sign in sign up
<<
Home , Kuntillet Ajrud, Southern Levant, Tree of life

“” Decoration on Age Pottery from the Southern

“Tree of Life” Decoration on Pottery from the Southern Levant

David T. SUGIMOTO*

This paper aims at clarifying the significance of the “tree of life” decoration engraved or painted on large jars found from Iron Age strata in . They are anomalies because most Iron Age pottery is red washed with little paint or engraving. During the Late Age a “tree of life” decoration appears quite often on the pottery, and at first glance these Iron Age decorations appear to suggest the continuation of the Canaanite tradition of a fertility goddess and a polytheistic worldview. However, the writer shows that with the passage of time the meaning of the “tree of life” changed from representing a fertility goddess to representing the blessings of on the basis of (1) a study of the change in the symbolic world of the “tree of life” as reflected in iconographic artifacts from MBII to Iron Age IIC, and (2) interpretation of inscriptions and drawings from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. Keywords: Tree of Life, Pottery, Iron Age, the Southern Levant, Monotheism

I. Introduction The “Tree of Life” is one of the most popular motifs used for bichrome or monochrome decoration on Late local pottery in Israel. The “tree of life” is typically expressed by a vertical stem with leaves spreading from its top, just like a palm tree (Fig. 1).1 Around the tree, ibexes and/or birds are often arranged, and water, expressed by meandering lines, descends from the leaves. Such a figure is generally understood as a symbol of the blessings of the fertility goddess. On the other hand, during the Iron Age, painted pottery disappears almost completely and is replaced by red-washed pottery with no painted decoration.2 However, in recent years, several pottery sherds that do not fit this description have been unearthed, and in this paper we discuss how they fit into the general developmental scheme of pottery and religious expressions. There are three such exceptions:3

*Professor, Department of and Ethnology, Faculty of Letters, Keio University

Vol. XLVII 2012 125 a. b.

Fig. 1 “Tree of Life” painted on Late Bronze Age Pottery a. A jar from Megiddo Str. VIIB (Amiran 1970, fig. 50-7) b. An ewer from Fosse Temple, Lachish (Tufnell 1940, pls. 51. 287; 60: 3)

a. b. c.

Fig. 2 “Tree of Life” engraved on Iron Age pottery sherds a. Tel Rekhesh (photo by the author) b. Jerusalem (E. Mazar 2002, 13 upper right) c. Tel ‘En Gev (B. Mazar et al. 1964, fig. 11-10)

126 ORIENT “Tree of Life” Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant (1) A large storage jar from Tel Rekhesh; a “tree of life” is inscribed on its handle (Fig. 2a. 11th century BCE, Kuwabara 2008 Fig. 8).4 (2) A large storage jar from Ophel, Jerusalem; a “tree of life” is inscribed on its shoulder (Fig. 2b. 7th century BCE, Mazar 2002, 13 right above).5 (3) Two pithoi from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, located between the and Sinai; on the body of both pithoi, inscriptions and multiple figures are painted, including a “tree of life” figure (our Fig. 7. 8th century BCE Beck 1982, Fig. 4). The inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud include a phrase “Yahweh and his A/ .” Since Asherah is known as a Canaanite fertility goddess, this is often quoted as evidence that the cult of a fertility goddess continued until the time of the Judahite kingdom. The combination of Yahweh and Asherah is also often suggested as evidence that Asherah was a consort of Yahweh and that Israelite (at least Judahite) society was polytheistic until its last stage.6 However, can these figures on Iron Age pottery really be evidence for the continuation of the cult of the Late Bronze Age goddess?7 In order to make such a claim, the symbolic meaning of the “tree of life” in different periods should be carefully analyzed. In this paper, we study it from the following two perspectives: (1) Identifying the changes in the “tree of life” iconography in the entire set of religious artifacts from each period and by setting these three jars in that scheme. (2) Analyzing the meaning of the “Yahweh and his A/asherah” inscriptions written on the pithoi from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. Such research will be a valuable window for looking into the changing atmosphere of Israelite during the Iron Age.

II. Chronological Changes in the “Tree of Life” Iconography in Israel 1. Keel’s Scheme of Iconographical Development With regard to the iconography of the “tree of life,” there is a thick accumulation of scholarly discussions, such as the ones by Winter (1986), Schroer (1987), and Frevel (1995). Employing the results of these studies, Keel (1996) collected the iconography of the “tree of life” from the Middle Bronze Age to the Iron Age and suggested that its meaning changed greatly over time. Keel suggested three stages in its development: (1) the Middle Bronze Age II to the Late Bronze Age (c. 1800~1200 BCE), (2) Iron Age I-IIA (c. 1200~900 BCE), and (3) Iron Age IIB-IIC (c. 900~586 BCE). During the Middle Bronze Age II, Canaanite city-states were established

