Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 141, 2 (2009), 87–103

AN IRON AGE II PICTORIAL INSCRIPTION FROM

JERUSALEM ILLUSTRATING YAHWEH AND ASHERAH
Garth Gilmour
During the P.E.F. excavations at the Ophel in Jerusalem in the 1920s a large sherd of an Iron Age II jug
was found with a pictorial design incised on the surface. The design shows two humanoid figures above a
series of semi-circles bordering the broken edge of the sherd. The figures are joined by rough lines above and
below the waist. The details of the figures include traditional Canaanite elements that indicate they are deity
figures, one male and one female, and it is proposed that they represent Yahweh and Asherah. If so, this
would add to the growing record of textual and symbolic imagery of Yahweh and Asherah together from Iron
Age Israel and Judah. The sherd and its inscription are critical to our understanding of early Israelite religion,
its relationship to its Canaanite antecedents, and to the nature of folk religion in Judah in the period of the
monarchy.

From 1923 to 1925, the Palestine Exploration Fund (P.E.F.) conducted excavations in
the Ophel, Jerusalem. For the first six months, the excavation was directed by Professor R.
A. S. Macalister after which his assistant, Rev. J. Garrow Duncan, continued as Acting
Director. The excavation was published in the Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund, volume
IV (1926). Many of the finds and papers from the excavation were transferred to England
where they have since been held in the archives of the P.E.F. in London. A review of the
material held by the P.E.F. from this excavation is currently in progress by the author,
sponsored by the Shelby White — Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, and
a final report is in preparation.1
Among the finds in the excavation archive is a sherd with a pictorial inscription of
two figures, which it is here suggested illustrates Yahweh and Asherah (Fig. I, III. 1). It is
published here for the first time.

1. the sherd
The sherd is from a strainer spouted jug with a red wash, possibly a self-slip, and lightly
burnished2 (Fig. 1, Ill. 3). There are no signs of painted decoration. It is in poor condition,
with yellow staining along one edge where the burnish has partially peeled away, and dark
water-wash stains scattered across the surface. The sherd comes from the body of the vessel,
with just the edge of the strainer spout preserved (Fig. 6, Ill. 2), enabling the identification
of the vessel type with some confidence. It is a fairly common Iron Age type in the south,
in Phoenicia and in Philistia, especially in the early centuries, though it appears to be
unusual in Jerusalem. Eleventh- to tenth- century examples come from Dor (Gilboa 1999,
Fig. 12: 4–7), Tel Batash stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 122, pl. 11:19) and Tel
Qasile stratum X (Mazar 1985, 64, fig. 50:1, 2), among others, though unlike the example
from the Ophel they have painted decoration. Unpainted examples come from Tomb 521
at Lachish, which has a red slip and hand burnish, dated by Tufnell to around 1000 bce
(Tufnell 1953, 222–224; pls 72:9, 89:364) and from Tell Beit Mirsim level A2 (Albright 1932,
87, pl. 70:13) dated to the 8th century.3

Address correspondence to Garth Gilmour, Dept of Old Testament, University of Stellenbosch, 7600
Stellenbosch, South Africa. email: garth.gilmour@arch.ox.ac.uk

© Palestine Exploration Fund 2009 doi: 10.1179/174313009x437800

88 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 141, 2 , 2 009

Fig. 1. An Iron Age II sherd from

Jerusalem with an inscription illustrating
Yahweh and Asherah.

Ill. 1. An Iron Age II sherd from

Jerusalem with an inscription illustrating
Yahweh and Asherah.
ir o n ag e i i i n scriptio n o f yah w eh and ashe rah 89

Ill. 2. The sherd showing the original

inscription, Duncan’s cuts, and the edge
of the strainer spout.

Ill. 3. The sherd reconstructed on an

Iron Age II strainer jug.

Two examples of this type have been reported from Jerusalem, both from the Later
Iron Age. The first, from the Hebrew University excavations directed by Y. Shiloh, is a body
sherd containing part of the strainer spout with two red painted bands beneath the spout.
It came from a fill beneath an 8th-century (Stratum 12) surface in Area B in the City of
David (Ariel and Lender 2000, 7–12, 24; fig. 7:9). The second example came from the
assemblage in Cave II of Kenyon’s excavations in Jerusalem, dated by Eshel to the 7th
century bce (Eshel 1995, 33, fig 8:4).4 It is described as having a self-slip, vertically burnished
on the neck, spout and handle, and wheel-burnished on the body, and like our example it
has no painted decoration. It appears for now to be the closest parallel. Although we have
reconstructed our vessel with a side handle from neck to body, it is possible that it had a
basket handle.
In his notes, Duncan described the provenance of the find as follows: ‘Inverted stratifi-
cation North of N. Bastion Steps at 8–10 feet.’ The north bastion was what was later termed
(by Shiloh) the stepped stone structure, which was flanked by two towers, a larger one to the
south and a smaller one to the north (Fig. 7) (Macalister and Duncan 1926, 51–55). Although
Macalister and Duncan’s identification of findspots is often obscure, in this case we can state
with some certainty that the inscribed sherd was found in the vicinity of the northern tower,
at the northern edge of the stepped stone structure. In his report of his excavations there,
Duncan wrote about the northern tower:
Before proceeding to build the tower the workmen cut a trench of the necessary width, throwing the
material out beyond the required breadth. In doing so they necessarily inverted the order of the
potsherds in the debris. Thus, the stratification in front of the tower was inverted, the oldest pottery
being found on the top and the later pottery beneath it. (Macalister and Duncan 1926, 50)
This is surely the inverted stratification north of the north bastion steps identified by
Duncan as the findspot of the inscribed sherd. Sadly, while the mixed stratification is critical
90 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 141, 2 , 2 009
in identifying the findspot, it removes any hope of dating the object stratigraphically. Duncan
continues:
In the first 6 feet of debris, accumulated since the Post-Exilic period, we found Arab remains on the
very surface; beneath these were scraps of Roman pottery, and at 6 to 8 feet we found Post-Exilic
sherds in abundance. From 8 feet depth downwards we found scraps of Neolithic, I, II and III Bronze-
Age pottery, and, mixed with the III Bronze-Age, an abundance of Hebrew potsherds of various
periods. Below these again we found Post-Exilic sherds, and thereafter the stratification resumed its
normal sequence. (Macalister and Duncan 1926, 50–51)
Duncan concludes that the tower must date to what he calls the ‘Post-Exilic period’, a
dating later supported by Kenyon (1974, 191–192) and Shiloh (1984, 20), and now by E.
Mazar (2007, 71–73). The inscribed sherd must have come from the ‘abundance of Hebrew
potsherds of various periods’ referred to by Duncan that was found in the trench cut in front
of the northern tower, and that was probably imported there as fill material from elsewhere
on site. Therefore, it cannot be dated stratigraphically to more than Duncan’s ‘Hebrew
period’, or the Iron Age.
The evidence from stratigraphy and of the vessel type and treatment leads to the
conclusion that the vessel probably dates to the 8th century bce. The stratigraphy suggests
that the inscription, which was cut into the sherd after the vessel was broken (see below),
should be dated to the same period.

