the small figurines do not have the high position of large cult statues. Finally, if the JPFs represented Asherah, the lack of male god figurines is intriguing (chap. X,7.3 below).

In the Bible, Asherah is often mentioned as a cultic object

Many scholars assumed that the pillar bodies of the JPFs represented a tree - trunk, the assumed form of the Biblical Asherah. This was another reason for identification between the two, but it is a completely baseless argument. On one hand, the OT does not give a specific description of the Asherah. That she was made of wood is common to cult statues (and other objects) in the whole ancient Near East. Living trees may have been her symbol (Judges VI), or wooden cult objects'? However, there is no definite proof that she had a pillar body. In Greece, female figurines may be pillar-shaped, but statues of goddesses are anthropomorphic (Alroth 1989). On the other hand, the JPFs' body does not seem to represent a tree. Pillar bodies are a widespread solution for standing figurines in the Near East. The widened base is necessary to enable the figurines to stand safely. Once a round body with a widening base is used, it is difficult to represent separate legs! Indeed, the legs "return" when double-moulded figurines, where the body is fully made in a mould, appear. With rounded pillar bodies, the only way to show legs is perhaps by incisions or stamping on the front part of the round body; but this certainly looks awkward (it is found in one or two figurines, see app. 5.IV.7.19 below). Furthermore, some of the riders of the horse-and-rider figurines also have pillar bases. But these riders stand on horses - surely their body cannot be connected to trees or poles. Finally, pillar figurines from Transjordan and Phoenicia are more elaborately rendered, and a few have painted decorations or a ledge on the body (cf. app. 4.1.1-2 and fig. 10:1-2). These probably indicate dresses, which are not a logical outfit for trees.

made of wood (connected with the verbs "fell", "smash"" and "burn by fire": Ex. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; 12:13). In Judges VI, Asherah may have been an actual tree, standing above or near the altar. In a few verses, it seems that Asherah is a goddess. During the monarchical period, a /I~O!l1l and a 111lS~!lY.l1I of the Asherah are mentioned. These are moot terms, but Asherah was clearly part of the official cult of Judah - she was introduced into the Jerusalem temple by Judean kings (I Kings 15:13, 33; II Kings 21:7). It seems that during the Iron Age, or most of this period, Asherah was a desirable component within the Judean cult and not an opposed cult or a foreign one. II Kings 18:19 relates Asherah with Ba'al, but this seems to be a secondary interpolation (while the "Asherim" of the Chronicler is a late form, which is historically doubtful). It is possible that Asherah was considered as a paredos of Yahweh, at least in some circles. This is currently debated, and the amount of recent literature on the Asherah is bewildering - from "solid" scientific monographs and papers to all kinds of popular literature and bizarre expressions. 6 For our purposes, the central. question is whether indeed the JPFs represented Asherah?

The theory about a combination of Astarte-Anat-Asherah seems doubtful to me (and cf. already Reed 1949). The OT and other written sources distinguished explicitly three goddesses, with different names. It is hard to believe that all three could be venerated as the same one goddess during the later Iron Age period (on the other hand, the JPFs are so uniform that they can hardly represent three different goddesses, since how would the users know which is which?). Furthermore, there are differences in time and space between these goddesses, though our sources are not always clear or reliable. Anat was mainly a Cana'anite goddess of the second millennium BC. Astarte was mainly associated with Phoenicia and the kingdom of Israel, and not with Judah. Asherah was mainly a local Judean and Israelite entity of the first millennium BC (Lemaire 1994:134; cf. Day, P.L. 1992; Wiggins 1991). Therefore, Anat and Astarte do not fit the obvious Judean definition of the JPFs (against the identification with Astarte cf. already Franken and Franken-Battershill 1963: 145f).

This explanation is possible regarding date and distribution. Asherah is connected in the OT mainly with Judah and Israel. The female pillar figurines from Israel (different in details from the JPFs) can be explain as "Israelite Asherah" (e.g., Dever 1994). The many JPFs in domestic houses may reflect a common appeal of the Asherah, and there is no problem in the appearance of a few JPFs in public and scared locations. The JPFs from pits and cisterns, and the private ownership of figurines (chaps. VIIIA.l, IX.2.5) can also fit this explanation. There is no clear evidence for cult in relation to the JPFs, but neither is the exact form of veneration of the Biblical Asherah clear (also, there is the problem of what is cult exactly and how is it expressed in the archaeological record). The throwing of JPFs as

X. 5. Asherah The view that the JPFs represented the Biblical Asherah is the most popular explanation today, therefore I have named the present phase of research "the Asherah phase" (chap. IIA above). The debates about the exact nature of the Biblical Asherah find expression in regard to the JPFs, as variations in the meaning attached to these figurines (whether as a phenomenon of official religion, a forbidden or non-conformist cult, a house-cult or expressions of popular religion), but the similarity is greater than the differences (patai 1967:35, 43, 60; Engle 1979:27ff, 50-52, 80; Dever 1982:37; Ahlstrom 1982; 1984:136; Teubal 1984:91; Holladay 1987:278; Gadon 1989:96 photo, 171; Dever 1990:158f; Wenning 1991:90; Bloch-Smith 1992: 218f, n.16; Dever 1994:120-122). Somewhat exceptional is the identification of the bird figurines, rather than the JPFs, with Asherah (Jerusalem II: 127f, fig. 7:4). The logic behind

6 The following list includes impo~t publications on the Asherah, together with some secondary literature: Reed 1949; Lemaire 1977; Emerton 1982; Winter 1983; Dever 1984; Pettey 1985;Hvidberg-Hansen 1986:174f;Mendenhal11985; 01yan 1985: chaps. 2-3, 51fI; Hadley 1987; Hestrin 1987; Schroer 1987:21-45; Tigay 1987:172flI; Kyle-Macarter 1987:143ff; Koch 1988; Ljung 1989:54-58; Betlyon 1985; North 1989; Dever 1990: chap. 4; Smith 1990:80-124; Best 1991; Hestrin 1991;Wiggins 1991; Day, J. 1992; Dearman 1992:79; Dietrich and Loretz 1992; FrymerKensky 1992: chap. 13; Hiibner 1992; Margalith 1994; Whitt 1992; Ikeda 1993; Wiggins 1993; Zeeb 1993; Day, J. 1994:184ff; Dever 1994; FrettlOh 1994; Hadley 1994; Lemaire 1994:148f; Smith 1994:198-206. On the new inscription from Ekron see Gitin 1993:250-252; 1995:72.