Vol. XLVII 2012 127 throughout the southern Levant. Keel argued that, during this period, the motif of the “tree of life” was used together with a female genital as a symbol of a fertility goddess on various artifacts, such as gold pendants,8 scarabs, and cylinder seals during this period (Figs. 3a-b). The same iconographic tradition continued into the Late Bronze Age, although the communicating media was changed to clay figurines and painted pottery (Figs. 3e-f and 1a-b). Keel indicated that the “tree of life” is clearly related to female genitals and the fertility goddess, and that the first two functioned as the symbols for the blessings of the fertility goddess. This mythological worldview is aptly reflected in the relief on the Ishtar temple at Mari, a contemporary Amorite city state in (Fig. 3d, c. 1750 BCE). A pair of palm trees are painted on both sides of the temple façade and birds and winged quadrupeds are arranged around them. Inside the temple, water is shown as flowing out from trees grown out of pots. From the temple itself, a sculpture of a goddess with a similar vessel was unearthed. It is evident that there was a close link between the goddess Ishtar, trees, water, and fertility at Mari in this period.9 During Iron Age I (twelfth to eleventh centuries BCE), Canaanite city- states collapsed and the identity of the became evident, and both changing and unchanging aspects of material can be observed. Forms of daily pottery such as bowls and cooking pots continued from the Late Bronze Age, but imported pottery and painted pottery reduced drastically, and the figure of the “tree of life” became rather rare in this period. Keel indicated that there are still a few pottery sherds and seals with the figure of the “tree of life,” but its relationship with the goddess or female genitals became ambiguous (Fig. 4a-b). During Iron Age IIA (tenth century BCE), the motif of the “tree of life” also became rare. Keel listed two scaraboids from Bethel and Beth Shemesh (Fig. 4c), on which two figures (male?) are standing on both sides of a tree, as such examples. He also deals with a clay cult stand from Ta‘anach (Fig. 4d) as a typical artifact from the period.10 This cult stand is likened to a four-story building: on the first floor, a naked female figure and two lions at her sides are portrayed; on the second floor, a void window in the center and two cherubim are shown; on the third floor, a tree flanked by ibexes in the center and two lions on its sides are depicted; and on the top floor, a winged disk and a horse, two pillars and two cherubim are portrayed. Hestrin (1989) interpreted this as meaning that Yahweh, God of Israel, took Asherah, a Canaanite goddess of fertility, as his consort; however, Keel (1998, 41-42) and Hadley (2000, 169- 176) interpreted it as meaning the situation that Yahweh took fertility nature from a Canaanite goddess. Although both interpretations of the iconography

128 ORIENT “Tree of Life” Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant

a.b. c.

d.

e. f.

Fig. 3 Figures of the “Tree of Life” during the Middle-Late Bronze Age a. A gold pendant from -Ajjul (Keel 1998, fig. 17); b. Hyksos scarab (Keel 1998, fig. 22); c. A from Mari (Keel 1998, fig. 7); d. A wall painting of Ishtar Temple, Mari (Keel 1998, fig. 8); e. A lid of an ivory box from Ugarit (Keel 1998, fig. 43); f. A clay figurine with Hathor Locks (Keel 1998, fig. 52)

Vol. XLVII 2012 129 may be possible,11 the latter interpretation seems to be more probable in view of the fact that the Hebrew Bible speaks of the fertility nature of Yahweh himself (Hosea 2, Ps. 65:9-13, etc.), and that the relationship between a male god and the “tree of life” became clearer during Iron Age IIB-C, as will become evident below. Thus, it became rather ambiguous which god the “tree of life” figure on Iron Age I-IIA artifacts represented.12 Considering the previous tradition, these artifacts might be related to the Canaanite goddess, but no such indication is found clearly in their iconography; moreover, it is also possible that the Israelite male god had already absorbed her fertility nature. Keel (1998, 42) summarized

a. b.

c. d.

Fig. 4 Figures of the “Tree of Life” during Iron Age I-IIA a. A stamp seal from Tel Ta‘anach (Keel 1998, fig. 66) b. Painted pottery sherd from Megiddo Str. VIA (Keel 1998, fig. 68) c. A scaroboid from Bethel (Keel 1998, fig. 72) d. A clay cult stand from Tel Ta‘anach (Keel 1998, fig. 71)

130 ORIENT “Tree of Life” Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant the situation of this period in the following manner: It is quite interesting to observe that during Iron Age I as well as in Iron Age IIA, the relation of the tree to the anthropomorphic goddess became less explicit. The development has to be seen as part of a general tendency away from anthropomorphic representations of gods and goddesses. This is not to say that these deities vanished nor did it exclude a comeback of the anthropomorphic goddess in the eighth and seventh centuries, but it prepared the way for an association of the sacred tree symbol to Yahweh and similar divinities like Kemosh and Milkom as manifestation of their blessings.

Iron Age IIB (c. 900-721BCE) was a period during which the two separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah existed side by side; and Iron Age IIC (c. 721-586 BCE) was the period when only the stood after the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel. During these periods, the “tree of life” motif continued to be rare, and in those rare cases in which it was found, it came to be associated with a male deity. Keel listed a bone handle from Hazor, scarabs and scaraboids, and cylinder seals as evidences for such phenomena (Figs. 5a-d). Although the examples are not many, most of them are clearly related to a male god, often with a beard; none of them show any feminine aspects. As Keel clearly showed, the meaning of the “tree of life” motif changed greatly from Middle Bronze Age II to Iron Age IIC. It was closely related to the fertility goddess during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages; however, their link became ambiguous from around the transition period between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, and probably came to represent simply a symbol of blessings. In the end, during Iron Age IIB-C, it came to be connected with the blessings of a male deity. If Keel is right in indicating that the meaning of the “tree of life” motif changed as time passed, we cannot simply assume that the same motif on our sherd is related to the fertility goddess in the fashion of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages; we need to interpret its meaning according to the iconographical world of its excavated period.

2. The “Tree of Life” Motif on the Late Bronze Age Painted Pottery The meaning change of the iconographic tradition of the “tree of life” can be supported by the results of the recent study on the painted pottery during the Late Bronze Age by Choi (2008). Choi collected 3225 examples of Late Bronze Age painted pottery from the southern Levant, and showed that the “tree of life” is the most predominant motif among them.

Vol. XLVII 2012 131 a. b.

c. d.

