Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions





The Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions refers to a set of jar and plaster inscriptions, stone incisions, and art discovered at the site of Kuntillet Ajrud. They were found at a unique Judean crossroads location that was among an unusual number and variety of vessels and other inscriptions. They date to the late 9th century BC in the Sinai Peninsula.





The finds were discovered during excavations in 1975–1976, during the Israeli occupation of the Sinai peninsula, but were not published in first edition until 2012.

The "shocking" and "exceedingly controversial" inscriptions have been called "the pithoi that launched a thousand articles" due to their influence on the fields of Ancient Near East and Biblical studies, raising and answering many questions about the relationship of Yahweh and Asherah.

Description
The most famous inscriptions are found on two pithoi, especially Pithos A, obverse pictured. The central figures are human-bovine and have writing above their heads. The lyre player (or weaver ), seated and about the same size as the standing figures, bears the same polka dot pattern. The suckling motif (𓃖) with the quadrupedal animals is also quite central, but less mysterious. The identification of the standing figures remains a matter of dispute among scholars.

Wall inscriptions were in black and red on plaster. At least one piece is a multi-color work. Contributing to difficulty, the "incriptions (sic) reveal odd data at different angles" or photos may mislead.

The reverse of pithos A has a line of ambiguous mammals including most clearly a boar. The remaining below, drawn more confidently, are all goddess symbols: a pair of caprids flanking a sacred tree, on bottom a lion. The central figure:

"It is mainly a tree trunk with branches and shoots coming out from it, eight in flower and eight in bud. Pirhiya Beck notes that the tree may be compared with Phoenician examples which show lotus and bud. Its overall form, however, is curious. The flowers are not quite lotuses. The trunk seems like that of a palm tree, but at the top of the trunk is a feature that looks rather like a large almond nut, with the pits of its shell clearly shown. Interestingly, three main branches come from each side of the trunk, and the other two flowering shoots and two minor budding shoots (or shoots with small almond nuts) come from the ’almond’ motif. Like the menorah, then, this representation of an asherah has three branches coming from each side of a central trunk. As we have seen, in the drawings of the Lachish ewer, the trees shown also have three branches coming from a central trunk and look very like menorot. In the Ta’anach stands, the tree is an upright trunk with several furled fronds coming out from the two sides; in one case six and in the other eight.

Pithos A
Large letters deeply wet-carved into a shoulder of it read 𐤒𐤓, qof-resh or QR. The abundance of text on the same surface as a variety of visual art is unusual and complementary, adding to alphabetic and cultural development understanding.



There is a common two-bovine motif. Many have written on a connection to abundance, fertility, goddesses. Meshel says the udders are poorly drawn; others point out it is a bull. The suckling motif is ubiquitous in the ancient world, seen in Syrian ivory, Egyptian hieroglyph, Semitic pottery, and more.



The seated figure is called a musician or weaver, though she's holding her instrument wrong in either case. The central figures have been identified as either representations of Yahweh and Asherah, the Egyptian dwarf-god Bes or Bes-like deities, or even as demonic ritual dancers. They appear bull-faced, bipedal, and wearing hats or crowns.

The bipedal figures here and on jar B are shown with energetic polka dots, which Meshel says must be symbolic, ie not clothing. In fact dots are a common motif in Sinai and elsewhere.

Meshel 3.1
(1.) ''ʾmr ʾšyw hm[l]k ʾmr lyhlyw wlywʿšh wl [ ... ] brkt ʾtkm lyhwh šmrn wlʾšrth''

"Says ʾAšiyaw the k[in]g: Say to Yahēliyaw, and to Yawʾāsah, and to [...] blessed are you all to Yahweh of Samaria, and to his Asherah".

Pithos B


The second jar follows A's unbroken single line of text with many short lines. You can see interpretation of "carriage returns" or breaks within words.

