Category: Matrifocus

Author: Johanna Stuckey, PhD
From the Archives of MatriFocus
A Cross-Quarterly Web Magazine for Goddess Women Near & Far
Lammas 2009, Vol 8-4

Tanit, with a pill-box crown, the “polos.” She is dressed in a robe in the Greek style. Her jewelry consists of a glass-paste necklace with graduated beads, and gold earrings.  Her arms are in what was probably a “blessing” position, and they have some limited movement. A number of other figurines like this came from Ibiza. Terracotta. Half life-size. Fifth-fourth century BCE. Found in the Punic graveyard of Puig des Molins, Ibiza, Spain (The Phoenicians settled in Spain around 650 BCE.) Archaeological Museum, Barcelona.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after photograph at http://tinyurl.com/lkzmxs.

When I was in Malta with a group in 1992, I got permission from the archaeological museum to visit the excavations at Tas Ṡilg,[1] a promontory overlooking the picturesque harbor of Marsaxlokk. Not far outside the gate to the excavations, we could see the small church of Our Lady of the Hail on part of the hill. The excavations were at that time overgrown, fragrant with herbs and full of small lizards, but the dark-red and grey mosaic floor under my feet gave witness to an earlier glory. I was standing on part of the huge sanctuary that had covered the hill. It had been dedicated, variously, to Phoenician Astarte, possibly to Carthaginian Tanit, to Greek Hera, and to Roman Juno Caelestis. I climbed over the exposed Phoenician walls to where the remains of a megalithic temple were quite recognizable. When the archaeologists dug into that area, they found a damaged but splendid statue of one of the so-called “fat ladies” of Malta. So, from the megalithic temple of about 3000 BCE to the Virgin Mary chapel of today, Tas Ṡilg has continued to be sacred to goddesses.

Female figure wearing a loose robe and wrapped with wings from the hips down. A veil topped by a hawk’s head covers her curly hair. In her right hand  she holds a small dove-shaped incense burner and in her left a small bowl. Earrings and bracelet complete her outfit. Everything suggests that she was a priestess of Tanit in her robes of office. A figurine of Tanit with wings was found in Ibiza in the Balearic Islands. Relief sculpture from a coffin. From Carthage. End of fourth century-beginning of third century BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, Moscati 1999: Plate 9.

The heyday of the great temple began when the Carthaginians gained control of the Maltese archipelago in the 6th century BCE. Over the next 300 years, the temple, now belonging to Astarte and Tanit, grew in grandeur and wealth until, in 218 BCE, the Carthaginians lost Malta to the Romans. As was their custom, the Romans identified the local goddess with their Juno Caelestis and expanded the sanctuary on a grand scale, with a monumental gateway and magnificent mosaic floors. This rich and flourishing temple complex was certainly the world-famous sanctuary to Juno that Roman orator Cicero accused Caius Verres of pillaging while governor of Sicily and Malta, between 73 and 71 BCE. Despite Verres’s depredations, the temple survived well into our era, still dedicated to Tanit’s Roman counterpart, Juno Caelestis.

The great Carthaginian goddess Tanit is definitely still a puzzle. We do know that she was the tutelary or protector goddess of the city of Carthage, originally a Phoenician colony in North Africa (Aubet 2001: 343). However, scholars are still undecided on the spelling and meaning of her name, her origins, her personality and powers, and, most of all, the question of her having been the prime recipient of child sacrifices at Carthage and elsewhere in the Punic (Carthaginian) and Phoenician world.[2]

In the closely related Semitic dialects Phoenician and Punic,[3] the goddess’s name was written tnt (Lipiński 1995: 199). Scholars have rendered it diversely as Tanit, Tannit, Tanit(h), Tennit, or Tinnit. However, its meaning is still disputed. One explanation is that it comes from the Semitic root “to lament” and so signifies “She Who Weeps,” perhaps for a disappearing (dying) god like Adonis (Lipiński 1995: 199; Lipiński in Lipiński 1992: 438). Yet other scholars translate Tanit as “Dragon or Serpent Lady.” This would be an example of an epithet “later personified as a distinct goddess” (Meyers 1997: IV, 316). “Tanit,” according to this theory, derived from the same root as Tannin, the snaky, dragon-like sea monster of Canaanite myth and the Hebrew Bible (Isaiah 51: 9; Ezekiel 29: 3-5) (Olyan 1988: 53-54 note 63). The first to make this suggestion was F. M. Cross, and he also argued that Tanit began as an epithet of the Canaanite goddess Asherah (1973:32-33; Olyan 1988: 58).

Head of goddess Tanit on coin from Carthage, her city. Such coins often had a war (?) horse on one side. Tanit’s elaborate coiffure is held in place by a band of what looks like plaited grain. She wears earrings and two necklaces. Coin probably produced during the Second Punic War, 218-202 BCE, when Carthaginian general Hannibal crossed the Alps and invaded Italy. British Museum. Electrum. 14 mm in diameter, 2.76 g in weight.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after a photograph at http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/.

Not surprisingly, most scholars treat Tanit as having come from the Phoenician mainland — as a descendant of one or more of the great Canaanite goddesses. Many think she was a Punic version of Astarte (Hardin 1963:87-88), but in some temples the two were clearly separate deities, though related (Ahlström 1986: 312; Betlyon 1985: 53-54). Some argue that her name is a version of Anat (Hvidberg-Hansen 1986: 178; Albright 1968: 42ff.). A few others see her as either originating in North Africa or being a combination of an indigenous North African goddess with one or more of the Phoenician/Canaanite deities (Ben Khader and Soren 1987: 44-45). An older explanation connects Tanit with the Egyptian goddess Neith (Olyan 1988: 54 note 63).

Small figure of a Phoenician lady or priestess wearing long robe and cloak, part of which she holds in her left hand. Her jewelry consists of earrings, two necklaces, and what looks like a wrap-round snaky bracelet. Her ornate coiffure is held back by headbands, and she wears sandals. Likely an ornament or handle of a large cult vessel. From Golgoi, Cyprus. Seventh century BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Harden 1963: Plate 71.

The Greeks called her Tenneith or Tinnith and, as mentioned above, identified her with Hera, while the Romans named her Juno Caelestis. The Syrian who became Roman emperor (203-222 CE) under the name Elegabalus, which means “God of the Mountain” (Baal Hamon “Lord of Mt. Amanus”?), identified his empress with Juno Caelestis. He took her statue to Rome, where he built a temple for her on the Capitoline Hill next to that of Juno Moneta (Benko 2004: 33). So, as Caelestis, Tanit was worshiped in Rome. (Benko 2004: 30-33). She was also identified with Artemis and Persephone (Lipiński 1995:205).