For Asherah see chapter X.5 below. On Astarte see Leclant 1960; Fantar 1973; Delcor 1974; Hvidberg-Hansen 1986:171f; Ammerman 1991:219ff; Day, P.G. 1992; Day, J. 1992; Gorg 1993; Day, J. 1994:187; Smith 1994:205; Lemaire 1994:129ff; Margalith 1994(on plaque figurines); Davila and Zuckerman 1993 (on a late inscribed throne,but without a figure). 5

76

gods). At that period, scholars who adopted this explanation thought that the JPFs had no relation whatsoever to Yahweh and to the official Israelite cult. Usually, the magic was termed "sympathetic" or "apotropaic", and the figurines were regarded as amulets for domestic use, or as "good luck charms" (Hooke 1938:25; TN 1:245, 248; Burrows 1941:220; Wright 1957:118; Ashdod II-III: 133; Heaton 1974:232; Kyle 1977:76; Jerusalem II: 128). A few scholars suggested magic just as an alternative to seeing every figurine as a goddess (Fowler 1985). Many scholars fused the magic explanation with an assumption of deliberate mutilation of the JPFs (but see chap. VII above; for an anthropologic discussion of magic see Morris 1987). In the last decade or so, magic was largely replaced by the Ashera explanation (cf. Tigay 1986:9lf, though hardly convincing). The date and the distribution may fit a magical explanation of the JPFs - one can easily assume that Judah had its own magic figurines, different to those of neighboring kingdoms. The context is also fitting, as are the (probable) private ownership and cheap material (clay). The disposal as domestic waste (in streets) is at least easier to understand than if the JPFs represented a high, major goddess. Disposal in cisterns, pits and silos may fit well with magical figurines (but the JPFs were not thrown whole, thus are unlikely to be protecting figures that guaranteed the water and grain sources).

If the JPFs relate to magic, it seems probable that it is "good (white) magic". They have "good" outward shape (smile, full face, "offering" the breasts). They were probably not mutilated deliberately, and were very popular in many contexts of life in Judah. The lack of overt sexual features suggests that they symbolized "plenty" rather then "fertility" (cf. Wenning 1991:91). Even so, seeing the JPFs as magical figures meets heavy opposition on more than one front. There is no archaeological proof that the JPFs are related to any magic rituals. True, one need not suppose complex rituals of the kind documented from Mesopotamia (cf. chap. IX.3 above), and large parts of rituals will not be found in the archaeological record (e.g., the use of organic materials and verbal rituals). The problem is, however, much more difficult. It relates not only to the question of what is magic (below), but to the fact that defining the JPFs as magical figurines is no real solution. This definition gives a function, but not the meaning. If the JPFs are magical figurines, who is this figure? Why wasn't it mentioned in the OT - since it was popular in Judah for at least a hundred years, and the uniformity of the JPFs implies that we are dealing with one figure? In other words, the definition as magical figurines does not give a full answer, but only a functional one (further discussed below).

To summarize briefly, the JPFs may have represented Asherah, but conclusive evidence is still lacking. If this is the case for 854 JPFs, with a distribution and date fitting the Asherah, it is clear that all the other so-called Asherah objects stand in a worse position. Regrettably, varied artifacts were called Asherah in a frenzy of publications during the last decade. Asherah objects multiplied like mushrooms after the rain, so beware - there are many poisonous ones.

X.6. A Magical Figure The notion that the JPFs are magical figurines was widespread during the early stages of research, when magic was understood as the complete opposite of religion (and

X.7. Summary is possible that the cult object was shaped as a pillar, but this is a symbol that should not be directly equated with the goddess. Also, was Asherah a "high" goddess, and was she expressed in anthropomorphic cult statues? 7 It

I wish to mention briefly some topics that have not yet discussed, in order to clarify a few points and to show the

77

complexity of others. Following this, I will conclude with a short summary.

impossible to identify the exact species depicted). I mention this because of the role of bulls and calves in Israelite religion (Vernieylen 1990, with more references there), but I am reluctant to make any further speculations.

X.7.1. "House Cult" The cult in Judah is a large and complicated field of research. As far as the JPFs are concerned, there is very little evidence to connect them with cult (see chap. VIII above) - if by cult we mean special activities (e.g., giving votive objects, burning incense, sacrificing animals, praying) held in sacred buildings (shrines, temples, "high places", etc.) with the help of special cultic furniture (altars, incense stands, stone stele, etc.; for the anthropology of cult see Morris 1987:235-263). By "house cult", obviously none of the above is meant. It is hard to imagine sacrifices made to the JPFs, or persons kneeling before them and burning incense (the possibility exists - cf. the story ofHerostratos in chap. IX.2.4 above, but this is a rare exception and not a norm). What constitutes, then, "house cult"? Is there any clear archaeological or historical evidence for "house cult" in Iron Age II Judah? The scholars who used the concept of "house cult" usually pre-supposed that JPFs were cultic objects. If cultic objects constantly appear in domestic contexts, then they imply a "house cult". For example, Holladay (1987:276) claimed that there is evidence for cult in almost half of the Tel Beit Mirsim houses - but the evidence is the JPFs themselves. Once cult is expanded in such a way, we face the risk of seeing cult everywhere. Even if the figurines are religious objects, it does not imply that they had a special cult. It seems better to limit the term cult to the definition made above (for popular religion and "house cult" see also Ammerman 1991; Gerstenberger 1994 and chap. 11.4.10 above; for rituals in archeology see Barrett 1991).

X.7.3. The lack of Male Figurines and the "Ban of Idols" Is the lack of small male figurines from Judah related with the Biblical "ban of idols"? If so, it implies that such figurines represented gods. Indeed, Ahlstrom identified a metal figurine from Hazor as representing Yahweh, but this was sharply criticized by Hallo (1983:1-2). Many scholars grasped the "ban of idols" as a late creation of the Deuteronomistic school (chap. 11.4.5 above, n. 19; Dietrich 1994). It is worth remembering that female clay figurines are dominant in the whole ancient Near East, while metal figurines are usually male (Moorey and Fleming 1984; they can be identified as gods only when they have divine attributes, like crowns, ibid:78-80). Metal figurines were common in the Late Bronze age and very rare in the Iron Age II (Muhly 1980). Thus, Judah is not an exception, but similar with other Near Eastern kingdoms. There was a marked tendency to avoid iconic representations in Iron Age II Judah, expressed in the Arad temple and the Hebrew seals (only 4% of these seals carry anthropomorphic figures, and only two seals have a clear figure of a goddess, Sass 1993:197, no. 136f; Uehlinger 1993:281-288). Compare the different situation at the Edomite shrines of Qitmit and En Hazevah (Beck 1993b; 1995; Cohen and YisraeI1995). Aniconism is not unique to Judah, however (Oman 1993; Mettinger 1994). The question of the "ban of idols" is a complex one. For the present discussion, one must remember that small clay figurines are not equal to large cult statues, thus we should beware of jumping to conclusions about a "ban of idols" if our data is derived from small figurines.

