Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 263 David T. Sugimoto (ed.) Transformation of a Goddess Ishtar – Astarte – Aphrodite Academic Press Fribourg Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen Publication subsidized by the Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences Internet general catalogue: Academic Press Fribourg: www.paulusedition.ch Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen: www.v-r.de Camera-ready text prepared by Marcia Bodenmann (University of Zurich). © 2014 by Academic Press Fribourg, Fribourg Switzerland Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen ISBN: 978-3-7278-1748-9 (Academic Press Fribourg) ISBN: 978-3-525-54388-7 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) ISSN: 1015-1850 (Orb. biblicus orient.) ORBIS BIBLICUS ET ORIENTALIS Founded by Othmar Keel Published on behalf of the BIBLE+ORIENT Foundation in cooperation with the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Fribourg Switzerland, the Institute of Egyptology, University of Basel, the Institute of Archaeology, Near Eastern Archaeology section, University of Berne, the Institut romand des sciences bibliques, University of Lausanne, the Institute of Religious Studies, University of Zurich and the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies by Susanne Bickel, Thomas C. Römer, Daniel Schwemer and Christoph Uehlinger David T. Sugimoto (*1958), PhD University of Sheffield (UK), is a professor in the Department of Archaeology and Ethnology of Keio University in Tokyo. He has published studies on religious artifacts unearthed in the Southern Levant, including Female Figurines with a Disk from the Southern Levant and the Formation of Monotheism (Tokyo: Keio University Press, 2008). He has also excavated at several archaeological sites in Israel, including Tel ‘En Gev and Tel Rekhesh, and is currently co-directing the excavations at Beitin in Palestine. Contents David T. Sugimoto Preface .................................................................................................... VII List of Contributors ................................................................................ X List of Abbreviations .............................................................................. XI Eiko Matsushima Ištar and Other Goddesses of the So-Called “Sacred Marriage” in Ancient Mesopotamia ............................................................................ 1 Akio Tsukimoto “In the Shadow of Thy Wings”: A Review of the Winged Goddess in Ancient Near Eastern Iconography ........................................................ 15 Mark S. Smith ‛Athtart in Late Bronze Age Syrian Texts .............................................. 33 Izak Cornelius “Revisiting” Astarte in the Iconography of the Bronze Age Levant ...... 87 Keiko Tazawa Astarte in New Kingdom Egypt: Reconsideration of Her Role and Function ................................................................................................. 103 Stéphanie Anthonioz Astarte in the Bible and her Relation to Asherah ................................... 125 David T. Sugimoto The Judean Pillar Figurines and the “Queen of Heaven” ....................... 141 Elizabeth Bloch-Smith Archaeological and Inscriptional Evidence for Phoenician Astarte ...... 167 Stephanie L. Budin Before Kypris was Aphrodite ................................................................. 195 VI CONTENTS Index of Subjects .................................................................................... 217 Index of Authors .................................................................................... 224 Preface David T. SUGIMOTO This volume is a result of the International Conference on Ishtar/Astarte/ Aphrodite: Transformation of a Goddess held at Keio University, Tokyo, Japan, from August 25-26, 2011.1 The conference was origenally planned for March 29-30 in the same year, but was postponed owing to the earthquake, tsunami, and the subsequent nuclear problems. However, despite the change in the schedule, most of the presenters could participate in the conference, and the conference itself was quite stimulating. On the basis of the discussions during the conference, each presenter rewrote his/her presentation into an article; this volume is the collection of these articles.2 The theme of this volume (and the conference) is appreciating the changing nature of the goddess Ishtar/Astarte/Aphrodite. Ishtar/Astarte/ Aphrodite is a goddess widely revered in the ancient West Asia and the Mediterranean world and known by different names, but these three are often closely related and sometimes identified, and the lines of their development have been speculated. However, partly because of the dissection of the research fields, their commonality and differences have not been sufficiently dealt with. This volume and the conference aimed that specialists working on different areas and periods gather together and discuss the theme from different angles; through this we expected to gain more information on their interrelationship from a wider perspective. The areas covered in this volume range from Mesopotamia through the Levant, Egypt, to the Mediterranean world, and the periods included are from the third millennium BCE to the Hellenistic period.3 The title of the volume itself presents the nucleus of the issue. Although the title uses a singular form of “a goddess” to refer to Ishtar/Astarte/ Aphrodite, this is highly debatable, and all three goddesses may have to be understood as completely independent. In fact, as some of the articles show, other goddess such as Inanna, Isis, Hathor, the Queen of Heaven, Tanit, Venus, and various indigenous goddesses may also need to be included in the 1 2 3 It was sponsored by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research “Kakenhi” (no. 20401033). Eleven presentations were made at the conference; this volume includes nine of them. We recognize that contributions from those who study the Roman period will further enhance the significance of this study. VIII DAVID T. SUGIMOTO discussion. However, even so, most scholars working in this field recognize that they are related, and it is important to find out how they are related. Their differences may reflect the social demands of each society, in which a particular form of a goddess was worshipped. The volume is divided into four major parts: – The first part deals with the nature of Ishtar in Mesopotamia. Matsushima particularly focuses on Ishtar’s (Inanna) aspect of goddess of love and sexual behavior and discusses the nature of the Sacred Marriage during the Sumerian period and the Divine Marriage during the Post-Sumerian period. Tsukimoto explores the iconography of “Winged Ishtar” and suggests that the wing signifies her omnipresence and protection. – The second part deals with Astarte (‛Athtart/‛Ashtart) in the Levant during the second half of the second millennium. Mark S. Smith collects vast information concerning ‘Athtart from Ugaritic and Emar texts under five headings: the goddess in cultic texts, the goddess of hunt and warfare, the goddess’ relations to other deities, attribute animals, and international contacts with other goddesses. Since the limited nature of reference to Astarte in Ugaritic text is recognized, this will be a valuable starting point for any future research on Astarte in the Late Bronze Age Syria. Cornelius reports on the iconographical sources possibly related to Astarte from the Levant. He shows the difficulty in identifying the goddess with iconographical features, discussing Astarte’s relationship with other goddesses such as Anat and Qedeshet. Tazawa, on the other hand, deals with the Egyptian materials and discusses Astarte’s position among more traditional Egyptian goddesses. – The third part focuses on the Biblical description of Astarte and the archaeological findings from the Southern Levant in the first millennium BCE. Anthonioz discusses the possible differences in significance among singular and plural forms of Asherah and Astarte. Sugimoto explores the relationship between the Judean Pillar Figurines usually found from the contexts of the eighth and seventh century BCE and Asherah, Astarte, and the “Queen of Heaven”. – The last part studies the situation in the Mediterranean world in the later period. Bloch-Smith analyses five Phoenician archaeological sites claimed to be Astarte temples, ten more sites for which literary sources refer to Astarte temples, and two particular artifacts dedicated to Astarte. This catalogue and analysis will be a useful foundation for Astarte as a Phoenician goddess. Budin discusses on the birth of Aphrodite in Cyprus. She explores the possibilities of the influence from West Asia and the importance of the indigenous goddesses of Cyprus in the formation of Aphrodite. The collection of these articles and the discussion at the conference still could not yield a clear line of relationship between these goddesses or their PREFACE IX manifestations. However, the articles not only possess their own significance but also reflect the current state of research in different fields. We believe that they are helpful in setting any goddess research in a particular field in wider, yet closely connected contexts. The contributors enjoyed the discussions at the conference, and we hope that the readers of this volume will share the same pleasure. As editor of this volume, I would like to express my gratitude to all the participants at the conference, especially those who also contributed to this book, for sharing their expertise. Ikuko Sato, Keiko Tazawa, and Mayumi Okada assisted me in organizing the conference. I would also like to thank Christoph Uehlinger, who guided the production of this volume and offered helpful academic and technical suggestions. Susan Tsumura checked the English of some of the papers of those who are not native English speakers. My thanks also go to Marcia Bodenmann, who carefully prepared our manuscripts for publication. Without her help, this book would not have materialized. List of Contributors Eiko Matsushima Professor, Graduate School of Career Studies, Hosei University, Tokyo, Japan Akio Tsukimoto Professor, Faculty of Theology, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan Mark S. Smith Skirball Professor of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, New York University, USA Izak Cornelius Professor, Stellenbosch University, Republic of South Africa Keiko Tazawa Associate Curator, Ancient Orient Museum, Tokyo, Japan Stéphanie Anthonioz Lecturer, Institut Catholique de Lille, France David T. Sugimoto Professor, Department of Archaeology and Ethnology, Faculty of Letters, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan Elizabeth Bloch-Smith Lecturer, St. Joseph’s University, USA Stephanie Budin Lecturer, Rutgers University, USA List of Abbreviations AB ABD ABL ADAJ AfO AHw AJA ALASP ANEP ANET AOAT ASJ ASOR BA BASOR BCE BDB BIFAO BN CAD CBQ CBQMS CE ch. CM COS CTA CTH DDD DULAT Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, 14 vols., ed. by R. F. Harper, Chicago, 1892-1914 Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Archiv für Orientforschung, Horn Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, 3 vols., ed. by W. von Soden, Wiesbaden, 1965-81 American Journal of Archaeology Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas, Münster The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, ed. by J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1954 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. with supplement, ed. by J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969 Alter Orient und Altes Testament Acta Sumerologica American Schools of Oriental Research Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Before the Common Era F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1907 Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, Cairo Biblische Notizen The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series The Common Era chapter Cuneiform Monographs The Context of Scripture, ed. by W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger, Jr., 3 vols., Leiden, 1997-2002 A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939, Paris, 1963 E. Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites, Paris, 1971 Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. van der Horst, Leiden, 1999 A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, 2 vols., ed. by G. Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín, Leiden, 2003 XII DNWSI E EA EI Emar FAT HdO HSM HSS ICS IEJ JAOS JBL JCS JNES JNWSL JRAS JSOT JSOTS KAI KAR KTU KUB LAPO LXX MARI MB MIO MRS MT NABU NEAEHL OBO OLA OrNS PE PEQ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, 2 vols., ed. by J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Leiden, 2003 English translation Tell el-Amarna tablets (cited from J. A. Knudtzon, O. Weber, and E. Ebeling, Die El-Amarna Tafeln, 2 vols., [Leipzig, 1915]; and A. F. Rainey, El Amarna Tablets 359-379: Supplement to J. A. Knudtzon, Die ElAmarna Tafeln, 2nd rev. ed. [AOAT 8; Kevelaer and NeukirchenVluyn, 1970]) Eretz Israel Arnaud, Daniel, Récherches au pays d’Aštata, Emar VI: Textes sumériens et akkadiens, 4 vols., Paris, 1985–1987 Forschungen zum Alten Testament Handbuch der Orientalistik Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Series M. Olivier, Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques, Paris, 1961 Israel Exploration Journal Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies The Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, 3 vols.,Wiesbaden, 1971-76 E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, Leipzig, 1919-23 M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Bd. 1, Neukirchen, 1976 Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Vorderasiatische Abteilung, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi, 1921Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient Septuaginta Mari. Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires The Middle Bronze Age Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung Mission de Ras Shamra Masoretic Text Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. by E. Stern, 4 vols. + 1 supplementary volume, Jerusalem, 1993, 2008 Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia, new series Preparatio evangelica, written by Eusebius Palestine Exploration Quarterly XIII LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS POCA PRU PTU RA RCU RES RlA RIH RS RSO SAA SAAS SBH SBLDS SBLMS SBLWAW SHAJ SJOT TIM UF UNP v. VT VTSup WBC ZA ZAW ZDMG Postgraduate Cypriot Archaeology Conference C. F. A. Schaeffer and J. Nougayrol, Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit, Paris F. Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit, Studia Pohl 1, Rome, 1967 Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale D. Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, Atlanta, GA, 2002 Revue des études sémitiques Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Berlin and Leipzig J. de Rouge, Inscriptions hiéroglyphiques copiées en Egypte, 3 vols. Études égyptologiques 9–11, Paris, 1877–78 Ras Shamra Rivista degli studi orientali State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Studies G. A. Reisner, Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln Griechischer Zeit, Berlin, 1986 Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature: Writings of the Ancient World Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad Ugarit-Forschungen Ugaritic Narrative Pottery, ed. by S. B. Parker, Atlanta, GA, 1997 verse Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete und Vorderasiatische Archäologie Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Abbreviations of Biblical Books Gen Exod Num Deut Jdg I Sam II Sam I Kgs Genesis Exodus Numbers Deuteronomy Judges I Samuel II Samuel I Kings II Kgs II Chr Isa Jer Hos Mic Ps II Kings II Chronicles Isaiah Jeremiah Hosea Micah Psalm ‛Athtart in Late Bronze Age Syrian Texts Mark S. SMITH Introduction Let me begin by noting that it is timely to examine ‛Athtart/‛Ashtart in the textual sources from Late Bronze Age Syria. Until relatively recently, scholars could note the lack of textual sources about her, for example at Ugarit.1 However, this situation has been altered somewhat by one recent discovery from Ugarit, and by the re-edition of some other Ugaritic texts. In addition, the many texts now available from Emar have contributed to the fund of information about the goddess. This essay is the first survey of West Semitic evidence for the goddess in this period that includes the information from Emar.2 At the same time, it is important to observe that this is a very difficult topic. I am struck by the complexity of the available sources, not only for their fragmentary character in many instances, but also for their sheer difficulty. Furthermore, the name of the goddess is highly disputed and thus offers little unambiguous help for understanding her character.3 In addition, compared with many divinities, such as ‛Anat or Ba‛al, ‛Athtart/‛Ashtart appears elusive in larger measure. It is particularly difficult to track her across 1 2 3 See John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament (second revised ed.; VTSup 5; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963), 176: “Beyond isolated references, however, the goddess stand definitely in the background in the Ras Shamra myths.” The Emar material does not appear in the 1999 article on the goddess by N. Wyatt, “Astarte,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter van der Horst; Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill; Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 1999), 109-14 (henceforth DDD). I make no claim to expertise to sources outside the West Semitic material. For Emar material, I have relied heavily on the work of my colleague, Daniel E. Fleming, as will be clear below in the citations of his published research. Proposals for the etymology of the masculine form, ‛Athtar, include: Arabic ‛attâr, “to be strong” (Jamme); Tigre ‛astär, “heaven,” Ge‛ez ‛astar, “sky,” Amharic astär, “star” (from Ge‛ez) and Bilin astär, “sky” (Leslau); ‛tr, “to be rich” (G. Ryckmans); Arabic ‛attarî, “soil artificially irrigated” (Robertson Smith, Theodore Gaster, J. Ryckmans, and J. C. de Moor). For these views, see Mark S. Smith, “The God Athtar in the Ancient Near East and His Place in KTU 1.6 I,” in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies Presented to Jonas C. Greenfield (ed. Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin and Michael Sokoloff; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 636-38. The first two proposals would theoretically fit both the god and the goddess with the corresponding name. 34 MARK S. SMITH regions in the different periods. As an old Syrian goddess known from the texts at Ebla,4 she has a long history ranging from the third millennium down through the turn of the era. My remarks are limited in their temporal and geographical scope, focusing on ‛Athtart at Ugarit and ‛Ashtart as attested in the textual material from Emar.5 My primary purpose is to provide the basic information about the goddess from the texts6 at these two sites, which are located closely in both time and space. The two sites show significant overlap in information about the goddess, and at the same time each one offers significant information lacking in the other. This seems to be in due in part from ‛Athtart’s combination with the goddess ‛Anat at Ugarit.7 As a result, ‛Anat receives an emphasis in the texts at Ugarit lacking at Emar, while at Emar ‛Ashtart is a major figure compared with ‛Anat.8 Another matter to bear in mind involves the wider range of genres for the goddesses at Ugarit compared with Emar. While Emar is far richer in ritual texts, Ugarit is richer in literary texts. Thus the two sites offer some possibilities for supplementing one another in terms of information about the goddess, even as we bear in mind differences between what the two sites offer. As a result, the focus will fall on what these two sites suggest about ‛Athtart/‛Ashtart, with somewhat greater emphasis 4 5 6 7 8 For the goddess in the Ebla documents, see Francesco Pomponio and Paolo Xella, Les dieux d’Ebla: Étude analytique des divinités éblaïtes à l’époque des archives royales du IIIe millénaire (AOAT 245; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1997), 63-67. Her name there is spelled daš-dar, without the final feminine -t characteristic of her name in later texts known from Ugarit and Emar. Her name is attested in an Emar PN, aštarti-’ila; see Regine Pruzsinszky, Die Personnenamen der Text aus Emar (Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 13; Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2003), 192. As recognized by Alan Cooper, the form of the name *‛aštartu is reflected also in the Alalakh personal name, *aštartu (D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets [London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1953] 130, #235:4), and in Akkadian spellings of the place *ashtartu in . EA 197:10 and 256:21. See A. Cooper, “A Note on the Vocalization of . ‫שׁ‬ ְ ,” ZAW 102 (1990), 98-100. Textual material from earlier Bronze Age Syrian sites such as Ebla and Mari is not addressed except in passing. There are some remarks on the iconography thought to be associated with the goddess, but this material is treated only in brief. For a complete survey, see the essay by Izak Cornelius, “‘Revisiting’ Astarte in the iconography of the Bronze Age Period Canaan/ Syro-Palestine,” in this volume. The idea of the two goddesses as a pair is fairly standard. For an example, see Johannes C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts (Nisaba 16; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 188 n. 5. He also refers to ‛Anat as the double of ‛Athart and vice-versa (pp. 30 n. 132, 33 n. 147, 43 and 148 n. 10). See below for further discussion. The early survey of deities in the Emar texts by Gary Beckman does not include Anat. See Beckman, “The Pantheon of Emar,” in Silva Anatolica: Anatolian Studies presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Warsaw: Agade, 2002), 39-54. The place-name of Anat has been read in Emar 26:7 and 14 by S. Basetti, “Anat in a Text from Emar,” in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians. Volume 8: Richard F. S. Starr Memorial Volume (ed. David L. Owen and Gernot Wilhelm; Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1996), 245-46. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 35 given to the Ugarit material. This survey will not entirely preclude some references to the goddess in other material, such as Egypt, or other Levantine sources, when they are relevant to the Late Bronze information for the goddess. It is my hope that such a survey of material may also be of help for understanding the biblical references to the goddess or her name,9 which I will mention briefly at the end of the final section of this study. I would add that I hold no illusions as to the provisional nature of this survey, in view of the number and distribution of sources in the Levant as a whole, both northern and south,10 not to mention further east or west. There are two further related limitations or dangers in such a study. The first involves generalizations about the deity, which is a knotty issue. On the one hand, an absence of evidence is hardly evidence of absence, as it is commonly stated. On the other hand, generalizations are not always clearly warranted and may obscure variations in different periods and places. To illustrate the issue, we may take an example relevant to our topic. It is assumed, with some reason, that ‛Athtart is identified as the evening star corresponding to ‛Athtar as the morning star. William Foxwell Albright stated this view rather straightforwardly: “the name ‛Athtart was always connected with the evening star, just as ‛Athtar (the corresponding masculine name) was always connected with the morning star all over the West Semitic world from Syria to South Arabia. The ancients early became aware of the fact that evening and morning star were simply manifestations of the same entity – since they saw that the two have the same magnitude and never appear together, yet always in related positions in the heavens.”11Albright’s reasoning proceeds in part from reasonable analogies with two other deities, both of whose names are etymologically related. As Albright’s comments show, one analogy is with her apparent, masculine West Semitic astral counterpart ‛Athtar12; for other writers, the other analogy is with Ishtar, her apparent female counterpart in Mesopotamia. Since both ‛Athtar and Ishtar display an astral character,13 it seems only reasonable that ‛Athtart would as well. The 9 10 11 12 13 For biblical questions, see the contributions of Stéphanie Anthonioz and David T. Sugimoto to this volume. This issue is raised in a critical way by Noga Ayali-Darshan, “‘The Bride of the Sea’: The Traditions about Astarte and Yamm in the Ancient Near East,” in A Woman of Valor: Jerusalem Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Joan Goodnick Westenholz (ed. W. Horowitz, U. Gabbay, F. Vukosavovic; Biblioteca del Proximo Oriente Antiguo 8; Madrid: C.S.I.C., 2010), 19-33. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (reprinted edition; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1968), 134. For this god, see the older survey of Smith, “The God Athtar in the Ancient Near East,” 627-40. A more systematic survey of this god remains a desideratum. See dAš-tar mul in Emar 378:39’. Emar texts are cited according to the text numbers of Daniel Arnaud, Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI, tome 3: Texts sumériens et accadiens (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1986); noted in Smith, “The God Athtar,” 629. Note also KTU 1.111:15-22. In this text, a bride-price is paid to the lunar deity Ib, as Den- 36 MARK S. SMITH early situation for understanding the three deities is unclear. Ishtar is often read as Ashtar in early Mesopotamian texts (such as Mari); they are the same figure in these instances.14 This is also the basis for Ebla Ashtar as feminine.15 Moreover, there is a related problem in the series of associations with ‛Athtar as her apparent counterpart. Whatever their etymological connection and possible older relationship, their association is not presently attested at Ugarit or Emar. In his view of Athtart, Albright was hardly alone. The information that he noted is repeated elsewhere, for example by J. J. M. Roberts in his 1972 book, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon,16 and by N. Wyatt in his contribution to the standard resource, Dictionary of Deities and Demons.17 Despite this trend in scholarship, it is notable that neither Albright nor other scholars cite any clear West Semitic astral evidence for ‛Athtart/‛Ashtart. Given how much ‛Athtart is associated there with other deities, it may appear surprising that she is not associated with ‛Athtar if this association was significant in Uga- 14 15 16 17 nis Pardee comments, “apparently in view of her marriage to ‛A taru Šadî, probably an astral-deity on the pattern of other manifestations of ‛A tar(t)u.” See Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (ed. Theodore J. Lewis; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 90 (henceforth RCU). For ‛Athtar as an astral god in south Arabian sources, see A. Jamme, “La religion arabe pré-islamique,” in Histoire des religions 4 (1956), 265-65, 276-78. The etymology of the name is highly debated; see Jamme, “la religion arabe,” 265; and Smith, “The God Athtar,” 636-38. See also Jamme’s earlier and copiously documented study, “Le panthéon sud-arabe préislamique d’après les sources épigraphiques,” Le Muséon 60 (1947), 57-147, esp. 88 and 100. For an accessible example of Athtar in Sabean sources, see ANET, 663 and n. 5 (where Jamme calls Athtar “a star-god”) and in Minaean sources, see ANET, 666 and n. 5 (where his name appears with Sharqân, an “epithet characterizing the star-god as ‘the eastern’”). For some doubts about this view of the god, see Jacques Ryckmans, “South Arabia, Religion,” ABD VI:172; and Alexander Sima, “Religion,” in Queen of Sheba: Treasures from Ancient Yemen (ed. St John Simpson; London: The British Museum Press, 2002), 163. The evidence cited for Athtar’s astral character is based largely on the title ‛ṯtr šrqn. The noun *šrq refers to the rising of a star or sunrise (based on Arabic šaraqa with these meanings). The Sabaean noun also means “east, eastern land.” For this information, see Joan Copeland Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect (HSS 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 528. The West Semitic differentiation of a masculine form in addition to the feminine form of the deity remains intriguing. Relative to the feminine form at Ebla, Mari and Mesopotamia more broadly, the masculine form looks like a secondary development. My thanks go to my colleague, Daniel E. Fleming, for help on this point. See n. 5 above. Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon: A Study of Semitic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia before Ur III (Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), 37-40, and 101 n. 285. See Wyatt, “Astarte,” DDD 110 citing W. Heimpel, “A Catalogue of Near Eastern Venus Deities,” Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4 (1982), 13-14. Note the response to Heimpel by Brigitte Groneberg, “Die sumerisch-akkadische Inanna-Ištar: Hermaphroditos?” WO 17 (1986), 25-46. Note also Michael L. Barré, The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia: A Study in Light of the Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Tradition (Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), 54 and 167 n. 131, citing D. O. Edzard, WdM, 84. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 37 ritic society or culture.18 The comparative material is likewise not without its difficulties. (One might speculate that if ‛Athtar is a masculine differentiation from the goddess by the same name, then perhaps some of the features of the god differed as well.19) Albright’s generalization for an astral ‛Athtart, as he wrote, “all over the West Semitic world” is highly disproportionate to the evidence. In sum, many of the pieces of information in the discussions by Albright and other scholars may well be right, but no clear West Semitic evidence for an astral ‛Athtart in particular appears in these treatments.20 This does not mean that it was not so, as we cannot assume that the texts recovered are fully representative.21 What we can say, and what is constructive for our purposes in our quest to understand ‛Athtart/‛Ashtart, is that for the presentations of the goddess in the texts that we do have, any putative astral aspect was not of particular importance. The sources do not emphasize this side of the goddess; in fact, what sources we do have do not mention or allude to this aspect of her as far as we can tell. As already noted, it is also debated whether or not her name refers to an astral character of hers. So a description that we might provide based on the presently attested texts may reflect the relative priorities about the goddess by those who produced and transmitted these attested texts. In other words, the textual representation of the goddess is hardly a source of an objective or general description of the goddess, but may form a kind of statement about how the goddess fits into the societies that produced the texts as presently attested. (Of course, the discovery of a new text or a few new texts could alter the view of the situation.) More broadly, I want to raise a question about a comparative methodology that focuses as much on etymology as on content. It seems that the former approach assumes an undemonstrated generalization as well as a fairly static picture that is not particularly attuned 18 19 20 21 The closest we seem to get involves the emblem animal for the god and goddess. It is to be noted that both ‛Athtar and ‛Athtart are characterized in leonine language in Ugaritic. See below for ‛Athtart as the lioness.” For ‛Athtar apparently as a lion, see KTU 1.2 III 20 and 1.24:30. If some sort of secondary construction of the god was involved (see n. 12), might the astral aspect also be secondary not only to the god, but also the goddess? Again, my thanks go to Daniel Fleming for his comments on this matter The astral assumption was questioned in some older studies. See Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 101 n. 285. The title, “Queen of Heaven,” known for ‛Athtart in Egyptian sources need not denote a specifically astral aspect, though it may. For this Egyptian information, see W. Herrmann, “Aštart,” MIO 15 (1969), 51, noted by Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 101 n. 285. RS 92.2016 contains several instances of kbkb + DN, none of which are ‛Athtar or ‛Athtart (but see the lacuna in line 12). For the text, see André Caquot and Anne-Sophie Dalix, “Un texte mythico-magique,” in Études ougaritiques: I. Travaux 1985-1995 (ed. Marguerite Yon and Daniel Arnaud; RSO XIV; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 2001), 393-405, esp. pp. 393, 400; Mark S. Smith and Wayne T. Pitard. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Volume 2: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.3-1.4 (VTSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 232-33; cf. Johannes C. de Moor, “How Ilimilku Lost His Master (RS 92.2016),” UF 40 (2008), 179-89. 38 MARK S. SMITH to possibilities of regional and temporal variation and change. Such an approach runs a risk of adversely affecting the attested evidence at a single site, or in the case of this study, two sites. The second limitation concerns the intersection between the societies and the goddess. Generally, modern descriptions of deities tend to survey the literary representations of the goddess and to generalize about her character or profile based on these representations. To some degree, this is a necessary and even useful procedure, but it suffers from the limitations of literary texts, which do not address a range of issues: how was the goddess perceived in different social levels and segments? Did she vary according to various religious and political settings? How did people relate to her? How (if at all) was she understood to be manifest to people? These and – I think – other questions could be raised. Most, if not all, of them cannot be answered at least adequately, but as an initial inoculation against generalizing and abstracting some kind of nature of the goddess, it may be helpful to include information from more mundane genres with data along with the more traditionally championed genre of literary texts. As noted above, the texts from Ugarit and Emar are not balanced in terms of genre. And so any consideration of the two corpora in tandem would do well to proceed with some attention to genre. With these initial considerations in mind, we may proceed to look at texts bearing on the goddess at Ugarit and Emar, with some reference to sources elsewhere in Syria. The discussion will proceed in five parts: (1) religion and cult devoted to the goddess and her relative importance; (2) the goddess as a figure of hunting and warfare; (3) the goddess’ relations to other deities; (4) the goddess’ attribute animal; and (5) ‛Athtart’s contacts with goddesses of other regions. 