Israelite Pillar Figurines: A Reanalysis of Judean Pillar

Figurines’ Distribution Patterns

Austin Terry

First Reader: David Schloen

Second Reader: Emily Hammer

May 19, 2016

Dedicated to Michael Penn: Who is held in no way responsible, but without whom none of
this would have been possible.

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Center for Middle Eastern Studies

University of Chicago
Contents
Research Question and Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3
Methodologies............................................................................................................................................... 4
Variables ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Catalogue Used ......................................................................................................................................... 4
GIS Work ................................................................................................................................................... 4
The Judean Pillar Figurine ............................................................................................................................. 6
Introduction ............................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Style........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Pillar Bases ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Breasts................................................................................................................................................... 7
Heads .................................................................................................................................................... 7
Possible Uses ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Goddess..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Female Religion ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Popular Religion ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Chronology .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Predicted Patterns and Potential Explanations .......................................................................................... 12
A and B Heads ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Judean Heartland Concept...................................................................................................................... 13
Hypothesis................................................................................................................................................... 14
Observed Distribution Patterns .................................................................................................................. 16
Judean Pillar Figurines by Geographic Area ............................................................................................ 18
Judean Mountain Region .................................................................................................................... 18
Negev Area .......................................................................................................................................... 19
Shephleah ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Coastal Plain ........................................................................................................................................ 21
North ................................................................................................................................................... 22
Type A Judean Pillar Figurines................................................................................................................. 22
Type B Judean Pillar Figurines................................................................................................................. 25
Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 27
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Comparison to Proposed Patterns .......................................................................................................... 27

Distribution of Type A and Type B Judean Pillar Figurines ................................................................. 27
Judean Heartland Argument ............................................................................................................... 28
Analysis of Observed Patterns ................................................................................................................ 28
Geographic Distribution ...................................................................................................................... 28
Distribution of Type A and Type B Judean Pillar Figurines ................................................................. 29
Potential Explanations ............................................................................................................................ 32
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 37
Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 38

1
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Abstract
My thesis will be a study of distribution patterns of Judean Pillar Figurines during the

Iron Age in the area of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. During the Iron Age a form of

figurine grew in popularity in the area of modern day Israel-Palestine. They consisted of a solid

terracotta base with a head located on top. These heads were considered either “pinched” or

“molded”. While earlier research on these figurines focused on the possible uses and their

meanings more recent research has focused their distribution patterns and forms.

Of particular interest to modern work is the distribution of molded heads a compared to

that of pinched heads. According to Erin Darby, molded heads were found mostly in Jerusalem

and the areas immediately surrounding it. Additionally, these Judean Pillar Figurines were a

distinctly Judean practice. Possible theories as to why focus on the role of Phoenician trade

routes and their effects on local Israelite cultural practices.

My thesis will be an exploration of theorized distribution patterns using modern mapping

software. Using Kletter’s catalogue of Judean Pillar Figurines I will create a series of

distribution maps detailing which type of figurine was found at specific sites. I hypothesize that

Kletter’ theory will prove correct. A large part of my thesis will focus on this hypothesis while

another large part will focus on the cultural influences of outside areas as a possible explanation

for differences in the type of distribution of head types.

2
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Research Question and Introduction

Throughout the long history of Judean Pillar Figurines most research has centered on

their possible significance. Theories as to their possible meanings have included the possibility

that they were related to Asherah worship or that they were related to healing.1 While enticing,

few breakthroughs have been made in this area; despite large amounts of work there is still little

consensus as to what Judean Pillar Figurines meant or were used for. As such recent work has

argued that research should be focused on identifying potential patterns among Judean Pillar

Figurines. Several patterns have already been suggested but have not been tested with modern

mapping techniques.

This thesis will be testing these patterns. Particular interest will be given to the

distribution of “pinched” and “molded” heads. Recent work has argued that “Molded” heads are

only found within the Jerusalem area of Syrio-Palestine.2 Additionally, the question of “The

Judean Heartland” and its relation to distribution will be explored. The most common argument

about geographic distribution of Judean Pillar Figurines is that they are most commonly found in

this area.3 The research question for this thesis is whether or not these proposed patterns are

correct and the possible implications if they are incorrect. The ultimate goal is to understand

what, if any, distribution patterns can be seen, as well as to understand why these patterns may

have occurred.

1
For more information, see Judean Pillar Figurine section
2
Kletter 1996; Darby 2014, PAGE NUMBER
3
Holland; Kletter 1996

3
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Methodologies
Variables
The variables for this analysis will be the presence of “Pinched” versus “Molded” heads

at each site in Syrio-Palestine. This decision was made based on the level of detail found in

Judean heads as compared to that of Judean Pillar Figurines’ “bodies” or pillar bases. The

dichotomy between “Pinched” and “Molded” heads is also the most common dichotomy. For

the purposes of this work Kletter’s labels of “A” for “Pinched” and “B” for “Molded” heads will

be employed. Kletter further divides these typologies but the distribution of these sub-

dichotomies will not be explored.4

Catalogue Used
All information used in this analysis was taken from Raz Kletter’s The Judean Pillar-

Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah.5 This catalogue is used because it focuses

specifically on Judean Pillar Figurines rather than Judean Pillar Figurines as part of the plastic

arts of Syrio-Palestine. Additionally, it is the most updated catalogue available for use today.

This study has made particular use Kletter’s “Fig. 15: Distribution of 854 JPFs (sites and main

sub-types).6 This figure is a chart that breaks down the distribution of Kletter’s figurines types

by site. This distribution is further broken down by geographic location. The result is a

compilation of totals for each geographic area.

GIS Work
The major GIS work for this study was the creation of a series of distribution maps based

on Kletter’s “Fig. 15”. To create these maps several steps were required.

