Andrews University

Digital Commons @ Andrews University

Papers Graduate Research

2017

THE LEGACY OF INANNA

Michael Orellana
Andrews University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/papers

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons

Recommended Citation
Orellana, Michael, "THE LEGACY OF INANNA" (2017). Papers. 14.

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/papers/14

This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews
University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @
Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
 THE LEGACY OF INANNA

Michael Orellana

The Lady of Heaven is known by several names in the context of the Ancient
Near East: Inanna (Sumerian), Ishtar (Akkadian), and Astarte (Canaanite). Other
similar goddesses include Isis (Egypt), Tanit (Carthage), Aphrodite (Greece), and
Venus (Rome). An excellent example of how the people of the ANE were aware
of the different “versions” of this goddess is the Qudshu relief plaque, which is
located in the Winchester College collection.1 This relief portrays a naked female
goddess standing on a lion, holding snakes, and wearing the “Hathor” wig. The
accompanying hieroglyphs contain a very revealing list of her different names:
Qudshu (Ashera), Anat, and Astarte (Dever 2005: 178; Edwards 1955: 49). This
evidence has been widely discussed as a classic example of syncretism,2 which
probably merges two goddesses (Anat and Astarte) into a new type, Qudshu, or
equates all three goddesses as the same (Cross 1997: 34). This relief has many
iconographic correspondences with the Egyptian Qudshu plaque.
The cult of Ishtar is ancient, as is shown by the remains of Inanna’s temple in
Uruk (4th millennium B.C.E.), which is near the white temple dedicated to Anu. It
is perhaps not inconsequential that the foundations of civilization were laid during
this very time, suggesting that a religious motivation was the primary factor for
the urban phenomenon known as the “Uruk revolution” (Stone 2000: 236).
Centuries later, the cult of Ishtar seduced the Assyrian Empire. The remains
of Ishtar’s temple in Aššur extend from the mid-3rd millennium B.C.E. to the end
of the New-Assyrian Kingdom (Meinhold 2009: 48). Interestingly, Herman V.
Hilprecht has suggested a connection between Nineveh and Nana, an old name
for Ishtar (Barton 2007: 20). As an example of her relationship with Nineveh,
there are some hymns written ca. 1800 B.C.E., where Assurbanipal I promoted
her worship:3
1. This Qudshu relief plaque belongs to Winchester College and is known as the “Winchester
College relief.”
2. Syncretism is the amalgamation of different aspects of culture for several reasons, making the
borders of identity diffuse.
3. This song is entitled “Prayer of Assurnasirpal son of Šamširaman” by Barton (Barton 2007).
178

2 To the mother of wisdom…[the lady of] majesty, 3 To her who dwells at Ibarbar,
the goddess [who] made me renowned, 4 To the queen of the gods, into whose
hands are delivered the command of the great gods, 5 To the lady of Nineveh…[of
the gods], the exalted one. (Barton 2007: 133)

She seems to have played a variety of roles and exhibited several traits as the
goddess of sexual love, fertility, war, rain, patroness of prostitutes and other in-
dependent women, and goddess of the morning and evening star –Venus (Abusch
1995: 848). Therefore, her influence extended from war to love and sensuality,
from birth to death. She was usually depicted as a winged, voluptuous wom-
an, naked or semi-naked, with exaggerated sexual organs, standing on lions, and
wearing a tall mountain-shaped crown (Jones 2005).
Ishtar/Inanna’s role within the Ancient Mesopotamian pantheon was preemi-
nent and dominant. Its social and political configuration embraces her personality
profoundly. Several scholars examined her traits both in anthropological and re-
ligious studies (Allen 2015; Frymer-Kensky 2006: 61-81; Margalit 1990). Since
the study of Ishtar deals with the role of women in ancient societies (Bahrani
2001: 14-27),4 it is necessary to obtain some comprehension of the role of women
in both the religious and the sociological context.

Ishtar’s Mythology

According to Sumerian-Babylonian theology, Ishtar or Inanna and her hus-

band (Tammuz) were responsible for the seasonal shifts of summer and spring.
These seasons are connected with the death and resurrection of Tammuz, thanks
to Ishtar’s intervention. Her sister Ereškigal, owner of the netherworld, was re-
sponsible for causing Ishtar’s death. In consequence, Ea/Enki sent the water of
life to Ishtar. She became alive again, producing seed germination and the begin-
ning of spring. The core of this theology is found in the myth “Ishtar’s Descent to
the Netherworld,” which emphasizes death and resurrection. This mortuary topic
intertwines religious entities with the natural world.5 It is remarkable that dying
gods were very popular in Sumerian culture;6 all of them were related to the cy-
cles of nature (Wiggerman 1997: 41). This intricate fusion of nature and religion
places Ishtar in the context of one of the most appealing religious motives that
captivated the imagination of ancient people, and probably, especially women.
Her dual identity as mother and wife of Tammuz7 may be confusing to the
4. Bahrani (Bahrani 2001: 14-27) mentions three movements that review the role of women in
history: 1) documenting women in the historical record, 2) analyzing her oppressed role in the past,
and 3) adopting a systematic approach to processes related to women’s studies. The last one focuses
on epistemological issues. In addition, she did a review of Ishtar in her book entitled “Women of Bab-
ylon,” which seems to be part of the third movement.
5. Unlike the Jewish-Christian tradition, which stresses God as the Creator of nature, Mesopo-
tamian theology made no difference between gods and creation, or made this difference very diffuse.
6. It is possible to distinguish at least four groups of Sumerian gods according to a specific region:
the southern marshes, the farming regions, the herding regions, and the southern orchards. The latter
group refers to the netherworld; dying gods belong to this group (Wiggerman 1997).
7. Or Dummuzi; In this case Ishtar is Inanna.
 179

modern reader. However, this duality was very well understood in the ANE. There
the female figure played an important role in the transmission of power,8 especial-
ly in the early stages9 (Langdon 1914: 25). In that case, to keep his royal lineage,
the king had to marry his sister, or by default, his mother. Other parallels with this
practice can be seen in the Osiris–Isis marriage. In addition, there is evidence that
in the Early Dynastic II and III periods, queens were almost on the same level as
kings, being depicted and mentioned in the royal tombs of Ur10 (Rodin 2014: 59,
60). In consequence, Ishtar defined or at least, outlined the underlying concepts
for hierarchy. She attached herself to the spine of the political order in a symbiotic
relationship: the empire served Ishtar; Ishtar served the empire.