From the evidence of archaeology, there can be no doubt that Tanit was a very popular goddess in Phoenician settlements in the West. However, today there is evidence that Tanit was known and worshiped in Phoenician proper. A tantalizing Carthaginian inscription found in 1898 read “To the Lady [Chief] Ashtart and Tannit in lbnn [Lebanon?],” but scholars were unsure what lbnn meant[4] (Bordreuil 1987; Cross 1973: 30). However, an ivory plaque solved the problem. The plaque, found in an 8th century BCE temple at Phoenician Sarepta, was dedicated to “Tanit and Astarte.” This constituted the first evidence that Tanit was worshiped in the Phoenician homeland, especially what is now Lebanon (Bordreuil 1987: 81). Before that find, Tanit was thought to be a strictly western and Carthaginian goddess (Aubet 2001: 68).

In 1971, a fisherman hauled in a group of figurines from the seabed off the coast of Israel. He had come upon a shipwreck dated to the 5th century BCE carrying, among other things, what turned out to be more than 400 mold-made terracotta figurines. From the “sign of Tanit” on the bases of some of them, scholars have identified them as representing Tanit. They were probably destined for one of the Phoenician temples, to be sold to worshipers as offerings or keepsakes (Meyers 1997: V, 17-18).

One of Astarte’s titles at ancient Ugarit in Syria and in Phoenicia was Shem Baal (shm b’l) “Name of Baal,” and it is interesting that Pane Baal (pn b’l) “Face [or Presence] of Baal” was a Tanit epithet in Punic inscriptions. It might have indicated that Tanit represented Baal (Hamon) in some way (Seow in Toorn et al. 1999: 322). In addition, in one 5th-century BCE inscription, Astarte was also called Pane Baal (Betlyon 1985: 54). However, Edward Lipiński, who thinks the epithet tnt signifies “She Who Weeps,” suggests that Tanit Pane Baal meant “Pleureuse en face de Baal” — “Weeper in the Presence of Baal” (1995: 2003). Undoubtedly, Tanit and Astarte were closely connected.

Ornate Carthaginian stela, with two images of Tanit. One, in the bottom right-hand corner, a frontally posed nude with hand touching a flowering tree (life, fertility?), the other a human-faced, coiffed “sign of Tanit” with crescent and sun above her head. Her human hands hold cornucopias. One cornucopia pours forth grapes, the other a pomegranate, all symbols of fertility. The space is further filled with flowers and leaves. Small circles with a central dot may represent breasts? From Carthage, now in the British Museum. Limestone. Neo-Punic, second century CE. Height 47.500 cm.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Tubb 1998: 145.

Tanit and Asherah may have been associated as well (Brody 1998: 30). A later title of Tanit, rabat “Chief,” usually translated “Lady,” was also one of Asherah’s epithets and indicated the supreme status of both goddesses (Ribichini in Toorn et al. 1999: 340).

In Carthage at the height of her power and elsewhere in the Punic world, Tanit’s consort was Baal Ham(m)on, “Lord of Mt. Amanus,” identified with Canaanite high god El and later with Zeus (Clifford 1990: 61-62; Olyan 1988: 5). The Romans, however, equated him with their god Saturnus (Brody 1998: 22). Inscriptions before the 5th century BCE were usually dedicated to Baal Hamon alone. After the fifth century Tanit Pane Baal had joined him in the dedications and soon was being mentioned first. One example, from Carthage, reads: “To the Lady Tanit Face [Presence] of Baal and the Lord Baal Hammon, offering made by Bodashtart son of Hamilcar, son of Abdmelcart, son of Bodashtart, because he heard his prayer” (quoted from Harden 1963: 120). Not long into the 5th century BCE, Tanit seems to have supplanted Baal Hamon as main deity of Carthage, at least in the religion of ordinary folk.

The details of Tanit’s nature and powers are not really clear. Like Astarte, she had a complex personality (Markoe 2000:130). First and foremost, she was the mother deity of Carthage, protector of the city and provider of fertility. As such she seems to have been a deity of good fortune. Goddess of the heavens, she was often associated with the moon (Benko 2004: 23). Like Asherah, she had maritime connections and was a patron of sailors (Brody 1998: 32-33; Betlyon 1985: 54). There is also some indication that she had a warlike nature, as we would expect of the protector of a city (Ahlström 1986: 311).

On carvings, Tanit’s presence was often signaled by dolphins or other fish as befitted her patronage of sailors.[5] Fertility symbols also abounded: pomegranates, palm trees, bunches of grapes, grain, leaves, and flowers. Indicators of her celestial connections were the crescent moon and sun. A caduceus entwined with what look like snakes might refer to Tanit as “She of the Snake” or, as one scholar has suggested, it might be a stylized version of Asherah’s sacred tree (Carter 1987: 378). Often, dove-like birds appear (Benko 2004: 24; Moscati 1999: 139). On some stelae an enigmatic open hand might suggest the delivery of a blessing (Azize 2007:196). In addition, Tanit was depicted in winged form in a cult cave on the Spanish island of Ibiza (Lipiński 1995:424-425; Ferrer 1970).

Many stelae feature the so-called “Sign of Tanit,” perhaps a stylized human body, formed by a triangle topped with a circle, the two shapes being separated by a horizontal line usually with upturned ends. Sometimes it also included a crescent (moon?). Since the circle occasionally had a human face sketched on it, the “Sign of Tanit” is generally accepted as representing the goddess, though some think the circle to be the disk of the full moon (Lipiński 1995: 206-215).

(left) Punic stela from Cirta (Constantine), which lay west of and inland from Carthage in North Africa. A stylized human-shaped “sign of Tanit” stands above a dolphin, Greek symbol of maternity. One arm bears a “caduceus.” Below the dolphin an inscription fills a rectangular space. No earlier than the third century BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Moscati 1999: Plate 18.
(right) Votive stela from the “tophet” at Carthage. Punic inscription, which fills the square at the bottom, says that the stela was dedicated to Baal (Hamon) by a man with a Romanized name, Gaius Julius Arish, son of Adon-Baal. British Museum. Limestone. Length 75 cms, width 38 cms. Second-first century BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after photograph online at www.britishmuseum.org/ under title “Limestone stela with dedication to Baal.”