4
Kletter 1996, 29; for more information on these dichotomies see the section Judean Pillar Figurines.
5
Kletter, R. The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. BAR Intenational Series 636. Oxford,
UK: Tempus Reparatum, Archaeological and Historical Associates Limited, 1996.
6
Kletter 1996, 95

4
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

The first step in creating distribution maps was to input “Fig. 15” into an excel spread

sheet that could be read by ArcMap 10.3. This spread sheet focused on sites and then used a

binary code to indicate if each type of Judean Pillar Figurine was found at that site. For example,

for Abu Gosh a “0” was entered for types Ac, A+ and A because none of those types were found;

A “1” was entered for Bc because that figurine was present. Because Kletter’s catalogue does

not include coordinates for each site included in the catalogue coordinates were found using a

variety of internet sources. After this spreadsheet was created it was added to an ArcMap

document and converted into a ESRI point shapefile.

Specific distribution maps were created by using the “selection” tool in ArcMap. Each

type of Judean Pillar Figurine was saved as a new ESRI point shapefile. The final step in

creating these distribution maps was the creation of multiple ESRI polygon shapefiles to

represent the kingdoms of Judah, Israel, Philistia and Phoenicia. These shapefiles were based on

a basic map of the Iron Age Levant. These kingdoms were chosen because Judean Pillar

Figurines have been found in the modern areas of their ancient boundaries.

5
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

The Judean Pillar Figurine

Style
Overview
The Judean Pillar Figurine can be broken down into three main pieces. Its pillar, breasts

and heads. Past work has suggested the Judean Pillar Figurine can be studied as a coherent

system with Judean Pillar Figurine seen as one whole object. However, more recent work has

argued that Judean Pillar Figurines should be viewed as a compilation of different parts.7 As

such the different parts of each figurine will be described here.

Pillar Bases
Two major pillar bases have been identified: solid, hand-modelled bases; hollow bases.

In Holland’s typological scheme, solid pillar bases are assigned the letter A; hollow pillar bases

the letter B.8 While earlier work has argued that the pillar base was meant to symbolize a tree,

thereby drawing a connection to the Israelite goddess Asherah, more recent research indicates

that the pillar base is a functional decision.9 Pillar bases similar to those found in Judean Pillar

Figurines are found in sites from the Middle Bronze Age Near East as well as Iron Age sites in

Cyprus and the moderns southern Levant.10

Solid Pillar Bases – C Type

Solid Pillar Bases represent the most common type of base for Judean Pillar Figurines.

Holland’s work argued that there were 570 examples.11 Kletter’s work adds to this picture

arguing that 254 examples were found with no heads, with an additional 24 figurines found

intact, for a total of 278 solid pillar bases.12

7
Darby 2014, 13
8
Holland, 121
9
Darby 2014, 311
10
Darby 2014, 311
11
Holland, 125
12
Kletter 1996, 37

6
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Hollow Pillar Bases – E Type

Hollow Pillar Bases are far rarer than C-Type bases. The majority of these bases were

found outside of Judah and were instead located in neighboring kingdoms.13 The types are so

rare that Kletter does not include any counts in his work

Breasts
Breasts are always depicted on Judean Pillar Figurines but they do demonstrate a large

variation in their depiction. Often times arms are depicted as supporting the breasts. The

continual presence of breasts has led to the argument that Judean Pillar Figurines were fertility

icons of some sort. However, the image of females holding their breasts is a common trope in

the ancient Near East and have been depicted on plaque figurines and cylinder seals.14

Heads
In recent years the difference between Pinched (A Type) and Molded (B Type) heads has

become very important in the study of Judean Pillar Figurines. This is because head distribution

shows the greatest amount of variation among figurines. According to Darby, “From the

perspective of durability and detail, the heads are the most developed aspects of the figurines.”15

Furthermore, often times figurines are found broken making it difficult – if not impossible – to

reconstruct whole figurines. As such heads are the strongest variable in studying Judean Pillar

Figurines and their distribution and patterns.

Pinched Heads – A Type

Pinched heads were made by pinching small lumps of clay to form a shallow depression

for the eyes and nose; rarely was the mouth depicted. Kletter argues that body and head were

generally made from the same piece of clay. Kletter organizes these heads into several sub-types

13
Holland, 125
14
Darby 2014, 321-328
15
Darby 2014, 338

7
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

including: simple heads (A1); heads with turbans (A2); heads with turbans and side-locks (A3);

heads with hats (A4); exceptional heads (A5-6)16 These sub-varieties can most closely be

compared to figurines from Cyprus. Eyes and other facial features were general indicated using

red or yellow paint.17

Molded Heads – B Type

Of the two different types of heads, Molded Heads show the largest amount of detail.

Their production consisted of two steps: molding and painting. Despite some variation among

known examples several features remain consistent including open forward-staring eyes,

eyebrows, noses and closed lips in a tight smile. Darby argues this indicates Iron Age artisans

agreed upon what these molded heads should look like.18 Unlike A Type heads, these heads

were formed separately from the base and then attached via a peg that was inserted into the base

via a depression in the upper body.19 Molded heads can also be organized into several different

sub-groups based on Holland’s original catalogue. These sub-divisions include: rounded; square;

vertical; wedge shaped; without curls; hexagonal curls; combination/other. These sub-groups are

often further divided by the number of curls depicted in the figurines hair20 Several patterns

have been noted among Molded Heads based on their location.21

Possible Uses
The three proposed uses of Judean Pillar Figurines are: goddess worship; popular

religion; female religion. Those who argue for goddess worship believe Judean Pillar Figurines

were related to the Israelite goddess Asherah. The popular religion theory argues that Judean

16
Kletter 1996, 29
17
Darby 2014, 347-348
18
Darby 2014, 338
19
Kletter 1996, 29
20
Kletter 1996, 137
21
See Predicted Patterns Section

8
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Pillar Figurines were used in de-centralized religion practiced by non-elites throughout Israel and

Judah. Similarly, the theory of female religion argues that Judean Pillar Figurines were used by

women in their day to day religious practices.