X.7.2. The JPFs and Animal Figurines The lack of small male figurines does not necessarily imply that the female figurines belonged to women only. The Biblical Asherah does not, since the kings of Judah themselves introduced her to the Jerusalem temple. Furthermore, we must be very careful not to project modern gender conceptions on the past, regardless of their importance and necessity today. If Judean women had no "feminist consciousness", possibly they would not have felt oppressed by the "official male religion", and would not turn to "female domestic cult" (cf. chap. 1104.9 above).

Animal figurines in Iron Age II Judah are even more common than the JPFs. Almost all scholars understood that it would be ridiculous to see all the animal figurines as representation of gods, or as attributive animals of gods. The relation between these animal figurines and the JPFs is not clear. The date, manufacture technique, decoration, distribution and contexts are similar, but the animal figurines seem to require a different explanation from that of the JPFs (cf. Ucko 1968:418). The most common explanation for animal figurines is magical figures (related with "plenty"?). But it is also possible that the animal figurines represented nothing more than the animals themselves, while the JPFs represented a goddess. Perhaps this goddess bestowed plenty onto the animal figurines that stood in front of her. Most of the animal figurines from Judah are domestic animals (mainly equids and cattle). It is interesting that horned bulls do not appear among them. Horned bulls are found as zoomorphic vessels, though. Perhaps the horns were not an easy medium for clay figurines. Perhaps the figurines portrayed young, horn-less bulls (many animal figurines are so schematic, that it is

X.7.4. The JPFs, Plaque Figurines and Persian Period Figurines Clay plaque figurines of naked women, holding their hands on their chests, appear in Israel in the second millennium BC much earlier than the JPFs (Albright 1939; Pritchard 1943: types I-III; Riis 1949; Tadmor, M. 1982; Ben-Arieh 1983; Conrad 1985; Beck 1986). These plaque figurines continued into the Iron Age I period (Holland 1975: type C;

78

Tadmor 1982:17lf; here chapter III and app. 4.VIII-X, 5.Y). The meaning of the plaque figurines is not clear. Tadmor distinguished two groups within them (1982: 140-149, 156, 161-164). One group depicts standing women (goddesses?) whose feet turn outwards, often holding attributes like lotusblossoms or snakes. Sometimes they stand on lions or horses. The second group show women lying on a bed, that has a ledge at her feet. Tadmor (1982:170f) related this group with a burial cult, and noted similar figurines from Egypt (Donatelli 1988:207; Pinch 1993; cf. also KamIah 1993; Musberg 1992).8 The Egyptian plaque figurines were found in private houses, and were explained as amulets. Similar figures appear on Egyptian wall paintings as representations of mortal women whose function was to ensure safe conception and birth (pinch 1983).

Asherah herself (in a few verses, e.g. I Kings 15:13; cf. also chap. X.5 above). The relations between the gods and their cult statues have been discussed lately by many scholars (Hallo 1983; Jacobsen 1987; for Greece cf. Gladigow 1985-6; Romano 1988; for Mesopotamia see Oppenheim 1964:183-198; Dietrich and Loretz 1994:7-38; Matsushima 1993; for Egypt, Ockinga 1984). Most of the large cult statues disappeared, since they were made of wood and of precious metals (for the burial of statues cf. Hallo 1983:15f; Matsushima 1993:210, with more references). One source from the reign of Nabfi-Apla-Iddina (the 9th century BC) is enlightening. It tells how the Sutu destroyed the cult statue of ~~ in Sippar, so that his cult could not continue as usual. A symbol of a sun-wheel served as a temporal substitute for the cult statue. Nabii-Apla-Iddina claimed that the god decided to forgive his people and return. As a result, a model of baked clay of the God was discovered, and enabled the reproduction of a cult statue for Samas. The exact nature of this model is not clear, though: is it a figurine, a tablet of clay, or even a cylinder seal (thus Lee 1993)? In any case, this story shows that a small representation or "likeness" of the god existed, and could be used in times of necessity (cf. the story about Herostratos, chap. IX.2A above).

Plaque figurines appear also during the Iron Age II, but rarely and mostly outside Judah. These are mostly figurines of musicians (Beck 1991; add now plaque figurines from Tel Halif and Dor). The transfer from plaque figurines to pillar figurines is not clear, and there might have been a time gap between the two forms (Tadmor 1982:172). Since the meaning of the plaque figurines is not clear, they cannot solve the question of the meaning of the JPFs. The picture of Persian period figurines is completely different from that of the Iron Age figurines. A new technique appears - double moulded, hollow figurines. Motifs are different; dressed women, women holding doves, men holding their beards, etc. Even the distribution and the contexts are different: in the Persian period we mainly find favissae along the plains (e.g., Negbi 1966), and few figurines from Judah. In between, the Babylonian period is almost a tabula rasa. Stern claimed that the JPFs continued into the Persian period (1973:167, 179 n. 48), but this is unlikely, and the very few naked "eastern" female figurines of the Persian period are different. He noticed the lack of small clay figurines from Persian period Judah, and claimed that it indicated the absolute acceptance of the "ban of idols", while other neighbouring nations continued to use figurines (Stern 1989:53f; cf. 1973:159, 181). This is a very interesting observation, but we must be cautious because of the time gap and the lack of direct continuity. Stern also took it for granted that small figurines represented gods (he defined figurines from Judah as "pagan", Stern 1989:53), and may be compared with large cult statues without any difficulty.

The relation between small figurines and large cult statues is not always simple. Alroth showed that the two are not necessarily identical in shape, even when depicting the same figure (Alroth 1989, based on material from Greek shrines and temples). In Greek shrines, small figurines were often dedicated in front of cult statues (ibid; also Romano 1988), but the context of the JPFs are domestic. Curtis (1984) believes that the Biblical "ban of idols" is very ancient, and archaeology perhaps sustains this, in that large sculptures are not found in Judah, unlike Ammon (stone sculptures), Cyprus (clay statues, possibly of prayers: Connelly 1989); Phoenicia (Eshmun temple at Sidon: Ganzman et. al. 1987) and Edom (Qitmit and En-Hazevah: Beck 1995; Cohen and YisraeI1995).