A huge sanctuary, a central feature of the city of Carthage, was probably dedicated to Tanit and her consort (Markoe 2000: 136). Its oldest level dated to the 8th century BCE. It was razed when the Romans finally defeated the Carthaginians in 146 BCE. In rebuilt Roman Carthage, the magnificent shrine to Juno Caelestis was “one of the greatest and most influential sanctuaries” in the Empire (Benko 2004: 23). Christian sources reported that the temple was the most public space in Carthage and was still being used in the time of St. Augustine (353-430 CE), a native of the city (Benko 2004: 35-36). The temple was converted to a Christian church in 399 CE and was destroyed and turned into a Christian cemetery in 421 CE (Benko 2004: 41).[6]

Stela from the “tophet” at Carthage. It shows a priest or worshiper wearing a tight outfit (or perhaps naked with bands wound round his body?) and with a pill-box hat on his head. His right arm is raised in a gesture of worship or blessing, and he carries a small child in his left arm. In the imagery above him there are two fishes (dolphins?) and a sun with crescent — all seem to point to Tanit as the deity being honored. This stela has traditionally been interpreted as the ritual preliminary to child sacrifice, with the priest’s carrying a living infant to the altar. Alternatively, he could be commending a dead infant to Tanit’s care.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Harden 1963: Plate 35. </span

Scholars still dispute the conditions under which fetuses, infants, or children were sacrificed to deities. As elsewhere, human sacrifice seems to have been practiced in the Phoenician world in times of crisis (Aubet 2001: 246ff.). However, according to a number of Greek and, later, Christian writers, the Carthaginians regularly sacrificed their children to Baal-Hamon. Later, Tanit also received the grisly offerings. Adding to the gruesome reputation of the Phoenicians, the Hebrew Bible forbade the Israelites from burning their sons and daughters “as an offering to Molech” (2 Kings 23: 10). Such sacrifices took places at sites called “tophets” (Jeremiah 7: 31). A deity named Malik or Malek, probably originally an epithet meaning “king,” existed in the ancient Near East, since the word occurs as a theophoric or “god-bearing” element in names at Ebla, Mari, Ugarit, Phoenicia, and elsewhere (Müller in van der Toorn et al. 1999: 538-542; Lipiński 1995: 227-229; Heider 1985: 401).

Urn from the “tophet” at Carthage.  Such pottery held the cremated remains of babies or young animals. The jar style is Canaanite/Phoenician. British Museum. Fifth century BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after photograph online at www.britishmuseum.org/ under title “A vessel for sacrificial ashes.”

There is little or no evidence that Malik required human sacrifice. The “Molech” in the Hebrew Bible is likely the same name presented with the vowels of the Hebrew word boshet meaning “shame” (Weinfeld 1972: 149). On the other hand, archaeologists have unearthed sacred enclosures in a number of Carthaginian cities that were extensive cemeteries. They contained the burnt remains of extremely young humans and animals interred in urns and usually marked with stelae, sometimes ornate, sometimes with inscriptions. Many of the inscriptions described the deposit as a molk, now understood as a kind of offering (Weinfeld 1972: 135 ff.). The recipient of molk offerings was originally Baal-Hamon alone and, later, Tanit joined him. Archaeologists began calling the cemeteries “tophets” and interpreting the contents of the urns as burnt sacrifices (Brown 1991: 14; Stager and Wolff 1984: 2). Because so many inscriptions mentioned Tanit, the “tophet” at Carthage became regarded as the “precinct” of the goddess (Aubet 2001: 250). Tanit was then seen as demanding child sacrifice.

(left) Stela from Lillibeum in Sicily, depicting a worshiper or priestess revering a “caduceus” with a “sign of Tanit” hovering in the top left-hand corner. As Stéphane Beaulieu pointed out, the woman appears to be pregnant. She might be praying to Tanit for a successful delivery.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Brown 1991: 300, figure 58b.
(right) Punic stela from Cirta (Constantine), a town west of and inland from Carthage in North Africa. A slightly humanized, but still sylized “sign of Tanit” holds a piece of vegetation in the right hand and a “caduceus” in the left. Brown describes the latter as a “crescent-disk” (1991: 114). Below is an incised square for an inscription.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Brown 1991: 295, figure 53b.

The cemetery at Carthage was in use from around 700 BCE to 146 BCE. It contained over 20,000 urns holding the cremated bones of young humans and animals, 80% of which were fetuses or neonates (Aubet 2001: 251-252; Schwartz 1993:49). The accepted scholarship agrees with the excavators that the bones are the result of thousands of sacrifices, especially since the inscriptions were mostly votive; that is, they indicated that the depositors owed the deities a return for a favor. An example of such an inscription is: “To our lady, to Tanit . . . and to our lord, to Ba’al Hammon, that which was vowed . . . “ (Stager and Wolff 1984). The interpretation that the vow entailed the infant in the urn may not be correct, but it is generally advanced.

The physical anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz had a different idea about the meaning of the cemetery. He carried out extensive studies of the bones from Carthage’s “tophet.” He pointed out that burials of infants and young children were very rare at Carthage, except in the “tophet,” and that 95% of the burials outside the “tophet” consisted of older children, teenagers, and adults. He concluded that the site was a graveyard for the very young, aborted fetuses, stillborn babies, and newborns who had died of natural causes (1993: 53-56). This explanation makes sense, even in the interpretation of inscriptions. Carthaginian parents would probably have wanted to entrust their dead babies to protective deities, particularly a kindly, motherly goddess, whom they might ask for another child.

Pendants in the shape of the “sign of Tanit” found at Ashkelon in modern Israel.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after photograph online at http://cnes.cla.umn.edu/courses/archaeology/Ashkelon/AshkelonFindsFramset.html

In summary, I tend to understand Tanit as originally an epithet of the Canaanite goddess Asherah. Over time, the title became the name of a goddess in her own right. She retained many of the characteristics of her predecessor and added others from the goddesses in the complex world she inhabited. Although, in times of crisis, Tanit and her consort might have received human sacrifices (normally, young adults), the motherly goddess, giver of fertility, would have been very unlikely to ask for the sacrifice of a baby. Rather, the grieving parents gave the baby back to the goddess for safekeeping, in hope of future progeny.

Notes

Bibliography

Graphics Credits

Contributors retain the copyright to their work; please do not take art or words without permission. Other graphics and reference materials are used and attributed as per the Fair Use Provision of The Copyright Act and individual terms of use.