Goddess
The argument that Judean Pillar Figurines represent a goddess point to two potential

candidates: Asherah and Astarte. In his survey of work on Judean Pillar Figurines Kletter points

out that two major phases of work could be defined by the goddess Judean Pillar Figurines were

believed to represent: Astarte from the end of WWI to 1975; Asherah from 1975 to 1995.22 The

argument that Judean Pillar Figurines represent either of these deities is tempting. It has been

argued that the Judean Pillar Figurines’ cylindrical base represent the Asherah trees found in the

Hebrew Bible. However, no strong evidence has been presented to substantiate this claim.23

Furthermore, several pieces of evidence directly contradict this argument. For example,

Mesopotamian tradition does not include any figurines of major gods. Nor are images of the

gods ever made out of clay, in Hebrew textual tradition as well as in Mesopotamian tradition.

Rather, images of the gods were generally made out of metal, stone or wood. The depiction of

women in the Hathor wig found on Judean Pillar Figurines is generally found on seals, ivories or

metals but rarely in connection with goddesses. Finally, the majority of Judean Pillar Figurines

were found within trash deposits or fills suggesting the people who created them did not see

them as sacred the way idols would likely be viewed.24

22
Kletter 1996, 12-16
23
Darby 2014, 35-42
24
Darby 2014, 398-399; Meyers 1988 161-164

9
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Female Religion
Several scholars have argued that Judean Pillar Figurines were associated with women’s

domestic religion based on the prominence of the figurines’ breasts. The crux of the argument is

that the figurines are likely fertility icons of some sort, based on popular Mesopotamian tradition.

According to this view the Judean Pillar Figurines represented an Israelite woman’s desire for

multiple, strong and healthy children.25 However, the majority of academic work today refutes

this position, suggesting instead that Judean Pillar Figurines were meant for use in healing

rituals.

Evidence that supports a multi-gendered use of Judean Pillar Figurines includes their

presence throughout domestic contexts rather than in areas specifically related to women.

Furthermore, Judean Pillar Figurines are rarely, if ever, found in relation to artifacts likely used

by women, except those that might have had a cultic use. Textual evidence further disproves the

connection between women and Judean Pillar Figurines because rituals associated with figurines

rarely relate to fertility and vice a versa, fertility rituals rarely include figurines. Finally, while

women were likely a part of pottery workshops it is unlikely they ran them or had a say in what

was produced in these workshops, leading to the conclusion that the figurines were not made

with women in mind.26

Popular Religion
This is overwhelmingly the most popular understanding of Judean Pillar Figurines.

While the above categories are considered part of this category the “catch all” aspect of “Popular

Religion” is highly useful because it refers to the many varied uses that Judean Pillar Figurines

could have had. Even scholars who argue Judean Pillar Figurines consisted of goddess worship

25
Meyers 1988, 161-163
26
Darby 2014, 402-404

10
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

or applied specifically to women’s religion concede that they were a major part of Israelite

popular religion. However, while the category of “Popular Religion”, or any of its other

variants, it does have several drawbacks.

The most immediate concern is the assumption that “Popular Religion” was less

significant than Israel’s official temple religion. This concern has been noted by several scholars

who work in the field of popular religion. While the historiography of Biblical studies, and as

such Biblical archaeology, has traditionally privileged the narrative of monotheism found in the

Hebrew Bible, this practice has been quickly shifting with Israelite popular religion becoming

one of the most popular topics in Syrio-Palestinian archaeology today. The result of this shift is

that popular religion is no longer seen as secondary to official religion. Instead it is studied and

understood in its own right as a way to better understand Israelite society.

The second problem with the field of popular religion is the same thing that makes it so

useful: it has very few clear cut boundaries and as such is a pseudo-ambiguous category. The

result is that a diverse number of practices and artifacts can be included as part of popular

religion. Several, very convincing, attempts have been made to create typologies of popular

religion artifacts. The goal of these typologies is to better understand and define the category of

popular religion. For example, Albertz and Schmitt’s category “Type A” consists of artifacts

that indicate a site is likely cultic or an area for popular religion. Artifacts included in this

category include figurines, libation stands and incest alters.27 The main characteristic of these

“Type A” artifacts is that they are unlikely to be found outside of cultic settings.

27
Albertz and Schmitt 2012, 60

11
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Evidence for Judean Pillar Figurines uses overwhelmingly points to the conclusion that

they had a diverse number of uses, including votive offering and “protection statue”. As a result,

the category of popular religion is the most appropriate category for defining Judean Pillar

Figurines.

Chronology
Roughly 43% of Judean Pillar Figurines can be relatively dated; the rest lack any precise

context. The figurines with a date can be dated to the 7th or 8th century but lack more precise

dating. According to Kletter approximately 35 can be dated precisely to the 8th century and 36 to

the 7th.28 Interestingly, William G. Dever argues that the majority of Judean Pillar Figurines can

be securely dated to after the fall of Israel in 722.29 However, because of poor excavation

techniques and the position of Judean Pillar Figurines in secondary or surface level contexts

more precise dating cannot be acquired. Several sites, such as Tell Beit Mirsim, Beth

Shemesh,Tell Halif and Tell Beer Sheba were occupied during the 8th century and unoccupied

during the 7th. Vice a versa, Tell Malhata, Tell Masos and Tell Ira were only occupied during the

7th century. Overall, no figurines are found during the Persian period, post Babylonian Exile, in

Israel-Palestine. Instead, distinctly post-Persian figurines are found throughout the area.30