X.7.6. One Figure and One Function? At the beginning of chapter X, I mentioned two basic assumptions that need to be reviewed again. I believe that all the JPFs represented the same figure, and not many, different figures. This is based on the schematic rendering, without any effort to individualize the figurines. The small variants in the form of the JPFs have, according to this view, only stylistic significance. The lack of groups of JPFs from the same loci also strengthens this view, as each JPF was meant to be used separately (chap. VIllA). Following this reasoning, I believe that the JPFs had one meaning only, and represented one figure. Theoretically, it is possible that the same type of figurine would have more than one meaning, but this is also a very easy way of escaping ~e problem. When "the" meaning is not clear, an~ difficultIes appear with every identification, it is convenient to take

X.7.5. Figurines and Cult Statues Some scholars adopted the view that the JPFs represented the Biblical Asherah, and treated the two as equal. They swapped without a second thought, from one to the other and vice versa. In the Bible, the term Asherah probably denotes a large cult object, a cult statue of the goddess Asherah (Deut. 16:21, especially in relation to the Jerusalem temple, II Kings 21:7; 23:6), and finally the goddess 8 A Syrian variant of plaque figurines was explained as a goddess by Conrad (1985).

79

every known meaning and apply it at will. But it is a dangerous method.

If the JPFs portrayed the same figure, it is likely that they had one basic function (whatever that may be). It is possible to assume that one figure was used for more than one function. The important question is the function of the majority, and I believe that the majority of the JPFs had a similar function. I have nothing against the possibility that a few JPFs were used for various other functions.

x. 7.7.

Summary

I have discussed the various explanations for the JPFs, reviewing their advantages and disadvantages. It seems that all the following explanations should be rejected: toys, mortal figures, "mother goddess", "nurturing goddess", "fertility goddess", "Syrian goddess", "naked goddess", Anat, Astarte and a compositional "cosmic goddess" (AnatAstarte-Asherah-Kudshu, etc.).

that the western world of his time knew right from wrong and could "designate the fallacious attributions of causality as irrational, and the corresponding acts as 'magic'."

or another run counter to the categorical framework within which we (at least officially) interpret the world" (Skorupski 1976:159).

Malinowski (1925:88) follows Frazer. He defined magic as "a practical art consisting of acts which are only means to a definite end expected to follow later on"; while religion is "a body of self-contained acts being themselves the fulfillment of their purpose". To make it more simple, "the belief in magic... is extremely simple. It is always the affirmation of men's power to cause certain definite effects by a definite spell and rite. In religion, on the other hand, we have a whole supernatural world of faith: the pantheon of spirits and demons, the benevolent power of totem, guardian spirit, tribal all-father, the vision of future life"... (Malinowski 1925:88). Magic is a specific art for specific aims (ibid). A sense of irony is left when reading, in 1995, what Malinowski wrote in 1922 (p. 89):

The few quotes above are enough to show that there is no accepted definition of magic, and it cannot be separated exactly from religion. The polarization between the two and the negative attitude towards magic are mainly a legacy of the late Judaism and Christianity. Magic is not defined by values, but sociologically: what "we" do is religion, what "they" do is magic. As Ritner puts it: "Magic here is simply the religious practices of one group viewed with disdain by another", or in other words, "Your religion is my Magic" (Ritner 1992:190; cf. Versnel1991; Voigt 1983).

"Looking...from our high places of safety and developed civilization, it is easy to see all the crudity and irrelevance of Magic. But without its power and guidance, early men could not have mastered his practical difficulties... nor could man have advanced to the higher stages of culture."

Two explanations remain probable: magical figure and Asherah (chap. X.4-5 above). It is necessary to stress immediately, that these two explanations are not contradictory, but complementary. In order to explain this statement. a closer look at magic is needed.

Mauss (1972:18, origin 1950) is aware that certain societies define other religion or former religion as magic, and there is no ideal definition. He suggested a social definition of magic (1922:24):

Former studies of the JPFs that mentioned magic used, to a large extent. a concept of magic based on the works of Tylor, Frazer and their immediate followers. In this conception, magic is at the opposite pole to religion. It deals with natural forces, at the most demons and monsters coercing them for immediate personal help (while religion deals with supernatural gods, questions of moral and "high theology"). Magic works by rituals, made by witches or sorcerers (while religion involves cult. prayers, and official priesthood). Magic has no logic (as opposed to science) and is usually seen as primitive, if not totally negative.

"A magical rite is any rite which does not playa part in organized cults - it is private, secret. mysterious and approaching the limit of a prohibited rite...we do not define magic in terms of the structure of its rites, but by the circumstances in which these rites occur". However, Mauss does not really follow this definition, and in the conclusion returns to a somewhat vague conception, more in line with Frazer's: "while religion, because of its intellectual character, has a tendency towards metaphysics, magic - which we have shown to be more concerned with the concrete - is concerned with understanding nature".

As anthropologists and sociologists continued to search for a definition of magic, it seems that the picture became more and more problematic. Weber (1922, trans. 1965:28) gives a definition of magic quite close to that of Frazer:

Skorupski (1976) discussed these studies (and others, e.g. Durkheim's), aware that "the 'opposition' between the two 'institutions' of magic and religion does not exists as a general fact" (1976:127). There is a severe problem in the demarcation of magic from religion, if it is possible at all. Skorupski (1976:154) considered tlie problem so acute, that "it is a mistake to think that a theory of magic, or of religion, must begin with a definition of what magic or religion is". Also, "we must not expect a neatly exhaustive distinction...between the religious and the magical" (ibid: 155). The problem of defining magic is clear to Skorupski, but the problem with Skorupski is that he does not offer a solution to this problem, though obviously believing that there is one. His conclusion is reminiscent of the words of Weber:

"The relationship of men to supernatural forces which take the forms of prayer, sacrifice and worship may be termed "cult" and "religion", as distinguished from "sorcery", which is magical coercion. Correspondingly, those beings that are worshipped and entreated religiously may be termed "gods", in contrast to "demons", which are magically coerced and charmed." But Weber (ibid:ibid) knows that this separation is not absolute, since: "the cults we have just called "religious" practically everywhere contain numerous magical components".,. Even the differentiation of priests and sorcerers is problematic, since: "in many great religions, including Christianity,· the concept of the priest includes such a magical qualification." Weber admitted that magic is defined only from an outside point of view, but believed

"What is for us in the end most striking about magical practices is that they require assumptions which in one way

80

The JPFs are not evidence of "popular religion", if by this we mean the opposite to an "official Yahwistic religion". The Asherah was part of the Yahwistic religion, though she was probably not as important as he was. The function of the Asherah figurines was possibly as a protecting figure in domestic houses, more likely a figure which bestowed "plenty", especially in the domain of female lives (but not necessarily used by women only). These figurines have nothing to do with "black magic" and were not a forbidden cult. at least for most of the time and for most of the population. It seems that they were not broken deliberately. Other than being a symbol for the goddess and what she can bestow, I doubt if these figurines were object of cult practices. At the most, one can imagine that they were addressed in prayers or wishes, perhaps during times of pressure and need.