Fertility Theology

Although Mesopotamian deities seem to have been asexual at the beginning,

they were in fact male-female couples that each reproduced another pair (Leick
1994: 19). Apsû and Tiāmat are masculine and feminine, grammatically speak-
ing11 (Leick 1994: 14). Even more interesting is the case of the Heaven-Earth
couple. They are described as man and woman respectively. The sky pours out its
vitality (semen) into the earth, which gives birth to divine heroes. In both couples,
Apsû/Tiāmat and Heaven-Earth, the water is associated with fertility12 since the
Sumerian word for semen is equated with water13 (Rodin 2014: 109). The follow-
ing poem is a metaphorical description of copulation:

The great Earth (Ki) made herself glorious, her body flourished with greenery.
Wide Earth put on silver metal and lapis-lazuli ornaments,
Adorned herself with diorite, calcedony, cornelian and diamonds.
Sky (An) covered the pasture with (irresistible) sexual attraction, presented himself
in majesty,
The pure young woman (Earth) showed herself to the pure Sky,
The vast Sky copulated with the wide Earth,
The seed of the heroes Wood and Reed he ejaculated into her womb.
The Earth, the good cow, received the good seed of Sky in her womb.
The Earth, for the happy birth of the plants of Life, presented herself (Leick 1994: 18)

One can see that the core of “fertility theology” in the Mesopotamian pantheon
is animism. In this theology, all gods transmit their virtue by sexual reproduction.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that sexual intercourse and giving birth rep-
licate the divine nature. Hence, the woman embodies the “secrets” of divinity and
Inanna is a natural development of this cosmic vision of life and religion.
8. This is the female lineage model.
9. Its antiquity can be supported by Semitic cults where the king often assumes the role of dying
god (Langdon 1914).
10. Nibanda and Puabi are called “Queen,” denoting their high status. On the other hand, the
king Mesanepada is called “consort of the nu-gig priestess,” denoting his inferior status before the
“Queen.” In addition, Puabi was buried in a rich tomb, similar to other royal tombs (Rodin 2014: 60).
11. Leick (Lieck 1994, 14) quoted part of the myth from Held: “When on high heaven had not
(yet) been created, Earth below had not (yet) been brought into being, When Apsû primeval, their
begetter, Primal Tia - mat, their progenitress, (Still) mingled their waters together...”.
12. In this way “mingling waters” could be interpreted as a metaphor for sexual procreation.
13. It is especially true when it is connected to Enki and Ninḫursaĝa (Rodin 2014: 109).
180

Samuel Kramer (Kramer 1983: ix) suggested that the couple (Dumuzi/Inanna)
evolved from the agricultural context of southern Sumer to the nomadic life of
northern Akkad. The last version emphasized the arbitrary will and power of the
gods instead of the force of grain in the earlier version.14 It is probable that this
shifting process took place along with the increasing attempts to centralize the
various city-states, causing an amalgamation of local deities.
Therefore, the various relationships in Inanna´s family tree change, depending
on the stages of her evolution. For instance, she had several fathers15 (Lapinkivi
2010: 35). Often, she was seen as the daughter of Anu, but other times her father
was Sin (Jones 2005). Likewise, most of the time she and Ereshkigal, her sister,
are different entities, but sometimes they seem to be the same. It is evident that
the tradition, mythology, and depiction of Inanna grew and evolved. As will be
commented on later, political forces played an important role in the unification
of local versions of Inanna, using her symbol and personality as the glue for new
emerging social structures.
Gender is the essence of this religious system that became intertwined with
civilization at its very beginning. Although Sumerian-Babylonian theology seems
to be genderless16 because of some trinitarian patterns: heaven- earth-sea or Anu-
Enlil-Ea, it works only on the assumption of female-male reproduction. Probably
Inanna was a natural development or extension of the first female deity, mother
earth.17 As we have seen, mother earth female attributes were highlighted in
opposition to sky male attributes.
It is clear that fertility is a main component of religion in Mesopotamia even
before the historical period. Early references to the mother goddess are seen in
several parts of the ANE. For instance, there are early depictions in the form of
female figurines with overly-stressed sexual organs in Canaan (Garfinkel 2004). It
is of particular interest for this article to mention a terracotta statuette from Çatal
Hüyük (Anatolia) dated by archaeologists about 6500 B.C.E. (Bahrani 2001: 46)
in Anatolia. This figurine could be a clear example of the “reign of the goddess”
within a matriarchal society (Bahrani 2001: 46-47). She is depicted on a throne
with two cat-like animals in the act of giving birth. Apparently, its association
with womanhood, throne, and birth strengthens the idea of a matriarchal society,
a time when the female figure was dominant. There is no evidence of an exclusive
female cult in the archaeological record since male and female deities appear
together. Nevertheless, the depiction of this mother goddess seems to emphasize

14. Kramer (Krammer 1983, ix) commented that Akkadian Dumuzi is characterized by the astral
heavenly bull, and Inanna assumed directing and directive attributes as the Goddess of Love, which is
different from her more peaceful earlier version.
15. An, Enlil, Enki/Ea, Nanna/Ŝin.
16. Genderless at least in appearance, since as we have seen, female and male characteristics are
part of the fecundity notion inherent to gods.
17. The Sumerians called her Mother Vine-Stalk or Goddess Vine-Stalk (Lapinkivi 2010: 43).
Even when there is no certainty of the first stage in Sumerian-Babylonian theology, the Sumerians
seem to be very impressed by the natural connection between mother earth and grain, which corre-
sponds with Inanna and her son. The reason for the link between religion and nature is because, in an
agrarian society, everything depends on the constant cycle of the flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates
rivers (Lapinkivi 2010).
 181

the idea of female nudity in the ANE as an equivalent to power18 (Bahrani 2001).
From this example and others, it can be observed that the first mother goddesses
were associated with power, sexuality, and motherhood, without clear limits be-
tween them (Murray 1934: 93-100).19

Sacred Marriage: Source of Power

The Greek term “hieros gamos,” usually translated as sacred marriage, was
initially addressed to the wedding of Zeus and Hera, which subsequently applies
to alliances between a couple of deities or gods and humans when marked by rit-
ual (Stuckey 2005). In the case of Inanna/Ishtar and Dumuzi/Tammuz, this ritual
is attested to by some extant hymns that describe the human participants as per-
sonifying or incarnating them. From this union, divine power is transferred from
Inanna to the king.
There is some speculation about whether the sacred marriage ritual actually
took place and if this included sexual intercourse (Stuckey 2005). Evidence of
the latter is given in poems that describe the rite in detail (Jones 2003: 291-302),20
as well as other sources, like royal inscriptions and economic texts. It is probable
that this rite took place on New Year´s day in the palace of the king, known as “the
house of life” (Kramer 1963: 490).
In this rite, Inanna prepared herself by taking a bath, and putting on perfume
and special clothes (Stuckey 2005). Probably the sacred marriage is depicted in
the second part of the Uruk vase. It seems there that Dumuzi is taking Inanna
as his consort (Riddle 2010: 21). While worshipers are singing and sacrificing21
themselves (Jones 2003: 292), Dumuzi approaches her door. Then, she greets
Dumuzi and he gives her some gifts. Sexual intercourse follows, and finally both
take their seat on the thrones.
In the hymn “The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi,” their sexual intercourse
is described in agricultural terms (Kramer 1983). The vulva of Inanna corresponds
to a field needing to be plowed. “As for me, Inanna, Who will plow my vulva?
Who will plow my high field? Who will plow my wet ground?” (Kramer 1983:
37). Along this line, other parallels are plants, grain, and the womb. Apparent-
ly, water, plants, and trees of various kinds are metaphors for sexual intercourse
(Kramer 1972: 123). Some depictions of Inanna and Dumuzi make a connection
between plants and fertility as well. One example is a Mesopotamian cylinder seal
18. The Baubo goddess was similar to Ishtar, with the difference that her cult was restricted to
women while Ishtar was supported by men (Murray 1934: 93-100).
19. M. A. Murray (Murray 1934: 93-100) establishes three different kinds of female fertility fig-
ures: universal mother, divine woman, and personified yoni. This last one is Murray’s technical term
referring to figures whose genitalia are the essential part. These three categories correspond to child,
virginity, and sexual functions. Murray identifies Ishtar with a “divine/woman.”
20. Although there is little information about what happened during the rite, it can be understood
partially by the Iddin-Dagan Hymn (Jones 2003: 291-302). There the ritual is two days long. She is
invoked and worshipers execute a carnivalesque ritual accompanied by instrumental music. Inanna
looks down from heaven on the cultic parade headed by the king. A great feast takes place. When
the people go home to rest she appears in dreams, judging evil. An offering of food follows and the
consummation of the marriage takes place.
21. This part of the rite is described in the Iddin-Dagan Hymn as carnivalesque: cross-dressing,
bondage, and self-mutilation (Jones 2003: 292).
182