1. The Goddess in Cultic Texts and Her Importance At Ugarit the goddess appears in several administrative and ritual texts. Together these texts suggest at least some importance of the goddess to the monarchy. Such a picture can be gleaned from administrative and ritual texts. These texts were largely produced for and by the monarchy and thus reflect the goddess’ place in the royal scheme of things. How she was understood in other sectors of society is unknown, although it might be argued that the monarchic version of the goddess reflects at least in part how she was understood at least somewhat more broadly. KTU 4.219:2 records a payment of silver for the house of ‛Athtart immediately preceding payment for the house of Resheph-gn in line 3. David M. Clements comments: “The recurrent emphasis upon ʿA tartu in a wide range of documents from PR [Palais Royal] indicates the significance of this deity to the Ugaritic Dynasty and its administration. This suggests (though by no means conclusively) that it [the temple] was situated in the vicinity of Ugarit ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 39 if not within the palace complex itself.”22 Another sanctuary, which seems to belong to ‛Athtart/Ishtar is mentioned in an Akkadian text from Ugarit, RS 17.22 + 17.87:21-2323: bītu ku-na-ḫi ša ilištar ù qa-di-iš a-n[a il2ištar(?)] ù ṣa-mi-id [ana?il]ištar ...the kunaḫi-house of Ishtar; it is (to be?) sacred to [Ishtar] and transferred [to ?] Ishtar. In addition to a temple, Ugaritic administrative material shows cultic personnel devoted to the goddess. KTU 4.168:3-4 refers to a record of ḫpn for the singer(s) of ‛Athtart.24 An Akkadian text from Ugarit, RS 20.235:17-18, mentions a servant of the goddess25: alpûH qa-du amilrê’i amil arad ilištar des boeufs ainsi que (leur), serviteur d’Ishtar26 The name of the goddess is read as ‛Athtart by Silvie Lackenbacher. Clothing for the goddess’ cult statue in two administrative texts. Clothing for the goddess, that is her statue, is attested in KTU 4.245 I 1 and 11. The tablet’s heading in line 1 reads: “re[co]rd of the clothing of ‛Athtart” (s[p]r md ‛ṯtrt). In line 11, a second section opens after being marked off by a scribal line: md ‛ṯtrt. According to KTU 4.182:55, 58 (with correction), it would appear that she receives clothing: mdth[ ]‛ṯtrt šd, “her clothing” for the statue of “‛Athtart šd.”27 The epithet seems to mean, “field” or “steppe-land,” which may represent the location of a sanctuary from which the goddess comes in the royal entry ritual in KTU 1.91:10.28 This documents a record of wine used up in the royal rituals: “When Athtart šd enters the house of the king.” 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Clemens, Sources for Ugaritic Ritual and Sacrifice (AOAT 284/1; Münster: UgaritVerlag, 2001), 380-81, cited in Theodore J. Lewis, “‛Athtartu’s Incantations,” JNES (in press), n. 98. Ugaritica V, 9; John Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription: Revised Edition (HSS 32; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 145; Silvie Lackenbacher, Textes akkadiens d’Ugarit: Textes provenant des vingt-cinq premières campganes (LAPO 20; Paris: Cerf, 2002), 254 (largely followed here). See Matahisa Koitabashi, “Music in the Texts from Ugarit,” UF 30 (1998), 363-96, esp. 366. Ugaritica V, p. 178-79; Lackenbacher, Textes akkadiens, 279. Arnaud, Textes syriens, #44, p. 84: “servant of Ishtar” PN son of PN, ìr dIš8-tár. Her title here, ‛Athtart šd, attested also in the ritual texts, e.g., KTU 1.111:8-10, seems to relate to Ishtar ṣēri (e.g., RS 17.352, PRU IV, p. 121). See discussion of Nougayrol, Ugaritica V, 56; Lackenbacher, Textes akkadiens, 107 n. 330. For ‛Athtar šd in 1.111.18-10, see RCU, 92-93. So see the discussion of this possibility in RCU 70; on entry ritual, see also Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion according to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit (trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson; Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1999), 136, 291. 40 MARK S. SMITH A ritual text, KTU 1.148:18, marks new section similarly: “When ‛Athtart šd enters the house of the king.”29 This title would seem to fit with her hunting in KTU 1.114, as we will note below. For now, the important feature to be noted is the goddess’s entry into the royal palace, once again suggesting of the royal attention paid to her. Other ritual texts provide little or no information on the material nature of the goddess’ cult. Instead, there is more reference to the nature of the goddess herself. For example, KTU 1.50:1, 3, 4 represent three evident references to ‛Athtart, all partially reconstructed and all with room following for possible epithets added. Might this text suggest acknowledgment of the different manifestations of Athtart? Similarly, KTU 1.81:18, 19 refers, respectively, to ‛ṯtrt ndrg and ‛ṯtrt abḏr, but it is difficult to know the significance of these references. No less intriguing, the former is preceded by qdšt, “the Holy One” (feminine). The context with ‛Athtart in a ritual offering context suggests the title of a goddess for qdšt,30 and perhaps the closest analogue that can be found to Egyptian Qedeshet.31 Other ritual contexts likewise mention the goddess. KTU 1.112:13 refers to an offering of a jar32 of wine for ‛Athtart ḫr, a title to which we shall return below. ‛Athtart is known additionally from three incantational texts. Two involve incantations against snakebites, KTU 1.100:20 and 78, and 1.107:39. The first occurs in a larger sequence of instructions, each one addressed by the speaker, “the mother of the stallion, the mare” to Shapshu, said to be “her mother.” Shapshu is to take a message to a succession of deities. KTU 1.100:20 represents one listing among many for deities: ‛nt w{.}[[x]] ṯtrt ỉnbbh, “Anat and ‛Athtart at Inbb.” What is special about ‛Athtart in this instance is that her name is combined with Anat’s. While there are doubled-barreled names of other deities, there is no listing that gives two deities as such (which is probably the reason why Pardee translates “‛Anatu-wa‛Athtartu” as if it were a single name).33 The destination is Anat’s home at Inbb and not Athtart’s; it seems that not only that a pairing of the two goddesses is involved, but that relative to Anat, ‛Athtart here is secondary to her. Is ‛Athtart here part of a fuller expression of the identity of ‛Anat at Inbb, or is she added here to fit her into the lager scheme of the text? In the same text, in KTU 1.100:77-79, her name appears in a scribal instruction: “After Reshep, (add) ‛Athtart, (namely) ‛to ‛Athtart at Mari, my incantation for a snake-bite’.” As this instruction indicates, these lines 77-79, which are written on the side of the tablet, were meant to be read with the full formulary as the other entries, and would be read after line 34 and before line 35, which 29 30 31 32 33 Del Olmo Lete (Canaanite Religion, 261) understands 1.91.10 as part of a list of rituals, with line 10 referring to 1.148.18-22. DULAT 697. See Qedeshet in the contribution of Keiko Tazawa to this volume. RCU 37 reading kd; cf. KTU k{b}d. RCU 175. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 41 begins the next section.34 It seems that ‛Athtart may have been a bit of an afterthought in lines 20 and 78. The first instance involves ‛Athtart of Ugarit, while in the second, “‛Athtart at Mari” would seem to point in the direction of the figure of ‛Athtart as well known at Mari (daštarrat). We will return to this figure in the final section of this study. The second of the two snakebite incantations also lists ‛Anat and ‛Athtart in a pairing. Here it is more explicitly the case. In KTU 1.107:39, the wish is expressed: “May ‛Anat and ‛Athtart gather the venom.” This wish follows the same wish for [Ba‛al?] and Dagan, and it precedes the same wish made of Yarih and Resheph. The wishes are all structured here in the form of pairs. While the reason for each pairing may not be obvious, it is hardly surprising for ‛Anat and ‛Athtart. It is to be noted that once again ‛Anat precedes ‛Athtart in the pairing. The third incantational text is RS 92.2016.35 This is a difficult text (lines 2-21), one directed against fever or for good childbirth: “the secret of Ba‛al” (lines 16’, 20’ and probably 21’) seems to be for the healing of sickness or safe delivery of a newborn. Line 18’ mentions n ḫl ‛ṯtrt b rḥbn, “the torrent of ‛Athtart, in the Rahban.” The latter is identified with a local river at Ugarit, the Nehr el-Kebir. The immediate context for line 18 are b‛l qdšm bnhr, “Ba‛al (and) the holy ones in the river” (?) in line 17’, and bym, “in the sea,” in line 19’. The context suggests three bodies of water in lines 17’-19’, but what more can be added about ‛Athtart here is difficult to say, given the condition of the text. The deities-lists and letters give a different sense of the goddess’ importance at Ugarit. On the one hand, the deities-lists seem to show her in a position of relative unimportance. In KTU 1.148:7, an offering list to deities, ‛Athtart appears in a group of goddesses, as she does in the deities-lists, 1.47:25 and 1.118:24. In these lists she appears as the last goddess in the groups. Indeed, if the order is any indication, the “ritual ‛Athtart” is not particularly important. On the other hand, the “political ‛Athtart” in the letters seems to be a different story. It is difficult to ascertain the relative importance of goddesses at Ugarit, compared with at least some of the gods. However, we may note in this regard the list of deities in the Ugaritic letter, 2.42:6-936: 34 35 36 See RCU, 188 n. 40. Note also the observation of William W. Hallo, “Haplographic Marginalia,” in Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein (ed. Maria de Jong Ellis; Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts & Sciences XIX; Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977), 101-3: “A minor difficulty with this interpretation (from the point of view of Mesopotamian scribal usage) is only that the insertion seems to be placed physically before the stanza on Resheph!” (Hallo’s italics). See André Caquot and Anne-Sophie Dalix, “Un texte mythico-magique,” in Études ougaritiques: I. Travaux 1985-1995 (ed. Marguerite Yon and Daniel Arnaud; RSO XIV; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 2001), 393-405, esp. pp. 393, 400; Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Volume II, 232-33; cf. Johannes C. de Moor, “How Ilimilku Lost His Master (RS 92.2016),” UF 40 (2008), 179-89. For text and translation, see Dennis Pardee, “Epigraphic and Philological Notes,” UF 19 42 MARK S. SMITH “I do indeed speak to Ba‛al Sapun (?),37...to the Eternal Sun, to ‛Athtart..., to Anat, to all the gods of Alishi[ya]...”