2. the inscription
The inscription is 8.43 cm wide and 6.55 cm high, and shows two triangular humanoid
figures, one male and one female, attached by two lines (Fig. 2, Ill. 4). The figures are set
upon a series of semi-circular lines which extend to the break in the pottery. The inscription
is cut more-or-less at right angles to the orientation of the vessel, indicating that it was incised
post-breakage. In addition, a cut was made across the break in the sherd at the base of the
inscription (Fig. 5, Ill. 2). Two further test incisions, a line on the outside of the sherd and a
cross on the inside, were apparently made by Duncan (Ill. 2), and referred to in his notes,
as follows:

Fig. 2. The inscription in closer detail.

ir o n ag e i i i n scriptio n o f yah w eh and ashe rah 91

Ill. 4. Detail of the inscription.

The incised drawing on it is not recently done. I have tested it on both sides and find that recent
scratching would show bright red. The lines of the drawing show dark red like the rest of the sherd.
The drawing is therefore the work of some Hebrew potter or potter’s apprentice.
Duncan appears to have suspected that the design may have been incised on the vessel
before it was broken, as he continues,
Père Vincent agrees that this drawing is not quite recent. The sherd is broken across the drawing, so
that we cannot see what the under half was meant to represent. The break is not recent. That it is
broken across the drawing confirms my statement that the drawing is not recently done. I may also
say that, poor as the drawing is, not one of my men could draw so well.
The male figure (Fig. 3) is 5.67 cm high and 2.50 cm wide, and takes the form of an
inverted triangle 2.68 cm high with two legs each defined by two lines extending downwards
and a semi-circular hat above. A rudimentary face has been carved into the triangle,
with eyes and eyebrows, nose and nostrils, a mouth and a chin. The two side lines of
the triangular body extend downwards to become the two inside lines of the legs, thereby
creating a small triangle whose third side is the inverted apex of the triangular body. The
legs extend to the break in the sherd. The inside line of the figure’s right leg has what
may be interpreted as an angled foot pointed inwards, but this may rather be a chip from
dragging the cutting tool to the edge of the sherd. The three other leg lines have similar but
smaller chips.
To the left of the male figure is a female figure in the form of two triangles (Fig. 4). The
upper triangle, which is inverted and contains a face, is 2.05 cm high and 1.80 cm wide; the
lower triangle is 1.75 cm high and 2.10 cm wide; total height is 3.80 cm. As with the male
figure, the upper triangle contains eyes, eyebrows, nose, nostrils, mouth and chin. The
lower triangle contains two elements, an inverted triangle in the middle and a small dot just
above it, representing the pubic triangle and navel, respectively. Unlike with the male figure,
the lines of the triangles defining the female figure extend beyond the edge of the apexes at
three of the four corners; only the bottom right corner is clean. In the bottom left corner
the downward line extends faintly as much as 1.50 cm.
The two humanoid figures are joined in two places. A line extends downwards from
the top right corner of the female figure to the top left corner of the male. A second line
extends almost horizontally from the bottom right corner of the female to the bottom left
92 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 141, 2 , 2 009

Fig. 3. The male figure.

corner of the male. In the rough pentagonal shape created between the two figures by these
lines is an X, one of whose arms cuts the edge of the lower triangle of the female figure.
Several different cutting tools appear to have been used by the artist who created the
inscription. The lines of the triangle of the male figure are thick and deeply cut into the
sherd by an angled point. Except toward the bottom of the right hand line, the cut is clean,
but there the surface of the sherd has chipped slightly. The legs of the male figure are also
deeply cut, but with another implement with a sharper point. The headdress was cut with
a third, much rounder pointed tool. The female figure was cut much more delicately; the
lines of the triangles are thinner and shallower than the male counterpart. In both cases
the facial and other details within the triangles were cut with a wide pointed tool. A similar
tool or the same one was used to cut the lines connecting the two figures, and the cross in
between them.
At the edge of the sherd beneath the two figures are four inverted roughly semi-circular
lines, separated from each other by short gaps. The male figure is standing between them,
two to the left and two to the right. These semi-circles are, from left to right respectively,
1.22 cm high and 1.17 cm wide, 1.30 cm high and 1.85 cm wide, 1.65 cm high and 1.51 cm
ir o n ag e i i i n scriptio n o f yah w eh and ashe rah 93

Fig. 4. The female figure.

wide, and 1.68 cm high and 1.54 cm wide. The gaps between them are, from left to right
respectively, 0.62 cm, 1.55 cm and 0.54 cm. Three of the semi-circles are cut with the
same rounded tool as the male figure’s headdress; the fourth, which is second from the left,
appears to be cut with the sharper tool used to cut the legs of the male figure. A small
incision has been made across the break in the sherd in the second semi-circle from the left
(Fig. 5, Ill. 2).

3. discussion
I propose that the inscription should be understood to represent two deities to be identified
as Yahweh and Asherah, with the male figure, Yahweh, striding over the natural world.
In spite of the sherd being dated to the later Iron II period, both figures contain
imagery that dates back to the Late Bronze Age. The headdress on the male figure and the
pubic triangle on the female are both elements that recall Canaanite imagery as represented
in male seated and striding Baal figurines, and female plaque figurines representing the
goddesses Asherah, Astarte and/or Anat.
In the male figure, the headdress recalls bronze deity figurines of Negbi’s types IVa and
Vb, dated from the Middle Bronze Age through to the Early Iron Age (Negbi 1976, 42–43,
50–53, Keel and Uehlinger 1998, 58–60). Examples of this type of headdress are found on
figurines from Megiddo Area BB (Loud 1948, pl. 235.23) and Hazor Area B, stratum XI
(Yadin et al. 1961, pl. CCCXLVI). The rounded headgear on these figures is distinctive, and
while the oval headdress of the inscribed male figure on the Jerusalem sherd is similar, it
94 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 141, 2 , 2 009

Fig. 5. The cut across the break in the

sherd.