Predicted Patterns and Potential Explanations

A and B Heads
The predicted distribution pattern for A and B type Judean Pillar Figurines is that A type

Judean Pillar Figurines should only be found in the Jerusalem hills area where as B type Judean

28
Kletter 1996, 40-43
29
Dever 1983
30
Kletter 1996, 40-43

12
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Pillar Figurines can be found in more diverse areas.31 B Type Judean Pillar Figurines generally

have a short wig style, a distinctly Egyptian feature. It is possible that this indicates the wig style

entered Judah through Syrio or Phoenicia.32 Darby argues the International Coastal Highway

was a major contributor to distribution pattern because it was a major factor in the spread of

Phoenician culture in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

Generally speaking, the Coastal Highway connected Egypt with Mesopotamia, Syria,

Phoenicia and Anatolia by passing through the southern Levant. Because of its geographic

location the Coastal Highway cut directly through Israel and Judah, connecting the majority of

their large cities. For example, the southern portion of the Coastal Highway began in Gaza and

from there went on to Ashkelon, Ashdod, Jabneh and Apex. Moving north the Coastal Highway

moved through the Sharon plain and then entered the Northern part of Israel-Palestine. In this

area the Coastal Highway connected important cities like Megiddo. Finally, the road moved

through the Carmel pass and before ultimately entering Phoenicia. While the main highway of

the road was impressive there were also a large number of roads that branched off from it. The

effect of this was that almost all of Israel and Judah were connected through a series of road

networks that crisscrossed the territory.33 Based on the presence of this road network, it would

be easy, theoretically, for culture and cultural motifs such as Judean Pillar Figurines to pass

easily from town to town.

Judean Heartland Concept

The most common argument about distribution patterns of Judean Pillar Figurines is that

they are only found within the kingdom of Judah. Of specific interest is the Judean “Heartland”

31
Darby 2014, 349
32
Darby 2014, 341-342
33
Dorsey 1991, 58-93

13
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

concept. Throughout most of its history the kingdom of Judah had fluid borders that were

generally changing. However, the “Heartland” of Judah is an area that was constantly within

control of Judah. Kletter defines this area as, “The area that was always under Judean control. …

Inside this area, Judean population was the overwhelming part of the entire population, and

political control was wielded by Judeans.”34 The areas considered part of the Judean Heart land

are: the Judean Mountains; Benjamin; the Judean Desert and the Biblical Negev.35 Kletter

argues that because the majority of figurines were found within this heartland area, with only 32

doubtful cases in other areas, Judean Pillar Figurines must be considered Judean Figurines.36

This argument by Kletter pulls strongly from Engle’s earlier work which argued that figurines

were only found within the kingdom of Judah.37 Kletter explains away the Judean Pillar

Figurines found in other areas by arguing they are doubtful and suspect. Mazar also argues for

this distribution stating that figurines found in the Kingdom of Israel were more naturalistic

while Judean Pillar Figurines were a distinctly Judean phenomena.38

Hypothesis
Based on the presented arguments I argue that the proposed distribution patterns will be

supported by my work. I argue this because, of the relative strength of the “Judean Heartland

Hypothesis”. While the borders of Israel and Judah have been in question in recent scholarship

the “Judean Heartland Hypothesis” accounts for this by placing the largest number of Judean

Pillar Figurines in areas that were always part of the Kingdom.

34
Kletter 1996, 45
35
Kletter 1996, 45
36
Kletter 1996, 45
37
Engle 1997
38
Mazar

14
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

A major question in modern Syrio-Palestinian archaeology is the consideration of when

Israel and Judah separated and what each kingdom looked like with archaeologists on either side

of the minimalist/maximalist divide arguing different things. Finkelstein suggests that the

Kingdom of Judah did not rise in importance until sometime in the 9th century.39 Should this

argument prove correct it would not present a major challenge to the “Judean Heartland

Hypothesis” as most Judean Pillar Figurines are dated to the 8th and 7th century. Well after this

9th century date.

On the more conservative end of the question of Israel and Judah is Amihai Mazar.

Mazar argues that several Judean cities developed in a direct line from Iron Age I, a process that

lasted from the 10th to the 8th century BCE. Especially important for this work is the question of

Jerusalem before the fall of Judah in 586 BCE. Mazar contends that Jerusalem was a relatively

large sized city during this period pointing to the City of David’s “Stepped Stone Structure” as

evidence.40

Despite the variations in argument that Finkelstein and Mazar present neither have

created a scenario where the “Judean Heartland Hypothesis” would fall short. Rather it fits

nicely in both theories because of the late date of the 7th and 8th centuries.

I also argue that Darby’s proposed distribution of Type A and Type B heads will prove

correct because of the presence of the Via Maris and its importance as a means of cultural

exchange.

39
Schmidt 2007, 151
40
Mazar 1992, 418

15
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Observed Distribution Patterns

The immediately obvious pattern is that Kletter’s argument that “proper Judean Pillar

Figurines” are only found within the Judean Heartland is not well supported. Instead a number

of Judean Pillar Figurines are found in the Kingdom of Israel as well as Philistia and Phoenicia.

In his work Kletter acknowledges the presence of these figurine but writes them off as

statistically insignificant. However, the work presented here raises several points as to why these

figurines should not be ignored. The most striking pattern is that areas outside of Judah

generally have Type B Judean Pillar Figurines while Type A are relatively rare. Moreover, when

the proportion of Type A to Type B is considered, areas that present both types indicate a strong

preference for Type B with the exception of The Jerusalem Mountain Region where the majority

of sites have both types with the majority being Type A. While these points do not directly

contradict Kletter’s work it does queer his argument and suggest the regional patterns of Judean

Pillar Figurines are not as clear cut as originally argued.