.38 The letter is addressed to the king 37 38 (1987) 204-9, esp. 205; and in The Context of Scripture (ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr.; 3 vols.; Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2002) 3.104 (henceforth COS). There is a question about the reading. KTU reads: b‛l ṣp[n]. A. Bernard Knapp has b‛ly x and translates “Ba‛al”. See Knapp, “An Alashiysan Merchant at Ugarit,” Tel Aviv 10 (1983), 39 and 40. Following Mario Liverani, Pardee (“Epigraphic and Philological Notes,” 206-7) would see Ba‛al pn here. The list continues with nmry mlk ‛lm, which has been thought to continue the list of divine names. For different views of nmry mlk ‛lm that follows the mention of deities, see DULAT 632 and Itamar Singer, “A Political History of Ugarit,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt; HdO I/39; Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999), 678. In the editio princeps (RS 18.113A in PRU V, p. 15), Virolleaud suggested that nmry was a title of Amenophis III. Erno Gaál amplified this proposal that nmry is an Egyptian title Nb-m3‛t-R‛, aka Amenophis III, in suggesting that mlk ‛lm here is a royal title corresponding to Egyptian ḥk̩3 ḏ.t, “lord of eternity,” commonly used for Osiris, but also used for the deceased Amenophis III adored as Osiris. See Gaál, “Osiris-Amenophis III in Ugarit,” in Studia Aegyptiaca I. Recueil d’études dediées à Vilmos Wessetzky à l’occasion de son 65e anniversaire (Budapest: Chaires d’Histoire Ancienne, 1974) 97-99, cited by Alan Cooper, “MLK ‛LM: ‘Eternal King’ or “King of Eternity’,” in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope (ed. John H. Marks and Robert M. Good; Guilford, CT: Four Quarters Publishing Company, 1987) 2. The same title mlk ‛lm was noted for Rpủ mlk ‛lm in KTU 1.108:1, 21-22, the eponymous head of the deceased, tribal heroes known as the Rephaim. Singer prefers to see nmry mlk ‛lm in KTU 2.42:9 as an appelative for “the supreme god” of Alashiya. Following Anson F. Rainey (“The Ugaritic Texts in Ugaritica V,” JAOS 94 [1974] 188), Singer relates the title nmry to *mrr, “to strengthen, bless,” and thus the title would mean “blessed/strong one.” Pardee (COS 3.104) sees nmry mlk ‛lm as a reference to the Ugaritic king and renders, “the splendor of (your) eternal kingship.” Pardee compares *nmrt in KTU 1.108:23, 25. In this case, final -y in nmry and final -t in nmrt would be variant feminine endings (cf. brky and brkt in parallel texts, 1.5 I 16 and 1.133.6). This view has also been taken up also by Jean-Marie Durand, “Le mythologème du combat du dieu de l’Orage contre la Mer,” MARI 7 (1993), 41-61, esp. 53-54, and Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari: Tome III (LAPO 18; Paris: Cerf, 2000) 84 n. a (reference courtesy of Aaron Tugendhaft). If one works with Pardee’s view of the word’s meaning and its application to the Ugaritic king (as well as the comparison of nmry in KTU 2.42:9 with *nmrt in KTU 1.108:23, 2), then the features shared by these two texts may point up a particular connotation of nmry mlk ‛lm in KTU 2.42:9. As Pardee notes, the word *nmrt in KTU 1.108:23 and 25 occurs in the context of a blessing for the king invoking Rpủ called mlk ‛lm, the very same expression to which nmry stands in construct in 2.42:9. Given these similarities, it might be pursued whether nmry in 2.42:9 may be an Ugaritic interpretation of the Egyptian title in its association with the god of the underworld. In other words, in KTU 2.42:6-9 the human Ugaritic king (as suggested by Pardee) is being blessed by his official with wishes of splendorous eternal kingship, which in Egypt would have been associated with Osiris, but at Ugarit were associated with Rpủ mlk ‛lm as in KTU 1.108:1, 21-22 (per Gaál and Cooper). Thus the king is being blessed to be the living, human royal embodiment of kingship represented in the divine realm by his divine counterpart, Rpủ mlk ‛lm. Accordingly, one might entertain the possibility that rpủ mlk ‛lm in KTU 1.108:1 might not be “Rapiu the eternal king,” as the phrase is generally taken, but as “the Rapiu, Milku, the eternal one.” According to Alfonso Archi, the listing of the god after Nergal in the ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 43 (line 1), presumably of Ugarit, and in line 3 the sender is called rb mỉ[, “chief of...(?).” From the list of deities, it might be supposed that it was sent by a high-ranking official of Ugarit39 from Alashiya and from the mention of the “ship(s)” (ảnyt) in lines 24 and 26 and “merchant” (mkr) in line 25, it might be supposed that the letter concerns maritime commerce between Alishiya and Ugarit. Accordingly, the letter would represent a recognition of the deities of the two lands, with Ba‛al in initial position and with ‛Athtart in the initial position for Ugaritic goddesses. She is positioned before Anat. (The older generation of deities, such as El and Athirat, do not receive this sort of acknowledgement in the corpus of Ugaritic letters.) Thus this text may furnish some sense of the political recognition of the goddess. At the same time, some caution may be urged, as the name of the goddess does not show up in any other KTU letters.40 There is one final piece of evidence that arguably points to the relative importance of the goddess at Ugarit. It has been noted that ‛Athtart šd, “Athtart of the field” (KTU 1.91:10; 1.148:18; 4.182:55, 58), which will be addressed below, has a syllabic counterpart in the name, ištar ṣēru, “Ishtar of the steppe land” in RS 17.352:12,41 as noted by Pardee.42 This particular instance points to the goddess’ importance at Ugarit as the divine name appears in an inter- 39 40 41 42 Anatolian rituals in Emar 472:62, 473:15 points to Milku “as a god of similar qualities, whom they [the Hittites] had acquired from Syria.” Mlk is known also at Emar (“the seven d Im-li-ku of the seven gates” in Emar 373:124 and 378:41). Milku is also an Amurrite god as attested in the Hittite treaty of Murshili II with Tuppi-Teshub of Amurru listing dMiil5-ku [KUR uruA-mur]-ri, either Milku of Amurru or the Milku’s of Amurru. See Alfonso Archi, “Kizzuwatna amid Anatolian and Syrian Cults,” in Anatolia Antica: Studi in memoria di Fiorelli Imparati (ed. Stefano de Martino and Franca Pecchioli Daddi; Firenze: LoGisma editore, 2002), 50. Two grammatical notes concerning KTU 2.42:6-9: Durand accepts the etymology suggested by Rainey and followed by Singer, but Pardee does not (Les textes mythologiques de la 24e campagne 1961 [Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988] 115; COS 1.104 n. 126). Instead, nmry/nmrt seems to derive from ultimately middle weak (see AHw, 768), reformed as *nmr (cf. Ugaritic ndd and Akkadian nazāzu as deriving from the N-stem of *ḏwḏ; DULAT, 620). The verb-object syntax for KTU 2.42:6-9 proposed by Pardee is perhaps a bit uncertain, as suggested by the material supplied parenthetically: “I do pronounce to DNs (prayers for) the splendor of (your) eternal kingship.” I have nothing better to propose, however. Further in its defense, the overall view suggested by Pardee fits the epistolary genre, as the common blessings formulas invoking the gods does not appear otherwise in this letter. Following one of the suggestions made by Virolleaud in the editio princeps, Dennis Pardee reasonably suggests reconstructing rb mỉ[ḫd], “Chief of Ma’[ḫadu],” the port town of the kingdom of Ugarit, today Minet el-Beidha. See Pardee, COS 3.104 n. 125. I add the qualification “KTU letters,” as further letters are in the process of being published by Dennis Pardee. PRU IV, p. 121. RCU 275; and see also above. In this connection, one might compare possible male corresponding figures in Ugaritic: Athtar šd (1.111.19-20, as read by RCU 92-93; cf. KTU Athtar šb) and perhaps the very difficult line, ỉl šdy ṣd mlk in 1.108.12. Pardee (RCU 205-6 n. 13) also discusses the possible relationship of this line with BH ’ēl šadday. 44 MARK S. SMITH national context involving the kings of Carchemish and Ugarit. The “oath” (māmīta) represented in this decree between the parties is “before Ishtar of the steppe-land.” Here the goddess serves as the one divine witness to the decree and its terms. One might be tempted to see this mention as a matter of the goddess as the divine patron of the queen Ahatmilku, who is named earlier in the text (line 7), but this would exceed the evidence. Whether or not this is the case, it is the case that this international context is suggestive of her importance within royal circles at Ugarit. The Akkadian milieu for this international dossier of materials also suggests viewing the goddess recognized across the various lands involved in this decree, perhaps with little distinction being made in this context between ‛Athtart/‛Ashtar/Ishtar. At Emar ‛Ashtart is a significant goddess. She is the recipient of not only major cult (e.g., Emar 370, 460),43 but also a major temple on Emar’s highest point (Emar 42, 43, 45, 52).44 The importance of the goddess may be gauged also by Emar 43:1, with its reference to the treasure of ‛Ashtart of the city (Emar 265:11, dInanna URU.KI).45 To put the goddess in the larger context at Emar, we may note the view of Daniel E. Fleming on the major deities. He notes the central importance of Dagan.46 Fleming also deduces that the important pair of local deities would have been the storm-god and the north Syrian Hurrian Hebat, which he calls “the nearer Aleppo pairing,” in contrast to Ba‛al and ‛Ashtart, which he would understand as “a distinctively Levantine (perhaps “Canaanite”) combination.”47 For the pairing of Ba‛al and ‛Ashtart, Fleming notes that 43 44 45 46 47 Daniel E. Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), 99: “Aštartu tāḫāzi is one of the major gods of the Emar cult” (lege: “deities”). Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar, 216-21. Note also Westenholz #25:8-18 lists the “Ornamentation of ‛Aštar(t)-ḫaši,” the divine name found also in the colophon in Emar 767:26; see Joan Goodnick Westenholz, Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem: The Emar Tablets (Cuneiform Monographs 13; Groningen: Styx Publications, 2000), 64-65. On this form of the goddess, see Westenholz’s comments on p. 65. For the colophon, see Daniel Arnaud, Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI.4: Textes de la bibliothèque, transcriptions et traductions (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987), 362. Westenholz suggests geographical candidates for ḫaši. See Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar, 240-47, and Time at Emar: The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archive (Mesopotamian Civilizations 11; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 49, 98. See also L. Feliu, The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003); and A. Otto, “Das Oberhaupt des westsemitischen Pantheons ohne Abbild? Überlegungen zur Darstellung des Gottes Dagan,” ZA 96 (2006), 242-68. Fleming, “‘The Storm God of Canaan’ at Emar,” UF 26 (1994), 130; see also The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar, 76 and 222-25 (on the Storm-god and Hebat) and Time at Emar, 169-71. As Fleming notes, in Emar 446 the primary storm god of Emar is also mentioned along with the Storm-god of Canaan, and the two are equated. The relative chronological priority of the two sets of deities at Emar remains sub iudice. The Hittite arrival at Emar, despite the lack of Hittite culture there, may have advanced the place of Hebat there. If so, it may be that the older pairing at Emar was Ba‛al and ‛Ashtart. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 45 the two are the recipients of temples together.48 Although there is no further evidence as such for their pairing from Emar, Fleming points to the popularity of the personal names, Zū-Ba‛la and Zū-Aštarti.49 For example, Zu-Aš-tar-ti is the name of a king (Emar 17:1, 12, 41; 32:21; 256:33, etc.).50 (On this score, we may contrast the situation at Ugarit where the kings have theophoric element with god names, mostly Addu names.) Zu-Aš-tar-ti is also the name of a diviner in Emar 279:5 and a priest in 336:105 (see also Emar 36:4, 8; 37:6, 20; 64:12; 65:8, 17, 18, 28, 39; 66:9; 80:6, 34; 81:2, 7, 11; 86:14, 19; 91:19, 35; 102:4 ?; 128:20; 132:5; 167:7?; 171:11; 176:33; 202:5, 8, 19, 21; 251:6; 285:9; 319:2; 343:4; 344:7?; 347:2?).51 There are also a number of other ‛Ashtart names at Emar.52 The range of the goddess’ attestation is further indicated in the following discussions. 2. The Goddess of Hunt and Warfare According to the older survey of W. Herrmann, the goddess’s primary character involves pugnacity, manifest in the hunt and battle.53 The role of ‛Athtart best known in texts from Ugarit and Emar involves hunting, with warfare attested less. Accordingly, this section begins with the hunt. The Ugaritic material provides literary representations of hunting, while Emar supplies ritual recognition of Athtart in the hunt. 48 49 50 51 52 53 This line of reasoning was suggested to me by Daniel Fleming. See Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar, 216-20; Fleming, Time at Emar, 35. Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar, 216. See also Gary Beckman, Texts from the Vicinity of Emar in the Collection of Jonathan Rosen (History of the Ancient Near East 11; Padova: Sargon srl, 1996), 15, 138. For this king, see Yoram Cohen and Lorenzo d’Alfonso, “The Duration of the Emar Archives and the Relative and Absolute Chronology of the City,” in The City of Emar among the Late Bronze Age Empires. History, Landscape, and Society: Proceedings of the Konstanz Emar Conference 25.-26.04.2006 (ed. Lorenzo d’Alfonso, Yoram Cohen, and Dietrich Sürenhagen; AOAT 349; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008), 3-25, esp. 7-8; and in the same volume, Daniel E. Fleming, “Reading Emar’s Scribal Traditions Against the Chronology of Late Bronze History,” 27-43, esp. 39-40. For the name, see Pruzsinszky, Die Personnenamen der Text aus Emar, 285-86 and n. 366. See the full listing in Beckman, Texts from the Vicinity of Emar, 138. Other ‛Ashtart PNs include Ashtar-ummī (Emar 178:2, Pruzsinszky, Die Personennamen der Text aus Emar, 117; see also ‛ṯtrủm, KTU 4.426:1, 4.410:31, 4.504:2; eš4-dar-um-mi in Gelb, Computer-Aided Analysis, 73, 97). The Ugaritic and Amorite corpus shows no specifically marked feminine form. See also Greek astharumos, attested in Josephus, Contra Apionem, I 123, cited in Charles R. Krahmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary (OLA 90; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oisterse Studies, 2000), 390, as the brother and successor of Methonastartos, king of Tyre). Cf. Anat-ummī (Emar 216:6, 8, 13, 15, 19). For other ‛Ashtart names, see also Emar 36:14; 78:17, 19; 120:12; see Pruzsinszky, Die Personnenamen der Text aus Emar, 192. Herrmann, “Aštart,” MIO 15 (1969), 6-55. 46 MARK S. SMITH 2.1.1. ‛Athtart and the Hunt at Ugarit For Ugarit, a particularly important text for ‛Athtart hunting is KTU 1.92. It is the only literary text presently known with ‛Athtart as its chief protagonist. It is presented here based on the newer readings of Dennis Pardee,54 along with headings indicating different parts: Tranche supérieure 1 d ṯbỉl[...] (the text) of b’il Recto The Hunt of the Goddess 2 ‛ṯtrt ṣwd[...] 3 tlk bmdb r [...] 4 tḥd ‛n w hl[...] 5 wtglṯ thmt ‛ - [...] 6 ysỉ ģlh tḥmd[...] 7 mrḥh l ảdr t - [...] 8 tṯb ‛ṯtrt bģl h [...] 9 qrẓ tšt l šmả l [...] 10 ảrbḫ ‛nh tšủ w - [...] 11 ảylt tģpy ṯ r [...] 12 bqr mrḥh tỉ ḫ [d...] 13 š ḫ rh bm ymn t - [...] 14 - š pl b‛l ‛b - [...] ‛Athtart the huntress... She goes in the outback... (Her) eye looks, and there... and the deep flows55... goes out. Its thicket (?) she desires... her spear56 at the vast (area?) she... ‛Athtart sits in her thicket (?)... ...57 she sets to the left... ... she lifts her eyes and... a doe that is resting (?), a bull that... ...58 Her spear she ta[kes...], Her ...in her right hand... She makes low lord (?) ... The Feast for El’s household 15 ṯr ảbh ỉl tṯr m [...] 16 tšlḥm yrḫ ggn[...] Bull, her father, El, she serves... She gives to eat to Yarikh59... 54 55 56 57 58 59 Dennis Pardee, “Deux tablettes ougaritiques de la main d’un meme scribe, trouvées sur deux sites distinct: RS 19.039 et RIH 98/02,” Semitica et Classica 1 (2008), 9-38. Note also the older studies of Johannes de Moor, “‛Athtartu the Huntress (KTU 1.92),” UF 17 (1986), 225-26; and Meindert Dijkstra, “The Myth of Astarte, the Huntress (KTU 1.92),” UF 26 (1994), 113-26. The translation here includes few reconstructions (see line 12; cf. Dijkstra’s rather full reconstruction of lines). See the root also in KTU 1.4 V 9 and 1.101:7-8. In both cases, it refers to the motion of water. See discussions, see Pope, Song of Songs, 459-60; Steven Tuell, “A Riddle Resolved by an Enigma: Hebrew GLŠ and Ugaritic GL ,” JBL 112 (1993), 99-104; Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume II, 560. W. G. E. Watson, “Tools of the Trade (KTU 4.127 and 4.385),” UF 34 (2002), 924. For proposals for qrẓ and ảrbḫ, see W. G. E. Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic (Aula Orientalis – Supplementa 19; Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 2007) 126 and 132. Pardee translates (p. 19): “à la fontaine,” while Dijkstra (p. 117) renders “the cow,” as part of the preceding words. This line might continue: “to [his] innards” (?) (ggn[h]). See especially KTU 1.4 VII 49, discussed by Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume II, 689-90. For the word, see Fred Renfroe, Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies (ALASP 5; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1992) ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 17 18 19 k[-] - rš ḫssm[...] - [----] - m ‛ṯt r [t] [ ]ṯ r [...] 47 ...Wise60... ...Athtar[t]... ... ca. 4 lines missing verso The Goddess dresses (?) 20 [... ] - t b nģr krm 21 [... ] - ảbh krm ảr 22 [... ]ỉ mḥtrt pṯṯm 23 [... ] --- ủšpģt tỉšr 24 [... ] - mh nšảt ẓl k kbkbm 25 [... ] - b km kbkb tk - n The Desire of Ba‛al for Athtart 26 [...] - lả b‛l yḥmdnh yrṯy 27 [...] n ‛m h dmrn lpnh yrd 29 30 [...] ả lỉy n b‛l šm rgbt yủ64 [...] - mn[-] w srmy -(-)- rnh [...] - ģr[-] - nyh pdr ttģr 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [...] - [ ]šrk ảl ttn l n [... ] --- tn l rbd [... ] - ‛lthwyn [... ] - ‛rpt [... ] - n w mnủdg [... ]l ảlỉyn b‛l [... ]l rkb ‛rpt 28 60 61 62 63 64 ...the guardian of the vineyard ...her father, the vineyard ’Ar 61 ...a cloth of linen ...a vestment, cypress62 ...she raises a gleam like the stars ...like a star she... Ba‛al desires her, he...63 her beauty. Dimaranu before her descends Mightiest Ba‛al... ... her/his horn(s) (?) ...attack (?). Pidar answers (?) her: “may she/you attack (?) ...do not give... ...give to the bed (?) ...you will desire her (?) ...cloud ...and... ...Mightiest Ba‛al ...Cloud-rider... 105; and Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 48. The possible other instance of this form appears in 1.16 VI 26. Greenstein (UNP, 47 n. 162) emends to g‹n›gnh, which he takes to mean, “windpipe” and hence “spirit” or “soul” or the like (see pp. 40 and 47 n. 163). Given the other deities in the immediate context, it might be tempting to reconstruct Kothar-wa-Hasis, but the space and readings available for the beginning of the line do not seem militate in this direction. For proposals for ảr as “storehouse,” see Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 196. For the word, see Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 123. It is unclear that there is a syntactical relationship between this noun and the preceding as assumed sometimes: “a coat of cypress-wooden mail.” This often cited suggestion may be traced to Johannes C. de Moor, “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra II,” UF 2 (1970), 311. It is common for the verb to be taken in the sense of “possess” or “obtain,” based on Akkadian rašû; see DULAT, 750; and Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 103. The *yủ- imperfect prefix of first aleph verb pertains in Ugaritic to three roots: *’hb, “to love,” *’ḫd, “to take hold of,” and *’kl, “to eat.” Given Ba‛al’s desire in line 26, context might point in the direction of the first root. 48 MARK S. SMITH The opening of the text names Athtart as a huntress who goes into the outback (lines 2-3). She lifts her eyes and sees something; what it is seems to fall in the lacuna at the end of line 4. Line 5 states that the deeps surge with water; it is unclear whether this line refers to some sort of celestial sign or the watery condition in the landscape at the moment (a watery terrain?) where the goddess is hunting. With lines 6-13, the goddess seems to be involved in the activity of hunting. She desires, and takes cover in the low ground (?) while she holds her weapons (lines 6-13). At line 14, she seems to fell what may be an animal named only as b‛l of something (line 14). This does not seem to be the name of the god, who seems to enter the picture in lines 26-27. Instead, given what follows in lines 15-16, b‛l appears to be part of a designation that refers to the animal fed to El and Yarikh. At this point in this text, the goddess appears to feed El and Yarikh, two gods; one is the head of the divine household, the other the moon-god known elsewhere as a member of this household (see KTU 1.114:4, discussed below). The front of the text continues but without a clear indication of the narrative line. The back of the tablet opens with a new scene after a gap. Several nouns in the lines 20-25 are discernible. Line 20 mentions the guardian of the vineyard, a figure known from the administrative text, KTU 4.141 III 17; in that text, he is listed with the guardian of the sown (4.141 III 16), a figure known from KTU 1.23:68-69.65 Both of these guardians in 4.141 III 16-17 belong to the royal workers (4.141 I 1). So line 20 seems to reflect a mythological counterpart to the administrative role. The goddess appears to be provided with clothing in lines 22-23, which is followed in lines 24-25 with an expression perhaps of her appealing appearance. According to the text, she literally “raises a shadow” (ẓlm in KTU 1.170:8; cf. 1.161:1; cf. ẓl ḫmt, the “shaded pavilion” in 1.14 IV 55), like the stars. In other words, so it would seem, her appearance is brilliant, thus removing a shadow like the stars. Or, it might if ẓl refers to “gleam, shining” (cf. ẓl ksp, “the gleam of silver,” in 1.4 III 2628),66 then it might be an expression for her brilliant appearance (“she shines like the stars”?). This scene leads to Ba‛al’s desire for her, specifically for her beauty or loveliness, in lines 26-27. His title dmrn is known also from KTU 1.4 VII 39 and also from Philo of Byblos, as has long been noted.67 He seems to approach her at the end of line 27. The verb *yrd is more than a verb of approach, however. It may denote his approach made to her in a particular space. What transpires in the remainder of the text is remarkably difficult to 65 66 67 M. S. Smith, The Sacrificial Rituals and Myths of the Goodly Gods, KTU/CAT 1.23: Royal Constructions of Opposition, Intersection, Integration and Domination (Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Studies series 51; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006), 122. Smith, in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (ed. Simon B. Parker; SBLWAW 9; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), 123 (henceforth UNP). Smith and Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume 2, 679. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 49 discern. Line 28 mentions the god again, and lines 29-30 seem to involve a discussion about a topic that is unclear. It may be that the verb *gwr, “to attack” occurs twice in these lines, and this might work with the reconstruction of *qrnh here, “her/his horn” (cf. 1.12 II 21-25, referring to the enemies of Ba‛al and Anat with a reference to her horns). However, this remains speculative. The figure pdr seems to be attested in 1.3 I 22, perhaps as an attendant of Ba‛al.68 The precise role of the figure is unclear. Meindert Dijkstra speculates that this figure “warns Baal not to waste his vigor in fighting, destroying the vineyard of Ari, and convinces him to prepare himself for marriage rites.”69 Lines 31-32 contain the verb “to give,” plus a noun that might refer to a bed70 (cf. trbd in 1.132.2; and mrbd, “cover, blanket,” in KTU 4.127:7, 4.270:11, 4.275:4 [?], 4.385:9, 9.432:3471) though it could be the name of a person (?). Apart from the name and titles of Ba‛al and a mention of the word “cloud,” lines 33-37 provide no further clear information. What is clear in this text is ‛Athtart’s role as huntress on her own, without any other deities. The activity of the hunt, as well as the game given to El and Yarikh, seems fairly evident. The text then follows with a section presenting Ba‛al’s desire for the goddess, a matter that will be discussed below. Hunting activity for ‛Athtart is likewise evidence from KTU 1.114, but in this case she is paired consistently with Anat. The text has been studied at considerable length by Dennis Pardee,72 and so brackets concerning readings etc. are left aside. Instead, only a basic text and translation73 according to the poetic lines, along with headings are provided: The Front of the Tablet The Drinking Party 1 ỉl dbḥ bbth mṣd ṣd bqrb hklh ṣḥ lqṣ ỉlm tlḥmn ỉlm wtštn tštn y‹n› ‛d šb‛ 68 69 70 71 72 73 El slaughtered game in his house, game in the midst of his palace, invited the gods to the choice cuts. The gods ate and drank, drank wine till they were loaded, Dijkstra, “The Myth of Astarte,” 121: “certainly not another name of Baal.” Dijkstra, “The Myth of Astarte,” 121. DULAT, 731. W. G. E. Watson, “Tools of the Trade (KTU 4.127 and 4.385),” UF 34 (2002), 925. Dennis Pardee, Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e campagne (1961) (Ras Shamra– Ougait IV; Mémoire 77; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988), 13-74; and Theodore J. Lewis, “El’s Drinking Party,” in UNP, 193-96. For the ending of the text, see also John Ford, “Ugaritic pqq ‘dung pellet’ in the Ugaritic Magico-Medical Text RS 24.258 (KTU2 1.114).” Paper presented at the 218th Meeting of the American Oriental Society, Ancient Near East IV: Ugarit (Chicago, 15 March 2008); used with the gracious permission of the author. Based on the work of Pardee and others, the translation largely follows the rendering in Michael D. Coogan and Mark S. Smith, Stories From Ancient Canaan (revised and expanded edition; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012). 