Fig. 6. The edge of the strainer spout.

Fig. 7. Macalister and Duncan’s North

Bastion steps, looking northwest, and the
small tower to the north, against which
the inscribed sherd was found.
ir o n ag e i i i n scriptio n o f yah w eh and ashe rah 95
must be noted that this incised decoration is rudimentary, and that it is likely that a
generic type of high, rounded headdress is symbolised.
The female imagery is even more striking. The naked frontal view with prominent
pubic triangle is a definitive element in the second figure, not only identifying it as female,
but also clearly harking back to classical Canaanite and early Israelite imagery (Cornelius
2004, 45–48, Keel and Uehlinger 1998, 68, 96–108). Late Bronze II plaque figurines such
as those from Lachish (Tufnell 1958, pl. 49:4), Gezer (Dever et al. 1970, pls 25A, 37:11) and
Tel Batash (Kelm and Mazar 1995, fig. 4:35, pl. C8) are the most common type of female
religious iconography in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages and the most obvious
antecedents, but other types (such as those represented on stands and seals and in metal
pendants) and from earlier periods also contain this imagery. The pubic triangle itself is
notably associated with a goddess ‘Elat’ on a selection of vessels from the Lachish Fosse
Temple. On the famous ‘Lachish Ewer’, the goddess’s name appears above a sacred tree
flanked by two quadrupeds (Tufnell et al. 1940, 47, frontispiece, pls LI A:287, LX:3), while
on a goblet found nearby an almost identical design has the animals flanking not a tree but
a pubic triangle (Tufnell et al. 1940, pl. XLVIIA: 229, LIX:2). This interchange between
triangle and sacred tree in designs from Lachish and elsewhere has led Hestrin to identify
the ‘Elat’ of the Lachish Ewer as well as the pubic triangle itself with the goddess Asherah
(1987).
The semicircles at the base of the image may be interpreted as clouds or mountains or
water, or perhaps they are a generic representation of the natural world, suggesting that the
entire image reflects ancient Canaanite imagery that recurs later in Israelite literature such
as in Exodus 15, Deuteronomy 33, and Psalms 18, 29 and 77, of Yahweh as Lord of War
allied to his status as Lord of Nature (Green 2003, 258–280).
The X shape formed by two intersecting lines inside the space between the two figures
is intriguing; clearly it may represent a taw sign, but in the absence of any obvious signifi-
cance it may be more prudent to interpret it simply as a space filler, filling in the open area
created by the lines joining the two figures.
Another enigmatic aspect of the design is the different tools used to cut the two figures,
or at least the difference in the thickness and depth of the lines. It is possible that the lines
were deliberately incised in this way to emphasise the different sexes of the two figures,
or it may be indicative that two different individuals, one male and one female, worked
on the design. In the latter case, this may represent a form of sympathetic magic hitherto
undocumented in the religion of ancient Israel.
The whole image should be seen as a synecdochical image, where the part represents
the whole. In each case only one aspect of the deity is included in each figure that in turn
is meant to represent far more. For the male, it is the headgear, a stylized rounded head-
dress, and nothing else — not a striding posture, not a smiting raised arm, not a regal
seated pose. And for the female, there is just the pubic triangle, no breasts, no characteristic
Hathor-type hairstyle, no hands grasping lilies, or snakes, no riding on lion- or horseback.
It is as if all the imagery once associated with these deities in their iconographic representa-
tions has been reduced in each case by the Iron II artist to one single, simple element that
is sufficient to identify the figures for those to whom they were important.