Fig. 5 Figures of the “Tree of Life” during Iron Age IIB-C a. A bone handle from Hazor Str. VI (Keel 1998, fig. 79) b. A scaraboid from Tel en-Nasbeh (Keel 1998, fig. 80) c. A cylinder seal from Beth Shean (Keel 1998, fig. 90) d. A scarab from Kition, Cyprus (Keel 1998, fig. 93);

It is rather probable that the “tree of life” painted on the pottery originally represented the blessings of a fertility goddess during the Late Bronze Age. It repeatedly appears with ibexes, birds, and water (or fish), and was undoubtedly an established motif. The scene where ibexes reach the top of a tall palm tree and suck its milk is unrealistic, and the design should be understood as the expression of ideology rather than depiction of a real situation. The motif depicting water or fish descending from the top of the tree is again unreal, thereby suggesting the same aspect of ideology. At least in some cases, such a “tree of life” on pottery has to be clearly understood as the expression of a fertility goddess. For example, on the Lachish Ewer, an inscription, mtn sy[l rb]ty ’lt “a gift, a gift to my [mist]ress Elat,” is painted above the tree.13 “Elat” is usually understood as a consort of the Canaanite supreme god El and a fertility goddess.14 Thus, it is commonly understood that the entire and a large amount of the pottery depicting that theme during the Late Bronze Age represents her.

132 ORIENT “Tree of Life” Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that all the pottery with this design was cult vessels, since they are often found in contexts that are not directly related to religion. The motif of the “tree of life” itself is often drawn in a sloppy or abbreviated manner, which does not show respect or reverence to the goddess. For example, Choi (2008, chaps. II and IV) showed that a “union- jack” type of design often painted on a handle is a degenerated form of the “tree of life.” Even with the paint on the body, one side of the flanking animals is often missing and only meandering lines are drawn as representing water. The idea of a fertility goddess was probably in the background of the motif, but it is also possible that the subject of the blessing gradually faded from people’s consciousness, and the motif simply became a decoration merely symbolizing “blessings.” Choi (2008, 424) concludes in the following manner: Some scholars attempted to interpret the tree as a visual form of the “mother goddess” or biblical Asherah. However, the iconographic evidence indicates that it was no more than a characterizing symbol of the fertility cult, which probably symbolizes the life-giving/ maintaining power of the mother goddess and her blessing, rather than any visual form of the deity. Primarily, it was an ornamental element.

3. The “Tree of Life” Motif in Neo- Such an understanding can also be supported by a recent iconographic study on the “tree of life” motif in Neo-Assyria by Giovino (2007). Although Neo- Assyria is geographically remote from the Levant, its political and cultural influence had already been felt during the ninth century BCE; it is easier to see that a similar idea is represented by the same motif rather than two different things in these two areas. Giovino (2007, chap. 17) argued that the “tree of life” is an artificial cult installation representing a natural tree during the Neo-Assyrian period and that it is used to represent the presence of a god or his power in relation to a male god. She also indicated that the “tree of life” was used as a set of pillars on the temple façade for (male) gods such as Assur, Shamash, and Sin (Fig. 6-a). The Hebrew Bible also records that two pillars called Jachin and Boaz stood in front of the Temple in Jerusalem (I Kgs. 7:21; II Chr. 3:17). Judging from the Biblical descriptions and by analogy from clay temple models unearthed from the southern Levant (Fig. 6b), they are highly likely to represent the “tree of life”. This would suggest that the “tree of life” was completely absorbed by the Yahwistic cult in a rather early period of the Israelite kingdoms. The fact that the Book of Kings repeatedly speaks of a wooden cult installation

Vol. XLVII 2012 133 a. b.

Fig. 6 “Tree of Life” used as Pillars of Temple Façade a. A limestone plaque from Abu Habbah showing the Temple of ‰ama at Sippar (Giovino 2007, fig.77; Perrot and Chipiez 1884 t.2, fig. 72) b. A clay temple model unearthed from Tell el-Far‘ah (north) (Chambon 1984, pl. 66: 1) called “asherah” in the Jerusalem Temple and on high places (e.g., I Kgs. 14:23, II Kgs. 21:7; 23:6-7) indicates that the asherah pole was incorporated into the Yahwistic cult. 15 The description of the “” in Genesis (2:9; 3: 24) says that the “tree of life” was in its center and that God set cherubim to protect it. From the “Garden” four rivers sprung out to enrich it (Gen. 2:9-14), and Ezekiel (47:1-12) envisioned a from which life-giving water flows out.16 In Hosea 14:9 [8 ET], Yahweh likens himself to a green tree that produces fruits (see Hos. 2:8, 22; Ps. 65 also). These descriptions suggest that the concept of the “tree of life” was already fully accepted as a symbol of Yahweh’s blessings during the period of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The three different approaches to archeological artifacts discussed above all show that the meaning of the “tree of life” changed greatly between the Middle-Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. It is evident that we cannot simply claim that the Canaanite cult of a fertility goddess continued into the later stage of the Divided Kingdom of Israel and Judah. Although the motif of the “tree of life” originally developed as a symbol for a fertility goddess such as Ishtar or Asherah, its relationship to her became obscure from the beginning of the Iron Age, and came to be associated with a male god. This scheme is supported by the weakening relationship between the “tree of life” and a goddess on Late

134 ORIENT “Tree of Life” Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant Bronze Age painted pottery and the use of the “tree of life” in the temples of male gods in Assyria and Israel during the Iron Age. This shift would suggest that the meaning of the “tree of life” changed drastically between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. Hence, we interpret a few “tree of life” decorations on the Iron Age pottery in this context.