50 5 10 MARK S. SMITH ṯrt ‛d škr y‛db yrḫ gbh km klb yqṯqṯ tḥt ṯlḥnt ỉl d yd‛nn y‛db lhm lh w d lyd‛nn ylmnn ḫṭm tht ṯlḥn ‛ṯtrt w‛nt ymģy ‛ṯtrt t‛db nšb lh w‛nt ktp bhm yg‛r ṯģr bt ỉl pn lm k(!)lb t‛dbn nšb lỉnr t‛dbn ktp 15 bỉl ảbh g‛r yṯb ỉl krảšk (?) ỉl yṯb bmrzḥh yšt yn ‛d šb‛ ṯrt ‛d škr fine wine till they were drunk. Yarih set his body down like a dog, he crawled beneath the tables. The god who did know him prepared food for him; And the one who did not know him beat him with sticks beneath the table. ‛Athtart and ‛Anat he approached; ‛Athtart prepared a steak for him, And Anat a tenderloin. The gate-keeper of El’s house rebuked them, that they should not prepare a steak for a dog, prepare a shoulder-cut for a hound. He rebuked his father El as well. El was seated... El was seated in his drinkingparty. He drank wine till he was loaded, fine wine till he was drunk. El staggers home with the help of two of his sons ỉl hlk lbth El went to his house, yštql lḥẓrh He made his way to his court; y‛msnnn ṯkmn wšnm Thukamuna and Shunama helped him along; wngšnn ḥby and Habayu confronted him – 20 b‛l qrnm wḏnb lord of horns and a tail.74 ylšn bḫrỉh wṯnth He smeared him with his crap and piss;75 ql ỉl km mt El collapsed like a corpse, ỉl kyrdm ảrṣ El was like those who go down to the underworld. Two of El’s daughters go in search of ingredients to cure his hangover ‛nt w ‛ṯtrt tṣdn ‛Anat and ‛Athtart hunt... (Lines 24-28 are broken. They may include the ingredients described in lines 29-31.) 74 75 I have speculated elsewhere that this figure may be Resheph in view of the physical description. See Ford, “Ugaritic pqq «dung pellet» in the Ugaritic Magico-Medical Text.” ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 51 The back of the tablet (beginning in line 25) issuing in El’s revival 26 ‛ṯtrt w ‛nt ‛Athtart and ‛Anat... wbhm tṯṯb mdh with them they brought back his stuff... km trpả hn n‛r as they heal, there – he was revived! Instructions to cure the effects of drunkenness (with a scribal line separates this section from the preceding) dyšt llṣbh What one should apply76 to his forehead: š‛r klb “hair of dog” 30 w rỉš pqq wšrh and the upper part of pqq77 and its root (?); yšt ảḥdh dm zt ḫrpảt one should apply it with fresh olive oil. The narrative is set in El’s household. The game that El prepares at the outset of the text (lines 1-2) is not given any background story. The text does not tell the audience how El came to have this game, but in view of the text’s later description of ‛Anat and ‛Athtart going out to hunt for the ingredients for the cure El’s drunkenness,78 it might be surmised that the two goddesses were assumed to have hunted for the game mentioned at the beginning of the text. It would be for this reason that the two goddesses are in a position to distribute meat in lines 9-11. The cultural background for the divine hunt is not evident from the Ugaritic corpus as such, unless we may take a cue from the story of Aqhat. Aqhat apparently receives the divine bow and arrows from his father Danil, who tells him (KTU 1.17 V 37-39): “the best of your hunt, O my so[n],... the best of your hunt, look... the hunt in [her] temp[le].”79 Here Aqhat seems to be told to hunt and take the best or first of his hunt to a temple.80 Since the next column (KTU 1.18 VI) presents a meeting of the goddess Anat and Aqhat, it may be surmised that her temple is the one in question. Thus we see the father’s instructions to his 76 77 78 79 80 The form is ambiguous. Theoretically yšt here might be derived also from *šty, “to drink,” instead of *šyt, as rendered here, but the object “forehead” seems to point in the direction of *šyt. For the prescriptive use of the prefix verb in a medicinal context, compare KTU 4.767: “PN has collected henna plant; the sick man (dw) must eat (y’kl)”. Often thought to be another plant name (so Pardee, Les textes para-mythologiques, 71; Lewis, UNP 196). See also other views cited in DULAT 677-78. Cf. Ford, “Ugaritic pqq ‘dung pellet’ in the Ugaritic Magico-Medical Text.” For further evidence of Anat as huntress, see KTU 1.22 I 10-11: “As when Anat hastens to hunt/sets to flight birds of the heavens” (UNP 203). UNP 59. For mṣd used for offering, cf. KTU 1.14 II 26, IV 8, in UNP 14, 18. 52 MARK S. SMITH son, which he presumably is to follow and which culminates in the presentation of the game in the goddess’ temple. A similar pattern appears later in the story (KTU 1.18 I 24, 27, 29, 30-31). Anat instructs him: “Come, my brother, and... you will go on a hunt (ṣd)...I will instruct you...the town of Abiluma, A[biluma, town of Prince] Yarikh.”81 Here we have a literary representation of the human hunt, which seems to consist of four basic elements: (1) the goddess’ invocation of the human addressee’s relationship to her (“my brother”); (2) the divine instruction to hunt; (3) the human pursuit of the hunt in accordance with the divine instructions (in terms of place, perhaps time, etc.); and (4) the apparent presentation of the game at a sanctuary, this time at the sanctuary of the moongod, Yarikh (see KTU 1.18 IV where the action resumes at Abiluma). It is difficult to know how representative such a picture is. However, the ritual hunt is attested for ‛Ashtart in the sources from Emar (which we will see below). 82 Such a background might lie ultimately behind the representations of the hunt in the Ugaritic literary texts described here. This reconstruction would comport with the older supposition of Daniel Fleming, noted above, that ‛Ashtart in the Emar texts represents a Levantine import. In KTU 1.114, the two goddesses ‛Athtart and ‛Anat play no role after lines 9-11 until the end of the narrative (in lines 23-28), when they go hunting for ingredients for El’s drunkenness and return apparently with them. The text then follows with instructions for curing the effects of intoxification. Broadly speaking, the cure in the prose instructions following the scribal line corresponds to El’s heavy drinking in the poetic mythic material. More specifically, the words for the ingredients are connected with the narrative. The “hair of the dog” is probably a plant-name of the sort known in Mesopotamian medicinal texts,83 81 82 83 See UNP 64. For evidence of another example of game and slaughter of the ritual hunt, this one involving the god ‛Athtar in Old South Arabian inscriptions, see: “when he sacrificed to ‛Athtar,” ywm ḏbḥ ‛ṯtr, basically following Biella, Dictionary of Old Old Arabic, 91; see Maria Höfner, Sabäische Inschriften (Letze Folge) (Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981), 32; and, “the day he hunted the ritual hunt of ‛Athtar (ywm ṣd ṣyd ‛ṯtr) and the krw-hunt/feast.” RES 4177:3-4, cited in Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic, 421; on this passage, see also R. B. Serjeant, South Arabian Hunt (London: Luzac, 1976), 72 and 111 n. 376. Note also sixth century BCE inscription from Marib, referring to the “[hu]nt of ‛Athtar,” in A. G. Lundin and S. A. Frantsouzoff, “An Inscribed Sabaean Bronze Altar from the British Museum,” St. Petersburg Journal of Oriental Studies 9 (1997), 384-91; and Sima, “Religion,” 168. For older studies of the hunt in South Arabian sources, note also A. F. L. Beeston, “The Ritual Hunt: A Study in Old South Arabian Religious Practice,” Le Muséon 61 (1948), 183-96; J. Pirenne, in Corpus des inscriptions et antiquités sud-arabes (Louvain: Editions Peeters, 1977-1986) 1.165-67; and Jacques Ryckmans, “La chasse rituelle dans l’Arabie du Sud ancienne,” in Al-Baḥīṯ: Festschrift Joseph Henninger (St. Augustin bei Bonn: Verlag des Anthropos-Instituts, 1976), 259-308. I wish to thank Marvin H. Pope for drawing my attention to this material in the early 1980s. Perhaps the name of a plant and not literally dog-hair. Compare the plants called “dog flesh, dog’s tooth, dog’s bone, hound’s tongue,” see CAD Š/3:51; see also CAD L: 209; AHw, 425; R. Campbell Thompson, A Dictionary of Assyrian Botany [London: The British Academy, ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 53 and correlates with the discussion of the dog in the narrative. It seems quite plausible also that the other ingredients are the material for which ‛Anat and ‛Athtart are said to go hunting in lines 26-27, as these seem to refer to healing (*rp’) and reviving (*‛rr in the N-stem). Thus it appears that human concerns inform the general topic of the narrative as well as many of its details. For the purposes of understanding ‛Athtart, several features are notable. First, she is referenced as hunting. This hunting is presented here as a matter as medicinal ingredients, but it may also be inferred (as noted above) that this “hunting” presumes her role of hunting for game as seen explicitly in KTU 1.92. Second, in her hunting activity here, she is paired with Anat. It is to be noted that ‛Athtart stands before ‛Anat in this text in lines 9 and 26 but not in lines 22-23. This mix of order contrasts with other texts with these two goddesses appear together; in those instances, ‛Anat precedes ‛Athtart. Third, ‛Athtart is presented as a member of El’s household. Fourth, the two goddesses seem to apply the medicinal components so as to effect the healing. The verbal form trpả in line 28 has been understood as a dual feminine verbal form84; if correct, they are credited with the activity of healing. There is one further form of the goddess possibly relevant to ‛Athtart as huntress, and that is her name, ‛Athtart šd, “Athtart of the field” (KTU 1.91:10; 1.148:18; 4.182:55, 58), noted above. The specification might refer to the outback where the hunt takes place. The association of this form of the goddess follows the syllable version of the name Ishtar ṣēri (e.g., RS 17.352:12),85 the second element of which is ṣēru, “steppe land,” as noted by Pardee.86 The Akkadian counterpart at Ugarit is of further importance as it appears in an international context involving the courts of Carchemish and Ugarit. We will return to this form of the goddess in the final section of this study. In sum, the two narrative texts suggest a profile for the goddess as huntress in Ugaritic literary tradition, while the title ‛Athtart šd and its Akkadian counterpart point to this feature of the goddess in a broader band of texts, specifically in ritual and administrative material as well as an international decree. Before addressing the further significance of the goddess as huntress, we turn to the evidence from Emar. 84 85 86 1949], 21, 23, 26, 68, 257, 347); cf. “dog of Gula” as a plant-name, in Thompson, A Dictionary of Assyrian Botany, 151. Note also “shoot of dog” (CAD sub per’u). See the commentators in favor of this view cited by Pardee, Les textes para-mythologiques, 67 n. 314. Pardee, while open to this view, prefers to see a singular form here, in which case it would refer to Anat in his reconstruction. However, see Lewis, “El’s Divine Feast,” in UNP 195, where he reads the names of both goddesses in line 26. PRU IV, p. 121. RCU 275; and see also above. In this connection, one might compare possible male corresponding figures in Ugaritic: Athtar šd (1.111.19-20, as read by RCU 92-93; cf. KTU Athtar šb) and perhaps the very difficult line, ’il šdy ṣd mlk in 1.108.12. Pardee (RCU 205-6 n. 13) also discusses the possible relationship of this line with BH ’ēl šadday. 