3.1 Parallels and precedents

Humanoid deity figures with triangular shapes carved into pottery are unprecedented in
Iron Age Israel and Judah. However, a review of related images and objects is useful in
seeking to understand the meaning of the inscription on the Jerusalem sherd. There is the
obvious restriction of the absence of text. While this makes the task difficult, it is legitimate
96 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 141, 2 , 2 009
to speculate on their identities based on the evidence both from archaeology and the Hebrew
Bible.
The similarity of the female image to Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age plaque
figurines has already been noted. Plaque figurines do trickle into the Iron II period as
well, but they are unusual, especially following the fall of Samaria in 720 bce. Three plaque
figurine moulds came from Tel Batash stratum III, with the date ‘securely anchored in the
8th century’ (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 203), and several figurines came from Ashdod
strata VIII to VI, the 8th to 7th centuries and perhaps even the 6th century (Dothan 1971,
fig. 64). Outside of the Philistine area, a few plaque figurines came from Megiddo, dated to
Strata II and I (May 1935, pl. XXIV), and another came from Tel Ira in the Negev (Beck
1999). It is perhaps noteworthy that both Holland (1995, 168) and Duncan (Macalister and
Duncan 1926, 184) note the complete absence of plaque figurines from the Kenyon and
P.E.F. excavations respectively in the City of David. Only one plaque figurine fragment has
so far been reported from the Hebrew University excavations there, from stratum 16 of the
Late Bronze Age II (Gilbert-Peretz 1996, 37, fig. 19:1, pl. 9:10).
The triangular shape of the images on the Jerusalem sherd is also unusual, but there
are Late Bronze Age antecedents. The most obvious of these comes in the distinctive LB II
palm-and-ibex motif, where the decorative motifs contain animals, usually ibexes, which
are sometimes painted as opposing triangles. Triangles are also a prominent motif in the
geometric friezes that surround some of these vessels. Examples come from both north and
south; for example, a chalice from Megiddo stratum VIIA has two ibexes standing against
a central palm tree, all three elements based on the triangle motif (Loud 1948, pl. 72:3),
and the Lachish Ewer from the Lachish Fosse Temple, dated to the 13th century bce, has,
in addition to the famous written dedication and several creatures and palm trees, two
complete quadrupeds, an ibex and a fallow deer, whose bodies, like those on the Megiddo
chalice, are drawn as two opposing triangles (Tufnell et al. 1940, frontispiece, pls LI A:287,
LX:3, Hestrin 1987, 213).
While the animals composed of inverted triangles on these LB II vessels bear resem-
blance to the female figure on the Jerusalem sherd, the male figure also has a Late Bronze
Age antecedent from Megiddo where triangles are central to the design. Two sherds from
the same area of the mound from two different expeditions have remarkably similar images
of warrior figures carrying shields and weapons (Schumacher 1908, pl. 24; Loud 1948, pl.
247.7). The sherd found by the University of Chicago expedition came from stratum VIIA
in Area CC, in the south of the mound, and the Schumacher sherd came from the Südliche
Burgtor; the areas are so close that Keel and Uehlinger suggest they may be from the
same vessel (1998:60), though their different sizes make this unlikely. The Chicago sherd is
the neck and head of a zoomorphic object, probably a kernos spout. The Schumacher
sherd is much larger, too large to be from a kernos, and the vessel is not identified. For our
purposes, the significance of these two sherds is in the outline of the male warrior figures,
whose bodies are drawn in the form of an inverted triangle with striding legs, similar to the
male figure on the Jerusalem sherd. Unlike our sherd, however, these figures have heads,
hair, beards, faces and necks above the triangle, while the face on the Jerusalem sherd is
inside the triangle.
Another Late Bronze Age antecedent for the male figurine comes from the Egyptian
style temple in stratum VI at Lachish, dated to the 13th to 12th centuries bce (Ussishkin 1978,
18, pl. 7.1; 2004, 259–267, figs 6.57, 6.58). A chalk slab, called Stone Slab I, found outside
the side (south) entrance to the main hall of the temple, in room 3161, had a carved graffito
of a standing deity figure wielding a long spear above his head with both hands. The figure
has large eyes, perhaps a long beard, and a high conical headdress with a ribbon extending
down from the peak. On another slab, Stone Slab II, from the same locus were two carved
ir o n ag e i i i n scriptio n o f yah w eh and ashe rah 97
individual heads, one female and one male. The male head has a similar high conical head-
dress, but without the ribbons, which appear instead on the female head (Ussishkin 2004,
263–264, fig. 6.59). Keel and Uehlinger have identified the figure as a combination of
Canaanite Baal and Egyptian Seth (1998, 76, and illustration 86), while more recently
Ussishkin has identified it with Resheph (Ussishkin 2004, 267, following Clamer 2004, 1320).
This interpretation has been rejected out of hand by Cornelius (1994, 162–163), who prefers
to identify the figure as Baal. Like the bronze deity figurines cited above, the images on
Stone Slabs I and II confirm both the centrality of the oval style headdress as a frequent
element of male Canaanite deity images, as well as its generic use and inappropriateness for
identifying any specific deity.
The use of triangles in male figures does not appear in the Iron Age until their
appearance in the Jerusalem sherd.