Author: Johanna Stuckey, PhD
From the Archives of MatriFocus
A Cross-Quarterly Web Magazine for Goddess Women Near & Far
Beltane 2007, Vol 6-3

A somewhat damaged Rangda in her most ferocious pose, her foot on a stone carved with sea waves. Time has removed some of the paint, and her left hand has lost its long nails. Painted stone or wood (?). Bali, probably in the Archaeological Museum.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Charlé 1990: 119

There is no ignoring Rangda.[1] Her appearance is shocking, terrifying. Her huge eyes protrude, her large breasts are pendulous, and her long red tongue hangs down her body almost to her knees. She has a mouth full of big teeth and curving fangs, her fingernails are extended to pointed claws, and her unkempt mop of gray hair hangs down her back.[2] According to her reputation, she likes to eat children, cause disease and pestilence, and lead of a horde of witches (Leeming 2005: 335). Today she is identified as an evil and vicious demon queen, but perhaps originally she was a goddess.

When I was a tourist in Bali some years ago, I met Rangda for the first time and have been fascinated with her ever since. All eyes focused on Rangda as she emerged from the inner part of the temple about a third of the way through the Barong dance, an exciting Balinese ritual drama (Charlé 1990: 66-67). The dance I attended at a village temple was shortened for tourists, but that did not change Rangda’s charisma (Charlé 1990: 64-65). There was no doubt that she was power: electrifying, dangerous, and otherworldly.

The Barong ritual drama focuses on the ongoing battle between good and evil; in this case, the evil Rangda versus the good Barong (Edge 2007: 10 of 21). The Barong I saw was a somewhat silly-looking dragon-lion with a prominent and ornate feathery tail.[3] Though not obviously sexed, he is understood as male, whereas Rangda is always female and human.[4] Both are wielders of powerful magic. The Barong protects villages from plague and malicious magic, whereas usually Rangda menaces them with both. At the rite I witnessed, Rangda was explicitly associated with the Hindu goddess Durga, who was presented as the personification of evil. In another explanation, she was once an eleventh-century queen, exiled after using witchcraft against her husband’s second wife (Charlé 1990: 30-31). Becoming Rangda, she exacted revenge by causing a plague that killed half the inhabitants of the realm. Whatever her origin, Rangda is an independent and autonomous female who makes me think about the demonization of earlier deities by later cultures.[5]

Rangda, with huge protruding eyes, unkempt long hair, prominent fangs, sharp nails, and lolling tongue. From Bali. Painted wood. Dating 1800-1900 C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after photograph on the web site Flickr.

While the Barong is a benevolent forest creature, Rangda belongs to the dark, to graveyards and, most of all, to the sea. Bali’s good spirits inhabit the heights, on or close to the sacred Mount Agung. The people live in the world between, in which they maintain the balance between good and evil by daily offerings and frequent rituals. Bali’s evil spirits, on the other hand, infest the lower areas of the island, the lowest being the demonic sea (Edge 2007: 9, 17 of 21).

Rangda is associated with the sea, which most Balinese fear (Charlé 1990: 134). Perhaps the demon Rangda resulted from a Balinese Hindu reworking of an aboriginal sea goddess, as did a few other popular Balinese figures (Leeming 2005: 44). She is clearly more divine than mortal, for, although the Barong always defeats her, she never dies. In addition, in some parts of the island she has a beneficial side, like Kali and Durga, with whom she is often connected. It is not hard to see her as crone goddess who has been turned into witch.

Ancient Mesopotamia had many demons, among them a female and a male monster, one of whose stories presents a pattern eerily similar to that of Rangda and the Barong. The dog-faced male demon Pazuzu was the only one who could control the fierce female demon Lamashtu and force her to return to the Underworld.

Amulet from Mesopotamia. The back of the object shows the body of the male demon Pazuzu, his head peering over the top at the front. At the bottom left, Pazuzu drives Lamashtu back to the Underworld, to which she is lured by offerings. She is standing on her donkey, and both are in her boat on the river to the Underworld. She holds snakes and suckles the usual animals. The registers above show a sick person being attended by healers and protective beings, just above a row of protective spirits, and at the top the symbols of the main Babylonian deities. Bronze. 13.3 cms high. Dating to around 625-539 B.C.E.).
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Black and Green 2003: 181.

Great is the daughter of Heaven [the god Anu] who tortures babies,
Her hand is a net, her embrace is death.
She is cruel, raging, angry, predatory…
She touches the bellies of women in labor
She pulls out the pregnant women’s baby
The daughter of Heaven is one of the Gods, her brothers
With no child of her own.
Her head is a lion’s head
Her body is a donkey’s body
She roars like a lion
She constantly howls like a demon-dog.[6]

Like most Mesopotamian demons, Lamashtu, daughter of the supreme sky god Anu, was divine, but held a rank below that of most deities. Demons lived in graveyards, wastelands, and deserts. They were agents of the main deities and either helped or hindered humans. There were large numbers of them, especially bad or evil ones (Leick 1998: 30-31). Demons did not often occur in the mythology of Mesopotamia, but they abounded in magical texts and incantations. They were responsible for diseases and other afflictions, usually at the instructions of a deity. However, most demons could be either malevolent or beneficent. Those known by name had particular functions: for example, Pashittu’s job was to carry off babies. Pazuzu was ruler of wind demons. As her main task, Lamashtu attacked babies (Stol 2000: 224; Riley in van der Toorn et al. 1999: 236-237).

As depicted in Mesopotamian iconography, Babylonian Lamashtu (Sumerian Dimme) was a pale, ashen monster, her hairy body covered in blood. At her naked, drooping breasts, a black dog (or wolf) and a pig suckled. She dangled snakes from her long clawed fingers and fingernails. Her feet had the cruel talons of a predatory bird, and she had a lion or eagle head and the teeth of a dog or a donkey. Her sacred animal was the donkey, and she sailed the river of the Underworld in her own boat.

Independent and dangerous, Lamashtu was not only disrespectful, but she had a bad disposition. So her father threw her out of heaven (Stol 2000: 225). She proceeded to do evil on her own accord without instructions from other deities. Although she caused fevers and chills and killed adult men and women with diseases and plague, her particular malevolence was the provoking of miscarriages and the killing or kidnapping of newborns. She also tore babies from the womb to suckle them with poison. Complicated magic, rituals, and incantations could ward her off (Leick 1998:110). Further, amulets of the head of Pazuzu protected pregnant women against Lamashtu. Some plaques show Pazuzu in the process of forcing her back to the Underworld (Black and Green 2003:115-116; Wiggermann 2000; 244).