16
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

17
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Judean Pillar Figurines by Geographic Area

Judean Mountain Region

The Judean Mountain Region contains the largest number of Judean Pillar Figurines. Of

these the vast majority were found at the site of Jerusalem, which has been excavated by a large

number of archaeologists in different areas of the site. The number of Judean Pillar Figurines

found in Jerusalem totals a little over 140; of these figurines 100 are Type A. In contrast to these

large numbers the rest of the sites in the Judean Mountain Region range from thirty to zero. Tell

en-Nasbel, the site with the second most Judean Pillar Figurines contains thirty Type A figurines

and 25 Type B figurines.

The Judean Mountain Region is the only area where sites that contain both Type A and

Type B Judean Pillar Figurines consistently have a majority of Type A. The only other sites that

demonstrates this characteristic is Arad and Tel Masos in the Negev. While some sites contain a

large majority of Type A figurines (Jerusalem contains over 200% more Type A Judean Pillar

Figurines than Type B) other areas contain only a slim majority.

It should also be noted that the city of Bethel had three “Type C” Judean Pillar Figurines.

These three Judean Pillar Figurines do not appear on the chart of map below because they fall

outside of the dichotomy of “Pinched Head” versus “Molded Head”. Rather Type C Judean

Pillar Figurines represent instances where only the molded base of a Judean Pillar Figurine was

found. However, the presence of any Judean Pillar Figurine fragment in Bethel is highly

significant because it was one of two religious centers for the kingdom of Samaria.41 According

to the Bible, Jeroboam I built a royal sanctuary at Bethel to rival Jerusalem.42

41
The other religious center was that of Dan in the North of Samaria. Dan is not discussed in this paper because no
Judean Pillar Figurines were uncovered on the site.
42
Avi-Yonah 1975, 191; King 2001, 323

18
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Judean Mountain Region

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

All A All B

Negev Area
Similar to other sites the Negev area contains a majority of B Type Judean Pillar

Figurines. Tel Beer Sheba contains the majority of figurines with thirteen Type B and eight

Type A, for a total of twenty-one Judean Pillar Figurines. Of the seven sites in the Negev only

three contained a mixture of Type A and Type B Judean Pillar Figurines; the other four sites only

had Type B figurines. This data presents a strong preference towards Type B Judean Pillar

Figurines. Important to note is the majority of Type A figurines to Type B figurines at Arad and

Tel Masos. The vast majority of sites examined in this study displayed a tendency towards

majority Type B when both types were present. The only sites that seemed to prefer Type A to

Type B where in the Judean Mountain Region. Arad contained a significantly higher proportion

19
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

of Type A figurines to Type B (9:4) than Tel Masos (2:1).

Negev Area
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Arad Aroer Beer Sheba - Malhata Tel Beer Tel Ira Tel Masos
suq Sheba

All A All B

Shephleah
Similar to other areas in Israel-Judah the Shephleah contains a strong majority of Type B

Judean Pillar Figurines. Only three sites, Maresha, Kh. Hoga and El es-Safi displayed only Type

A Judean Pillar Figurines. Two sites, Azeka and Tel Halif contained only Type B figurines. The

majority of sites contained a mixture of Type B and Type A figurines with a marked majority

being Type B. The largest number of figurines were found at Lachish with twenty-one Type B

figurines and only five Type A figurines.

20
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Shephelah
25
20
15
10
5
0

All A All B

Coastal Plain
The coastal plain contains the smallest amount of sites, three, along with the lowest

number of Judean Pillar Figurines per site, one. The figurines at Ashdod and Tel Qasilah are

Type A, while Tel Michal contained a Type B Judean Pillar Figurines. The presence of only

Type A figurines in the Coastal Plain Area is distinct because they are generally only found in

large numbers in the Judean Mountain Region.

Coastal Plain
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
Ashdod Tel Michal Tel Qasilah

All A All B

21
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

North
The North had a strong tendency towards Type B figurines with no Type A Judean Pillar

Figurines present at any of the sites. Shechem contains the majority of figurines with two while

Samaria had none. This information makes a large amount of sense as the Northern sites are

quite far from the Jerusalem Mountain Region, where the majority of Judean Pillar Figurines

were Type A.

North
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Megiddo Samaria Shechem Tel el-'Oremeh

All A All B

Type A Judean Pillar Figurines

In contrast to Type B Judean Pillar Figurines, Type A figurines are found in a relatively

limited number of sites, the majority of which are located in the south, especially in the Kingdom

of Judah.43 These sites tend to cluster around the area of Jerusalem and the Judean Mountain

Region. The sites where Type A figurines were found in the Kingdom of Israel tend to be near

the border with Judah. However, the site of Ramot is a major abnormality in that it is located

very far North but at least one Type A figurine was uncovered during excavations. Type A

figurines do not form the majority of Judean Pillar Figurines in any of the areas, although some

43
See section below

22
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

sites do show a slight preference to them over Type B. A total of 198 Type A figurines have

been catalogued.

23
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

24
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Type B Judean Pillar Figurines

Type B figurines form the majority of Judean Pillar Figurines found in Israel and Judah,

208 of a possible 406. With the exception of the Jerusalem Mountain Region and one or two

other nearby sites, any site with both types of figurines present, contained a majority of Type B.

Additionally, in contrast to Type A figurines, Type B figurines were found in a much more

diverse geographic region; the Judean Pillar Figurines were found in sites from Israel’s far north

and Judah’s far south.

25
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

26
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Analysis
Comparison to Proposed Patterns
Distribution of Type A and Type B Judean Pillar Figurines
Darby’s argument that Type A figurines would only be found in the Jerusalem Mountain

Region, while Type B figurines would be found in a geographically diverse number of locations

was partially true. The Jerusalem Mountain Region showed a distinct preference for Type A

figurines that was distinct from the other areas surrounding it. In point of fact, the Jerusalem

Mountain region is the only geographic area where sites contained more Type A figurines than

Type B figurines. Additionally, Type B figurines do appear in a large number of sites, including

ones far from the Israel-Judah border.