3.2 The case for Asherah

The drawings and inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud are critical to any discussion of Iron
Age religious imagery. At this site in the Sinai desert excavated by Z. Meshel in 1975
and 1976 (Meshel 1978) and dated to the early 8th century bce, Yahweh and Asherah
are famously linked in written inscriptions inked on pithoi and plastered walls. (Beck 1982,
Dever 1984, Meshel 1992). These inscriptions contain references to all of El, Baal, Yahweh
and Asherah. On the walls, El and Baal are mentioned together in one inscription (Zevit
2001, 372–3735), while Yahweh and Asherah are together in another (Hadley 2000, 130–136,
Zevit 2001, 373). On Pithos A drawings of two male Bes figures and a seated female figure
playing a lyre are accompanied by an inscription referring to ‘Yahweh of Shomron and
Asheratah’ (Hadley 2000, 121–125, 137–152, Zevit 2001, 390), while on Pithos B there were
inked drawings of five worshippers and two inscriptions referring to ‘Yahweh Teman and to
Asheratah’ (Hadley 2000, 125–129, Zevit 2001, 393–399).
While there are indeed many illustrations from the little room at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud that
are in association with the written inscriptions, including the Bes figures and the lyre-playing
woman, their relationship to and identification with the Yahweh and Asherah referred to in
the inscriptions is disputed (Keel and Uehlinger 1998, 240–241, Dever 1994, Hadley 2000,
152, Zevit 2001, 388–389). For the purposes of this study, these inscriptions place on record
a clear association of Yahweh and Asherah in the Iron Age II.
The users of the caravanserai at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud were probably travellers from Israel
and Judah to Egypt or the Red Sea (Meshel 1978). Closer to Jerusalem is the site of Khirbet
el-Qôm, south east of Lachish, where a late 8th century inscription was carved into the wall
of a burial cave (Dever 1969–70, Zevit 1984, 2001, 359ff, Hadley 2000, 84–105). This short
inscription also mentions Yahweh and Asherah (Asheratah) together (Zevit 1984, 39, 2001,
361; but see Hadley 2000,104 [and 77–83], who suggests tentatively that the asherah referred
to here is a cultic symbol rather than the goddess herself).6
In addition to the textual evidence for Yahweh and Asherah from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud
and Khirbet El-Qôm, a widespread religious dualism in Israel and Judah from the tenth
century onward is now well documented, with Megiddo, Ta‘anach and Arad being the most
prominent sites. At the Judahite fortress of Arad in the northern Negev desert, two incense
altars, one large and one small, and two standing stones, one large and one small,7 were
excavated in the sacred niche of the Arad temple, destroyed in the late 8th century bce
(Herzog 2002, 50, 67). Earlier at Megiddo, in the 10th century bce shrine in room 2081 of
stratum VA/IVB, there were several pairs of artefacts with one of the objects larger than
the other, including incense altars, standing stones, limestone offering stands and fenestrated
stands. The finds at both these sites are evidence of a dualism in the religious practice Iron
98 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 141, 2 , 2 009
Age Israel and Judah, with two deities being worshipped alongside each other (Gilmour
1995, 59–60; Zevit 2001, 220–225, 247–249, 312–313). The Ta‘anach cult stand excavated by
Paul Lapp in 1968 (Lapp 1969, 42) has four tiers representing, alternately, female and male
deities (Beck 1994; Zevit 2001, 319–325; Hadley 2000, 69–76). Here too there seems little
doubt that the same dualism is represented.8
The many pillar figurines found in late 8th and 7th century sites in Judah add to the
evidence for the strong presence of a female deity in the life and religious activities of
the Iron II people. Many scholars are content to interpret these figurines as images of the
goddess Asherah, small copies for private, domestic use of the larger Asherah pole or tree
that evidently resided in the Temple until it was thrown out in the reforms of Josiah
described in 2 Kings 23 (Holladay 1987, 276–278, Kletter 1996, 76–77). Other scholars
disagree; Keel and Uehlinger note that the verbs used to describe their disposal identify the
image as ‘a cultic symbol in the form of a stylized tree’ (1998, 335), while Moorey states that
‘attempts to relate (the pillar figurines) to the . . . symbol of Asherah lack both conviction
and any direct justification’, and suggests instead that they represent ‘nurturing’ figures
(2003, 60).
Context is critical here, and as both Holladay (1987, 276–278) and Kletter (1996, 58–67,
fig. 32) have shown, the pillar figurines are found predominantly in private, domestic
contexts (see also Dever 2005, 180–181). Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that
any differences in appearance may be those of style rather than substance, with the pillar
figurines representing small personal representations of a religious concept that took
another, related manifestation in the temple itself, and which is there named Asherah in the
Hebrew Bible. Indeed, the presence of this dualism in 8th and 7th century religious practice
in Judah is supported by many references in the books of the Hebrew Bible to this deity’s
unwelcome presence (e.g. 1 Kings 14.15, 23; 2 Kings 17.10, 16; 2 Kings 21.3, 7; 2 Kings
23.4–15; Isaiah 17.8, 27.9; Jeremiah 17.2; Micah 5.14).
A distinction has been drawn between the pillar figurines on the one hand, and the Iron
Age II ‘naked goddess’ plaques and imagery on the other. The naked goddess in the eighth
and seventh centuries appears to be largely confined to Judah’s neighbours. Rather than
identify her as Asherah, Keel and Uehlinger suggest that this image represents Astarte (1998,
336). Yet this seems to be an unnecessary distinction. Kletter has shown that the pillar
figurines are tightly defined in time and space to Judah in the late 8th and 7th centuries
(1996, 43–48). One needs to ask why the same goddess as represented in Judah by the pillar
figurines should not be differently represented beyond her borders. Furthermore, the distinc-
tion between Asherah and Astarte is perhaps not as well made as some would have, and
there is significant evidence that by the Iron Age the roles and identities of the goddesses
Asherah and Astarte were being confused, combined and interchanged (Dever 1984, 28–29;
Frymer-Kensky 1992, 159; Zevit 2001, 321–324; Hess 2007, 322). The longevity of the pubic