Lion-headed Lamashtu, holding snakes and with pig and dog at her breasts. On one side there is a lamp, on the other a human head. On the back is a magical incantation. Yellow alabaster. Dating from around 605-562 B.C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Pritchard 1969: 215, Plate 657.

The Babylonian Lilitu, a wind spirit, was another female demon against whom Pazuzu was very effective (Black and Green 2003: 118). The Lilitu belonged to a group of demons with similar traits, especially their sexual appetites.[7] Their name derives from the Sumerian word lil, meaning “air, spirit.” They haunted the open spaces and deserts. They were sexually predatory, but incapable of “normal” sexual activity. The Lilitu could not give birth or suckle a child, and she threatened pregnant women and infants. It was a Lilitu that made its home in the trunk of Inanna’s huluppu tree and refused to leave.[8] This demon might be the origin of the Jewish child-stealer and temptress Lilith (Black and Green 2003: 118; Patai 1990: 221-222).[9]

So-called Lilith, but actually Inanna/Ishtar. She wears the multi-horned headdress of a great deity and, by analogy with the better-known but similar “Burney plaque” (Patai 1990: Figure 31), probably held in her hands symbols of power. She has wings and taloned feet and stands between two goat-like animals. Terracotta relief. Dating to about 2000 B.C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Gray 1982: 71.

Known from Jewish writings of the Talmudic period (second-fifth centuries C.E.) and later, Lilith was responsible for barrenness in women and impotence in men. Like Lamashtu, she also was a child-stealer. Because of a popular association of her name with layla, the Hebrew word for “night,” Lilith was pictured as a demon of darkness. There is one possible reference to Lilith in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), Isaiah 34:14, where she inhabited a desolate wasteland.

According to later Jewish legend, Lilith, who had long hair and wings, was Adam’s first wife. The pair quarreled over Adam’s wanting sexual superiority over her. She said, “Why should you be on top when we are equals?” Then Lilith spoke the deity’s magic name and flew away to the Red Sea area, where she bore innumerable demon children and started her malevolent career (Leeming 2005: 239; Patai 1990: 223-224). Against her, people needed amulets and used invocations (Hutter in van der Toorn et al. 1999: 520-521).

Aramaic incantation bowl from Iraq (Babylonia) with a sketch of Lilith in the center and a magical text around it. Lilith appears partly dressed, and her long hair hangs free. She seems to have small wings, and her ankles are chained, as the incantation intends. Dates from around 600 C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Patai 1990: figure 33.

One of the methods of dealing with Lilith and other demons was demonstrated in a group of Jewish “incantation bowls” found at Nippur in Mesopotamia and dating to the sixth century C.E. Several bowls dealt with Lilith (Patai 1990: 225, Plates 32, 33). A rough sketch of Lilith appears on the bottom inside of a couple of the bowls. Incantation texts accompanying the sketch tell us a good deal about the role of Lilith in Jewish popular religion. Lilith seduced men, did everything she could to prevent births, and killed children (Patai 1990: 225).

In Jewish popular belief of the Middle Ages, Lilith was the devil or his grandmother and also mother of witches and witchcraft (Patai 1990: 221-254). Eventually, in the Jewish mystical or Kabalistic tradition, which began in the Middle Ages, she became “queenly consort at God’s side” (Patai 1990: 221). Demonic nature notwithstanding, it is clear that Lilith was also divine.

Another ancient demonized female, the Greek Medusa, provides an illuminating counterpoint to the demons already discussed. Unlike Rangda, Lamashtu, and Lilith, the Gorgon Medusa was mortal, though her sister Gorgons, Sthenno and Euryale, were immortal. According to one story, Medusa was a beautiful young woman whom the goddess Athena changed into a monster because Poseidon raped Medusa in one of Athena’s temples. To punish her, Athena made her hair into writhing snakes, and afterwards her face was so hideous that it turned to stone any man who looked at her. She was eventually decapitated by the Greek hero Perseus. From her wound sprang the giant Khrysaor and the winged horse Pegasus, their father being sea god Poseidon. Thus motherhood came to Medusa only after death (Graves 1988: 127, 129; Leeming 2005: 158-159, 256).

A guardian or warding-off (apotropaic) Medusa in kneeling warrior pose, with sword and shield, her hand on a lion. Around her waist two snakes are looped. She has large protruding eyes and curly hair, and her tongue lolls out of her mouth. The ancient Greeks used statues and masks (gorgoneia) of Medusa to protect temples and on warriors’ shields. Thus she too had a beneficent side, but only after she was dead! Clay. Source unknown.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, from image provided by JBL Statues to the Pantheon web site www.pantheon.org

Winged Gorgon/Medusa with curly locks and protruding tongue. She has large protruding eyes and fangs and is in a warrior pose. Her son, the winged horse Pegasus, is under her left arm. Painted marble. Sixth century B.C.E. From the pediment of the temple at Syracuse in Sicily.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Gadon 1989: Plate 1.

One tradition has it that Medusa and her sisters were daughters of Phorkys, a king of Libya in North Africa. Medusa succeeded her father as ruler. She fought battles to protect her country and was killed when her army encountered invading Greek troops led by Perseus (Graves 1988: 242, 244). Some say she was an Amazon queen and led an Amazon army. Barbara Walker describes her as “the serpent-goddess of the Libyan Amazons” and says that Athena was originally “the same goddess” (1983: 629).

These female demons from different cultures have much in common, and their commonalities reflect male-dominated societies’ disapproval of females of the uppity sort, as well as implicit approval for their opposite, the feminine, biddable wives and daughters. The demons are all physically hideous. All are anti-mothers in one way or another, and all are childless or give birth in abnormal ways. All are dangerous and threaten humans with both diseases and death. All live in exile or, at least, are distanced from the cultures that produced them. All, eventually even the dead Medusa, partake to some extent of deity. All are independent of men and to a large extent autonomous. Finally, all are brought under control by males.

All possess characteristics that undermine or challenge male-dominated societies. War-like societies such as those of Mesopotamia could find a use for Inanna/Ishtar’s warrior characteristics. So she became a war goddess, while her sexual self became a goddess of love. Thus divided, she was less of a threat to a developing patriarchy. Demonizing the dangerous elements of a minor goddess performed a similar function, and it also provided a scapegoat for when things went wrong, as they always would. Perhaps at one time Rangda was a sea goddess, who became evil because of where she came from. It seems likely that Lamashtu and Lilith were once minor deities who both caused infant death and disease and protected against them.[10] And Medusa — what do we make of her? Certainly male-dominated society co-opted her “malevolence” to serve its burgeoning state. Her snaky head became a powerful warding-off or apotropaic device on shields and on temples and other buildings to be protected. Such analysis is not new, I know, but I am surprised to find that it applies just as neatly to Balinese culture as it does to cultures that fed into ours. Still, perhaps this shouldn’t surprise me.