Magic and religion are problematic categories of definition in the ancient Near East as well (Ritner 1992; 1993:4:ff). In ancient Egypt. magic was legal and could be desirable; it was practiced in official temples by high-ranking priests, and had no connotation of immorality. Much the same is true for Mesopotamia (Ritner 1992; 1993; Wiggermann 1992).9 Therefore, the JPFs can represent Asherah, without negating magical aspects or the relation to magical rituals (I am using magic here in Ritner's sense of the term, of course). On the other hand, explaining the JPFs as purely magical figures is not satisfactory, since it relates only to their function, not to their meaning. In order to keep a purely magical explanation, one would have to assume that there was a very common magical figure in Judah (the large quantity of JPFs), that was not mentioned in the OT, and is not one of the known goddesses. This is possible, but quite perplexing - in view of the finding of many JPFs in varied contexts of Judean society.

It is interesting that Judean seals of the same period portray no comparable female figure (Sass 1993, except in very few cases). If the JPFs represented Asherah, why is she not represented on the seals? The seals reflected higher levels of society, but Asherah was probably venerated by them as well. Most of the seals belonged to men and carry Yahwistic names, thus maybe explaining their an-iconism. Also, Asherah was probably much lower in status than Yahweh. But it is better not to speculate further. It is important to stress that the identification of the JPFs with Asherah seems very probable, but is not proven and should not be taken for granted. This identification is based on the Biblical sources (together with the Kh. el-Kom and Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions) or, to be more correct, on a certain interpretation of these sources (e.g., in rejecting the "Asherim" of the Chronicler). It would be unwise to tum the wheel the full way round, and simplistically draw conclusions from the JPFs about the Biblical Asherah.

It seems therefore that the JPFs are indeed a representation of the Biblical Asherah: this is the simplest and most logical explanation. This view is hardly new, but many former scholars adopted it for quite incorrect arguments (chap. II above). The JPFs are not exactly identical with the Biblical Asherah (which is usually a large cult statue or cult object, related to the goddess Asherah). They are small figurines, without special, sacred status and probably not connected with public temples. The sacredness of an object stands in relation to its function (that is, status), its value ("price"), and its form (size). The large cult statue of the Asherah was sacred because it was made of expensive materials, situated in a public temple and represented the goddess in front of all the population - but especially the higher classes (priests, kings, etc.). On the other hand, the JPFs were cheap, everyday objects, representing the goddess in private houses, in front of ordinary people (chiefly, though not only).

The present study of the JPFs does not solve all the problems, but is perhaps part of a new phase of research, with its many, as yet unanswered, questions.

Addenda The following works appeared (or became available) after the completion of this book, and could not be integrated: 1. The second part of a third volume on Cypriot figurines (small figurines of the 7th-6th centuries) by V. Karageorghis, 1995.

2. A publication of the pottery vessels from

Jerusalem cave I, by Eshel, in: Jerusalem IV (1995). Eshel dates the cave to the 7th century BC, following his pottery chronology (but cf. chap. 1.4. above). 3. A new work on the Asherah by C. Frevel (1995?), which I have not yet studied.

9 During my stay in Oxford I had the pleasure of hearing a lecture by M. Cunningham, a Ph.D scholar at Cambridge University. He has reached (independently) similar conclusions about magic in a study of Mesopotamian incantations from the third and second

millenniums BC.

81

Figures 1 - 40

Fig. 2: The Quantitative Factor in JPFs' Studies Name and year

Fig. 1: Attributes ofthe Use and Disposal of Figurines (after Voigt 1983)1 Function

Attributes

1

Due to cautious use there would be minor (or no) damage. Ritual touching (e.g., during

Cult Figure

festivities) may cause areas of polish or abraison at heads and legs. Possible damage by

1886

"killing" during disposal. May be found in special (ritual) places, or in inaccessible places

Gezer II

1912

Pilz

1924

Clermont Ganneau

Type of

Total

PF I JPF-

JPF-my

publication

human

author's

definition

figurines

definition

1

1

paper

1

Notes

one JPF, from a museum's collection

report

?

?

7

exact nos. not given

123

12

7

all JPFs from Gezer

report

?

38

37

+unoublished fragments

monozraoh

249

52

14

(caves, bodies of water). Assemblages of different figurines, deposed of in the same place, are possible. Unlikely to be associated with ordinary refuse.

TBMIII 2

Either no wear, or burnished by touching (e.g., while used as an amulet). Often, exhibits

Vehicle of

signs of burning or mutilation on purpose as part of the disposal process. This can be seen by

Magic

fresh breaks in a consistent location (e.g., necks or waists). Disposal patterns in caves, beneath house-floors, in pits, fires and in bodies of water . Usually, figurine fragments are separated at the time of disposal, thus mending will not be possible. Groups of figurines are

Pritchard

1943 1943

Tel Nasbeh 1947

reoort

148 (60)

148

Lachish

report

12?

24

SamariaI,I1I

report

37

2?

both JPFs in doubt

Gibeon WS 1961

report

54

26

onlv 27 have photos

Holland

Ph.D.

958

573

359

958 = his A+B+C types

1953

detailed registration

possible, since rituals may be repeated at the same place, or several figurines may be used in one ritual. Association with domestic refuse is possible.

3

Possibly minor damage to surfaces during handling, especially at base. Burning is possible, as

Initiation

is the finding of whole figurines. Often, the figurines are disposed of in inaccessible places

Figure

1975

Engle

1979

Ph.D.

187

147

145

"classical" JPF

like caves and bodies of water. Rarely found in domestic contexts. Groups of figurines are

Jeremias

1992

Dauer

ca. 35

20

20?

JPFs from robbery

possible, since initiation groups may be disposed of as one unit. Sometimes, association with

Present study

Ph.D.

1852

854

854

ordinary, domestic refuse. Notes: Often, exact numbers are not available. The numbers in the column "total figurines" do not include

4

Damage to surfaces, which are chipped and abraded, especially at base of standing figurines.