from about 2320-2150 B.C. (Stuckey 2005). There, Inanna welcomes Dummuzi,
who is emerging from the base of a tree. Since similar metaphorical language is
used in Song of Songs in the Hebrew Bible (Carr 1979: 103),22 some scholars
believe that this book belongs to the same literary genre. However, the book from
the Hebrew Bible is not linked to a cultic context.23
In the execution of the sacred marriage rite, the king and Inanna/Ishtar´s priest-
ess, Nin-dingir/Entu, were avatars in whom Inanna activated the fertile cycle of
nature (Niehaus 2008: 43; Stuckey 2005). In consequence, particular power was
transmitted from the divine to the human sphere through the king who acts as the
mediator between them.
As we have mentioned, the female cult embodies most of the fertility theology
of Ancient Mesopotamia. Consequently, Inanna/Ishtar introduced herself through
the sacred marriage into the political scene.

Akkadian Syncretism of Inanna

Since culture and religion share a common ground in several aspects such as
politics, the ruling society took both into consideration to maintain a sense of uni-
ty. In consequence, syncretism took place, amalgamating different myths to pro-
duce an official creed. For example, the Akkadian version of the Gilgamesh Epic
seems to be a unified version of separate, independent Sumerian stories (Veenker
1981: 199). A similar process amalgamated the enormous corpus of Inanna stories
during or about the time of the influence of Sargon of Agade (2300 B.C.). Other
versions of Mesopotamian myths also went through the process of adaptation and
syncretism.
Perhaps the most famous myth of Ishtar/Inanna is her descent in to the neth-
erworld and resurrection. This is known in two different versions: Semitic and
Sumerian. The Semitic version has been a part of the scholarly debate for about
one century. On the other hand, the Sumerian version was translated and deci-
phered by comparing various extant copies24 since 1940 (Kramer 1940: 18). Both
versions are similar in general terms, but several details are different. Kramer
(Kramer 1940: 20) suggested that the Semitic version is more emotional and in-
tense than the Sumerian version, and their temporal distance is at least one mil-
lennium.
Kramer (Kramer 1940) summarized both versions as follows: In the Sumerian
version, (1) Inanna has forsaken heaven and earth, and all her temples descend
to the netherworld, (2) she adorns herself with her queenly robes; (3) she asks
Ninshubur to plead for her to Enlil, Nanna, and Enki (Semitic Ea); (4) Inanna’s
22. Some scholars have discussed to what extent Song of Songs is a reproduction or a sort of
imitation of the Dumuzi-Inanna sacred marriage songs. However, the examination of some genres
associated with Songs of Songs might suggest that although this Hebrew book reflects many motifs
and topoi of Mesopotamian sacred marriage, it is, in fact, lyric love poetry, which distinguishes it from
the others (Carr 1979: 103).
23. While some similarities are visible, there is no evidence for a cultic use of Song of Songs.
24. Kramer (Kramer 1940: 1) contributed to the deciphering of this Sumerian version by his dis-
covery of two additional fragments in the Istanbul Museum of the Ancient Orient, and by comparing
them with previous documents.
 183

descent to the netherworld was supposedly an invitation by Ereshkigal to be pres-

ent at the funeral of Gugalanna, the great bull of heaven; (5) she is admitted and
passes by the seven gates, naked; (6) once in front of Ereshkigal, she is judged by
the Anunnaki, the seven judges of the netherworld; (7) by their decree, she is put
to death; (8) after three days and three nights, Ninshubur pleads to Enlil, Nanna,
and Enki, being listened to only by Enki; (9) Enki sends sexless creatures, kur-
garru and galaturru, entrusting them with the “food of life” and “water of life;”
and (10) Inanna is revived and re-ascends to the earth, accompanied by the dead.
In the Semitic version, (1) Ishtar descends to the netherworld to mourn the death
of her husband and child; (2) she orders its keeper to open its doors; (3) when she
passes its seven doors, the keeper removes a bit of her apparel; (4) once she passes
the last door, Ereshkigal orders Namtar to bring forth 60 diseases against her; (5)
Papsukkal, fearing the extinction of life, hastens to Ea for help; (6) Ea sends to
Asnamir to intercede for her in front of Ereshkigal; (7) Ereshkigal orders to give
her the “water of life;” and (8) she is revived and re-ascends to the earth with her
apparel restored.
In the comparison of both versions, their differences in tone and orientation
are very clear, which implies a later adaptation of the earlier Sumerian version.
The netherworld in the Sumerian mind is related to a foreign land25 in the moun-
tains, which were a continuous threat for them (Kramer 1981: 154). In regard to
this aspect, it is observable how the Semitic version has a different attitude toward
the netherworld. While the Sumerian version describes Inanna as a hero in front of
Ereshkigal and the seven judges, the Semitic version emphasizes her aggressive
attitude toward the netherworld. In addition, attention shifts slightly from Inanna–
feminine–to Ea–masculine.

From Inanna to Ishtar

The earliest recorded mention of Inanna’s name comes from the Late Uruk,
Jendet Nasr periods, about 3400 to 3000 B.C.E. (Collins 1994: 107). Some pic-
tographic signs read INANNA or MUS (radiant). The earliest cuneiform sign of
her name is a representation of a ring-post, which is the entrance door of a reed-
house. This Inanna symbol is depicted frequently. One example is a bearded man
holding stylized flowers and feeding sheep and goats. There, the ring-post of In-
anna appears on each side of the man. Collins, (P. Collins 1994) suggested that it
symbolizes the “priest-king” of Uruk. Similar “city seals” from the Early Dynasty
I period represent a collaboration between cities to support the cult of Inanna at
Uruk. The disappearance of the ring-post symbol during the Early Dynasty II
period (2750-2600 B.C.E.) could reflect the decline of a centralized form of her
worship and increasingly independent cults in different cities (Collins 1994: 108).
An early portrayal of Inanna combines her motherhood and divinity and comes
from a trinket mold dated to the third millennium B.C.E., which was found in a
house at Titriş Höyük, Turkey (Laneri 2002: 14). It is possible to identify this
depiction with Inanna, thanks to the symbols surrounding her. She is depicted
25. The Sumerian word Kur “mountain” is equivalent to Hades (Greek) and Sheol (Hebrew).
Later on, this word came to mean “foreign land” (Kramer 1981: 154).
184