Notes

Bibliography

Graphics Credits

Contributors retain the copyright to their work; please do not take art or words without permission. Other graphics and reference materials are used and attributed as per the Fair Use Provision of The Copyright Act and individual terms of use.

Author: Johanna Stuckey, PhD
From the Archives of MatriFocus
A Cross-Quarterly Web Magazine for Goddess Women Near & Far
Lammas 2006, Vol 5-4

(Left) Omega symbol as main motif on small scarab-shaped seal amulet. Often amulets of this kind were found in graves of infants. Faience. Probably made in Syria around 1750 B.C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Keel and Uelinger 1998: 25.
(Middle) Head of the Egyptian cow goddess Hathor, with obvious cow ears and the Hathor hairdo. Faience. Twenty-first Dynasty, tenth century B.C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Dee 1998: 55.
(Right) Mesopotamian divine symbol connected with birth goddesses. Often occurs on Babylonian boundary stones.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Black and Green 2003, p. 146.

Ancient Mesopotamia boasted many goddesses whose main, but not only function was birthing.[2] They were regularly identified with each other. Dingir-Makh “Exalted Deity” was the Sumerian birth goddess par excellence.[3] Other Sumerian birth goddesses included Nin-khursag “Lady of the Mountainous Areas,” Nin-makh “Exalted Lady,” Nin-tu[4] “Lady of Birth,” Nin-mena “Lady of the Crown,” and Nin-sikila “Pure Lady.” Dingir-makh’s Babylonian equivalent was Belet-ili “Lady of the Gods.” The name of Erua, also a Babylonian birth goddess, possibly originated from the Semitic Akkadian word eru “to be pregnant.” The Assyrians adopted Erua as Sheru’a . Sumerians addressed the birth goddess as Ama, while Babylonians called her Mama, “Mother” (Black and Green 2003: 132-133; Dijstra in van der Toorn et al. 1999: 603-604; Leick 1998: 119-121).

Goddesses of Many Spellings
Several of the Goddess names in this article have one or more variant spellings. Rather than repeat them in the text, I’ve listed them here:

Erua/Aruru
Mama/Mami
Nin-khursag/Nin-khursaga/ Nin-hursag/Nin-hursaga (The last two are the usual spellings, but the first two are correct. There is no “h” sound in Sumerian.)
Nin-mu/Nin-mud
Nin-tu/Nin-tud
Shasuru/Shasurum
Sheru’a/Sheruya

Note also that rhomb is the same as rhombus.

The best known of these birth goddesses was Nin-khursag, a great earth deity (Black and Green 2003: 140; Leick 1998: 132). Among her titles were “Mother of the Gods” and “Mother of All Children.” In the pantheon, she ranked as equal to the sky god An, the god of executive power En-lil, and the god of water/wisdom En-ki (Jacobsen 1976: 104-110). The Sumerian myth “En-ki and Nin-khursag” made it clear that the goddess had power of life and death even over great deities. The wisdom god En-ki impregnated his and Nin-khursag’s daughter Nin-mu, then their granddaughter, and finally Uttu, their great-granddaughter. When Uttu gave birth to eight plants, En-ki ate them all. At this point, Nin-khursag demonstrated not only her anger but her power. She cursed En-ki with death, and soon eight of his body parts began to die. Eventually, when the goddess’s anger cooled, she “seated En-ki by her vulva” and gave birth to eight deities, each assigned to heal a particular part of the god (Kramer in Pritchard 1969: 36-41). A great deal of Nin-khursag’s power was obviously situated in her vulva and womb.

Birth goddess, probably Nin-tu(d), Seems to be carrying two infants on her back. On each side of her under omega symbols, naked new borns. Terracotta plaque from Mesopotamia, dating somewhere between 2000 and 1600 B.C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Black and Green 2003: 132.

Appropriately, Nin-khursag and other birth goddesses were represented by what has been interpreted as a womb symbol. It took the approximate shape of the Greek capital letter omega (Ω) and occurred often on seals dating from around 2000 B.C.E. to the seventh century B.C.E. The earliest known example dates to the Early Dynastic period (2900-2350 B.C.E.). Scholars have explained the symbol variously as weighing scales, a wig, swaddling bands, or — to me the most compelling interpretation — a stylized womb.[5] This last interpretation is supported by a clay plaque showing a goddess with an omega on either side of her and, under the symbols, “human forms resembling newborn babies,” possibly stillborn infants (Black and Green 2003: 146; Keel and Uelinger 1998: 26). The symbol might also have been connected with the great goddess Inanna/Ishtar (Black and Green 2003: 146). It was also occasionally associated with gods.[6]

Clay figure of a birth/mother goddess made from a “pressed mold.” Her hair is in an elongated omega shape. Around her neck she wears a necklace with a pendant shaped somewhat like an omega. She is suckling babies at her breasts. On each thigh there is a “sacred tree” with a goat-like animal reaching up to it. Her hands hold open her almost rhomb-shaped vulva. Found in Israel. Dated c.1550-c.1150 B.C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Keel and Uelinger 1998: 7.

The birth symbol, which probably originated in Mesopotamia, had a very long life in the Eastern Mediterranean area. It spread to the Levant (modern Syria, Lebanon, and Israel), where it was in evidence from around 1500 B.C.E. well into the fifth century B.C.E. It seems likely that the shape retained the meaning of birth/womb (Keel and Uelinger 1998: 26, 53, 74, 367). It is even possible that the head supports found in sixth-century B.C.E. graves from Judah are examples of the symbol (Keel and Uelinger 1998: 367-368).

A large Israelite (Judahite) multiple tomb in Israel, with head and sometimes foot rests in the omega shape. Possibly indicating a memory of a symbolic connection between womb and tomb/earth. Dating from around 720/700 to around 600 B.C.E., a period that, according to the Hebrew Bible, saw continued attacks by prophets and kings on Canaanite polytheism. Inset shows enlarged head rest.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Keel and Uelinger 1998: 368.