Meshel 3.6
Lemaire says there's an epistolary character to the text, not just from brk, but a common NW Semitic salutation: ʾmr X ʾmr Y, "Message of X, say to Y," Wearne says ʾmr, from a word for command or speak, is "that which was promised," a votive, not synonymous with ndr an offering; also skeptical about the "wooden" and "redundant" welfare inquiry.

Meshel 3.9


(1) ...lyhwh htmn wlʾšrth (2) ...kl ʾšr yšʾl mʾš ḥnn ha wʾm pth wntn lh yhw[h] (3) klbbh

(1) ...to Yahweh of the Teman, and to his Asherah, (2) ...all which he asks from a man he will give generously. And if he entices, Yahwe(h) shall give to him (3) his wish(es).

Pithos C
Inscription 3.16, in red. Figs 5.47a,b.

Jar C is a not a whole item, like A and B, it's just a chunk with the container's handle and the beginnings of a few lines. Meshel sees a personal name Asa on line 1 and perhaps "lamb" on line 2.

Meshel plaster fragments
Series 4 of inscriptions were written on white plaster that crumbled due to excavation.

Meshel 4.1.1
"Teman" is spelled tymn, as opposed to above tmn. The inclusion of this yodh may indicate diphthongization. However, Frevel has argued against indiscriminate interpretations about "Teman" in references to tmn, tymn, htmn.

Meshel № 4.2
4.2 involves less reconstructional guesswork than the lacuna-heavy 4.1 series as it's in two pieces rather than many. However, it's one of the more debated pieces, with a few translations available.

(1) wbzrḥ ʾl br... (2) wymsn hrm... (3) wydkn gbnm... (4) wšdš ʾly... (5) lbrk bʿl bym mlḥ[mh...] (6) lšm ʾl bym mlḥ[mh...]

(1) And when El shone forth in... (2) and mountains melted... (3) and peaks were crushed... (4) (unknown) (5) to bless Baal on the day of bat[tle...] (6) to the name of El on the day of bat[tle...]

There has been some scholarly debate on the translation of line 4; some have suggested that the inscription actually reads the more familiar qdš ("holy") rather than wšdš, while others have argued for qdš referring to a placename like Kadesh-Barnea.

Meshel 4.3
English translation in dispute. Meshel doesn't attempt a full translation of the partially "nonsensical" sequence, but guesses Cain or Kenites for qyn (line 7, bold), which can also mean create or acquire or family, as in KTU 1.3 or Genesis 4.1 or the Khirbet el-Qom ostraca. He wasn't the first to mention the Kenites "nesting" in Sinai.

Subseries 4.4 and 4.5 are quite fragmentary, really a collection of one- or two-letter chunks, on one item the letters b... hnb abutting part of a drawing of a human head. The figure appears beardless, with an olive-shaped eye seen in facial profile.

4.6.1
Square script transcription uses terminal m ("מ[...]ם. לעם שממ") inconsistently; inscription uses 𐤌 with no sofit alternate.

KA series
After Handbuch by Renz.

KA 9:9
Pithos 2:

The nonsense after the tiny lines 9–10 are abecedaries. The preceding are on the left side of the large streak down the side of the jar, the abecedaries on the right of the same stark line. This is on the reverse of the jar with the smaller figures with their hands up.

KA 9:10
Pithos 2: weitere zeichen

First paper


In his 1976 publication, Meshel described Kuntillet Ajrud, noting its distinctiveness compared to other sites. A key indicator of its exceptional nature was the abundance of pottery found at the location—they found more than they could carry almost immediately. Meshel, along with Carol Meyers, attributed this site's significance to its strategic position near major thoroughfares connecting important ancient locales. The site yielded five categories of inscriptions and artifacts:


 * 1) Pottery fragments bearing single letters, inscribed prior to firing.
 * 2) Pottery with inscriptions incised post-firing — "They are not ostraca."
 * 3) Stone vessels featuring incised inscriptions.
 * 4) Wall plaster inscriptions, four examples.
 * 5) Inscriptions found on complete storage jars, two.