Toy

Applied parts broken away. Broken areas are worn by continual use. No systematic mutilation, but damage in points of structural weakness. Disposal in ordinary domestic assemblages, inside and also outside houses. Random distribution in fills and debris, not in groups. Association with domestic refuse, including bones, broken vessels, etc.

periods later than the Iron Age, nor animal figurines. The column "my definition" includes figurines which appear in the present catalogue (app. 1-2 below). For Tel en-Nasbeh, 60 indicates the number of figurines with photographs or drawings in the report. For the works of Holland and Engle cf. also keys 5-6. The number 854 (present study) does not include JPFs from unknown origins (app. 3 below). The definition "JPF" (column "PF/JPFs author's definition") was used since the thesis of Engle (1979).

1General note: I have given relatively few drawings offigurines (figs. 4-11). I have no right to use drawings from some of the new excavations, such as the City of David, Jerusalem. I am preparing publications of figurines from other excavations, which will hopefully be published soon, thus I preferred not to use drawings from these excavations (e.g., Lachish and Tel Beer Sheba). The JPFs are quite stereotyped, and a few drawings suffice for a general impression. Finally, it helps to keep this book within reasonable limits.

82

83

Fig. 3: Typology of Other Figurines Type

Whole

Fig. 3 (continuation)

Fragments

Total

Body

Type

Whole

Fragments

Solid Hollow 4.1. woman nlavinz a drum; hollow, wheel-made bodv 4.11. moulded heads 4.m. solid and hollow nillar bodies 4.1V male figurines 4.V. hand-made fizurines (whole or heads) 4.VI. hand-made bodvDarts (not pillar bodies) 4.VII. olaoue figurines 4.vm. nlacue figurines of nreznant women 4.x1. unique plaque figurines 4.X. lea frazments of plaque fizurines 4.XI. addenda (miscellaneous) Total appendix 4

5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6

fizurines with moulded face, hollow bodies (Be) hollow bodY Parts female drum players (solid, pillar body) miscellaneous heads miscellaneous bodvDarts miscellaneous fragments (not classified). Total appendix 5.1

2 2 5 2 1

14

6 26 17 5 13 15 6? 14 3 12 8 125

8 12 2

5 1

15 5 8

14

41

2 8

2 8 7? 24 24 9 72

3

5

5.11.1 lamp-figurines with pillar bodies 5.11.2 bird fizurines with pillar bases 5.11.3 male figurines Total appendix 5.11

5.m.l 5.m.2 5.m.3 5.111.4 5.111.5 5.m.6 5.m.7 5.m.8

2

2 6

2 28 5 35

8

coastal plain - schematic heads with pendants coastal plain - finely moulded heads, pendant coastal nlain - moulded heads, double combed locks coastal plain - moulded heads, uncombed locks coastal plain- crescent moulded heads drum nlavinz pillar figurines, hollow bodies northern Israel- various moulded heads coastal plain - various moulded heads Total appendix 5.111

5.IV.l Fairly whole hand-made figurines with pillar bodies 5.IV2 nea fizurines 5.IV.3 "Ashdodite" hand-made heads 5.IVA "Ashdoda" figurines

1 1 1

1 1 5

7 6 3 1

7 4 24 10

35

1 b=25

1

1

1

1 1 1

5 11 8 4 4 6 41 39 118

1 4 18 6

1 2 1 3 10

31 10 3 1

s:

5

8 26 17 7 15 15 11 16 4 12 8 139

5.N.5 various hand-made fizurines

8

5.1V.6 hollow body Parts (of figurines types 5.m-5.IV) 5.IV.7 solid body Parts (of figurines types 5.m-5.1V) 5.IV.8 miscellaneous fragments Total appendix 5.1V

2 8 10 (7?) 24 24 9 77

4 34 5 43

6 12 9 4 4 7 41 40 123

5.V.l female plaque fizurines holdinz a disk (drum) 5.V.2 plaque figurines with "Hathor" hairdress 5.V.3 plaque figurines with "feathers" and "Hathor" dress 5.VA plaque figurines with "crescent" hairdress 5.V5 plaque figurines with "feather hats", no background 5.V6 nlacue fizurines with "ureus svmbol", no backzround 5.V7 plaque figurines with uniaue features. 5.V.8 body fragments with clav backzround 5.V.9 plaque figurines of nreanant women, high moulding 5.VI0 miscellaneous body frazments 5.V.ll miscellaneous leg fragments Total appendix 5.V

22 28 5 14 1 1 17

5.VI.1 Dea Tyria (pregnant, sittinz women) 5.VI.2 women plaving drums and related types 5.VI.3 fizurines portravinz daily life scenes 5.VI.4 other, fairly whole fizurines 5.VI.5 various heads (1-14, 36-38) and body Parts 5.VI.6 various fizurines of unknown orizin Total anoendix 5.VI.l

10 12 3 2

9

97

27

Total

33 23 28 11 124

Solid Hollow 16 1 23 28 11 72 29

41 23 28 11 149

20 5 2 8 3 6 21 31 12 29 10 147

42 33 7 22 4 7 20 31 21 29 10 226

42 33 7 22 4 7 38 31 21 29 10 244

6 3

14 13

2

2 42 7 60

3 2

2

8

18?

5.VII. 1-2 Persian period and fizurrines of other materials 5.VIII moulds Grand Total

16 15 3 4 42 7 87

(29) (21) 181

862

Notes: Whole - including "nearly whole". The type - names are often presented in a short form. Types 5.VII-VIII are not included in the grand total (with 50 specimens, thus altogether 912). 12 figurines, types 5.1.1 and 5.1.3 were included in appendix 2, thus the total number of other figurines in appendixes 4-5 (or in fig. 3), is 900.

Table 3b: The Relation between the Typologies of Holland and Engle

8 10 21 7

Notes: Whole - including "nearly whole". b = number of clearly classified pillar bases (type 5.11.2). See continuation on the next page. The type-names are often presented in a short form.

!

Type Engle I II m IV V VI VII

Total No. 39 7 15 9 21 7 42

Holland All 7 4 4 12 1 15

Holland Am 23 4 2 1 2 3

Holland AIV

Holland A.V 1

Holland AVI 2

1 5

Holland A VII

Holland A VIII

Holland AIX

Holland AXIl

1

1

3

4

3 1

6 4 5

2

! 84

25

Body

85

2

5

Fig. 4: Typology - Whole JPF

Fig. 5: Typology - Hand-made JPF Heads

1. Figurine no. 254 [AI]

1. Figurine no. 9 [type A]

2. Figurine no. 252 [A1.h]

3. Figurine no. 332 [A2]

2. Figurine no.36 [type B]

4. Figurine no. 71 [A3]

5. Figurine no. 52 [A4] 3. Figurine no. 360 [body C.1.d]

6. Figurine no. 140 [A4] 5. Figurine no. 78 [type Be]

4. Figurine no. 118 [A+.1.d]

7. Figurine no. 367 [A.S]

Notes: the numbers refer to Appendix 2. No. 140 is drawen from the original figurines, now in the Rockefeller Museum.