III. The “Tree of Life” and Inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud Here we examine the pithoi from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, on which inscriptions including the expression “Yahweh and his A/asherah” as well as a figure of the “tree of life” are painted (Fig. 7). Kuntillet ‘Ajrud is located at approximately 50 km south of Kadesh Barnea, on the crossroad between the north of the Arabian peninsula to Sinai. Although the excavator Meshel suggested that the site was a religious building in the eighth century BCE, now it is generally regarded as a caravanserai used by different people from Phoenicia, the northern kingdom of Israel, the southern kingdom of Judah, etc.17 In this site, two large pithoi painted with figures and inscriptions were found in a front room with a bench and in the next room behind the wall. On one of them (pithos A), the figures of “two standing figures like Bes and a seated lyre player,” “a calf sucking milk of a cow,” and a “tree of life flanked by ibexes”18 are painted, and on the other (pithos B), the figures of “five people with raised hands, marching to the round object.” The inscription on pithos A is painted as overlapping the head of the Bes figure. It reads ’mr. ’…h…k. ’mr. lyhl[l’l] wlyw ‘sh.′ w… brkt. ’tkm. lyhwh. mrn. wl’srth; “X says: say to Yehal[lel’el] and to Yo‘asah and [to Z]: I bless you by Yahweh of and by his asherah.” The inscription on pithos B was painted on the right side of the marching figures, and reads ’mr ’mryw ’mr l. ’dny hlm. ’t brktk. lyhwh tmn wl’srth. ybrk. wymrk wyhy ‘m. ’d[n]y…k; “Amaryau says: say to my lord: Is it well with you? I bless you by Yahweh of Teman and by his asherah. May he bless you and keep you and be with my lord.” These inscriptions and figures attracted much attention because the expression “Yahweh and his A/asherah” might indicate that Yahweh had a consort called Asherah. In this paper, we first examine if a goddess Asherah is painted among these figures and how the figures are related to the inscriptions; thereafter we analyze the inscriptions themselves.

1. Figures on the Pithoi Meshel argued that the Bes figures and a lyre player painted on pithos A are cows (rather calves), not Bes, and a seated female figure, and that they possibly

Vol. XLVII 2012 135 a.

b.

Fig. 7 Drawings and Inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud a. Inscriptions and Bes-like figures (Beck 1982, fig. 5) b. A stylized “Tree of Life” (Beck 1982, fig. 4)

136 ORIENT “Tree of Life” Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant represent Yahweh and his consort (1979, 30). However, there are two figures of calves, and counting a seated female figure, three people are painted; this is not suitable for representing a divine pair. Although the two standing figures are frontally depicted, the seated figure is looking toward the right: in other words, the figures do not appear to be parts of the same scene. There is no evidence that the goddess Asherah had something to do with music or a lyre. Coogan (1987, 119) and McCarter (1987, 146-47) suggested that the two standing figures are not calves but Bes, because they do not have horns and calves are not usually drawn frontally;19 hence, they suggest, the figures represent Yahweh and his consort. However, it is unlikely that Yahweh and Asherah would be identified with an inferior god like Bes; thus, again it is difficult to interpret the figures as Yahweh and his consort. The inscription “Yahweh and his A/asherah” is written as overlapping the head of Bes, and the hand of this artist is quite different from the hand of the artist that drew the figures; hence, it seems unlikely that the inscription was intended as a comment on the figure. These figures cannot thus be understood as Yahweh and his consort, and it is impossible to argue from these figures that “A/asherah” in the inscription is a goddess. The figure of the “tree of life” itself is painted on the reverse side of Pithos A; however, it has nothing to do with two standing figures or the inscription above it. As discussed above, the “tree of life” represented the blessings of the fertility goddess during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in the southern Levant; however, the relationship between the tree and goddess became ambiguous after Iron Age I, when the tree became a simple symbol for the concept of blessings or abundance. The “tree of life” come to be rather related to a male god during the later period. Thus we cannot automatically assume that this figure represents the goddess20 . Moreover, the position of the “tree of life” on the other side of the pottery clearly suggests that it is difficult to see any direct connection between this figure and the “Yahweh and his A/asherah” inscription21 . In fact, the various figures and inscriptions of these pithoi are painted by different hands, and no coherence in their directions can be detected. As Hadley (2000, 154) rightly indicated, it is impossible to see them as having been them painted at the same time. Instead they were probably drawn by various visitors to the caravanserai on different occasions. Taylor (1993, 217-18) interpreted the round object in front of the “marching figures” on Pithos B as representing a and suggested that the entire picture is a scene that depicts the worship of Yahweh as a sun. Even if this interpretation is correct, Yahweh’s consort or Asherah is not drawn

Vol. XLVII 2012 137 anywhere in this picture. Therefore, we have to conclude that the figures of Yahweh and his consort are not painted in any form on the pithoi from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. These figures cannot be used as a support for interpreting “A/asherah” in the inscription as representing Yahweh’s consort. We should recognize that the inscriptions and the figures are most likely to be independent from one another.