triangle motif is further demonstrated by its presence at the Wasta Cave dedicated to
Aphrodite near Tyre during the Hellenistic period, where again it is associated with palm
trees, recalling Hestrin’s linking of the pubic triangle, the sacred tree and Asherah in the
Late Bronze Age (Hestrin 1987, 215, Delcor 1976, 108; see also Hadley 2000, 152–153).9 While
the incised sherd from Jerusalem appears to be the first appearance of the pubic triangle
motif in Late Iron Age Judah, its appearance in the Wasta Cave shows that the motif and
its association with a female deity maintained its significance in the region well beyond the
end of the Iron Age.10
In the light of all this evidence, we may agree with Holladay when he says, ‘there
is only one major goddess known to Judah during the later part of the Iron II period: the
goddess Asherah/Asherata, possibly syncretized with, assuming, or confused with attributes
of both ‘Anat and ‘Astarte’ (1987, 278).
ir o n ag e i i i n scriptio n o f yah w eh and ashe rah 99
3.3 The case for Yahweh
The male image on the Jerusalem sherd may similarly be interpreted in a number of ways,
but it appears reasonable to conclude that the most likely candidate is Yahweh. As with the
identification of the female figure, the inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qôm
are critical in providing textual confirmation that Yahweh and Asherah were worshipped
together in the Iron Age II period. Keel and Uehlinger (1998, 349) raise the possibility of
oblique references in the Hebrew Bible to the presence of practices that may have been
connected to Canaanite El religion (Amos 6.7, Jer. 16.5) or worship of the god Mot, ‘death’
(Isaiah 65.4) but these references contrast with the usual pattern where the biblical authors
show little reluctance to call foreign or unwanted gods by their names. Nevertheless, it
is possible that such practices continued into 8th and 7th century Judah, where the list of
Josiah’s reforms in 2 Kings 23 includes a reference in verse 16 to the destruction of tombs
that apparently were the focus of apostatical worship.
There are brief references in the Hebrew Bible to Baal and Asherah together in 2
Kings 17.6, 21.3 and 23.4, but there is no evidence from the ground that Baal was being
worshipped, let alone as a consort of Asherah, in later Iron Age Judah.11 The reform list in
2 Kings 23 also refers to Molech and Chemosh, the gods of Ammon and Moab. But in all
these cases, there is little support in the archaeological record for a central role played by
these deities in Judah. The many horse and rider figurines from Judah in the 8th and 7th
centuries may be related to a particular male deity, but again the absence of written texts
describing them is restrictive. There are several interpretations, but most scholars agree
that they have to do with the introduction of Assyrian astral cult (Kenyon 1974, 142; Keel
and Uehlinger 1998, 343; see also Holland 1995, 184–187), while Moorey points to their
popularity throughout the Middle East in the Iron Age and suggests that they may have no
religious significance at all, but rather represent images of mere men and horses (2003,
58–63; see now also Cornelius 2007, who proposes that they represent cavalry). Again, it is
the text in 2 Kings 23 that suggests that these objects may have a cultic role, for verse 11
speaks of the king getting rid of horses and chariots of the sun. The presence of discs on
many of these horse figurines, with and without riders, suggests that they represent these
horses of the sun, though it must be said that there are few chariots among the finds.
The images of the two figures on the sherd raise interesting questions about gender
identity. While the pubic triangle clearly identifies the figure on the left as female, there is
no such determinative identifier on the figure to the right. Nevertheless, there are several
good reasons for identifying this figure as male in spite of the absence of a phallus. Perhaps
most obvious is the size of the right hand figure, somewhat larger than its counterpart. But
more directly, if the smaller figure is clearly identified as a female by the public triangle,
what else could the larger figure be except a male? There does not seem to be any other
option. If it too was to be female, we could legitimately expect it also to have a pubic
triangle, but it does not.12 Indeed, from the waist down it is different in every way to its
female counterpart — no second triangle, no pubic triangle, but rather two striding legs.
The absence of any specific male genitalia in this figure may, ironically, further support
its identification with Yahweh, for as some scholars have noted, Yahweh is portrayed in
the Hebrew Bible with both male and female characteristics. Although God is normally
represented as male and as a father, there are occasions where maternal imagery is used in
portraying God’s compassion, devotion, loyalty and redemption (Frymer-Kensky 1992, 162–
167; Gruber 1992; see also Trible 1978, 31–59). Frymer-Kensky takes this idea further, noting
that in spite of the obvious grammatical and sociological presentation of God as male in the
Hebrew Bible, nevertheless as God is not human, he is also not male, at least not sexually
male, nor is he worshipped for his potency or virility, and, in contrast with male pagan
100 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 141, 2 , 2 009
deities, he is never portrayed nor described with a penis (Frymer-Kensky 2006, 393–394; see
also Baker 2003, 365). It is likely that these concepts were already so fixed in the mind of
the 8th century residents of Jerusalem that the artist who carved the sherd represented his
male figure as the Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible, clearly male, yet unsexed.13
The overwhelming evidence, then, from both archaeology and the Bible is that there
was a well established religious dualism in ancient Judah in the 8th and 7th centuries,
and that the two deities involved are best identified as Yahweh and Asherah. This dualism
was a significant element in a multi-dimensional religious system during the period of the
monarchy that found expression in a variety of ways and where a number of deities were
venerated.
In the Jerusalem sherd, we have, for the first time, pictorial imagery of twin deities,
male and female, from Judah in the Iron Age II. In the light of this evidence, it is legitimate
to propose that the two figures on the Jerusalem sherd should be identified with Yahweh
and Asherah.