holding her breasts, a star with dots nearby, and a symbol of the bull of heaven
to her right.26 There are some parallels of some elements of this trinket mold in
other contexts. For instance, the pendant with a pseudo-circular structure is seen
at Kültepe (Central Anatolian) and in one tomb at the royal cemetery of Ur. In
addition, the star with dots is the cosmological symbol of Inanna and is found in
several other places (Laneri 2002: 26). On the other hand, two important char-
acteristics are seen in this mold: Inanna naked holding her breasts and without
her horned crown. Both differences make this representation closer to the mother
goddess than some later ones.
Another early depiction of Inanna is on the Warka vase (3200-3100 B.C.E.).
Here Inanna is represented as receiving an offering from naked priests. Appar-
ently, the king is part of the initiation rite, facing the goddess (Stuckey 2005).
This vase clearly distinguishes three social classes: the elite, controlling restricted
temples; heads of houses, giving an offering; and the production force represented
by herds and plants (Sundsdal 2008: 47-49). Even though only men constitute the
elite class, Ishtar is above all social classes. The use of this kind of vase in a ritual
context is attested to by other vessels found at Warka with the following inscrip-
tion: “To Urru, the priest A-gid-ḫa-du for the son of Lugal-kisal-si born of his wife
Mu-ḫar-sag has given (this vase)” (Banks 1904: 63).
It is under Sargon’s influence that Inanna became Ishtar. The name Ishtar
derives from Eshtar, which originated from Attar/Ashtart, a female deity from
Ugarit (Collins 1994: 110). It is under this new name that Ishtar obtained male
attributes, contrasting with her female attributes, as the goddess of war and love.
Sargon intended a syncretism of Sumerian and Semitics deities27 for the unifica-
tion of his Sumer-Akkad empire (Collins 1994: 111). This Akkadian period is
called the “Dynasty of Ishtar.”
Perhaps the female-male characteristics represented on the Warka Vase in the
form of a lion and a ram allowed the identification of Inanna with Ishtar, who
seems to be clearly of double gender.
There are no extant sculptures of Ishtar coming down to us from Babylon
(Ornan 2005: 63). This, however, does not mean that they did not exist.28 It is
likely that they were looted during countless upheavals, due to their precious
materials.
Ishtar’s connection with war and power is displayed in several depictions
where she is standing upon a lion (Rodney 1952: 211-16). Some of the typical
elements of these kinds of portraits are a staff (harp) in her right hand as a symbol
of command; a ring and rod (land-measuring implements?) as symbols of her
divinity; and a lion associated with several divinities (Rodney 1952: 213). In one
carving depicted at Maltai, she and Shamash are heading a procession of mounted
deities29 (Ornan 2005: 64). Similar later Assyrian representations suggest that they
26. The double bull-headed pendant is considered as an idealized representation of a byre where
the holy cattle was housed (Laneri 2002: 27).
27. Sargon made his daughter, Enheduanna, the high priestess at Ur (Collins 1994:11).
28. Their existence can be deduced from textual evidence of some rituals where divine statues
were washed and we have some glyptic devotional themes from Assyria (Ornan 2005, 73).
29. Few depictions of human-shaped Shamash are also known (Ornan 2005).
 185

were carved to commemorate the temple dedication (Layard 1852: 164; Rodney
1952: 214) or royal usage.
One example of this royal usage is a cylinder seal impression of Sennacherib
(Winter 2010: 121). There the king is depicted facing two mounted deities: Aššur
and Ishtar. In this political-religious portrait, he identifies himself as a vice-ruler
of the chief gods. This seal quotes Aššur’s words at the beginning: “Seal of Desti-
nies, which Aššur, king of the gods, seals the destiny of …mankind: whatever he
seals he will not alter” (Winter 2010: 122). Another example of this royal usage
may be the White Obelisk, Side A, third panel from the top. Here Ishtar is de-
picted standing on a mountain.30 It is known that this is Ishtar from the epigraph
labeling “Bit naḫti,” which is the sacred Ishtar temple at Nineveh (Ornan 2005:
30, 40). There is a close semantic relationship between temple and mountain, with
the temples being microcosmic representations of the earth. In addition, floral
imagery in Assyrian temples is symbolic of fruitfulness and riches coming from
Ishtar (Ragavan 2010: 283-88).
It seems that when Inanna, the goddess of fertility, became Ishtar, the warrior
goddess, her symbol became a binding force that legitimized the “state.”31 Then,
the fertility theology permeated the transmission of authority from one genera-
tion to another. Because of that, animism as the essence of spirituality in Ancient
Mesopotamia included the state in the realm of the gods in addition to the natural
world. Therefore, the state became a new holy group of elements where the gods
displayed their will.

Female Goddesses in Canaan

Several questions regarding religious phenomena at Canaan were raised since

the publication of William G. Dever’s book: Did God have a Wife? (Dever 2005:
181-84). He claimed that Yahwism, in its early stage of evolution, included the
concept of sacred marriage between Yahweh and Asherah32 (Dever 2005: 136,
212-14, 97; Wiggins 2007: 21). Later on, some reforms eliminated Asherah from
the elitist theology, but not from the traditional or “folk” religion that was highly
supported by women. This hypothesis supposes that the official cult or Yahwism
was a reaction against folk religion; meanwhile, it admits some degree of evolu-
tion of the Hebrew God thanks to monarchic efforts and the necessity to create a
new national identity after the exile. Dever supported the idea that these factors
imposed a monotheistic version of Yahweh at the end.
One part of the archaeological evidence quoted by Dever is the discovery of
the Judean Pillar Figurines (JPFs) coming from the 9th to 7th centuries B.C.E.
These figurines, in accordance with Dever, are Asherah. Their existence might
prove in some way that an early version of Yahwism in Israel appeared before
the exile. Another argument presented by Dever is the discovery of the Kuntillet
30. Some parallels of deities above mountains are seen (Ornan 2005: 31).
31. If we can use the word “state” at all, since tribal origination was the main structure in Ancient
Mesopotamia.
32. Some arguments in favor of this theory are (1) Asherah was the consort of the main god in
ANE contexts, (2) deities were represented by symbols, as was Asherah, and (3) the deuteronomists’
imprint is seen in its rejection of Asherah (Wiggins 2007: 21).
186

‘Ajrûd inscriptions by Z. Meshel in 1975-76 (Dever 2005: 128, 62, 97; Wiggins
2007: 7). These inscriptions, dating from the 9th-8th centuries B.C.E., mention
Yahweh and Asherah as a source of blessing: “…I bless you by Yahweh, [our
guardian/of Samaria,] and by his/its ashera/Ashera” (Smith 1987: 333). Another
similar inscription, dating from the 8th century B.C., was found on a wall of a
tomb at Khirbet el-Qôm: “…May Urimayu be blessed by Yahweh my guardian
(?), and his/its ashera/Ashera” (Smith 1987: 334). These inscriptions triggered
several scholarly discussions dealing with early Israel’s religion.
However, the main argument is not entirely new. Some critical scholars
assumed that the deutoronomistic source rejected the idea of a divine couple
(Asherah-Yahweh), so several passages would criticize Asherah, and this rejection
would be instrumental in formulating the Israelites’ rejection of images (Wiggins
2007: 21). In fact, J. Wellhausen reinterpreted Hosea 14.8 as follows: “I am his
Anat and his Asherah” (Wellhausen 1898: 134), based on contextual connections
already mentioned here previously. Even though this reinterpretation of Hosea
14.8 is not accepted by most scholars33 (Doyle 1996: 85-86), it reflects the general
tendency of critics to reinterpret biblical texts from an archaeological-historical
perspective. Then, they conclude that Asherah was part of the official Yahwism
during the 8th to 7th centuries (Doyle 1996: 86).