2. Inscriptions on the Pithoi Some scholars maintain that the phrase “Yahweh and his A/asherah” in the inscriptions itself indicates the presence of a goddess as a consort of Yahweh, even if the figures on the pithoi do not represent them.22 However, it is commonly recognized that Hebrew grammar does not allow divine names to take pronominal suffixes (see Emerton 1982, 14-19), and this argument cannot be sustained.23 Then, “A/asherah” in the inscriptions must be understood not as the name of a Canaanite fertility goddess but as a wooden cult installation. Thus, most scholars who still want to see the reference to the goddess Asherah in these inscriptions tend to argue that these phrases do not refer directly to the goddess but instead to the sacred pole used for Yahwistic cult, which represented the goddess (e.g., Hadley 2000, 124). The idea that a goddess called Asherah existed in Israel originated from the discovery of the Ugaritic texts, in which a goddess Ashirat appears as a consort of the supreme god El. Given this information, the biblical texts were reexamined, and several references to A/asherah, which Septuagint and English versions have translated as “grove” or the like, came to be understood as referring to a goddess Asherah. However, it is still debated whether there are actual references to a goddess named Asherah in the Hebrew Bible,24 and our analysis suggests that this is unlikely. In the Hebrew Bible, the word “A/asherah” appears forty times; however, there are only five passages that might possibly refer to a goddess (Jdg. 3:7; I Kgs. 15:13; 18:19; II Kgs. 21:7; 23:4). In other passages, expressions such as “to erect” and “to cut down” are used, and they clearly suggest an artificial cult . However, even these five passages do not necessarily refer to a goddess. I Kgs.18:19 is a famous passage that narrates that Elijah, the prophet, contested against “the four hundred and fifty prophets of and four hundred prophets of Asherah.” Because the term A/asherah is paralleled with Baal, and there are prophets for A/asherah, it is often argued that this A/asherah refers to a goddess. However, the phrase “prophets of A/asherah” does not appear again later in this narrative, and it is often regarded as a later gloss. As Smith (20022,

138 ORIENT “Tree of Life” Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant 126-127) suggests, the identification of A/asherah with a goddess is also historically improbable, because the combination of Baal of Tyre and Asherah is not known anywhere except in a few dubious passages in the Hebrew Bible (see below); moreover Baal is usually related to Astarte. Irrespective of whether this passage is a later gloss or an intentional rewriting by the writer of Kings, why was A/asherah inserted instead of Astarte? Day (2001, 45) suggests that Asherah was still regarded as a goddess and that her name was introduced because the Deuteronomistic historian wanted to criticize her. However, this phenomenon is better explained if this A/asherah is considered to be a sacred pole, a cult tool. During the Canaanite period, A/ asherah was the name of a fertility goddess, and a sacred pole was her symbol. However, in the Israelite period, A/asherah ceased to mean a goddess, and the sacred pole was incorporated into the Yahweh cult; it was reinterpreted as a symbol of fertility and as a sign of the blessings of Yahweh. Then, another fertility goddess, Astarte, was introduced to Israel, and she was conflated with the sacred pole asherah, because both are related to fertility. Admittedly, this reconstruction is highly speculative, but it is easier to suppose such a process than to assume that Astarte was exchanged to a completely different goddess, Asherah. For the Deuteronomistic historian, both Astarte and Asherah were objects of criticism; therefore, he would probably not have had any reason to change Astarte into another goddess. It is also often argued that A/asherah in I Kgs.15:13 and II Kgs. 21:7—“a horrid thing (miple≠et) for A/asherah” and “the image of A/asherah” (pesel h±’≥râ),” respectively—must signify a goddess because if Asherah is already a kind of image, then it is difficult to picture that image (see Day 2001, 43-44). Although these phrases are indeed somewhat awkward, they can be understood as a way to emphasize the abominable nature of the object, which therefore do not have to be interpreted as a goddess.25 II Kgs. 23:4 reads, “the vessels made for the Baal, the Asherah, and all the host of ”; this A/asherah is often understood as a goddess because Baal and “the host of heaven” refer to divinities (see Day 2001, 43). However, the literary context clearly suggests that, in this case, A/asherah does not signify a goddess but rather some cultic tool. This A/asherah was “erected” (21:7) and “dragged out” (23:6), and clothes were dedicated to it (23:7) (see Hadley 2000, 71-72; Smith 20022, 91).26 Moreover, although the phrase “the host of heaven” is normally understood to refer to “all the stars/gods”, it is doubtful whether it represents a proper name of a god; therefore, this combination does not require A/asherah to be a name of a god or a goddess. It is perfectly possible that a

Vol. XLVII 2012 139 sacred pole, a cult symbol of “fertility,” is listed together with two other cultic elements.27 In Judges 3:7, “Baalim and Asherot” (feminine plural form of “A/asherah”) are often understood meaning “foreign gods and goddesses in general.” It is true that the term does not indicate a particular goddess, but it is also not certain whether A/asherot here means a goddess. If Asherot is used for goddesses in general, just as Baalim is used to represent male gods in general, then we would expect to see the plural form of Astarte as in Jdg. 2:13; I Sam. 7:4; 12:10. Because different expressions are used here, we need to explore the possibility that they refer to something different, even though they may be somehow related.28 Here, it is more natural to understand that the verse means that various gods and sacred poles are to be criticized. Even if the Deuteronomistic historian changed the original “Baalim and Ashtarot (‘at±rôt)” in order to criticize A/asherah,29 it does not suggest that A/asherot means goddesses. As discussed above, it is easier to believe that sacred poles were understood to be a symbol of the fertility goddess Astarte than to believe that the word indicated a completely different goddess. It is difficult to find a reason why the Deuteronomistic historian criticized Asherah more than Astarte, even rejecting a common idiom. Once the term “A/asherah” came to mean a sacred pole, a symbol of fertility and blessings, it was probably difficult to regard it as a name of an independent goddess at the same time.30 Deuteronomy16:21 (see also II Kgs. 13:6) records that asherah, a sacred pole, was used as a paraphernalia for the Yahwistic cult; there is no positive evidence that this asherah symbolized a consort of Yahweh, particularly when nowhere in the Bible does the term clearly suggest a goddess. It is better to assume that asherah, the sacred pole, had already lost its identity as a fertility goddess,31 and was absorbed into Yahweh’s attributes as a symbol of fertility. Thus no passage in the Hebrew Bible clearly suggests that the goddess Asherah was still active in Israel after the establishment of the United Kingdom. Moreover, “A/asherah” in the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions also does not have to be understood as referring to a goddess, just as the figures on the pithoi need not to be. Such an interpretation is grammatically difficult, and there is no clear literary evidence for the active continuation of the goddess Asherah in Israel after the tenth century BCE. Therefore, it is more natural to understand “A/ asherah” in the inscriptions as a cult pole, a symbol of Yahweh’s blessings, and the “tree of life” figure on the pithos also as referring to such a symbol. This interpretation fits the scheme of the iconographic development of the