However, Darby’s hypothesis is also partially incorrect in that Type A figurines are found

in areas outside of the Judean Mountain Region, with one figurine found in the far north of Israel

and one in the kingdom of Philistia. Additionally, Darby’s argument that Type A figurines

would only be found in the Jerusalem Mountain Regions because of the Maritime Highway is

not supported by the evidence. A large number of sites where Judean Pillar Figurines were

found were not located on the Maritime Highway.44

This is perhaps not that shocking because, as Darby herself points out, Type B figurines

would be located closer to specific workshops. The argument states that these workshops would

produce more of a uniform type of figurine because they had agreed on a specific type or

aesthetic. However, other scholars have argued that the Israelite north was more likely to have

workshops. The implication of this is that the North would have more of a uniform type of

figurine rather than the Judean South. These workshops were likely located in Hazor, Dan,

Samaria and Megiddo as they were the most important sites in the Northern Kingdom. This fact

44
Dorsey 1991

27
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

would severely undercut Darby’s argument because Judean Pillar Figurine heads were only

found at Megiddo and a body was found in Samaria. The head found at Megiddo was type B

indicating there was no uniform style for Judean Pillar Figurines and the heads used.

Additionally, common artistic elements were more of a feature of the Northern Kingdom, where

workshops have been located, rather than an aspect of Judean art.

Judean Heartland Argument

Overall, the Judean Heartland Argument is not well supported. A basic map of Judean

Pillar Figurines indicates that they were found in the kingdom of Israel, well outside of the

proposed Judean Heartland. While the majority were found in or near Judah the presence of

Judean Pillar Figurines outside of the area cannot be ignored. While it is possible that Judean

Pillar Figurines proliferated after the fall of Israel in 722, Kletter himself acknowledges more

precise date than 8th or 7th century is not possible. Additionally, several figurines found in Israel

are dated to the 8th century, meaning they could easily have been present during the Kingdom of

Israel. As such it is fully possible that the Judean Pillar Figurines found in the area of Israel

could have existed before it fell to the Assyrians

Analysis of Observed Patterns

Geographic Distribution
Immediately apparent is the high concentration of Judean Pillar Figurines in the kingdom

of Judah. This is unsurprising considering most scholars argue Judean Pillar Figurines were an

exclusively Judean artifact. Of note is the way Judean Pillar Figurines do not occur at every site

in the Judah. Instead they are concentrated in the north of the Kingdom. It has been

acknowledged by several scholars that Judean Pillar Figurines were found mostly in major sites

that were fairly large. It is possible this trend reflects this same tendency. Also possible is that

the distribution of Judean Pillar Figurines in Judah reflects the proposed boundaries of the

28
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Judean Heartland. This pattern does lend some strength to the Judean Heartland argument

proposed by Kletter. However, the appearance of Judean Pillar Figurines outside of the political

boundaries of Judah provides a major argument against the Judean Heartland argument.

Outside of the kingdom of Judah Judean Pillar Figurines were found in no less than

thirteen sites. These sites were located in Israel and Philistia, Judah’s immediate neighbors to

the north and the west respectively. The location of figurines in Philistia consist of sites that are

relatively close to its border with Judah suggesting they may have come to their final home

through trade with Judah of some sort. More interesting, however, are the Judean Pillar

Figurines found in Israel. While Judean Pillar Figurines are found in fewer sites their appearance

in the far north, almost completely removed from Judah suggests a major challenge to the Judean

Heartland Argument. If these artifacts were an exclusively Judean tradition they would be

clustered closer to the Israel-Judah border, but this is not the case. Instead, their appearance in

the far north suggests these artifacts may not be Judean Pillar Figurines so much as they are

Israelite Pillar Figurines.

Distribution of Type A and Type B Judean Pillar Figurines

No immediate trends appear in the distribution of Type A versus Type B Judean Pillar

Figurines. Overall there seems to be a general preference for Type B figurines. This is likely

because Type B figurines were pinched heads making them easier for local crafts people to

fashion. In contrast Type A figurines, molded heads, would require a workshop to be fashioned.

This consideration is at the heart of Darby’s argument that Type A figurines would be

concentrated in the Judean Highland Regions. Several sites seem to prefer Type B Judean Pillar

Figurines. Most noticeable is the large number of Type A figurines in Jerusalem.

29
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Overwhelmingly, Jerusalem shows the largest preference for Type A figurines, with Type B

making up barely 25% of the figurines found at the site.

30
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

31
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Potential Explanations
The most immediate explanation is that Judean Pillar Figurines are not distinctly Judean

as previously thought but rather part of a shared Israelite religious culture that cut across Israel

and Judah. The majority of works that argue Judean Pillar Figurines are distinctly Judean

assume a cultural distinction between Israel and Judah that is not well substantiated. While the

two kingdoms were distinct political entities there is little evidence that their material culture

would also be distinct. Folk religion especially would likely be shared across the two states

because by its very definition it is separate from state involvement. This argument is made

harder to support by the lack of archaeological finds in the Northern Kingdom of Samaria.

However, the information and evidence that has recently comes to light indicates that the cultic

practices of Israel and Judah are likely closer than previously argued.45 This means there is little

reason why Judean Pillar Figurines should be considered a specific Judean practice.

This idea is well documented by the role of figurines throughout the Iron Age Levant.

While it is tempting to argue Judean Pillar Figurines are distinct to the area of Judah in point of

fact, Pillar Figurines in some form can be found throughout Transjordan at this time in history.