Asherah and Pillar Figurines

Let us take a look at one of the most common religious elements that is cur-
rently being discussed under “early religion” in Israel in connection with Dever’s
understanding of the Judean Pillar Figurines (Dever 2005: 176).
Several naked female pillar figurines were discovered in Israel from the very
beginning of Palestinian Archaeology. W. F. Albright (Albright 1935: 96) led the
identification of these Judean Pillar Figurines (JPFs) by identifying them with As-
tarte or Qadesh “beyond all cavil.” Even when scholars did not make a difference
between the pillar figurines and plaques at this early stage of research, Albright
was aware that they were different in function34 (Albright 1935: 98). Since more
comprehensive information was needed, James B. Pritchard published a list of
figurines and plaques, which was the first attempt to catalog all female figurines
(Pritchard 1943). He recognized the inconvenience of identifying some of these
figurines with specific goddesses based on the archaeological data available at
that time, being reluctant to label them as Asherah or Ashterot. Later on, T. A.
Holland made a broader study, coming to a provisional hypothesis, which sug-
gested that some of these broken figurines symbolize a ritual of an expiatory of-
fering, but he accepted that a full explanation of this phenomenon would require
further research based on new data (Holland 1975b: 330).
On the other hand, some scholars, like Dever, attempted to explain the reli-
gious phenomena in Israel during the Iron Age, matching biblical Asherah and
JPFs based on a supposed similarity between Asherah poles and her tree symbol
33. Mainstream scholars would disagree that a proper name could take a pronominal suffix
(Doyle 1996: 86).
34. Albright supported the idea that Ashera/Qadesh may be a prototype for the pillar figurines, but
this prototype may have been unknown. In the meantime, they may have been used as magical amulets
for parturition, and this function could be the explanation for their similarity (Albright: 98, 110).
 187

with the pillar bodies of these figurines (Hadley 2000: 4). Kletter (Press 2012: 17)
agreed with Dever and concluded that JPFs were Asherah. M. Siebeck (Siebeck
2014) believed that Dever’s equation, pillar figurines = fertility cult = Asherah,
seems to be inconsistent with the rest of the archaeological information.35 She
also summarized all alternative interpretations of JPFs during the IA as follows:
(1) JPFs as goddesses, (2) JPFs as religion, and (3) JPFs as female religion. How-
ever, she believed that any of these models are consistent with the current archae-
ological data.

Late Bronze Female Deities

As we mentioned above, at the beginning of the Bronze Age the fertility cult
was firmly associated with divinities; this is also the case with Ishtar, according
to several versions. For instance, a goddess with a plant emerging from the top of
her head (Pittman 2014: 379) is depicted on a seal from Konar Sandal South on
the Halil River, in the Kerman province of southeastern Iran. A horn on the front
is portrayed looking forward. The context for this seal is a trash deposit on the side
of a huge platform probably used in craft production (Pittman 2014: 390) dated to
the Early Dynasty IIIB period in Mesopotamia, the mid-third millennium B.C.E.
Another seal from the same area and about the same period portrays a horned god-
dess holding stalks and with vegetation emerging around her (Pittman 2014: 389).
Several other examples could be quoted, but there seems to be sufficient evidence
that female deities rooted in the Mesopotamian religious tradition were strongly
associated with vegetation.
In this way, public or state female deities in Mesopotamia and the Levant were
associated with power symbols such as horns, vegetation, or other conventional
symbols associated with divinities during the Bronze Age (Wright 2007: 199-
237). These kinds of representations are common on seals, refined ceramic wares,
and official depictions on walls.36
Similar associations are found in Palestine during the Middle Bronze Age.
A seal from Gezer portrays a naked woman who is apparently bold, with two
plants on each side (Sugimoto 2014: 14). Her ears are longer than usual and
seem to reflect a Canaanite version of Hathor, called “Hathor cow ears” (Ben-
Tor 2007: 181). Since Palestine was under Egyptian control during most of the
Middle Bronze Age, one would expect some association between Hathor and the
local versions of Ishtar. For example, a tree growing out of the navel of a god-
dess, possibly Hathor, is shown on a gold pendant at Tell el-Ajjul (Hillers 1970:
606; Sugimoto 2014: 13). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie identified a sim-
ilar piece as Asherah. Both have three dots under the face and share a common
Egyptian Hathor style (Pritchard, and White 2003: 69). Another seal depicting her
in a Levantine context shows her hands extending toward a tree with three dots
35. Siebeck discussed the pros and cons of current available interpretations.
36. The headdress relief of a male figurine from Hazor shows as its central component a stylized
tree topped by a flower and two horned animals standing on their hind legs facing the tree. Ornan com-
mented concerning this supposed Baal figurine that it is very clear that there were strong connections
between trees, horned animals and either gods or goddesses during the Bronze Age. She claimed that
this imagery was very common around fourteenth century B.C. in Egypt, and later, it became popular
in Canaan (Ornan 2011: 266-270).
188

under it (Teissier 1996: 102). Astarte figurines were found dating from the Late
Bronze Age in large numbers (Stuckey 2003: 137). These plaques were made with
clay and follow the general Hathor style from MBA. Sometimes she is depicted
holding snakes or stalks. Two other examples of this kind are two figurines found
at Gezer, Stratum XIII, dated to the Late Broze Age (Dever, Lance, and Wright
1970: 108). One of them is holding stalks and appears to be a Hathor type. The
other is partially broken and seems to depict a necklace, as well as a crown on her
head. Her hair is slightly different from the more common Hathor look. Differenc-
es between these two artifacts that come from the same locus could be partially
explained since they are from different periods (MB II and LB II). This particular
difference can be described in terms of continuity, which could indicate a slow
evolution of the same deity through different periods in the same location.
Other figurines from Megiddo portray a different style of Hathor. These fe-
male figurines are depicted holding their breasts and share some common charac-
teristics, including the wearing of bracelets and having the pubic area represented
by a triangle (Pritchard 1943: 5). One of them wears a crown, which would seem
to link these figurines to royal deities. These similitudes have been explained as
being made from the same mold (Guy 1938: 521) and may also indicate a com-
mon feature of domestic religion. In addition, nude female figurines holding their
breasts are rarely found in Egypt, which would seem to indicate Asiatic influence
(Holland 1975a: 133).
The transition to the Iron Age can be seen in a female figurine from Gezer
(Dever 1975: pl. 40) with a tan surface, exhibiting a woman holding her breasts.
These typical Iron Age figurines of the mother goddess seem to be more popular
than the official female deity Hathor-type from Late Bronze Age. Handmade
figurines and mold-made plaques became more widespread than official seal
depictions. Another example of the mother goddess is a figurine from Kibbutz
Revadim (Sugimoto 2014: 13). On this female figurine, two children are
portrayed as hanging from her breasts, and the woman is wearing a necklace and
bracelets and points to her vulva. Some common symbols from the Bronze Age
are included, such as horned animals, trees, and explicit sexual organs. However,
this figure seems to portray an ordinary woman without any identification in terms
of divinity. An excellent parallel for this clay figurine would be a fragment of a
nude female plaque figurine from Ashkelon. On this figurine are raised emblems:
a horned animal next to a tree on the shoulder and a human figure around the neck
area (Press 2012: 75).
D. T. Sugimoto (Sugimoto 2014: 11) studied the relationship between trees
and horned animals. He reproduced in his article some seals listed by O. Keel
(Keel 1998) and concluded that the tree is an Asherah symbol, which disappeared
completely by the end of Iron Age and was replaced by the scorpion.
So far, it seems that gradual changes were introduced during the Iron Age in
terms of female figurines. However, as often happens, some intrusive elements
can distort the interpretation of the rest of the evidence. One example of this
would be a Hathor pendant, 3.5 cm high and 1.3 cm wide, made in the Egyp-
tian style. The goddess is depicted as standing and wearing an atef crown, with
 189

two cow-like ears. Since cow-headed depictions of Hathor are known from the
18th–26th Dynasties, it is hard to identify a chronological context for it. However,
the depiction with a crown and scepter is more common in the 26th Dynasty and
does not correspond chronologically to the context in which it was found (Currie
and Hyslop 2009: 113).