4. conclusion
The presence of Asherah as a prominent female deity in 8th and 7th century Israel
and Judah, and her association with Yahweh as evidenced by the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Kh.
El-Qôm inscriptions, and now the discovery of these two deity figures on the Jerusalem
sherd, all strongly suggest that what has been considered unorthodox or ‘folk religion’ may
instead have been the de facto orthodoxy. The biblically defined ‘official’ religion centred
in the Jerusalem temple, whatever we may be tempted to think from the biblical account,
indeed whatever the biblical authors may have tried to convey, may not have been the
main event after all, nor the primary form of belief or religious exercise. In point of fact,
a close reading of the historical books of the Hebrew Bible shows that during the reigns
of Hezekiah, Manasseh and much of the reign of Josiah what have been considered as
non-conformist practices so invaded and took over the temple cult that only a radical root
and branch reform under Josiah, aided by the decline of Assyria as a regional power, was
able to force a change (Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 293–302, Sweeney 2001, 40–63, 2007,
432–450). Whether this reform was a reversion to a past purity or the attempted development
of a new orthodoxy centred in the worship of Yahweh alone is the subject of another debate.
What can be said is that as the archaeological evidence proliferates it seems ever more clear
that the unorthodox was in fact the orthodox, that folk religion as it has been called was
instead the religion of folk, and that for much of the period of the divided monarchy
the temple and its promoters were not champions but mere players in this unorthodox
orthodoxy.
The incised sherd from Jerusalem adds much to this debate. If it is correct to conclude
that the figures indeed represent Yahweh and Asherah, then in addition to being the
first pictorial representation of these two deities together, this is also the earliest picture of
Yahweh ever found. It is important to stress that the size of the sherd and its inscription
indicates that this was a privately owned and used object. Unlike the contemporary pillar
figurines that may have been copies to some extent of the Asherah image in the temple, the
figures on the sherd reflect the concepts of these deities held by the inscriber of the sherd.
Aniconic restrictions on images of the deity notwithstanding, whoever carved and owned the
sherd had a concept of Yahweh and Asherah that is here portrayed pictorially. That the
images so obviously preserve critical elements of much earlier Canaanite deities tells us a
good deal about the development of Israelite religion, the ongoing influence of elements of
Canaanite culture in ancient Israel, and the ability of long-standing traditions to reach
through time and regenerate themselves in new circumstances.
ir o n ag e i i i n scriptio n o f yah w eh and ashe rah
notes
1 I am grateful to the trustees of the P.E.F. for giving
me access to the material from the excavation, and
for permission to publish it. I am also grateful to the
Shelby White-Leon Levy Program for Archaeological
Publications for financial support, and to the Dept of
Old Testament at the University of Stellenbosch.
My thanks are due to Felicity Cobbing, Sy Gitin, Izak
Cornelius and an anonymous reviewer for advice on
different aspects of this paper, and to Dylan Karges
of the Cobb Institute at Mississippi State University for
the drawings.
2 Analysis of the sherd is to be conducted by the
British Museum, and will be published in the final
report.
3 There is no description of the decoration of the jug
from Tell Beit Mirsim, only a rather uninformative
drawing which shows no decoration.
4 De Groot and Ariel have challenged Eshel’s dating,
preferring to raise the date to the 8th century (De
Groot and Ariel 2000, 94).
5 The literature on the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions
is enormous; I have cited Zevit 2001 and Hadley 2000
but they are representative of scores of other possible
references.
6 The Khirbet el-Qôm inscription is notoriously dif-
ficult to decipher; Dever’s original transcription and
translation (1969-70, 159) did not include the reference
to Asherah, and Zevit changed his reading between
his 1984 paper and his 2001 book. However, it is
now widely agreed that both Yahweh and Asherah are
included in the inscription.
7 The evidence for the standing stones in the niche
is confusing due to the disagreement in the different
reports. What seems likely is that three standing stones
were found in the Arad shrine, one with traces of faded
red paint lying in the debris in the niche, and two others
of flint plastered into the walls of the niche. In the pic-
tures in Herzog 1997, illustrations 46, 50, one of the flint
stelae is visible in the northwest corner of the niche, built relevant.
into the wall with its base apparently resting on the low
platform, while the second flint stela was in the wall to
the right of the entrance to the niche, visible in Herzog
et al. 1984, fig 24. The large stela lying in the debris in
Herzog 1997, illustrations 33 and 46, and in Herzog et al.
1984, fig 24 was placed upright against the wall in the
middle of the niche for the photographs in Herzog 1997,
illustration 50 and Herzog et al. 1984: fig. 7 (Herzog 1997,
191-195; Herzog et al. 1984, 7; figs 7, 24; Aharoni 1993,
83-84). Yohanan Aharoni was originally of the opinion
that the two flint stelae had gone out of use and been
plastered into the walls (Herzog 1997, 192), a proposal
taken up by Zevit who states that the two flint stelae and
101
the two small incense altars were used together in the
shrine before being put out of commission and plastered
over at the same time to be replaced by the single,
red painted stela with no accompanying altars (2001,
166–167).
8 C. Uehlinger has drawn attention to a terracotta
object originally published by J. Jeremias (Jeremias
1993; Uehlinger 1997,149-152) that was purchased on
the Jerusalem antiquities market and is consequently
of dubious provenance and authenticity. However,
Uehlinger accepts that the object is genuine, and that
it probably came from the Judean hill country and
should be dated to the 8th or early 7th century bc. The
imagery is not clear, but Jeremias and Uehlinger agree
that it consists of two figures on a raised platform and
leaning against a back wall or plate, and flanked by
three partly preserved animals that may have been lions
or sphinxes. The larger figure, almost in the middle,
appears to be a seated bearded male, while the other,
smaller figure is possibly a standing female, alongside
and off centre. Jeremias suggested that the object was
either a throne or possibly a chariot, and identified the
male figure with Baal Hammon. Uehlinger demurs,
proposing instead that its appearance as well as the date
and provenance of the object, if they can be trusted,
beg the conclusion that it represents ‘an 8th century
figural representation of “Yahweh and his Asherah”’
(1997, 151). I am grateful to Izak Cornelius for drawing
my attention to Uehlinger’s paper.
9 Hestrin refers to A. Beaulieu and A. Mouterde
(1947-48), ‘La grotte d’Astarté à Wasta’, Mélanges de
l’Université St. Joseph, 27, 1-20, which I was not able to
see before this paper went to press; the Wasta Cave is
referred to by Delcor (1976, 108).
10 The use of the triangle motif in the symbol of
Phoenician Tanit, a variant of Asherah, may also be
11 There is evidence from 7th century Tel Miqne-
Ekron, in Philistia, that both Baal and Asherah
(Asherat) were worshipped in the same religious
complex at the site (Gitin and Cogan 1999), though it
has not been demonstrated that they were worshipped
as a deity couple.
12 What appears to be a triangle at the inverted apex
of the male figure is not in fact so; it was created by the
inner lines of the two legs and the inverted apex of the
triangular torso, so that it is clearly outside and not part
of the body of the male figure.
13 I am grateful to Ziony Zevit for drawing my
attention to these concepts, and to these references.