While these Transjordan figurines are less uniform than Judean Pillar Figurines they still have

the distinct pillar base that is argued makes Judean Pillar Figurines so distinct.46 Moreover,

Judean Pillar Figurines can be traced back to a 3D craft tradition in Mesopotamia.47 Because

Judean Pillar Figurines are found throughout the Levant and are part of a general Mesopotamian

tradition there is no reason their presence would be confined to Judah alone. Rather, earlier

writers should have presented an argument for why Judean Pillar Figurines were distinctly

45
Finkelstein 2013, 115-118
46
Daviau 2014, 4
47
Zevit 2001, 267-276

32
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Judean in practice. Judean Pillar Figurines also had a major jump in popularity during the Iron

IIC. According to Albertz and Schmitt, 53% of the assemblages they surveyed for their work

Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel contained some sort of Judean Pillar Figurines

or fragment. This spike had some basis in the Iron IIB when figurines and votive offerings

began to feature heavily in Israelite folk religion but the sudden importance of Judean Pillar

Figurines is still quite significant.48 53% is a major number and indicates Judean Pillar Figurines

likely featured heavily in Israelite religious practices of the time.

Additionally, Judean Pillar Figurines are not the only type of figurine associated with

Israel and Judah during this time period. In reality, Judean Pillar Figurines are only one distinct

type of figurine found in this area that were associated with the Israelite cult. Unsurprisingly

figurines are one of the most common types of artifacts used to reconstruct the Israelite cult.49

For example, Holland’s original catalogue had 2,700 figurines with the majority of them being

animal rather than human. However, female shapes are more plentiful than male shapes for the

human figurines. While Judean Pillar Figurines have been thoroughly discussed so far,

information about plaque figurines has yet to be considered. These figurines were made by

molding a lump of clay or by pouring liquid in to a mold. When the object was removed from

the mold the figurine would have a human shape with a flat background. Plaque figurines can be

dated to the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age.50 This time period means they occurred at the

same time period that Judean Pillar Figurines were being used in religion.51 These figurines are

48
Albertz and Schmitt 2012, 174-174)
49
Zevit 2001, 267-276
50
Vriezen, 59-61
51
Zevit 2001, 267-276

33
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

found throughout Israel and Judah indicating that there were a series of shared beliefs between

Israel and Judah.

There are several other similarities between Israel’s and Judah’s religious practices that

support the argument that both states had a shared Israelite religious culture. For example, a

large number of “cultic structures” have been uncovered in the areas of Israel and Judah. These

cultic structures are generally found in domestic structures indicating their close relationship

with household religion. For example, one cultic structure was uncovered at Megiddo Stratum

VA. This structure included two horn altar, ceramic cultic stands, chalices and other vessels. A

similar structure was uncovered at Ta’anach, which dates to the 10th Century. What is exciting

about this cultic structure was the presence of molds for casting Asherah or Astarte figurines for

use in cultic function.52 The presence of these molds strengthens the argument that figurines

were important for Israelite religious culture in both Israel and Judah. These cultic structures are

part of a major aspect of Israelite domestic religion: its presence in the home itself and its

implications.

Albertz and Schmitt distinguish between two distinct locations for domestic religion in

the home: the house itself and the domestic shrine of the home. Within the house cultic activities

would likely have taken place in areas related to food preparation on the first floor of the house.

Because of this several scholars have argued that domestic religion was the domain of women

and it was they who bore the main responsibility of daily offerings to the gods. Because the

Israelite home generally housed multiple generations of people, the practice of the domestic cult

was informed by the nuclear family with practices passed from family member to family

52
Dever 1990, 121-166

34
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

member. Domestic assemblages found in Israelite contexts bear major similarities to

assemblages found in Jordan, Philistia, Phoenicia and Syria.53 These similarities indicate that the

Judean domestic cult was not as unique as previously believed. As such, there is no reason why

the Judean Pillar Figurines could not be a commonality across Israelite culture.

The second major aspect of domestic religion is that of the domestic shrine. This can be

defined as “permanent cult installations such as benches or platforms in domestic structures or

dedicated cult rooms”.54 These domestic shrines have the largest implication for the role of

Judean Pillar Figurines and their appearance in both Israel and Judah as they would likely have

been included in these shrines. Domestic shrines ranged in size from benches to dedicated cult

rooms and generally had large numbers of specifically cultic objects.

The similarities between Israel and Judah’s religion makes a large amount of sense

considering their common origin of Canaanite religion. It is commonly pointed out that Israelite

religion bears many similarities to Bronze Age the Bronze Age Canaanite religion that preceded

it before the major collapse that marks the dividing line between Bronze Age and Iron Age.

Indeed, most scholars speak of Israelite religion as part of a “Canaanite Matrix” which would

place it squarely in relation with other religions of the Levant.55 Especially interesting is the

importance of figurines found throughout LB Syria-Palestine. Female figurines are common

occurances and likely represent Canaanite female deities. These figurines sometimes wear

“Hathor” headdresses, a headpiece similar to the type sometimes occur on Judean Pillar

Figurines.56 Support for this argument is also found in the material culture of the Iron I period,

53
Albertz and Schmitt 2012, 224-227
54
Albertz and Schmitt 2012, 227
55
Coogan 1987, 116
56
Dever 1987, 226

35
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

the period immediately preceding the United Monarchy Period. These remains reflect a heavy

Canaanite influence indicating the Israelites were heavily influenced by neighboring region’s

religions. Dever describes this early religion as reflecting an agrarian society57 Considering the

common origins of the religions of both Israel and Judah it seems unlikely the two polities would

have different religious practices.