Notes: the numbers refer to App. 1-2. Sizes of figurines are listed in App.1.

86

87

Fig. 6: Typology - Moulded JPF Heads 2. No. 245, type B.3.B, Tel 'Ira

1. No. 19, type B.3-4, Beth Shemesh

3. No. 375, type B.3.C, Jerusalem

Fig. 7: Coastal and Northern Moulded Types - Appendix 5.111 1.

5.III.l.l, Kh. Hoga

2.

5.III.2.2

Mefalsim

3.

5.III.2.8 Tel Shera

4.

5.III.2.9Tel Shera

5.

5.III.3.1 Kh. Hoga

6.

5.III.4.1 Tel Kinnerot

7.

5.III.5.3 Tel Gemmeh

8.

5.III.6.1 Megiddo

9.

5III.7.5 Dan

4. No. 72, type B.3(?), Jericho

5. No. 258, type B.6.C, Tel Beer Sheba

6. No. 209, type B.2.G, Tel Beit Mirsim

Notes: the numbers refer to Appendix 2. Notes: the numbers refer to appendix 5.

88

89

Fig. 8: Appendix 5.11 and Hand-made Coastal! Northern Types

Fig. 9: Phoenician Figurines - Appendix 5.VI 1. Achzib 5.VI.1.1

:;~

2. Achzib 5.VI.2.3a

3. Shiqrnona 5.VI.2.7

. ,.,

Q. .

. ..::E,~

1. 5.11.1.4 T. B. Mirsirn

2.5.11.2.15 Lachish

3.5.11.3.1 Beer Sheba (suq)

4. 5.1V.1.2 Tel Gemmeh

4. Achzib 5.VI.3.3

5. Gile'am 5.VI.5.3

2

6. 5.1V.3.5 Ashdod

8. 5.IV.3.9 Ashdod

6. Megiddo 5.VI.5.10

5. 5.1V.3.21 Maresha

7. Shiqrnona 5.VI.5.11

~'

(---(

i ,F"l'I .

7. 5.1V.3.6 Ashdod

~

It

\i '.

9. 5.1V.4.1 Ashdod

Notes: the numbers refer to appendix 5 Notes: the numbers refer to appendix 5.

90

91

8. Shiqrnona 5VI.5.17

. .an Figurines - Appendix 4 . Fig. 10: Transjordani 1. Nebo 4.1.1

2. Nebo

4.1.2

3. Kh. el-Medeineh

411.4

. F·Ig. 11'. Plaque Figurines - Appendix S.V. 4. Sahab 4.11.9

1. Nebo 5.VI.2 I yeh 411.18 . 5. Tell es-Sa "di

6. Tell Deir 'AlIa 4.111.6

7. Beth Saida 4.1V2

8. Buseirah 4.Vl

9. Buseirah 4.V2

. ah 4.VIII. 1 10. Buseir

(~~""' ..

'. ;

'\

~.,

2. Gezer 5.VI.7

:i

4. Gezer

5. TBM

6. Ta'anakh

1. 5.V.3.4

5.V4.1

5.V5.4

. . 1.

"~\'. .-""" -'- \\ \ ..-r ---'-".J ~¥~~. .

Notes: the numbers refer to appendix 4.

8. Ta 'anakh 5.V6.7

92

93

9. Tel Zeror 5.V7.17

Fig. 15: Distribution of 854 JPFs (sites and main sub-types)

Fig. 12: The Dating ofthe JPFs

USite UDate / Typeee

Ac

A+

A

(hundreds BC)

all

Bc

B+

B

allD

CI

C3

A 1

I

9-7? ,9-8?, 9? 8?

1

3

8-7? 7?

7

1

5

9

3

4

4

2

8

16

5

1

general Total in doubt

8

4

17

29

10

1

3

3

7

10

1

1 1 6

5

2

5

1

3

13

18

1

1

10

10

1

35

46

9

10

1 2

3

1

9-8 8

2

8-7

2

7 Total secure

2

2

4

6

2

12

14

1

7

7

23

27

3

2

2

Persian?

10

6

40

56

all

13

3

3

2 1

4

14

33

6

15

2

36

5

15

28

103

1

1

27

31

12

14

6

33

70

13

14

6

9

8

24

52

9

9

1

3

4

20

49

54

25

17

62

143

2

2

87

103

18

2 28

35

21

92

251

Notes: "?" indicates date in doubt. The first row, "10 or earlier," is not included in row "total in doubt".

Fig. 13: Amended Dating of the JPFs UDate / Typeee

Ac

A+

A

aliA

Bc

B+

B

allD

Cl

C2

C3

allC

Total

(hundreds BC) 8 (with 9)

4

3

7 Total

4

Notes to figs. 12-13:

7

9

16

8

8

17

24

8

8

3

3

52

63

18

19

8

48

127

10

10

1

2

3

6

24

62

73

19

21

11

54

151

The dates are given in hundreds of years BC. "7" means the whole seventh

century BC and the early sixth (until 586 BC). The row "general" in fig 12 includes mixed loci, or general dating to the Iron Age II (partly in doubt). Fig. 13 includes JPFs without archaeological contexts, from one-period sites; hence the difference in numbers in comparison with fig. 12.

