Understanding Asherah—Exploring Semitic Iconography

Home > Magazines > BAR > September/October 1991

I would like to focus on a single well-known archaeological artifact as an entry into ancient Semitic iconography. More specifically, I would like to examine the Lachish ewer—and related artifacts—in order better to understand the ancient Canaanite goddess Asherah,1 who is mentioned at least 40 times in the Hebrew Bible. From the Biblical references, it appears that Asherah is referred to in three different manifestations: (1) as an image, probably a statue or figurine representing the goddess herself; (2) as a tree; and (3) as a tree trunk. The latter two are, in effect, symbols of the goddess. According […]

Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.

Join the BAS Library!

Already a library member? Log in here.

Institution user? Log in with your IP address or Username

Footnotes

B.C.E. (Before the Common Era), used by this author, is the alternate designation corresponding to B.C. often used in scholarly literature.

The Ugaritic t_ (th) is equivalent to the s (sh) in Hebrew, the Ugaritic feminine ending -r is equivalent to the Hebrew -h.

In that period, the direction of writing was not yet fixed and inscriptions were written in either direction.

Repousse is a method of making a relief decoration by pressing or hammering the reverse side.

See Ze’ev Meshel, “Did Yahweh Have a Consort?” BAR 05:02, and André Lemaire, “Who or What Was Yahweh’s Asherah?” BAR 10:06.

Some scholars have attempted to identify one of the triad as the Hebrew God Yahweh and another as his consort Asherah. In the picture the left-hand figure is proposed as Yahweh, and one of the other two as his consort Asherah.

But see letter of Baruch Margalit of Haifa University, “Bes or Yahweh?”, Queries & Comments, BAR 15:06.

Endnotes

For a general discussion, see William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1942); W. L. Reed, The Asherah in the Old Testament (Fort Worth, TX: Christian Univ. Press, 1949); Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City, NY: Doubleday 1968); Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1973); Walter A. Maier III, ‘Asherah: Extrabiblical Evidence, Harvard Semitic Monographs (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); John Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986), pp. 385–408; Saul M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).

For some different views, see Edward Lipinski, “The Goddess Attirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon and in Ugarit,” Orientalia Lovaniensa Periodica 3, 1972, pp. 101–119; André Lemaire, “Les Inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qom et l’Asherah de Yhwh,” Revue Biblique 84 (1977), pp. 597–608; M. Gilula, “To Yahweh Shomron and to his Asherah,” Shnaton 3 (1978–1979), pp. 129–137 (in Hebrew); Lemaire, “Who or What was Yahweh’s Asherah?” BAR 10:06; J. A. Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982), pp. 2–20; William G. Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) 255 (1984), pp. 21–37.

The Mishnah, transl. Jacob Neusner (New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1988), p. 666.

Cross, “The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet,” Eretz-Israel 8 (1967), p. 16; and “The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet,” BASOR 134 (1954), pp. 20–21.

Cross, “The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet,” pp. 20–21.

E. D. Van Buren, Symbols of the Gods in Mesopotamian Art (Rome: Pontifical Inst., 1945), p. 22. The significance and function of the sacred tree has given rise to more discussions than almost any other symbolic element; cf. the comprehensive study by H. Danthine, Le palmier-dattier et les arbres sacrés dans l’iconographie de l’Asie occidentale ancienne (Paris: Geuthner, 1937), pp. 210–213.

Henri Frankfort, Cylinder Seals (London: Macmillan, 1939), pp. 204–207; Frankfort, Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1953), p. 68. In Syria too, a bedecked “maypole” was an object of worship; in one Syrian cylinder seal the head of the deity dwelling in the object emerges at its top; cf. Edith Porada, Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North-American Collections: The Collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library, vol. 1, Plates (New York: Pantheon, 1948), no. 956.

Ruth Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1969), pp. 161–165, figs. 164–166, pl. 50.

W. Helck, “Zum Auftreten fremder Götter in Ägypten,” Oriens Antiquus 5 (1966), pp. 1–14.

I. E. S. Edwards, “A Relief of Qudshu-Astarte-Anath in the Winchester Collection,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), pp. 49–51.

10.

R. Stadelmann, Syrisch-Palastinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten (Leiden: Brill, 1967), p. 113.

11.

Albright, “Some Observations on the New Material for the History of the Alphabet,” BASOR 134 (1954), p. 26; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 33–34, 43–46.

12.

I. R. Engle, “Pillar Figurines of Iron Age Israel and Asherah-Asherim,” Ph. D. dissertation, Univ. Of Pittsburgh, 1979.

13.

As far as I know, Raphael Patai was the first to identify the pillar figurines with Asherah. See Patai, The Hebrew Goddess (New York: Ktav, 1967), pp. 29–52. For the view that the plaques or figures cannot be associated with any particular goddess, see Marie-Therèse Barrelet, “Deux déesses syro-phéniciennes sur un bronze du Louvre,” Syria 35 (1958), pp. 27–44, and James B. Pritchard, Palestinian Figures in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known Through Literature (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Soc., 1943), p. 86.

14.

Paul W. Lapp, “The 1968 Excavations at Tell Ta’anek: The New Cultic Stand,” BASOR 195 (1969), pp. 42–44, at p. 44. Some scholars have suggested in discussions that it should be identified as a horse, but an important element—the mane—is missing.