The paper says that the Kuntillet findings débuted (Nov 30 1975) at the home of the President of Israel. But the first edition was still decades in the future. This publishing delay led to complaints.

Interpretation
The references to Samaria, capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and Teman suggest that Yahweh had a temple in Samaria, while raising questions about the relationship between Yahweh and Qos, the national god of Edom. Such questions had previously been raised due to the Tanakh's apparent reluctance to name the deity. Personal name Qošyaw may even equate the two. More important than the minor god has been discussion over the consort relationship of the two main figures, which has been voluminous.



Grammar
The final h on the construction yhwh šmrn w'šrth is "his" in "Yahweh and his Asherah." This is well-attested earlier but unusual in Biblical use with personal or divine names, raising the possibility that "Asherah" refers to some cultic object rather than a deity. Erhard Blum argues that since the Hebrew phrase corresponds to the regular construction of two nomina regentia with one genitive, it should be translated as "and the ashera of Yahweh." Zevit suggests *’Ašerātā as a "double feminization." Reuven Chaim Klein argues that w'šrth means "and His temple/shrine/site," following an obscure usage of the Hebrew root `šr and its Aramaic cognate 'tr. Handbuch describes the endings of the words as reflecting inconsistent use of sofit plene among defective spelling, or the reverse.

Josef Tropper's onomastic tetragrammaton reconstructions show that YHWH ends with -a or -ú, depending on its position in names. He thinks the final -a in Hebrew might signify an absolutive case ending, marked by 'he' as a mater lectionis, notwithstanding common wisdom that makes a suffix impossible. Adding an 'h' would then turn the preexisting 'h' to a 't' in ’šrth when this applied to ’šrh." Thus Tropper loses the "his," and we have simply "...Yahweh and Asherah" written in the blessings. Yoel Elitzur proposes a further simplifying framework where the era's orthography used expanded or contracted spelling not following different grammatical rules under different influence systems, but more or less when the scriptors felt like it.

Alphabetic development








The inscriptions are good examples of a script mid development. Part shows an ayin without a dot hugging a yod, together constituting what could be confused for an ayin alone in earlier more ocular form. At least some of the shins (𐤔 not ש) and sameks (𐤎, a support pillar shown in djed style) reflect the Paleo-Hebrew conception of the letters.

The inscriptions testify to the high level of literacy among their writers, even the "doodles" bespeak a calligraphic sophistication. Making comparison to the ancient and canonical Song of Deborah, Ahituv 2014 elevates them to the "oldest known Hebrew poem" caught quoting a theophany that predates its scriptor.

Teman and Samaria
The localized Yahweh, "of" Samaria and Teman is unseen in the canon but follows familiar patterns, Ahituv 2014 finds this expected. Nadav Na'aman also follows Meshel's interpretation of Samaria and Teman, a few scholars differ.

Location
The Kuntillet area was on the Gaza Road, a major if informal highway, between nearer Kadesh Barnea and Elath - (gulf of) Aqaba to the south. Nearby names on the map include Jebel al Qunna, Esh Sha'Ira, J. El Yahamum, Har Timna, Har Uziyahu, Har Argaman, Har Tsenefim, Har Dela'at, J. El 'Aneiqa.

Context
The location was in use only for a short period. Evidence of everyday activities included loom weights and faunal remains; perhaps less everyday activities were indicated by linen-wool mixed fabrics "normally prohibited to all but religious officials." Plaster surfaces were everywhere. There were ovens and container forms (jars, bowls, lamps, flasks) most undecorated and imported. There were no sickle blades (low cereal activity) but there was a high ratio of imported fish. It appears the location was provisioned entirely from outside. However, the surrounding area's pottery style isn't seen at the site, implying uneasy relations with the closest neighbors. In other words, it seemed visitors were from far, not near, and brought wealth.

