To encounter ancient Near Eastern religion, one can hardly do better than to begin with the clay model house shrines that appear as early as the third millennium B.C. and continue through the Biblical period.
An especially instructive one is said to have come from northern Palestine, either east or west of the Jordan River, dating about the tenth or ninth century B.C., the heart of the Biblical period.1 The three well-known scholars who studied it call this house shrine “outstanding” for its “exceptionally rich iconographic detail … warranting the prompt publication of this remarkable object.”
Paradoxically, although it is iconographically rich, the object itself is of low quality. It is badly fired, with a thick black core. The clay is poorly levigated (smoothed) and has little holes created by straw (or other organic material) that was in the clay mix. The clay also has little white and gray inclusions.
Clay model shrines are of two types: small rectangular (or square) houses and rounded houses made by using potters’ techniques. The model shrine from Ashkelon that housed the famous silver calf statuette is an example of a shrine made like a pottery vessel.a The model shrine from northern Palestine, so rich in iconographic detail, is of the rectangular type. Like others of its type, it has an elaborate entablature above the entrance.
The house shrine features three important decorative elements: (1) two free-standing palmette columns flanking the entrance, (2) nude female figurines attached to the columns and (3) a recumbent lion.
The little house itself is a nearly square box about 0226 inches wide. It is made of clay slabs put together by hand. Most scholars believe that these model shrines were intended to represent the abode of the deity. How they functioned, however, remains a mystery. Some were apparently presented to the deity in an actual temple. Others were placed in tombs, perhaps to invoke the deity in death. Still others appear to have been part of a ritual conducted at home. Religion scholar Ziony Zevit has suggested that the miniature house shrine may have provided handy indirect access to an actual shrine: “[Miniature domestic shrines] may have functioned like a telephone when a face-to-face conversation was not physically possible.”2
The two columns in front of the little house support a triangular entablature above the house. The columns are topped by double volute capitals common to the period, often called proto-Aeolic (or proto-Ionic) capitals. The columns themselves, as the three scholars who studied this shrine noted, recall the two free-standing bronze columns (called Yachin and Boaz [1 Kings 7:21; 2 Chronicles 3:17]) that flanked the entrance to Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem.
Attached to the front of each of these columns is a nude female figure cast in a mold. Each wears an Egyptian-style wig and holds what appears to be a tambourine. Two smaller figures sit above the two attached to the columns, while a third small figure is attached to the center of the upper portion of the triangular entablature. Four more nude figurines are in a recess of the entablature above the entrance. They are hard to see and one may even be a dove instead.
The figurines on the shrine are almost surely deities—or multiple copies of a single deity. They probably indicate the identity of the deity that was believed to dwell inside the shrine.
If one of the little nude figures is in fact meant to be a dove, perhaps the deity is a fertility goddess (in the ancient world birds were often associated with naked females, who in turn often represented fertility goddesses). The most likely candidate is the Canaanite goddess Asherah. This is suggested not only by the nude depiction and the presence of the proto-Aeolic capitals, but also by a third iconographic element we have not yet discussed: the recumbent lion.
The lion, with wide-open jaw, large teeth and panting tongue, sits at the base of the column to the right of the entrance. He bears a striking resemblance to other lions of the 023period—for example, the ones on the cult stand from Taanach and the lions that flanked the entrance to the so-called orthostat temple at Hazor. Lions are often associated with Near Eastern deities and, like the lion on this shrine, frequently served as guardians of a temple.
The shrine also features numerous circular indentations. The scholars who studied it suggest they may represent pigeon holes—adding to the bird/goddess symbolism on the shrine.
Because this model shrine came from the antiquities market, the scholars who studied it were especially sensitive to the possibility that it was a forgery. They subjected it to thermoluminescence testing, which established that it was ancient. They tested it petrographically, studying the clay. They examined the shrine’s iconographic details and its style. Their conclusion: It is authentic.
Why then hasn’t this study been published? Why haven’t the three scholars who studied the object and wrote a detailed report about it—saying it “warrants prompt publication”—shared their insights with the scholarly world?
The answer: fear.
The fact is that the model shrine is owned by the well-known antiquities collector Shlomo Moussaieff, who has willingly made his collection available to scholars for study and publication. The scholarly study on the house shrine was submitted to an Israeli academic journal, but it was refused for publication because the shrine came from the antiquities market. The authors of the study (we will respect their desire for anonymity) have decided that in the current climate, they will not submit it for publication elsewhere.
Moussaieff says he purchased the shrine from a Jordanian antiquities dealer. It may have been looted or it may have come from an old collection. Moussaeiff owns several other house shrines, and he is willing to allow scholars to study them. But unless a scholar has a strong spine (and tenure), he or she will be reluctant to study and publish an unprovenanced antiquity. The result: The world is deprived of the knowledge these artifacts may impart.
In fact, most major senior scholars who study ancient artifacts (a somewhat different group from field archaeologists) will publish objects that come from the antiquities market.b But the pressure to desist is 025severe. Both the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) and the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) have adopted regulations forbidding the publication of unprovenanced artifacts in their journals and banning them from being presented to fellow scholars at their meetings.
ASOR and the AIA also shun this magazine because we do publish unprovenanced artifacts. Our position is simple: If refusing even to look at unprovenanced objects would substantially reduce archaeological looting, we would have a difficult decision to make. But the extreme position of ASOR and AIA (which would have forbidden publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls) has little or no effect on looting, which remains worse than ever. In these circumstances, it is folly to deprive the world of the knowledge that may be imparted by objects from the antiquities market. Surely such an object must be intensively studied to determine whether it is a forgery, but if it passes muster we want to learn from it.—H.S.
To encounter ancient Near Eastern religion, one can hardly do better than to begin with the clay model house shrines that appear as early as the third millennium B.C. and continue through the Biblical period.
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
See “Should Scholars Look at Finds that May Have Been Looted?” and “Statement on Inscribed Artifacts Without Provenience,” in “Update—Finds or Fakes?”BAR, September/October 2005.
Endnotes
1.
The scholars who studied the shrine noted that the iconography indicates that it dates no later than the ninth century B.C.
2.
Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel (New York: Continuum, 2001), p. 340.