Iron Age Female Deities

After the Sea People settled in Palestine during the 12th century at the be-
ginning of Iron Age I, new forms of female deities were introduced. Philistine
forms seem to resemble Mediterranean forms. Thanks to discoveries at Ekron, Tel
Miqne, Tell es-Safi, and Ashdod, it is possible to have a better idea about early
Philistine religious practices. Females are a central theme in the Philistine cult
(Ornan 2011: 266-70). The Aegean Mother goddess is depicted in several ways
by ceramic votives.
Michael D. Press has listed about 200 Iron Age figurines, grouping the fe-
male figurines in six categories: small standing, handmade figurines; large, seat-
ed handmade-figurines of Ashdoda type; composite figurines; plaque figurines;
hollow, moldmade figurines; and miscellaneous forms (Ehrlich 2007: 47, 48). He
argued that there are more types than Dothan had listed earlier and that apparently,
the Philistines went through an acculturation process instead of assimilation. That
means that while Philistine culture went through several changes, the underly-
ing thought patterns remained distinct and they maintained their separate identity
(Press 2012: 40).
For instance, some figurines known as mourning figurines resemble those of
the Mycenean repertoire. They are standing female figurines and were found at
Azor, Tell Jemmeh, Tell Jerishe, and Ashdod (Dothan 1982: 237). Most of them
have both arms raised to the head in a mourning gesture. A 12th and 11th century
B.C.E. context is assured for these figurines.
Ashdoda are female figurines in the shape of a chair. This is unparalleled in
the coroplastic art of the Levant and is probably a variant of a Mycenaean female
figurine seated on a throne (Landau 2010: 305). A close parallel to the “Ashdoda”
is a painted figurine LHI-IIC of Tyryns (Greek), which has a polos hat, nose and
ears, a long neck, breasts emphasized by circles, and a triangular pendant on the
chest.
The Philistine cult persisted from the beginning of the Iron Age to the Bab-
ylonian destruction. Although there is just one complete example, many Ashdo-
da fragments have been found at Ashdod, Tell Qasile, Aphek, Gezer, Tel Miqne/
Ekron, Ashkelon, and Tel Batash/Timnah. The discovery of this complete figure
in the shape of a female chair shows a close connection to the Aegean cult of the
Great Mother Goddess (Ehrlich 2007: 39). It is remarkable that during the first
century following the migration, the Philistines remained faithful to the Great
Mother Goddess of the Aegean world.
However, new figurine types seem to have been introduced by the 11th century
B.C.E. after the Sea Peoples invasion (Press 2012: 192). Other forms, like the
Philistine Psi, were more popular at the beginning of the Philistine occupation.
190

This type is a standing female figurine with pinched nose and incised eyes and
mouth (Wright 2007: 226). Several examples of this type come from Ashkelon.
For instance, a cylindrical female figurine with red-brown clay, cream slip, and
black horizontal lines on the front, but not in the back, was found on the floor with
occupational debris identified as Iron Age I (Press 2012: 43).
This “Philistine Psi” type contrasts with the “Composite Female Figurines” in
detail and style. This type of figurine was very popular in Iron Age II, 8th to 7th
century B.C.E. (Press 2012: 192). A typical composite female figurine had a tang,
was made of brown clay, with traces of white slip, especially around the eyes, a
moldmade face with some Egyptian features (Press 2012: 53). The Egyptian influ-
ence, particularly in this type, seems to be strong. Another similar type is a female
head and torso, with a rounded veil as a headdress. Again, her face is moldmade
and follows Egyptian features.
Another Philistine type is the “Plaque Type,” some of which have been found
at Askhelon dated to the beginning and end of the Iron Age (Press 2012: 192).
This type represents different motifs. They are a naked woman, a woman holding
her breasts, or a woman holding a baby. This last motif became popular during
the Persian period at Dor (Stern 2010: 10-13). Stern suggested that they were con-
nected with Astarte-Tanit based on textual evidence. Motherhood was strongly
emphasized at that time with motifs representing babies, women holding babies,
and women holding their breasts. This type differs from the Phoenician and north-
ern Palestinian coast (Stern 2010: 11), where the bodies are round and wheelmade,
their hair is pseudo-Egyptian, but their wigs are longer and sometimes curly.
In terms of continuity-discontinuity,37 it can be said that the Sea Peoples’ in-
vasion introduced a new period affecting social structures in Canaan. It would
be considered as discontinuity based on events influencing Canaan as indicated
by Mediterranean fertility cults. This influence, plus the Phoenician impact, may
have oriented a new conception of female deities. Judean Pillar Figurines seem to
reflect this impact.
Judean Pillar Figurines (JPFs) were used in daily life as amulets38 (Siebeck
2014), instead of resembling official female deities. Several of these figurines
were crude and handmade, with an absence of power symbols such as horns or
stalks. Their handmade heads were mostly orange or red with yellow, red, or white
paint (Tushingham 1985: 361). Sometimes they had some fine white frits (Ben-
Shlomo 2006: 195). Figurines representing motherhood, breasts, painting, and the
absence of power symbols resemble Halafian types with similar characteristics,
but were different in style. Earlier female figurines stressing motherhood can
37. The continuity-discontinuity model distinguishes between short, medium, and long-term peri-
ods. These three times can be affected by social, circumstantial, or event-based changes. While short-
term periods affect only the individual (event-based), long-term periods are affected by changes in
social structure. On other hand, circumstantial changes affect the medium-term period by introducing
gradual changes (Roux, and Courty 2013: 187-93).
38. Siebeck, in her dissertation about the function of JPFs, compared textual and archaeological
data to provide information about the meaning of this phenomenon in Israel and concluded that figu-
rines were used in Assyrian texts as apotropaic amulets. In addition, she studied the context for these
figurines and came to the conclusion that they were not associated with official, religious, and high
residents (Siebeck 2014).
 191