The main room in building A contained benches, like the space where the Balaam inscription was found, among other parallels between the two. Meshel said in the book's title it was a religious site. Some said the sacred art indicated a temple. Maybe it was connected to the desert wanderings of those who followed Moses. Some said the lack of evidence of cultic activity meant it had been a mere caravanserei, like an Iron Age truck stop. (That is, they found no carbonic traces of burned sacrifice, which is considered the sine qua non of old Northwest Semitic cultic activity. )

Lissovsky pointed out that sacred trees (typically) leave nothing to archaeology. Meshel imagines the nearby tree grove increased the sanctity of the area, a bamah ("high place") may have been in Building B, and four massebot-like cultic stones that were found in Building A might reveal a cultic nature of the site.

Selected species
Diverse remains show that people brought goods from distant locations.

Bench room
Meshel called in narrow and elongated building A the "bench room." It featured stone benches occupying most of its space. Among them some were plain stone, some plastered white, and some had decorated plaster. A straight strip of unfurnished floor afforded central perambulation. A pair of facing benches have footrests.

The pithoi were found among over 1,000 Judean pillar figurines, in spaces with graphic walls. One of the wall pieces is significantly larger than the other art at the site: "Pirhiya Beck, in her lengthy analysis of Horvat Teman's finds, described this wall painting on plaster in some detail. The surviving fragments preserve the profile of a human head facing right with an eye and ear(?) all drawn in red outline, the eyeball and hair rendered in black, and a red object with black markings which Beck identified as a lotus blossom, concealing the mouth of the human figure. Additional plaster fragments show the figure dressed in a yellow garment with a red neckline border and a double collar-band drawn in red and encasing rows of black dots. Also discernable is a chair with a garment depicted in elaborate arrays of color (yellow, black, and red), part of the chair’s frame, pomegranates, and an unidentifiable plant. Beck pointed out that the size of the scene is impressive measuring some 32 cm in height, by far the largest mural at the site. She also speculated that these fragments are remnants of a larger scene that may have included several human figures participating in some type of ceremony with various plants in the background.12... Two installations located along the northern wall of building A’s courtyard can be interpreted as additional evidence for the observance of sacred ritual within the court yard..."

Pieces of these walls were picked up from the floor to reconstruct the plaster fragments above; only one was still in situ in the strict sense clinging to the wall on which it was written, 4.3 above.

Dating


Lily Singer-Avitz defends a date around the late 8th century; that is rather near the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE. William M. Schniedewind argues that the oldest inscriptions may date as early as the late-10th century. Meshel et al (1995) had suggested circa 801, finding carbon dating to support some primary evidence that pointed that way. Through the decades, Meshel's dating estimates as site archaeologist have remained consistent. The author proposes it was a wayside shrine lying between more important destinations like Elat, Ezion-Geber, Kadesh Barnea. Meshel has always emphasized the nature of the site as religious, without defining or adopting decisive descriptors like sanctuary. The question of if it was an "official religious site" may be subtle, as writers tend to argue it was indeed both and mention separately as an "official site" and a religious site.

Phallus misstep


Until 2023, illustrations added a penis and testes to the smaller and breasted biped on pithos A. When publicity called this matching pair to note, citizens asked if this were a depiction of a gay god. Reporter Nir Hasson interviewed the author of the editio princeps:

"'One day archaeologist Uzi Avner called me and told me that he was looking at the exhibits at the Israel Museum and that he thinks the smaller figure has nothing between its legs. We rushed to the museum and they opened the display case for us. We had the Israel Museum restorer with us, who promised me that he had gentle hands, and with a light brush he cleaned it and it turned out that there was nothing [there]. Since then we have been careful to draw the picture with one figure with and one without. This made it easier for those claiming that they were male and female.'"

Meshel
"Sinai" 2000 precedes but is understood to comprise part I of a greater work, the 2012 editio princeps being its Volume II. "Zin" 1976 is available online and still primary for contextual understanding of the site. ''