140 ORIENT “Tree of Life” Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant “tree of life” figure, as was evident in the previous section. This is also in harmony with the observations that no reference to the goddess Asherah can be found among Phoenician and Punic inscriptions during the first millennium BCE (Lipinski′ 1972; cf. Tigay 1986) and that archaeological artifacts clearly related to goddess cult became rather rare after the ninth century BCE in Israel and Judah except for Judean Pillar Figurines (see Sugimoto 2008, forthcoming).

IV. Conclusion From the above two analyses, we can conclude that the figure of the “tree of life” was used to symbolize the blessings of a fertility goddess such as Asherah, Astarte, and Ishtar from the Middle Bronze to the Late Bronze Ages; however, that its relationship to the goddess became ambiguous around Iron Age I and it gradually came to be absorbed into Yahwistic cult. Although the “tree of life” was a motif developed in the milieu of Canaanite , as Israel became a self-conscious political entity, Yahweh began to absorb the attributes of other gods in order to establish Yahwistic monotheism. Along with this process, Asherah lost her independent nature as a goddess and became a cult object representing a fertility/blessing aspect of Yahweh; thus its meaning was changed. This accords well with the fact that the “tree of life” came to be related to a male god in iconography during Iron Age IIB-C. However, even though “asherah” had already become a cult object of Yahweh and the “tree of life” had become as a symbol of his blessings, they were attacked by the Deuteronomistic historian, because of the remote memory that they originated from a fertility goddess. Such understanding is coherent with the two-stage formation process of monotheism, absorption and rejection, in Israel which is suggested in my previous work regarding the disk-holding female figurines (Sugimoto 2008).32 During the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, Astarte was depicted as a war goddess on various religious artifacts from the southern Levant, whereas during Iron Age I to IIA, the idea of “victory in wars” was taken up by clay figurines of “a woman with a hand-drum” and, in my view, such an attribute was ascribed to Yahweh in Israel. As the hegemony of Canaanite city-states collapsed, they began to use this new type of figurine which maintained the element of the previous Astarte cult (hand-drums), yet did not depict the goddess herself. This indicates that religious consciousness of the people also changed greatly at that time, and it encouraged the newly formed ethnic group Israel to establish inclusive Yahwistic monotheism. The ambiguous nature of the figurines helped people who had a polytheistic background to accept the idea that Yahweh

Vol. XLVII 2012 141 overruled various aspects of gods and goddesses and that he surpassed them all in Israel. These figurines were first popular in the northern area of Israel and , but after the middle of the ninth century BCE they became rather rare and the center of distribution shifted to Phoenicia, Transjordan, and . In the latter areas, the victory cult and the disk-holding figurines were still used to symbolize Astarte. When the relationship between Israel and Phoenicia became stronger during the ninth century BCE and an independent cult of Astarte was introduced into Israel, it became a threat to Yahwism. The policy of establishing Yahwistic monotheism by reinterpreting and incorporating the attributes of other gods and goddesses could not be maintained; instead the symbols of those attributes had to be rejected. Thus the figures of the “tree of life” on Iron Age pottery also cannot be seen as evidence of a simple continuation of the fertility goddess of the Middle Bronze Age IIB to Late Bronze Age . They are the figures reinterpreted and incorporated into the Yahwistic cult in order to show the fertility aspect of Yahweh. Granted there was a remote memory of a goddess, it is highly probable that they were understood as a symbol of Yahweh’s blessings. The fact that such a figure is found close to the Jerusalem Temple suggests that it was a part of well-accepted orthodox faith. Thus, the figure of the “tree of life” is a fascinating example of how the same figure can be understood differently in different times and different contexts and can reflect totally different worldviews.

Notes 1 Although there are variations and abbreviations in the way the “tree of life” is painted, a figure of a palm tree in the center seems to be an essential element. For detailed definitions, see Choi 2008, 73-102 and Amiran 1970, 161-165. Epstein (1966) suggested the influence from the Mitanni culture on this iconography. 2 Tufnell (1953, 264) describes this phenomenon in the following manner: After the variety and exuberance of Late Bronze Age painted design, and the elaborate motifs on the Philistine pottery, it is strange to find how completely the tradition had perished by the second part of the Iron Age. 3 We may be able to add another sherd with a slightly different iconography from Tel ‘En Gev (Fig. 2c) to the list (B. Mazar 1964, figs. 11-10): its stratigraphy is not clear, but no stratum earlier than the end of eleventh century BC has been excavated there. However, Tel ‘En Gev was probably a city of Geshur or Aram, not Israel, during the Iron Age, and we do not include it in our discussion. Even if we include this example, the “tree of life” is still rare during the Iron Age. 4 The pottery from Tel Rekhesh is the only example from Iron Age I among the three examples we deal with in this article. It is generally known that, while the pottery tradition of the Late Bronze Age continued during Iron Age I in the coastal area and Jezreel valley, the shift to the Iron Age culture had already occurred in the mountain area and Transjordan. Based on the three conditions in note 7 below, the example from Tel Rekhesh shares common elements with the examples from Iron Age II, and we deal with it when discussing them.