be found from third millennium B.C.E. contexts (Wright 2007: 220). Jordanian
figurines from about the same time reflect similar characteristics as well (Pittman
2014: 379). Therefore, in function, JPFs are analogous to a very early version of
handmade or wheel-made figurines existing earlier in Canaan.
In addition, these are clear differences between the two types of female reli-
gious representations—those that are connected directly with a deity by official
seals and those that seem to have been used in domestic contexts. In terms of
continuity and discontinuity of female deities, one can argue that women holding
their breasts reflect northern influences, instead of Egyptian ones. Furthermore,
figurines connected with vegetation motifs would seem to have been connected
with deities, while those connected with motherhood might be connected with
daily life.
While the Late Bronze Age was dominated by Ishtar symbols, whether in the
Egyptian or Ugaritic style, her official depictions seem to have disappeared by
the end of the Iron Age. Obviously, gradual changes in the religious climate took
place between the LBA and the Iron Age (Press 2012: 10). Female deities strongly
associated with Mesopotamian and Egyptian iconography almost became extinct,
while family and domestic expressions such as the pillar figurines remained. The
nude woman motif representing Ishtar with her upswept hair, holding stalks, with
strong links to vegetation so common in LB are absent during the Iron Age. Ap-
parently, the vegetation motif also disappeared, leaving horned animals alone on
seals39 by the end of the Iron Age (Sugimoto 2014: 16). This lacuna was filled later
on with the scorpion. Transitional forms in between allowed certain sorts of sym-
bols to pass on the essence of the old cults to next generations, with the scorpion
being the last expression of divinity on seals of Iron Age II (Sugimoto 2014: 14).
Evidently a lower class of female deities was also represented in clay. These kinds
of goddesses are usually seen as protective spirits in the sphere of family religion
(Siebeck 2014). Whether or not they were connected with the state religion, their
function seems to have been apotropaic. In other words, their function was to
protect and to heal family members (Siebeck 2014: 45). This shifting process may
be the result of the monotheistic influence of Hebrew people.
In terms of Dever’s equation of “Judean Pillar figurines = Asherah,” it would
appear that this is an oversimplification in relationship to the phenomenon of reli-
gion in Israel, which was more fluid and dynamic. The earlier concept of male-fe-
male divine couple from Late Bronze Age, as manifested at Ugarit, seemingly
evaporated40 during the Iron Age. Even though women are connected with several
religious manifestations, their later function was not necessarily the same, nor
does the social structure support this religious or spiritual symbol and the ideol-
ogy behind it.41
39. Sugimoto (Sugimoto 2014: 14) reproduced in his article several Iron Age stamp seals listed by
Keel from several places in Canaan (Ta‘anach, Dor, Gezer, Megiddo, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean) con-
taining horned animals and trees, and stressing that eventually depictions of trees became less popular.
40. I use the term “evaporated” because of the lack of evidence to fully explain this discontinuity.
New structures of power evidently affected Canaan, but they are not a sufficient explanation for this
discontinuity.
41. While Inanna/Ishtar was a royal goddess during the Bronze Age, reflecting a strong fertility
cult, during the Iron Age, female representations were connected with family.
192

A distinct point exists between the Bronze and Iron Ages in Canaan. The social
structure seems to play a major role in the disappearance of a high-status goddess
during the Iron Age. Several possible causes can be mentioned for this break,
such as the Sea Peoples’ invasion, the immigration of Hebrews, and the Phoeni-
cian influence. Therefore, it would seem that the assumption of Dever and others
of a high female deity paired with Yahweh is unlikely. This assumption does not
consider the discontinuity between the Bronze and Iron Ages, and it supposes that
the divine couple from the Bronze Age was still vigorous during the Iron Age in
Canaan.

Conclusion

We have seen that in earlier periods, Asherah had an official representation

and was connected with signs of power, such as horns, plants, crown, and stalks.
In contrast, another version of this deity, or what is sometimes called “domestic
deity,” was represented by a motherhood-oriented figurine typically made of clay.
The identification of Asherah with pillar figurines is based on the assumption
that the column or post represented a tree trunk that is frequently associated with
Asherah’s “sacred tree” (Press 2012: 17). This connection links two elements that
would seem to be mostly disconnected during the Iron Age: Asherah as a goddess
and a tree as her symbol.
Since religious symbols change over time, they can also change their associa-
tions, depending on their interactions over that time. For instance, Inanna became
Ishtar during the Uruk period. Then Ishtar was reinterpreted and assimilated into
different cultures. In Egypt, she was often associated with vegetation during the
Late Bronze Age, but at the beginning of the Iron Age in Canaan, her old connec-
tions with nature and horns faded. At that time, motherhood became a dominant
focus for female representations. This phenomenon had some parallels in the ear-
ly Mesopotamian religion.
Religious life in Ancient Mesopotamia allowed two spheres of divinities: the
national or public, and the family or domestic. These two spheres were compat-
ible, but they were represented in different ways. Figurines usually belonged to
the family realm and were seen as protective spirits (Press 2012: 16). Did these
same two levels of deities exist in Canaan, or were there more? (Siebeck 2014:
34-60). If so, it is possible that JPFs in Israel during the Iron Age belonged to the
lower level.
It may be seen that Asherah did not succeed at the upper level of society during
most of the Iron Age (1200–332 B.C.E.), as can be inferred from the archaeolog-
ical record; nevertheless, the ancient fertility theology of Inanna was still evident
in household religion. She succeeded at the family level. She never died for the
common Israelite. The animism was vigorously preserved. Every pillar figurine is
a silent witness that the spirituality of pantheism was the main reason for the vic-
tory of Inanna over Yahweh. For some reason, the idea of gods permeating nature
was attractive to the human spirit.
 193

The Torah describes this fact with mournful words: “The children are gather-
ing wood, the fathers handle the fire, and the women knead the flour to prepare
offerings for the queen of heaven, and make libations to foreign gods to provoke
my indignation” (Jer 7:18, my translation).
194

References

Abusch, T.
1995 Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. eds. Karel van der Toorn;
Bod Becking; and Pieter W. van der Horst. NY: E. J. Brill.

Allen, S. L.
2015 The Splintered Divine: A Study of Ištar, Baal, and Yahweh Divine Names
and Divine Multiplicity in the Ancient Near East. Studies in Ancient Near Easter
Records 5. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Albright, W. F.
1935 The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible. NY: Fleming H. Revell Com-
pany.

Bahrani, Z.
2001 Women of Babylon: Gender and representation in Mesopotamia. London:
Routledge.

Banks, E. J.
1904 A Vase Inscription from Warka. The American Journal of Semitic Languages
and Literatures 21: 62-63.

Barton, G. A.
2007 The Semitic Ishtar Cult. NJ: Georgia Press.

Ben-Shlomo, D.
2006 Selected Objects. P. 511 in Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations 1995–1996, Field
INE East Slope Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period), eds. Mark W. Meehl; Trude
Dothan; and Seymour Gitin. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological
Research : Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Ben-Tor, D.
2007 Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the Sec-
ond Intermediate Period. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 27. Fribourg, Switzerland:
Academic Press Fribourg.

Carr, G. L.
1979 Is the of songs a “Sacred Marriage” Drama? The Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society (JETS) 22: 103–14.

Collins, P.
1994 The Sumerian goddess Inanna (3400–2200 BC). Papers from the Institute
of Archaeology 5: 103-18.

Cross, F. M.
1997 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of
Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 195

Currie, R., and Hyslop, S. G.

2009 The Letter and the Scroll. WA: National Geographic.

Dever, W. G.; Lance, H. D.; and Wright, G. E., eds.

1970 Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964–66 Seasons. 1. Jerusalem: Hebrew
Union College Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem.

Dever, W. G., ed.

1975 Gezer II: Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Field I and II. 2. Jerusalem:
Hebrew Union College/Nelson Gluek School of Biblical Archaeology.

Dever, W. G.
2005 Did God Have a Wife? Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Dothan, T.
1982 The Philistines and their Material Culture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society.

Doyle, R.
1996 Baal, Ashera, and Molek and the Studies of the Hebrew Scriptures. Unpub-
lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Hardvard University.