The omega shape also appeared in the Levant as the hairdo of many female images. Scholars often refer to this as the “Hathor style of locks,” resembling the hairdo of the Egyptian love/sex goddess Hathor (Keel and Uelinger 1998: 66-67). (See Hathor image at top.) Hathor, who was often depicted as a cow, was worshipped in the Levant, and Levantine goddesses were often identified with her (Keel and Uelinger 1998: 69-70). Whether Hathor locks were a womb/birth symbol is unclear.

Goddess figure from Israel, wearing a tall hat possibly with horns on either side. Her hairdo is in the Hathor style. She supports her breasts with her hands and has an exaggerated vulva area or perhaps pubic covering. Made of lead. Dated to around 1300-1150 B.C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Keel and Uelinger 1998: 34.

Another symbol that appears on many Mesopotamian seals is the rhombus or lozenge. This venerable sign goes back well into Mesopotamian pre-history (Goff 1963: 2, 17) as well the European Palaeolithic (Marshak 1991: 239, 313) and Neolithic (Gimbutas 1989: 143, 145). As Marshak and Gimbutas have demonstrated, in many instances the rhomb was closely associated with figures normally interpreted as goddesses, and it depicted the vulva, often quite realistically (Marshak 1991: 292-297; Gimbutas 1989: 100-103). Obvious vulva or pubic triangles in images going back to the Paleolithic are common in Mesopotamian and other Eastern Mediterranean goddess iconography (Aruz 2003: 163 plate 106; Black and Green 2003: 152; Keel and Uelinger 1998: 27).

A healing ritual with deity symbols including the dog of the healing goddesses Gula/Nin-Isina/Nin-karak and, above the dog, the rhomb symbol of the birth goddess. Clearly a life-or-death case, so that the birth goddess needs to be present, for she supervises such situations. Cylinder seal dating to the Neo-Babylonian period, 625-539 B.C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Black and Green 2003: 67.

Rhombs occur on many Mesopotamian seals, sometimes together with dogs, the animal of the healing goddesses Gula, Nin-Isina, and Nin-karak (Göhde 2000). Göhde argues that the rhomb was primarily a symbol of the healing goddess Gula, and that it represented the constellation Lyra, with which Gula was identified (Göhde 2000:406). Since clay models of the symbol were also found in at least one temple of the goddess Ishtar, Göhde explains this by understanding Ishtar to have been a healer at that site (Göhde 2000:405). However, the usual scholarly interpretation of the rhomb, with which I agree, is that it was a vulva symbol, and thus entirely appropriate for Inanna/Ishtar as goddess of sexuality (Black and Green 2003: 153). On some seals the symbol was even depicted inside Ishtar’s shrine, thus making the identification quite explicit (Black and Green 2003: 146). Clay rhombs, as well as images of penises and scenes of sexual intercourse, were unearthed in Mesopotamia, often in temples of the goddess Inanna/Ishtar. It is likely that they were objects used in rituals. They might have been connected with the “Sacred Marriage”[7] rite or used as amulets to ensure sexual potency and fertility[8] (Black and Green 2003: 152 figure 154).

A rhomb-shaped vulva image in clay with holes for suspension on the body. From the temple of the goddess Ishtar at the Assyrian capital city Ashur. Dated 1350-1000 B.C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Black and Green 2003: 152.

On seals, cult equipment, and other objects, then, the birth goddess was often represented by a symbol alone. Usually it was the rhomb; in specialized situations it was the omega symbol. Interestingly, as Barbara Walker points out,[9] a modern symbol of luck, the horseshoe, resembles the omega, although to bring luck, it must have its opening turned up. If it is a remnant of the ancient birth symbol, one wonders what the lucky horseshoe’s normal positioning signifies.

Notes

Bibliography

Graphics Credits

Contributors retain the copyright to their work; please do not take art or words without permission. Other graphics and reference materials are used and attributed as per the Fair Use Provision of The Copyright Act and individual terms of use.

Author: Johanna Stuckey, PhD
From the Archives of MatriFocus
A Cross-Quarterly Web Magazine for Goddess Women Near & Far
Beltane 2008, Vol 7-3

Small, rectangular cult stand. Cross bars with four openings form the top (roof). The interior is occupied by two crouching lions with incised manes; their upheld tails appear on the back of the stand. On the side walls are somewhat damaged human figures, possibly female, and several large decorative knobs. The upper corners of the front bear animal heads, likely of bovines. In many areas of the ancient Eastern Mediterranean, lions were the sacred animals of certain goddesses, one probably being Canaanite/Israelite Asherah. Clay. 11cm high. Dated about ninth century BCE. From the Philistine site of Yavneh, Israel. Eretz-Israel Museum, Tel Aviv.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Kletter, Ziffer, and Zwickel 2006: 153.

The site of the Philistine[1] city of Yavneh or Jabneh (2 Chronicles 26:6) lies in Israel near the coast, south of Tel Aviv. Today the town of Yavneh circles the ancient mound and covers the slopes of a smaller mound that modern residents call “the Temple Hill” (Kletter et al. 2006: 148, pictures 149). That name reflects the 1960 discovery of pieces of figurines and vessels almost certainly used in worship, that is, cult objects. In 2000-2001, a bulldozer used illegally to clear space for a public park damaged part of the small mound and revealed further fragments of pottery and cult paraphernalia.

Eventually, with looting increasing, the Israel Antiquities Authority decided to launch a salvage dig, but only of the damaged area, the rest of the hill being judged not in any danger. Archaeologists uncovered an ancient pit “two meters in diameter and one and a half meters deep.” It was packed with cult objects which they dated to around the ninth century BCE (Kletter, Ziffer, and Zwickel 2006: 149). The ancient artifacts they unearthed with extreme care numbered in the thousands and included bowls, juglets, chalices, and cult stands.[2] In the collection were over a hundred “complete or restorable cult stands” (Kletter, Ziffer, and Zwickel 2006: 155).

Cult stand with small orchestra or procession. The concave top has three openings. Two lion heads and partial torsos are affixed to the lower edges of the front. A female figure stands above the lion on the right side; likely the left side had a similar figure. The lions and female figures suggest at once that the stand was part of the cult paraphernalia of a temple in which a goddess was worshiped. Above the lions a long opening displays a group what appears to be female musicians, a temple orchestra? The opening has two sections, separated by what looks like a tree (or pillar) with six leaves hanging down. Originally two figures stood on either side of the tree-pillar, but now the one on the far right is missing. The remaining figures are female musicians. The one on the far left seems to be playing a small drum or tambourine. Next to her is a double-flute player. Although somewhat damaged, the third is probably a lyre player. The narrow ends are also decorated: On one side, a female figure holds her breasts, but the figure (?) beside her is now missing.  The opposite side has an opening, containing possibly a pillar, but no figures. Originally the stand was decorated with painted “motifs,” which have now practically disappeared. Clay. 16.6 cm high. Dated about the ninth century BCE. From the Philistine site of Yavneh, Israel. Eretz-Israel Museum, Tel Aviv.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Kletter, Ziffer, and Zwickel 2006:152.