bibliography
Aharoni, M., 1993. ‘Arad. The Israelite citadels’, pp. 82–87 in E. Stern (editor), New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land, volume 1. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta.
Albright, W. F., 1932. The excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine I. The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns. Annual of
the American Schools of Oriental Research XII.
Ariel, D. T. and Y. Lender, 2000. ‘Area B: Stratigraphic report’, pp. 1–32 in D. T. Ariel (editor), Excavations at
the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Volume V. Extramural Areas. Qedem 40. Jerusalem: Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology.
Baker, D. W., 2003. ‘God, names of’, pp. 359–368 in T. D. Alexander and D. W. Baker (editors), Dictionary of the
Old Testament: Pentateuch. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Beck, P., 1982. ‘The drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud)’, Tel Aviv 9: 3–86.
102 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 141, 2 , 2 009
Beck, P., 1994. ‘The cult stands from Ta‘anach: Aspects of the iconographic tradition of Early Iron Age cult objects
in Palestine’, pp. 352–381 in I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman (editors), From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological
and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and the Israel Exploration Society.
Beck, P., 1999. ‘Human figurine with tambourine’, pp. 386–394 in I. Beit-Arieh, Tel ‘Ira. A Stronghold in the Biblical
Negev. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Clamer, C., 2004. ‘The pottery and artefacts from the Level VI Temple in Area P’, pp. 215–281 in D. Ussishkin,
The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Volume III. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass
Publications in Archaeology.
Cogan, M. and H. Tadmor, 1988. II Kings. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible,
Volume 11. Doubleday.
Cornelius, I., 1994. The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba‘al. Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (c. 1500 —
1000 BCE). Fribourg: Fribourg University Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Cornelius, I., 2004. The Many Faces of the Goddess: the Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet,
and Asherah c. 1500–1000 BCE. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Cornelius, I., 2007. ‘A terracotta horse in Stellenbosch and the iconography and function of Palestinian horse
figurines’, Zeitschrift des Deutsches Palästina Vereins 123 (1): 28–36.
De Groot, A. and D. T. Ariel, 2000. ‘Ceramic Report’, pp. 91–154 in D. T. Ariel (editor), Excavations at the City of
David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Volume V. Extramural Areas. Qedem 40. Jerusalem: Hebrew University
of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology.
Delcor, M., 1976. ‘L’inscription phénicienne de la statuette d’Astarté conserve à Séville’, pp. 95–115 in M. Delcor,
Religion d’Israël et Proche Orient Ancien: Des Phéniciens aux Esséniens. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Dever, W. G., 1969–70. ‘Iron Age epigraphic material from the Area of Khirbet el-Kôm’, Hebrew Union College
Annual 40–41, 139–204.
Dever, W. G., 1984. ‘Asherah, Consort of Yahweh — new evidence from Kuntillet Ajrud’, Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 255, 21–37
Dever, W. G., 1994. ‘The Silence of the text: An archaeological commentary on 2 Kings 23’, pp. 143–168 in M.
D. Coogan, J. C. Exum and L. E. Stager (editors), Scripture and Other Artefacts. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology
in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville: Westminster John Know Press.
Dever, W. G., 2005. Did God Have A Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Dever, W. G., H. D. Lance and G. E. Wright, 1970. Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964–66 Seasons. Jerusalem:
Hebrew Union College.
Dothan, M., 1971. Ashdod II–III. The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965. Soundings in 1967. ‘Atiqot
English Series, IX–X. Jerusalem.
Eshel, I., 1995. ‘The morphological classification of the pottery groups in Caves I and II’, pp. 27–67 in I. Eshel
and K. Prag (editors), Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume IV: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on
the South-east Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem
and Oxford University Press.
Frymer-Kensky, T., 1992. In the Wake of the Goddesses. Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth.
New York: The Free Press.
Frymer-Kensky, T., 2006. ‘On feminine God-talk’, pp. 393–401 in T. Frymer-Kensky, Studies in Bible and Feminist
Criticism. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society (originally published in 1994).
Gilbert-Peretz, D., 1996. ‘Ceramic figurines’, pp. 29–41 in D. T. Ariel and A. De Groot (editors), Excavations at
the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Volume IV. Various Reports. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology.
Gilboa, A., 1999. ‘The dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome pottery: A view from Tel Dor’, Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 316: 1–22.
Gilmour, G. H., 1995. The Archaeology of Religion in the Southern Levant: an Analytical and Comparative
Approach. Unpublished D. Phil. Dissertation, University of Oxford.
Gitin, S. and M. Cogan, 1999. ‘A new type of dedicatory inscription from Ekron’, Israel Exploration Journal 49 (3–4),
193–202.
Green A. R. W., 2003. The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Gruber, M. I., 1992. ‘The motherhood of God in Second Isaiah’, pp. 3–15 in M. I. Gruber, The Motherhood of God
and Other Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Hadley, J. M., 2000. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah. Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Herzog, Z., 1997. ‘The Arad fortresses’, pp. 111–292 in Arad. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House,
Israel Exploration Society, Israel Antiquities Authority (Hebrew with English summary).
Herzog, Z., 2002. ‘The fortress mound at Tel Arad: An interim report’, Tel Aviv 29 (1): 3–109.
Herzog, Z., M. Aharoni, A. F. Rainey and S. Moshkovitz, 1984. ‘The Israelite fortress at Arad’, Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 254, 1–34.
Hess, R., 2007. Israelite Religions. An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Hestrin, R., 1987. ‘The Lachish Ewer and the ‘Asherah’, Israel Exploration Journal 37 (4), 212–223.
Holland, T. A., 1995. ‘A study of Palestinian Iron Age baked clay figurines, with special reference to Jerusalem:
Cave I’, pp. 159–189 in I. Eshel and K. Prag (editors), Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume
IV: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-east Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere. Oxford: British
School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and Oxford University Press.
ir o n ag e i i i n scriptio n o f yah w eh and ashe rah 103
Holladay, J. S., 1987. ‘Religion in Israel and Judah under the monarchy: An explicitly archaeological approach’,
pp. 249–299 in P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson and S. D. McBride (editors), Ancient Israelite Religion. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press.
Jeremias, J., 1993. ‘Thron oder Wagen? Eine auβergewöhnliche Terrakotte aus der spaten Eisenzeit in Juda’,
pp. 40–59 in W. Zwickel (editor) Biblische Welten: Festschrift für Martin Metzger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Freiburg:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Keel, O. and C. Uehlinger, 1998. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Kelm, G. L. and A. Mazar, 1995. Timnah: A Biblical City in the Sorek Valley. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Kenyon, K. M., 1974. Digging up Jerusalem. London: Benn.
Kletter, R., 1996. The Judean Pillar Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. BAR International Series 636. Oxford:
Tempus Reparatum.
Lapp, P., 1969. ‘The 1968 excavations at Tell Ta‘annek’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 195, 2–49.
Loud, G., 1948. Megiddo II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Macalister, R. A. S. and J. Garrow Duncan, 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem, 1923–1925: being the Joint
Expedition of the Palestine Exploration Fund and the ‘Daily Telegraph’. Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund,
no. 4. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.
May, H. G., 1935. Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mazar, A., 1985. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two: The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions,
Appendixes. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology.
Mazar, A. and N. Panitz-Cohen, 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42.
Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology.
Mazar, E., 2007. Preliminary Report on The City of David Excavations 2005 at the Visitors Center Area. Jerusalem and New
York: The Shalem Press.
Meshel, Z., 1978. Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai. Jerusalem:
Israel Museum.
Meshel, Z., 1992. ‘Kuntillet ‘Ajrud’, pp. 103–109 in D. N. Freedman (Editor-in-chief), Anchor Bible Dictionary 4. New
York: Doubleday.
Moorey, P. R. S., 2003. Idols of the People. Miniature Images of Clay in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Negbi, O., 1976. Canaanite Gods in Metal. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology.
Schumacher, G., 1908. Tell el-Mutesellim I: Fundbericht. Leipzig, Rudolf Haupt.
Shiloh, Y., 1984. Excavations at the City of David I, 1978–1982: Interim Report of the First Five Seasons. Qedem 19.
Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology.
Sweeney, M. A., 2001. King Josiah of Judah. The Lost Messiah of Israel. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sweeney, M. A., 2007. I & II Kings. A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Trible, P., 1978. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Tufnell, O., C. H. Inge and L. Harding, 1940. Lachish II (Tell ed Duweir): The Fosse Temple. London: Oxford
University Press.
Tufnell, O., 1953. Lachish III (Tell ed Duweir): The Iron Age. London: published for the Trustees of the late Sir
Henry Wellcome by the Oxford University Press.
Tufnell, O., 1958. Lachish IV (Tell ed Duweir): The Bronze Age. London: published for the Trustees of the late Sir
Henry Wellcome by the Oxford University Press.
Uehlinger, C., 1997. ‘Anthropomorphic cult statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the search for Yahweh’s cult
images’, pp. 97–155 in K. van der Toorn (ed.), The Image and the Book. Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book
Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.
Ussishkin, D., 1978. ‘Excavations at Tel Lachish — 1973–1977’, Tel Aviv 5: 1–97.
Ussishkin, D., 2004. ‘Area P: The Level VI Temple’, pp. 215–281 in D. Ussishkin, The Renewed Archaeological
Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Volume I. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.
Yadin, Y., Y. Aharoni, R. Amiran, T. Dothan, I. Dunayevsky and J. Perrot, 1961. Hazor III–IV, Plates. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press.
Zevit, Z., 1984. ‘The Khirbet el-Qôm inscription mentioning a goddess’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 255, 39–47.
Zevit, Z., 2001. The Religions of Ancient Israel: a Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. London: Continuum.