142 ORIENT “Tree of Life” Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant 5 This jar was unearthed from a room of the building suggested as a “gate” in the Ophel, between the Temple Mount and the City of David (see E. Mazar 2002, 3-15, a figure in 5 above). The date of the pottery is not specified, but the room from which it was unearthed is dated to the seventh century BC. 6 For example, see Dever (2005). Such a view is severely criticized by Ahituv (2006). The view that monotheism was not crystallized in Israel until the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian exile was made popular by Lang (1981). 7 We need caution in equating the “tree of life” figures on Late Bronze Age pottery with the ones on Iron Age pottery, because of the following differences: (1) Most Late Bronze Age pottery is painted, whereas at least two (and one from ‘En Gev) of our Iron Age examples are incised. (2) The figures of the “tree of life” are usually painted on kraters or easily movable small jars, whereas the examples from the Iron Age are found on large jars or pithoi. (3) The decoration of the “tree of life” is quite popular on Late Bronze Age pottery, whereas it is extremely rare on Iron Age jars. 8 They are commonly understood as amulets, and clearly suggest a close relationship between the goddess, the female genitals and a tree. They are known from Tell el-Ajjul, Ugarit, Kamid el- Loz, etc; For a general discussion of the pendants, see McGovern (1985). 9 A cylinder seal from Mari dated to 2250-2150 BC (Fig. 3c) shows a goddess with a star sitting on a mountain (probably Ishtar) with water flowing out from her feet and tree branches growing from the end of the water flows. 10 Two clay cult stands with various appliqué decorations were unearthed from Ta’anach. They are reported by Lapp (1969) and Sellin (1904), and we deal with the one found by Lapp here. The one found by Sellin also reflects both female and male aspects because it includes both the designs of the “tree of life” and a man holding a snake. While Beck (1994, 356-358) interprets this as representing a fertility goddess, Keel and Uelinger (1998, 154-157) suggest that it may be Asherah and Baal, and Hadley (2000, 179 and 187) claims that they represent Yahweh and Asherah. 11 However, we should note that the female figure at the bottom does not carry any sign of divinity, such as horns or a crown. 12 During Iron Age I, the Canaanite culture still continued in the coastal area and Jezreel valley, and the time of the cultural shift probably differed according to the areas. 13 Hestrin (1987, 220) indicated that a word “Elat” is written just above the picture of the “tree”. 14 Hence she is also identified as Ashirat in Ugaritic mythology and Asherah in the Bible. 15 See the discussion below. 16 The concept of “living water” is further taken up by the New Testament writers and developed as a symbol of life-giving power of and God himself (Jn 4:1-26; 7:38; Rev. 22:1-2). 17 For example, Hadley (2000, 106-120) suggests the possibility that no permanent residents were at the site because it is located at a remote place in the desert and very few local pottery sherds were found. She also indicated that the building is unlikely to be a temple, because no typical cult vessels are found, and the structure is similar to the fort of Kadesh Barnea rather than to any known temples. Among inscriptions found at the site were prayers and petitions to different gods, thereby suggesting that the building was probably not a temple for a particular god. 18 A lion is also painted below the tree, and a horse (?), a boar and a bear are painted above the carination. See Beck (1982) for details. 19 Almost no example of Asherah, apart from Yahweh, being depicted as a cow is known. 20 In this regard, it is interesting that Dever (2005, 163) indicated that the figure of the “tree” looks “phallic,” even though he believes that “Asherah” at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud represents Yahweh’s consort. If we accept his view, the “tree” here can rather serve as evidence for the association of the “tree of life” with a male god. In that case, although we cannot emphasize the case too much, the figure should be seen as a symbol of Yahweh’s attribute rather than that of Asherah. 21 I understand that “asherah” in the inscription and the figure of the “tree of life” depict the same

Vol. XLVII 2012 143 object, a sacred pole as paraphernalia for Yahwistic cult, but this is a pure coincidence: they were painted on different occasions. It is difficult to argue that the goddess Asherah was represented by the “tree of life” in this period and to interpret “asherah” in the inscription as a goddess, relating it to the figure of the “tree of life” on the reverse. 22 See the references in n. 24 below. 23 Some scholars (e.g. see the discussion in Smith 20022, 119-120; see also Dietrich and Loretz 1992, 96-97) have argued that this is not grammatically impossible based on a few Ugaritic examples; however, Ugaritic is a different language from classical Hebrew, and most scholars still accept that divine names cannot take personal suffixes. 24 For example, see the discussion between Day (2001, 42-48), who believes the goddess Asherah existed during the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and Smith (20022, 125-133), who does not. The arguments and other references of both views are introduced in their works. 25 Smith (20022, 128) suggests that the latter was a “more elaborate form of the Asherah.” 26 The possibility that this cult tool was in fact a figure of the goddess cannot be completely eliminated; however, compared to other instances, it is more probable that it was a sacred pole. Even if it was a cult tool, because a sacred tree – asherah – represented religious ideas such as fertility and blessings, it is not strange that vessels were offered to it. 27 Admittedly, this sacred pole could have reminded people of the goddess Astarte, just as in the case of I Kings 18: 19. 28 It is difficult to accept that both plural forms asherim and astarot signified goddesses in general. If astarot is used as a general term for goddesses, then it is the representative goddess; it is more logical to conclude that asherim means something different, such as a sacred pole. 29 The unusual feminine plural form might suggest this possibility. 30 Dever (2005, 100-102) argues that the Biblical writer/editor, who did not want to admit the existence of Asherah, avoided the word. However, there is no reason why the Biblical writer, who did not hesitate to openly criticize Baal and the “Queen of Heaven,” had to avoid her name. 31 Even though Hadley holds the view that Asherah was still understood as a goddess during the separate kingdoms, she herself (2000, 80) admits that “Israel was gradually losing the identity of the goddess Asherah as a fertility goddess.” 32 My previous work has been criticized on the grounds that the evidence from the female figurines with a disk is not sufficient to establish such a scheme for the formation of monotheism (Ackerman 2009; cf. Kletter and Saarelainen 2011). However, the scheme can be supported by other archaeological evidence such as the one that discussed in this paper and my other recent work (Sugimoto 2011; see also Sugimoto forthcoming).

