Kuntillet 'Ajrud, Sacred Trees and the Asherah (original) (raw)
2008, Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University
The point of departure for the article is the contrast between the abundance of unique artefacts, religious inscriptions and drawings unearthed at Kuntillet >Ajrud and the absence of remains associated with cultic activity at the site. It is proposed that this discrepancy in the finding may be accounted for by a tradition of a sacred tree and a cult site around it. The discussion first explores the importance of the cult of sacred trees in the history of the Levant. Several ancient Levantine cult sites developed around prominent trees that drew sanctity to their vicinity. In this light, it is conjectured that at the site of Kuntillet >Ajrud the actual cultic activity took place around a sacred tree (or sacred grove) and a nearby altar, while the main building served as a storehouse for the sancta of the goddess Asherata, her dedications and treasures. Such a building could also have served as an inn for pilgrims travelling along the Darb el-Ghazza, but its function as a caravanserai was secondary to its main purpose as the goddess' treasury.
Related papers
A New Outlook at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and its Inscriptions, Maarav 20/1 (2013) [2015], 39-51
Kuntillet ‛Ajrud was an Israelite outpost constructed by the King of Israel, probably Jeroboam II, near the road leading from the coast of Philistia to the Gulf of Eilat. It was built in an attempt to control and supervise the Darb el-Ghazza route and became the major component in the Israelite King's efforts to participate in the growing international trade and gain part of the revenues of the Arabian trade. The building was a royal edifice and all the discovered inscriptions, paintings and artefacts reflect its function as a royal Israelite center. The site was possibly selected due to a magnificent sacred tree that grew in a nearby location. The cult of the goddess Asherat, YHWH's consort and the goddess of fertility, took place outside the edifice, probably near the sacred tree
The point of departure for the article is the contrast between the abundance of unique artefacts, religious inscriptions and drawings unearthed at Kuntillet >Ajrud and the absence of remains associated with cultic activity at the site. It is proposed that this discrepancy in the finding may be accounted for by a tradition of a sacred tree and a cult site around it. The discussion first explores the importance of the cult of sacred trees in the history of the Levant. Several ancient Levantine cult sites developed around prominent trees that drew sanctity to their vicinity. In this light, it is conjectured that at the site of Kuntillet >Ajrud the actual cultic activity took place around a sacred tree (or sacred grove) and a nearby altar, while the main building served as a storehouse for the sancta of the goddess Asherata, her dedications and treasures. Such a building could also have served as an inn for pilgrims travelling along the Darb el-Ghazza, but its function as a caravanserai was secondary to its main purpose as the goddess' treasury.
Kuntillet 'Ajrud: A Case for Critical Revision
Kuntillet c Ajrud: A Case for Critical Revision Kuntillet c Ajrud is an archaeological site with data in objects, images and texts that kept scholars on both sides of the hermeneutical divide busy. The secular/nihilistic orientated archaeologists are trying to connect the dots on both image and text to what they have already chose to see regarding the text: that the text is a late post-exilic creation and archaeology in their view is uncovering the " true Israel and their religion and their pantheon ". The other view is biblically textual-based, a position supported by other extra-biblical sources of literacy in all periods of the Levant in nearly all Ancient cultures continuously, and not only after the sixth century BCE. The hazard to prove earlier writings' existence archaeologically is the preservation ability of writings materials used that leads to meagreness of data, not the reality of its existence. Kuntillet c Ajrud is not only an Ashera site but also a Baal site, mentioning the word " prophet " ; included an eschatological text with elements similar to Habakkuk 3 (520 BCE) and the Divine Warrior motif in Kajr 4.2. Ceramics (pithoi) came from Jerusalem, Samaria and even further north. Was Ashera written on the pithoi in Jerusalem or on Kuntillet c Ajrud? Ashera also appeared on plaster-texts. Scholars are divided how it should be interpreted: that Ashera is a cultic place, gameboard, goddess or name of person. The 3 rd person singular pronoun added to the name can be shown also at Ebla and Ugarit. However, consensus of nihilists preferred to read " his [Yahweh's] Ashera ". It was found in this article that a revision of all data rather points to the fact that the Ashera of the Addresee is in mind just like at Khirbet el Qōm where it reads " his [Uryahu's] Asherah, not that of Yahweh. It does not deny that idolatry was exercised here but as the prophets (early = Amos, Hosea, Isaiah) all condemned Ashera and Baal worship on mountains near