The discovery of so many cult stands is remarkable: Archaeologists are very excited to discover “a few fragments, not to mention one entire cult stand” (Kletter, Ziffer, and Zwickel 2006: 155). The stands from Yavneh are perhaps not as visually challenging as the famous one from Taanach, which I discussed in detail in a previous article (Astarte, Goddess of Fertility, Beauty, War, and Love). Like the Taanach stand, most of the Temple Hill stands are decorated with animals and human figures. This imagery gives us our first really close look at Philistine religion in the period when, according to the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament), the Israelites and the Philistines were regularly engaged in warfare with each other.

It is significant that the animals depicted on the stands are mainly lions and bovines, and the human figures are “almost always female” (Kletter, Ziffer, and Zwickel 2006: 156). We know from examples found all over the ancient Eastern Mediterranean that lions and bovines form part of the imagery associated with goddesses, as does the sacred tree with animals eating from it.[3] Thus, I can speculate that the cult objects from Yavneh were once used in a goddess temple that stood nearby, perhaps occupying the smaller of the two mounds. From the imagery I would guess that she was a goddess very like Canaanite Asherah.

One of two very similar stands. The central motif is a sacred tree with two goat-like creatures feeding at it. This motif is  very common in the ancient Mediterranean and is closely associated with goddesses. See Stuckey article in Matrifocus Archives, Beltane 2004, 3-3. Two bovine heads on long necks occupy either end of the front, just below naked female figures cupping their breasts. I have no doubt that this cult stand honours a Philistine goddess, probably one identified with Canaanite/Israelite Asherah. Clay. 15.5 cm high. Dated about ninth century BCE. From Philistine Yavneh, Israel. Eretz-Israel Museum, Tel Aviv.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Kletter, Ziffer, and Zwickel 2006:153.

The archaeologists who excavated the Yavneh pit called it a genizah, from the Hebrew word denoting a storeroom in a synagogue into which worn-out or damaged sacred texts and objects were deposited, since they were too holy to be thrown into the garbage (Kletter, Ziffer, and Zwickel 2006: 148).[4] Such temple repositories, usually storage pits of some sort, have been found all over the ancient Eastern Mediterranean. For instance, the famous “snake goddesses” from Crete were discovered in a space under the floor in the Knossos temple, and the figurines buried in a pot near the altar at Nahariyah are probably another example (A Canaanite Goddess Shrine at Nahariyya in Israel). We know that in Mesopotamia and Egypt there were rituals to draw a deity into a newly made statue (Dick 1999), and another ritual would later be performed to renew it. In all likelihood, then, objects being retired had to be ritually deactivated to make them less sacred, but they would still retain an element of holiness; thus they could not be discarded as garbage. They required ritual burial.

Of course these rituals would have been part of what scholars call “priestly, temple, or official religion,” but how would an ordinary person treat a small figurine she had bought from a vendor outside a temple or actually made herself? Let me speculate here. First, if she could, she would have it blessed by a priest(ess) or herself perform a rite to induce her revered deity to take possession of the figurine. When she was forced to dispose of the still holy but no longer used or damaged goddess figure, wouldn’t she also handle it with care and respect and perhaps create her own repository to hold its remains? Why wouldn’t ordinary people, those who practiced what scholars call “popular or folk religion,” also have needed to activate and deactivate the image of a beloved deity? We might take as an example numerous little female clay images, which, from their shape, scholars have dubbed “pillar figurines.”

(Left) Figurine with pillar-like skirt and molded head. She has an elaborate hair-do and holds her arms around her breasts. Clay. Dated about ninth century BCE. Israel.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Patai 1990: Plate 1.
(Right) Female figure with pillar-like skirt, pinched head, and arms under breasts. The whole figure was hand made, perhaps by a worshiper for her own use. Clay. Dated about ninth century BCE. Found in Israel.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Patai 1990: Plate 6.

Female pillar figurines have been found all over modern Israel, but predominantly in the area known in the Hebrew Bible as Judah, the southern Israelite kingdom. Indeed, they have been discovered “in almost every Iron Age II excavation in Judah” (Kletter 1996: 10). Iron Age II covers the eighth and seventh centuries BCE; that is, the height of the Israelite monarchy as described in the Hebrew Bible.[5] So many pillar figurines have been excavated in the heartland of Judah that they are often regarded as “a characteristic expression of Judahite piety” (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 327; Kletter 1996: 45). Today the generally accepted scholarly view is that they represent the goddess Asherah, who was in all likelihood the spouse of the Israelite god Yahweh (Asherah and the God of the Early Israelites).

Occasionally I have been involved in scholarly arguments about not only the identity of these pillar figurines, but also whether or not they were goddesses at all. Many scholars have dismissed them as “fertility fetishes,” “amulets,” and such. The figurines cannot, they insist, be images of a goddess, because, among other things, they were found broken up in garbage dumps. However, not all of them were broken, and very few, if any, were found in what had been an ancient dump.

The actual find sites include cisterns and pools, silos and pits, caves, tombs, house rooms and courtyards, and other such areas (Kletter 1996: 58-61). Indeed, as Kletter notes, it is “important” to discover whether any of the figurines were “found in waste pits,” since, if they were, it might mean that they carried “no special sacred status during disposal.” He comments that “there is no clear evidence” that the disposal sites were rubbish dumps. Indeed, silos and pits, for instance, were usually “domestic installations,” and garbage was normally thrown outside of houses (Kletter 1996: 59).

What seems quite certain is that female pillar figurines “are missing, or extremely rare,” in the few public buildings from the period which can be clearly identified as sacred, that is, belonging to the official religion (Kletter 1996: 62). The conclusion must be that the little statues were worshiped in domestic contexts, that is, in folk or popular religion. Perhaps, then, the sites where we find the pillar figurines functioned for ordinary folk as their sacred repositories.

Notes

Bibliography

Graphics Credits

Contributors retain the copyright to their work; please do not take art or words without permission. Other graphics and reference materials are used and attributed as per the Fair Use Provision of The Copyright Act and individual terms of use.