Bibliography Ackerman, S. 2009: “Book Review: David T. Sugimoto, Female Figurines with a Disk from the Southern Levant and the Formation of Monotheism,” BASOR 355: 108-110. Ahituv, S. 2006: “Did God Really Have a Wife ?” Biblical Archaeology Review 31, 32-35, 62-66. Amiran, R. 1970: Ancient Pottery of the , Jerusalem. Beck, P. 1982: “The Drawing from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet 'Ajrud),” Tel Aviv 9, 3-68. Beck, P. 1994: “The Cult-Stands from Taanach: Aspects of the Iconographic Tradition of Early Iron Age Cult Object in ,” in I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman (eds.) From Nomadism to Monarchy, Jerusalem. Choi, G. D, 2008: “Decoding Canaanite Pottery Paintings from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I,” Ph.D.Dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Coogan, M. D.1987: “Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religion of Ancient Israel,” in P. D. Miller et al. (eds) Ancient Israelite Religion, Philadelphia, 115-124. Day, J. 2001: Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTS 265), Sheffield. Dever, W. G. 2005: Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel,

144 ORIENT “Tree of Life” Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant Grand Rapids, MI. Emerton, J. A. l982: “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscription from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” ZAW 94, 2-20. Epstein, C. 1966: Palestinian Bichrome Ware, Leiden. Frevel, C. 1995: Ascherah und der Ausschliesslichkeitansprach YHWHs (BBB 94), Weinheim. Giovino, M. 2007: The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A Histoy of Interpretion (OBO 230), Fribourg/ Göttingen. Hadley, J.M. 2000: The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, Cambridge. Hestrin, R.1987: “The Lachish Ewer and the Asherah,” Israel Exploration Journal 37, 212-223. Karageorghis, V. 1995: The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus IV, The Cypro-Archaic Period Small Male Figurines, Nicosia. Katz, H. 2006: Architectual Terracotta Models from Eretz Israel from the Fifth to the Middle First Millennia BCE, Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew). Keel, O. 1998: Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh (JSOTS 261), Sheffield. Kletter, R. and Saarelainen, K. 2011: “Judean Drummers,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina- Vereins 127: 1-28. Kuwabara, H. 2008: “The Second and Third Seasons of Excavation at Tel Rekhesh, Israel,” in Japanese Society for West Asian Archaeology (ed.), Ancient Orient Revealed through Excavations in 2007: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of Excavations in West , 97-102 (Japanese). Lang, B. 1983: Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority, Sheffield. Lapp, P. 1969: “The 1968 Excavations at Tell Ta'annek,” Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 173, 4-44. Lipinski,′ E. 1972: “The Goddess Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit,” Orientalia Levaniensia Periodica 3, 101-19. Mazar, A. 2003: “The Excavations at Tel Rehov and their Significance for the Iron Age in Israel,” Eretz Israel 7, 143-60 (Hebrew). Mazar, B., Biran, A., Dothan, M. and Dunayevski, I. 1961: “‘Ein Gev Excavations 1961,” Israel Exploration Journal 14, 1-33. Mazar, E. 2002: The Complete Guide to the Temple Mount Excavations, Jerusalem, Jerusalem. McGovern, P. E. 1985: Late Bronze Age Palestinian Pndants: Innovation in a Cosmopolitan Age, Sheffield. Meshel, Z. l978: Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judean Monarchy on the Boder of Sinai, Israel Museum Catalogue 175, Jerusalem. Meshel, Z. 1979: “Did Yahweh Have a Consort?” Biblical Archaeology Review 5/2, 24-35. Schroer, S. 1987: In Israel gab es Bilder (OBO 74), Fribourg/Göttingen. Sellin, E. 1904: Tell Ta‘annek, Vienna. Smith, M. S. 20022 (1990): The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, San Francisco/Grand Rapids. Sugimoto, D. T. 2008: Female Figurines with a Disk from the Southern Levant and the Formation of Monotheism, Tokyo. Sugimoto, D. T. 2009: Religious Archeological Artifacts from Ancient Israel and the Formation of Monotheism,” in H. Ichikawa et al. (eds.) What is Religious History? Vol. 1, Tokyo, 229-266 (Japanese). Sugimoto, D. T. 2011 “A Stamp Seal with Complex Religious Motifs from Tel ‘En Gev,” Bulletin

Vol. XLVII 2012 145 of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 54-1, 43-58. Sugimoto, D. T. forthcoming “The Judean Pillar Figurines and the ‘Queen of Heaven’,” Ishtar/ Astarte/Aphrodite: Transformation of a Goddess. Taylor, J. G. 1993: Yahweh and the Sun (JSOTS 111), Sheffield. Tufnell, O. et al. (eds.) 1940: Lachish II (Tell ed-Duweir): London. Tufnell, O. et al. (eds.) 1953: Lachish III (Tell ed-Duweir): London. Tigay, J. H. 1986: You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSS 31), Atlanta GA: Scholars Press. Winter, U. 1983: Frau und Göttin (OBO53), Fribourg/Göttingen.

146 ORIENT