It is possible in this analysis to even go a step further and argue that Judean Pillar

Figurines were actually of Samarian origin and grew so much in popularity after the fall of Israel

because of the wave of refugees into Judah. Judean Pillar Figurines, in fact a large amount of

Israelite art, were clearly influenced by Phoenician aesthetics. Darby herself uses this as part of

her reasoning regarding why the Via Maris would influence the distribution of Judean Pillar

Figurines. However, the Southern Kingdom was not as heavily influenced by Phoenician culture

as the Northern Kingdom was. Many scholars point to the story of Jezebel, a Phoenician

princess who marries a Samarian king, as evidence of this. In the story Jezebel clearly has a

large amount of influence on the kingdom and its cultures. Mazar says of it, “[The marriage] led

to the infiltration into Israel of Phoenician religious and artistic concepts.”58 Why then would a

figurine that seems so Phoenician in its design originate in Judah rather than the more susceptible

Israel?

57
Dever 1987, 231-235
58
Mazar 1992, 403-404

36
Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Conclusion
Judean Pillar Figurines are one of the most enigmatic and interesting artifacts of the Iron

Age Levant. Their possible meaning has consistently baffled archaeologists and they seem to

always captivate audiences. The possibility that they represented ancient goddess worship by the

pious ensnares the imagination. However, the assumption that Judean Pillar Figurines were only

found in the Kingdom of Judah must be seriously reconsidered. Instead, these Pillar Figurines

are commonly found throughout the Kingdom of Israel as well as in several other places.

Moreover, the Transjordan tradition of Pillar Figurines seriously calls into question the idea that

Judean Pillar Figurines are in some way distinct. Instead, it would be better to reconsider Judean

Pillar Figurines in the context of a shared Israelite context. Perhaps a better name for “Judean

Pillar Figurines” would instead be “Israelite Pillar Figurines”

37
 Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Works Cited
Albertz, R. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Periods. Vol. I and II. Louisville,
USA: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.

Albertz, Rainer, and Rudiger Schmitt. Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the
Levant. First. Winoma Lake, USA: Eisenbrauns, 2012.

Beck, Pirhiya. “The Art of Palestine During the Iron Age II: Local Traditions and External Influences
(10th - 8th Centuries BCE).” In Imagery and Representation: Studies in the Art and Iconography
of Ancient Palestine, 203–22. Tel Aviv, Israel: Emery and Clair Yass Publications in
Archaeology, 2002.

Carl Rasmussen. NIV Atlas of the Bible. First. Grand Rapids, USA: Zondervan Publishing House,
1989.

Coogan, Michael. “Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religion of Ancient Israel.” In
Ancient Israelite Religion, 115–24. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

Darby, Erin. Interpreting Judean Pillar Figurines: Gender and Empire in Judean Apotropaic Ritual.
Edited by Mohr Siebeck. Tubingen, Germany: Laupp & Gobel, 2014.

Daviau, P.M. “The Coroplastics of Transjordan: Forming Techniques and Iconographic Traditions in
the Iron Age.” In Figuring Out the Figurines of the Ancient Near East, 1–12. United States of
America: Lulu, 2014.

Dever, William. “Archaeology Reconstructs the Israelite Cult.” In Recen Archaeological Discoveries
and Biblical Research, 121–66. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1990.

Dever, William. “The Contribution of Archaeology to the Study of Canaanite and Early Israelite
Religion.” In Ancient Israelite Religion, 209–48. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

Dever, W.G. “Material Remains and the Cult in Ancient Israel: An Essay in Archaeological
Systematics.” In The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, 571–87. Philadelphia, USA: American
Schools of Oriental Research, 1983.

Dorsey, David A. The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. First. 1991: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1991.

Engle, J.R. “Pillar Figurines of Iron Age Israel and Asherah/Asherim.” Unpublished Dissertation,
University of Pittsburgh, 1997.

Finkelstein, Israel. The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel. First.
Atlanta, USA: Society of Bible Literature, 2013.

Frankfort, Henri. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. Fourth. New Haven, USA: Yale
University Press, 1970.

38
 Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Frank, Harry Thomas, ed. Atlas of the Bible Lands: An Illustrated Atlas of the Bible. Third.
Maplewood, USA: Hammond Incorporated, 1990.

Hadley, Judith. “Female Figurines.” In The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, 188–205.
University of Canbridge Oriental Publications 75. Cambridge, UK: University Press, Cambridge,
2000.

Hardin, James. “Judah during the Iron Age II Period.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of
the Levant C. 8000 - 332 BCE, First., 743–56. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Killebrew, Ann. “Israel During the Iron Age II Period.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology
of the Levant C. 8000 - 332 BCE, First., 730–42. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014.
King, Philip, and Lawrence E Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville, USA: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 2001.

Kletter, R. The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. BAR Intenational Series
636. Oxford, UK: Tempus Reparatum, Archaeological and Historical Associates Limited, 1996.

Kletter, Raz. “Between Archaeology and Theology: The Pillar Figurines from Judah and the
Asherah.” In Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 331. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press
Ltd, 2001.

Miller, Patrick D. The Religion of Ancient Israel. Louisville, USA: Westminster/John Knox Press,
2000.

Pettey, Richard J. “Part III: Archaeological Factors.” In Asherah: Goddess of Israel, 74:173–90.
Theology and Religion, VII. New York, USA: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc, 1990.

Pfeiffer, Charles, and Howard F Vos. The Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands. Second.
Chicago, USA: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1968.

Prag, Kay. “Figurines, Figures and Contexts in Jerusalem and Regions to the East in the Seventh and
Sixth Centuries BCE.” In Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 331. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield
Academic Press Ltd, 2001.

Pritchard, J.B. Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddess Known through Literature. New
Haven, USA: American Oriental Society, 1943.

Rainer, Albertz. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Vol. One. Two vols.
Louisville, USA: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992.

39
 Austin Terry
CMES Master’s Thesis

Suriano, Matthew. “Historical Geography of the Ancient Levant.” In The Oxford Handbook of the
Archaeology of the Levant C. 8000 - 332 BCE, First., 9–23. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press, 2014.

40