Fig. 14: The Danger of Circular Arguments I. if a certain type of artifact is found in Judah 3. and since it is a "Judean artifact"

~

2. then it is a "Judean artifact"

~

Ac

A+

A

4. its distribution relates to Judah's borders

Abu Gosh Bethel Bethlehem Gibeon Jericho Jerusalem Kh. 'Anim Kh. e-Ras Kh. Geresh Kh. Rabud (Debir) Moza RamatRahel Ramot (el-Burg) Tel el-Ful Tel en-Nasbeh Vered Jericho Total Judean Mt. Arad Aroer Beer Sheba -SUQ Malhata Tel Beer Sheba Tel Ira TelMasos Total Negev area Azeka Beth Shemesh Gezer Kh.Hoga Lachish Maresha Tel Beit Mirsim Tel el-Areini (Brani) Tel ej-Judeidah Tel el-Muleiha Tel es-Safi (Gat) Tel Halif (Lahav) Total Shephelah

Be

all A

Total

C

10 or earlier

Grand Total

C2

I Type ee

B

1

10

3

1 98 I

12 1 103 1

1

C2

1 2 5

1

1 2 1

1 1

1

3 1 1 31

8 I?

146 8

7 3 44

1

6

8

2

2 16

2 19

2

1 1 1 2 1

1

1 8

4

Total Coastal Plain Megiddo Samaria Shechem Tel eI-'Oremeh

3

1

9

1

3 1 1

1 5 1 2 34 159

5 2 1 5 1 2 1

1 7 3 46

1

1

1 1 2 2 1 28 1 90 4 3 3 2 12 5 1 30 4 14 3

1 1 2 2 1 28 1 94 4 3 3 2 13 5 1 31 4 19 4

4 1

1

5

1

15

21

2

2

13 6 4 1

17 6 4 1

2

2

62

78

2 143

375

628

1

10

23

1 1

1 2 22 2 2 39

3

5

8

23

83

35

2 3 4 1 30

62 2

132 7

1

1 3

6

9 1 1 18

118

257

1

1 3

2 6

10

1 1 15

5 1

7

6 1 1

2

3

9

1 1

18 1 1

10

4

30

1

1

6 1

18

I 2

1

12

4

14

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

Total North 170

198

1 17

5

3 186

4 208

1 83

89 4 30 7 1 29 1 37 8 5 1 1 2 126 1 1 2

I I

1

2

1

1

1 2 2 2

2

3

7

448

854

1 2 1

3 4 4 43 7 5

1

1

2

2

14

16

4 4 10 1 81

1 4 1 27 4 405 1 1 3 1 6 11 13 4 143 3

4

I

14

Total

all C

1

1 2

1

C3

1

1 2

Cl

all B

1

Ashdod Tel Michal Tel Qasilah

Total all areas

B+

163

162

4

Notes: The KetefHinom figurines are included within Jerusalem (for convenience sake). Body parts nos. 787-789 are included as type C3 in the table. Fragments nos. 807-834, which can be only classified as "other C fragments", are included in column "all C".

94

95

Fig. 16: Distribution Map

R.K.

Fig. 17: Distribution Graph ofthe JPF

t

• Samaria 2

o

Megiddo Tel 'Oreimeh 2 Tel Farah 2

M

]

• Shechem 2

r-tr.I

",£i ...

Cl)

-co

• Tel Michal T. Beer Sheba 43

~

• Tel Qasileh 2

Tel Nasbeh 143 (16.7%)

border . . .Joshua . . . . 15 .. .... • Bethel 4 ,;';'" -

, Gezer7 •

/

/ / Ekron.

I Tel Safi. /

/

/ ~

/

/

-

-

/

~e~n-:NaSbeh 143 f~A

Gibeon 27.

\&

Abu Ghosh. Ramot 13 •

•e.

Moza' 6 • Ramat Rahel 11.

8h eth • ~ el11esh 30.'

elra4

• ~e

"

• Jericho 4

"

Ramat Rahel 11

~

~

Vered Jericho 3

Jerusalem 405 (47.5%)

~

-

• Jerusalem 405 • Kh. e- Ras

w

• Beth Lehem

'

1../

/ .§-" • Tel Goded 5 .~-

Tel Erani 8" /

/

/

~i

•

Maresha

• Lachish 29

I

Fig. 18: Site Hierarchy (Main Sites and Sub-types)

(

I I • Tel Muleiha • Tel Beit

I

Mirsim 37

• Kh. Geresh 3

• Kh. Rabud

~

90

I

DC

• Tel Halif 2 '

I

81

DB

80

• Kh. 'Anim

I

70 60

/

I

50

• Arad 23

I I

Tel Beer Sheba 43 • Beer S~eba suq 4.

\

•

'Tel Masos 5

40

• Tel Ira 7

30

• Malhata 4

20 10

-, .......

_-

• Aroer3'

-- -

-- --- Judah's border, following Na'aman

---- .......

..""

Legend and Notes: 1989. The numbers indicate the number of JPF found at each site (when only one JPF was found, the number is omitted). Arrows point in direction of sites outside the map's limits.

96

0 BeitMirsim

Beth Shemesh

Lachish

Arad

BeerSheba

Gibeon

Jerusalem

Tel Nasbeh

Note: the figurines in the addenda (nos. 588-854) are not included here (unlike figs. 15-17 above).

97

Fig. 19: Size of Sites, Extent of Excavations and Amount of JPFs Region /Site

(dunams)

Excavated area

40-501 300-500 20 (outer) 5 32 2.5 10 25 40 3 38 108 60-70 30 15 25

301 2-3 0.5-1 20 2 4-5 3 2 1.5 15? 50? 15-20 8 1.5 0.9

Size

1 Gibeon 1 Jerusalem 1 Ramat Rabel 1 Ramot 1 Tel en-Nasbeh 2Arad 2 Tel Beer Sheba 2 Tel Ira 2 TelMasos 3 Azeka 3 Beth Shemesh 3 Gezer 3 Lachish 3 Tel Beit Mirsim 3 Tel Erani 3 Tel ei-Judeideh

Total JPF 27 165 11 13 143 23 43 7 5 4 30 7 29 37 8 5

JPF per 1

Notes

dunam

5.5 3.7-5.5 13-26 7.1 11.5 8.6-10.7 2.3 2.5 2.7 2 0.14 1.4-1.9 4.6 5.3 5.5

all JPF from the pool capital, including burials royal palace? villa~e

fortified city Iron A~e fort only fortified city fortified city city Iron A~e fort only fortified city, burials fortified city, burials fortified city, burials fortified city, burials upper city only city

Notes: The regions are: 1. Judean Mountains 2. Negev 3. Shephelah. The extent of the excavations is, in many cases, a crude estimation and not exact figures. Numbers are "rounded" for convenience sake. The excavated areas in Jerusalem are perhaps estimated too low, but on the other hand the new JPFs from the city of David are not included here.

Fig. 20: Size of Figurines and Heads (mm.) Type=>

UData Average

Maximwn

Minimum

Aewhole 12 specimens 129 (without no. 287) 160 = no. 125 68? = no. 287 98 = no. 80

Be whole 13 specimens (without Be) 162 210 = no. 198 138 =no.l

A, A+, Ae 104 specimens

B,B+,Be 150 specimens

Bodies Cl 45 specimens

26

28.3

90.8

53 = no. 369 46 = no. 140 14 = nos. 327, 348

41

144 = no. 306

19 = no. 60

53 = no. 468 45 = no. 468