The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah

Kletter, Raz

doi:10.30861/9780860548188

Cited by 43 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…31-61); these are rather rare at Ashdod. Judean pillar figurines ('JPF', e.g., Kletter 1996Kletter , 2001, probably related to some 'Asherah cult' (see, e.g., Olyan 1988; Hadley 2000, more references therein), were also found in small numbers in eastern Philistia as at Ekron (Gitin personal communication) and Gath (Maeir personal communication), as well assites on the border of Philistia (as at Batash, Beth Shemesh and Gezer, see Kletter 1996Kletter , 2001). Very few of these types of figurines were found at Iron Age II Ashdod, presumably, due to its greater distance from Judah in comparison to Ekron and Gath (Kletter 2001, pp.…”

Section: Household ('Popular') Cult and Religionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Philistine Cult and Religion According to Archaeological Evidence

Ben‐Shlomo

2019

Religions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper surveys and discusses the updated archaeological evidence for Philistine cult and religion, and cult and religion in Philistia during the Iron Age. The evidence can be related to public or official cult, represented in temple and shrine structures, and to that coming from households, representing possibly more popular religion. The evidence of public cult, so far mostly from peripheral sites, includes largely cultural elements linked with the local Canaanite cult and religion. Yet, within households at the Philistine cities there is more evidence for cultic elements of Aegean affinity during Iron Age I. In particular, figurines and ceramic figurative vessels and objects will be discussed. It seems that the Philistine religion may have retained certain distinctive elements also during Iron Age II. Nevertheless, it is still difficult to reconstruct the details of the nature of the Philistine religion due to the limited amount of evidence and lack of textual records.

show abstract

Section: Household ('Popular') Cult and Religionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Philistine Cult and Religion According to Archaeological Evidence

Ben‐Shlomo

2019

Religions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It raises the question, what conclusion about the cult practiced at the site should be drawn from their absence? Unfortunately, this question cannot be answered with certitude, as a hot debate is raging among scholars on the function of figurines in the cult practiced in the ancient Near East, and in particular in the Levant (for recent discussions of the Judahite figurines, see Kletter 1996;Moorey 2003: 47-68;Wilson 2012;Ben-Shlomo and Darby 2014;Darby 2014;Dolansky 2016). 25 23 A single figurine was discovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa and was published by Hasel 2012: 163-64.…”

Section: Did the Cult Practiced At Khirbet Qeiyafa Reflect The Cult Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Was Khirbet Qeiyafa a Judahite City? The Case against It

Na’aman

2017

JHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article critically examines the argument that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Judahite stronghold established by king David. Detailed analysis of the published reports do not disclose any findings that connect it to either Jerusalem or the Judean and Benjaminite highlands in the 10th century BCE. On the contrary, the site conducted ramified commercial relations with districts located throughout the Land of Israel and beyond. It is evident that Khirbet Qeiyafa is connected neither to the emergence of the kingdom of Judah nor to king David, and should be studied in the context of the Shephelah, the district in which it is located.

show abstract

“…63 In terms of archaeological context, they were found most frequently in domestic settings, followed by burial sites and cisterns. 64 While JPFs have been the subject of much scholarly debate, two recent studies connect the beginning of widespread production of JPFs in the eighth century to the national crisis Judah faced during the time of Assyrian agression. Ryan Byrne has suggested that JPFs "reflected a specifically Judean preoccupation with social reproduction and, by implication, the survival of national identity [emphasis mine]."…”

Section: Jerusalem and The Biblical Metaphor Of Nursingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Oh that you were like a brother to me, one who had nursed at my mother's breasts.” Breast Milk as a Kinship-Forging Substance

Chapman¹

2012

JHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term “blood relatives” exists as an accepted and understood part of our English lexicon. It is only recently that anthropologists focusing on kinship studies have leveled a critique against the uni- versal application of the metaphor of “blood” as a substance that establishes kinship relatedness. Adam Kuper, for example, argues that the notion of blood relatedness is culturally constrained, a uniquely European concept that finds its fullest articulation within British imperialism, an era that coincides with the development of the field of anthropology in Europe.1 Likewise, Edouard Conte, who examines concepts of relatedness within Arab cultures, posits that the notion of kinship being determined by “blood” is a par- ticularly western phenomenon and does not fit the self- understanding of Arabs.2 He argues that Classical Arab physicians deal little with blood and do not see blood as passing on hereditary attributes.

show abstract

The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah

Cited by 43 publications

References 0 publications

Philistine Cult and Religion According to Archaeological Evidence

Philistine Cult and Religion According to Archaeological Evidence

Was Khirbet Qeiyafa a Judahite City? The Case against It

“Oh that you were like a brother to me, one who had nursed at my mother's breasts.” Breast Milk as a Kinship-Forging Substance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About