Tema, at Samaria, so this continued also with the later prophets Ezechiel and Jeremiah around the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BCE and continuing to 586 BCE. The iconography at the site had strong connections to Greek Vase art, especially the particular connection to one cow and calf motif dating to ca. 520 BCE. Nimrud Ivories are dated not only in the 9 th century but from the 9 th to the 6 th century BCE as the scholars reminded us. Textiles at Kuntillet c Ajrud were in abundance, especially linen and also wool. The prophets like Ezechiel indicated the importance of textiles for the idolaters of that era. Whereas nihilistic archaeological-priority scholars find support at Kuntillet c Ajrud for Yahweh having a consort and proving their stance that Israel religion transformed from polytheism to monotheism, the opposite view in this article uses their excellent data to prove that the biblical texts (that not only originated after the exile) are text and data connected to such an extent that archaeology cannot be done without a text on the tel. The Lachish III pottery debate leaves open a 800 BCE date or a 597 BCE date (favored by this writer) and Kuntillet c Ajrud are filled with these types of ceramics. Radiocarbon dating does not only indicate a 800 BCE date but as Schniedewind indicated may even touch the 10 th century BCE. Phoenician influence at the site led Singer in her confrontation with ca. 800 BCE scholars (early Lachish III dating scholars) to move the timing about 50 years later around 730 BCE (herself also an early Lachish III dating
The Samarian Syncretic Yahwism and the Religious Center of Kuntillet Ajrud
The 8th-century BCE site of Kuntillet ᶜAjrud still remains a mystery, although it has been discussed in a number of studies. This is because of some enigmatic elements of this site, such as the extremely isolated far-southern location of the site on the Judahite-Egyptian border in northern Sinai (contrasting with the evident connection with the northern kingdom of Israel), the predominant proportion of storage vessels manufactured in the Jerusalem area, the inscriptions associated with personal blessing, and the fortress-like main building decorated with crude wall paintings.
An Early Iron Age Phase to Kuntillet ʿAjrud?
Published in Le-ma'an Ziony (eds. F. Greenspahn and G. Rendsburg; Cascade Books, 2017). Argues that the archaeological, C14, and epigraphic evidence allows for a much longer period of activity at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud ranging from the late 10th century through the late 8th century BCE.
A Holy Warrior at Kuntillet Ajrud? KA Plaster Inscription 4.2 (2022)
The Bible in the Ancient Near East: Essys in Honor of P. Kyle McCarter, 2022
The recent publication of the final report of the excavations at Kuntillet ʿAjrud has occasioned dramatically new understandings of this remote site on the Darb el-Ghazza caravan route, likely under the control of the northern kingdom of Israel during the reign of Jeroboam II. Epigraphically, scholars now have a treasure trove of new data especially with the first publication of numerous photographs that have also produced dramatically different analyses. This is particularly true of the plaster inscriptions written for the most part in a Phoenician script and, some would now assert, in the Phoenician language, not Hebrew. Of the plaster inscriptions, Kuntillet ʿAjrud Plaster Inscription 4.2 stands out as truly remarkable. It represents a militaristic wilderness theophany couched within what has been called “the oldest known Hebrew poem” outside of the Hebrew Bible. Now with the final report—published nearly four decades after the excavations—scholars for the first time are presented with a much fuller (and surprisingly different) set of readings. What may be a second fragment of the inscription putatively mentioning [Ya]hw[eh] has also been published for the first time. Nadav Na’aman is certainly correct that the new dataset published in the final report “calls for a thorough re-investigation of this unique desert site and its findings.” The present analysis, after securing the text, will reinvestigate the portrayal of divinity in KA 4.2, and particularly the mention of a deity who has not drawn the attention of historians of Israelite religion using the remarkable finds at Kuntillet ʿAjrud.
KUNTILLET ʿAJRUD: PILGRIM’S ROADHOUSE TO MOUNT SINAI (HAR KARKOM)
Academia Letters, 2021
In northeastern Sinai about 50 km (30 miles) south of Kadesh-Barnea lies the famous and mysterious Kuntillet ʿAjrud (c. 400 m asl), an Iron Age ruin yielding inscriptions mentioning Yahweh (the God of Israel), Teman, and Shomron (Samaria). Some scholars suggest it was a way-station for pilgrims to Mount Sinai. The ruin lies only 40 km from Har Karkom via an ancient trail through Wadi Quraya, compared to 200 km from Jebel Musa via several roads and regions. Its location in an agricultural floodplain at the crossroads of N-S/E-W Negev routes indicates that Kuntillet ʿAjrud was a monastery-type facility for Samarian pilgrims to Mount Sinai at Har Karkom.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Related papers
2014