Edwards, I. E. S.
1955 A Relief of Qudshu-Astarte-Anath in the Winchester College Collection.
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14: 49-51.

Ehrlich, C. S.
2007 Philistine Religion: Text and Archaeology. Scripta Mediterranea 27: 33-52.

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva
2006 Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publica-
tion Society.

Garfinkel, Y.
2004 The Goddess of Sha’ar Hagolan: Excavations at Neolithic Site in Israel.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Guy, P. L. O.
1938 Meggido Tombs. Oriental Institute Publications 23, eds. John Albert Wilson,
and Thomas George Allen. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Hadley, J. M.
2000 The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew
Goddess. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge: University Press.
196

Hillers, D. R.
1970 The Goddess with the Tambourine: Reflections on an Object from Taanach.
Concordia Theological Monthly 41: 606-19.

Holland, T. A.
1975a Appendix C: A figurine from Gezer. In Gezer II: Report of the 1967 - 70
Seasons in Field I and II, ed. William G. Dever. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union Col-
lege/Nelson Gluek School of Biblical Archaeology.

Holland, T. A.
1975b A typological and Archaeological Study of Human and Animal Represen-
tations in the Plastic Art of Palestine. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Oxford
University.

Jones, L. E.
2005 Ishtar. P. 760 in Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology, ed. C. Scott Littleton.
China: Marshal Cavendish.

Jones, P.
2003 Embracing Inana: Legitimation and Mediation in the Ancient Mesopota-
mian Sacred Marriage Hymn Iddin-Dagan A. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 123: 291-302.

Keel, O.
1998 Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art
and the Hebrew Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Sheffield.

Kramer, D. W.; Samuel N.

1983 Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth, her stories and hymns from Sumer.
NY: Harper & Row Publishers.

Kramer, S. N.
1940 Ishtar in the Nether World According to a New Sumerian Text. Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 79: 18-27.

1963 Cuneiform Studies and the History of Literature: The Sumerian Sacred Mar-
riage Texts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107: 485-527.

1972 Le Rite de Mariage Sacré Dumuzi-Inanna. Revue de l’histoire des religions

181: 121-46.

1981 History Begins at Sumer: Thirty Nine Firsts in Recorded History. Philadel-
phia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Landau, A. Y.
2010 The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age.
NY: Cambridge University Press.
 197

Laneri, N.
2002 The Discovery of a Funerary Ritual: Inanna/Ishtar and Her Descent to the
Nether World in Titriş Höyük, Turkey. East and West 52: 9-51.

Langdon, S.
1914 Tammuz and Ishtar: A Monograph upon Babylonian Religion and Theology.
NY: Oxford.

Lapinkivi, P.
2010 The New-Assyrian Myth of Ištar’s Descent and Resurrection. State Archives
of Assyria Cuneirform Texts 6: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Layard, A. H.
1852 A Popular Account of Discoveries at Nineveh. London: Harper Brothers
Publishers.

Leick, G.
1994 Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature. NY: Routledge.

Margalit, B.
1990 The Meaning and Significance of Asherah. Vetus Testamentum 40: 264-97.

Meinhold, W.
2009 Ištar in Aššur: Untersuchung eines Lokalkultes von ca. 2500 bis 614 v. Chr.
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 367. Müster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Murray, M. A.
1934 Female Fertility Figures. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Instit-
tute of Great Britain and Ireland 64: 93-100.

Niehaus, J. J.
2008 Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kre-
gel Publications.

Ornan, T.
2005 The Triumph of the Symbol: Pictorial Representations of Deities in Meso-
potamia and the Biblical Image Ban. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 213: Academic
Press Fribourg.

Ornan, T.
2011 ‘Let Ba’al Be Enthroned’: The Date, Identification, and Function of a Bronze
Statue from Hazor. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 70: 253-80.

Pittman, H.
2014 Anchoring Intuition in Evidence: A continuing discussion of cylinder seals
from southeastern Iran. Pp. 375-96 in Edith Porada: zum 100, Geburtstag, A cen-
tenary Volume, eds. Erika Bleibtreu, and Hans Ulrich Steymans. Leipzig: Aca-
demic Press Fribourg.
198

Press, M. D.
2012 The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon 4: The Iron Age Fogiromes of Ashek-
elon and Philistia. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Pritchard, J. B.
1943 Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known Through
Literature. American Oriental Series 24. New Haven, CT: American Oriental So-
ciety.

Pritchard, J. B., and White, L. M., eds.

2003 The HarperCollins Concise Atlas of the Bible. UK: Harper San Francisco.

Ragavan, D.
2010 The Cosmic Imagery of the Temple in Sumerian Literature, Harvard Uni-
versity.

Riddle, J. M.
2010 Goddesses, Elixirs, and Witches: Plants and Sexuality Throughout Human
History. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rodin, T.
2014 The World of the Sumerian Mother Goddess: An Interpretation of Her
Myths, Uppsala Universitet.

Rodney, N. B.
1952 Ishtar, the Lady of Battle. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 10:
211-16.

Siebeck, M.
2014 Interpreting Judean Pillar Figurines: Gender and Empire in Judean Apo-
tropaic Ritual (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe). Nehren, Germany:
Laupp & Göbel.

Smith, M. S.
1987 God Male and Female in the Old Testament: Yahweh and his ‘Ashera’.
Theological Studies 48: 333-40.

Stern, E.
2010 Excavations at Dor: Figurines, Cult Objects and Amulets 1980-2000 Sea-
sons. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Stone, E.
2000 The Development of Cities in Ancient Mespotamia. Pp. 235-48 in vol. 1 of
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson. MA: Hendrickson
Publishers.
 199

Stuckey, J.
2005 Inanna and the “Sacred Marriage,” Matrifocus 4-2. http://www.matrifocus
.com/IMB05/spotlight.htm

Stuckey, J. H.
2003 The Great Goddesses of the Levant. Journal of the Society for the Study of
Egyptian Antiquities 30

Sugimoto, D. T.
2014 An Analysis of a Stamp Seal with Complex Religious Motifs Excavated at
Tel ‘En Gev. Israel Exploration Journal 64: 9-21.

Sundsdal, K.
2008 Ideology, social space & power in Uruk Societies: A comparative anlysis of
North and South Mesopotamian Settlements in the 4th Millenniun B.C.

Teissier, B.
1996 Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestine Cylinder Seals of the Middle
Bronze Age. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 11. Fribourg, Switzerland: University
Press Fribourg Switzerland.

Tushingham, A. D.
1985 Excavations in Jersusalem 1961-1967. 1. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.

Veenker, R. A.
1981 Gilgamesh and the Magic Plant. The Biblical Archaeologist 44: 199-205.

Wellhausen, J.
1898 Die Kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und Erklärt. Berlin: Verlag Von Georg
Reimer.

Wiggerman, F. A. M.
1997 Transtigridian Snake Gods. Cuneiform Monographs 7: 33-55.

Wiggins, S. A.
2007 A Reassessment of Asherah. Georgias Ugaritic Studies 2, ed. N. Wyatt. NJ:
Georgias Press.

Winter, I. J.
2010 On Art in the Ancient Near East. Of the First Millennium B.C.E., no. 1.
Leiden: Brill.

Wright, K. I
2007 Women and the Emergence of Urban Society in Mesopotamia: Ancient &
Modern Issues. Pp. 199-237 in Archaeology and Women, eds. Sue Hamilton; Ruth
D. Whitehouse; and Katherine I Wright. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.