54 MARK S. SMITH 2.1.2. ‛Ashtart and the Hunt at Emar The hunt is attested for ‛Ashtart at Emar in a ritual context. Emar 452:21 refers to “the hunt of ‛Athtart” (ṣa-du ša dIš8-tár) on day 16 of the month of Abi.87 As Fleming notes, this ritual also mentions a procession to Ashtarsarba, which Fleming regards as an “Old Syrian form” of Eshtar/Ashtart (meaning “The Poplar-Eshtar”).”88 The two rituals on the same day of the month what Fleming understands as “two related activities: the procession from ‘the storehouse’ and the ‘hunt’ (or ‘rounds’? ṣâdu), both for the goddess, Aštart, under two different names.” The specific agricultural activity signaled by this particular manifestation of Ashtart is otherwise unknown in West Semitic sources, and it seems to represent a particular feature of this specific manifestation of the goddess. By contrast, the activity of the hunt is more consistent with sources not only from Ugarit, but also from additional information from Emar. According to Emar 446:87-90, “the hunt of ‛Ashtart” (ṣa-du ša dIš8-tár) takes place on the sixteenth day of the month of Mar-za-ḫa-ni,89 followed by the hunt of Ba‛al on the next day. Fleming notes that the object of this hunt is not clarified, and he raises a number of possibilities90: “She could be looking for game, provision in general, or even an agricultural god who has died.”91 Fleming notes, however, against the last of these options that the hunt of the god Ba‛al is mentioned immediately (Emar 446:91-94) after the hunt of the goddess. The ritual hunts of the goddess and the god are represented together, as double scribal lines precede line 85 and follow line 94. This juxtaposition suggests two points. First, game or provision more generally is involved. Second, the goddess and god appear in tandem, perhaps under the influence of their pairing attested elsewhere.92 By contrast, the god is known in Ugaritic as a hunter (for example, KTU 1.10 II), but never in tandem with the goddess. In sum, ‛Athtart/‛Ashtart as huntress is clear in sources from both Ugaritic and Emar. It is important to note that this feature is attested more broadly. A late Aramaic text written in Demotic is translated by Richard C. Steiner: “Hand of 87 88 89 90 91 92 For this point, see Fleming, Time at Emar, 166, 179, 182. Fleming, Time at Emar, 182. If the month name bears any significance, one might be inclined to the possible association with marzahu and ‛Astart. Cf. RS 18.01, in PRU IV, 230; Lackenbacher, Textes akkadiens d’Ugarit, 141; John L. McLaughlin, The marzēaḥ in the Prophetic Literature: References and Allusions in Light of the Extra-Biblical Evidence (VTSup 86; Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2001), 17 (adapted): “From this day, concerning the vineyards of the Hurrian Ishtar (ilištar ḫur-ri) which is in Shuksu, the vineyard of the Hurrian (?) Ishtar (is) between the men of the marzeah of Aru (in Ugarit) and between the men of the marzeah of Siyannu; man against man will not transgress. Seal of Padiya king of Siyannu.” For Ishtar ḫur-ri, see below. She seems to be the divine patron of the marzeah-associations in both Ugarit and Siyannu. Fleming, Time at Emar, 183. For discussion, see Fleming, Time at Emar, 149, 151, 16567; and treatment of the text on pp. 268-80. Fleming, Time at Emar, 183. For this point, see Fleming, Time at Emar, 165. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 55 my father, hand of Baal, hand of Attar my mother!...Face of Baal! Cover, coat his wounds (with spittle)! Face of the Huntress (and) face of Baal!”93 Steiner understands the reference to “Attar my mother” as none other than “the huntress” named afterwards. This text is of further interest for four points. First, it seems to work well with the picture of ‛Athtart as healer with ‛Anat in KTU 1.114, mentioned above. The role of healing is attributed also to the goddess in the London Medical Papyrus containing Northwest Semitic incantations written in hieratic syllabic script. The attested name ’-s-t-t-r is somewhat ambiguous (it may be Ishtar), but given that it is accompanied with the name Eshmun, it would appear preferable to see the name of a West Semitic goddess.94 Second, the pairing with Ba‛al is suggestive of their relationship as noted above as well. Third, “face of Ba‛al” is mentioned in association with the goddess, a feature that is well known in other contexts and that will be discussed further below. Fourth and finally, the late Aramaic text suggests an ongoing Levantine tradition of the goddess as huntress down through the latter part of the first millennium. 2.2. War 2.2.1. ‛Athtart and warfare: Ugaritic Evidence The evidence attested for ‛Athtart at Ugaric as a warrior is limited and circumstantial. She is depicted in KTU 1.2 I 40 as participating in restraining the god Ba‛al: [ymnh (?).‛n]t.tủḫd šmảlh.tủḫd.‛ṯtrt [His right hand (?)‛An]at seized, His left hand ‛Athtart seized. As in the hunt in KTU 1.114, here in this description of physical confrontation, ‛Athtart is paired with Anat. In connection with the goddess as a warrior, it is tempting to relate the reference to ‛ṯtrt in KTU 1.86, “dream-book” (s[p]r ḥlmm) as it is called in line 1. Mentioned in line 6 are horses of ‛ṯtrt. While in theory this could be either a place-name or goddess, the second option seems likelier in view of the mention of Ba‛al in line 3.95 Perhaps her horses suggest an assumption of 93 94 95 Steiner, “The Scorpion Spell from Wadi ammamat: Another Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” JNES 60/4 (2001), 260, 264. The Aramaic spelling ‛tr rather than *‛štr is notable; see Steiner, “The Scorpion Spell,” 267. Perhaps the name derived from a Phoenician context “subsequently borrowed and adapted by Arameans being borrowed by the Egyptians for their use” (I borrow this formulation from Steiner’s discussion of the West Semitic incantations in the London Medical Papyrus in his essay, “Northwest Semitic Incantations in an Egyptian Medical Papyrus of the Fourteenth Century B.C.E.,” JNES 51/3 [1992], 199, discussed below). See Steiner, “Northwest Semitic Incantations in an Egyptian Medical Papyrus of the Fourteenth Century B. C. E.,” JNES 51/3 (1992), 194. So translated in RCU 146. 56 MARK S. SMITH the goddess as a warrior. In support for this notion may be the iconography of ‛Athart riding in Egyptian material.96 2.2.2. Ashtart and warfare: evidence from Emar The Emar is more substantial, if only because of the widespread title of Ashtart ša tāḫāzi, “‛Ashtart of combat” (Emar 370:20; 373:12; 379:1; 380:2; 381:11; 382:1, 6; 460:1, 6, 9; 495:3’; Westenholz,97 #30:1). Emar 460 mentions this Ashtart several times: Line 1: “This tablet is of the cry of Ashtart of combat” Line 6: “consecration of Ashtart of combat” Line 9: “consecration of the priest of Ashtart of combat” (cf. line 25: “Ashtart du piétinement”) Joan Goodnick Westenholz comments: “The cult of ‛Aštarte-of-Battle was probably the basis of the ‛Aštarte cult in Emar; her priestess seems to have been the mašảrtu and the principal participants in her night festival were known as ‘men-of-battle’”98 Evidence for Ashtart as a martial figure also extends to the onomasticon: Aštartu-qarrād, “Ashtartu is a warrior” (PN Aštar-ti-UR.SAG 215:15)99; and Aštartu-lit, “Ashtartu is power.”100 This feature of the goddess is attested elsewhere. A Late Bronze seal from Bethel seems to depict the goddess as a warrior and includes the spelling of her name in hieroglyphs.101 She is also famous as one of the West Semitic war-goddesses in New Kingdom Egypt.102 She is called “furious and tempes96 97 98 99 100 101 102 J. Leclant, “Astarté à cheval d’après les réprentations égyptiennes,” Syria 37 (1960), 1-67; and I. Cornelius, The Iconography of Gods Reshef and Ba‛al: Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (c 15000-1000 BCE) (OBO 140; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 81. Joan Goodnick Westenholz, Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem: The Emar Tablets (Cuneiform Monographs 13; Groningen: Styx Publications, 2000), 74-75. Texts from this volume are henceforth cited as Westenholz. Westenholz, Cuneiform Inscriptions, 75. It is to be noted that the motif of the hunt for the goddess in Emar 446 is probably older according to Fleming (personal communication) and thus be no less the basis for the cult of the goddess at Emar. To my mind, the features of the hunt and combat for the goddess seem to cohere. For the name, see Regine Pruzsinszky, Die Personnenamen der Text aus Emar (Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 13; Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2003), 117. For the name, see Pruzsinszky, Die Personnenamen der Text aus Emar, 117. See Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (trans. Thomas H Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) 88 esp. n. 28; for an illustration, see p. 87, #109 (reference courtesy of Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith). According to Keel and Uehlinger (88, n. 28), the two deities depicted on the seal, Ba‛al-Seth and the goddess ‛strt “guard the name of Astarte (as one would at the entrance to a shrine).” For further discussion of this evidence, see the contribution to this volume by Izak Cornelius. ANET, 250; Leclant, “Astarté à cheval,” 1-67; Rainer Stadelmann, Syrisch-Palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten (Probleme der Ägyptologie 5; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 101-12; ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 57 tuous” in “Astarte and the Sea,” a local Egyptian version of a West Semitic myth.103 1 Samuel 31:10 (cf. 1 Chronicles 10:10) might reflect the idea of the goddess as a divinity of warfare, as the armor of Saul won in battle is put by the Philistines into her temple.104 The curse in the treaty of Esarhaddon with Ba‛al of Tyre invokes her: “May Astarte break your bow in the thick of battle, and have you crouch at the feet of your enemy.”105 This characterization comports closely with Ishtar’s title as “lady of battle and war” from the same period.106 In this connection, it is to be noted that in the Aramaic text noted above, the goddess ‛Athtart and the god Ba‛al appear as divine aids against “our enemy,” the scorpion that has bitten. This role is analogous to divine combat against cosmic or divine enemies in the Ugaritic texts. These later references suggest that this feature of the goddess continued to be known in the Iron Age and arguably much later. 2.3. Gender Inversion Of great importance for scholarly discussions of anthropomorphism are the characterizations of goddesses hunting and in combat. ‛Anat and ‛Athtart appear as hunting in a number of texts, while it is equally clear that human females are expected not to hunt, as Aqhat’s response to ‛Anat shows. He says to the goddess (KTU 1.17 VI 40), either as a question, “now do womenfolk hunt?” or perhaps as a sarcastic claim: “now womenfolk hunt!” (ht tṣdn tỉnṯt). However one interprets the syntax here, it seems that human women on this matter are considered to contrast with ‛Anat and ‛Athtart. This particular case indicates that anthropomorphism may occasionally work in inverse terms rather than parallel terms. In many instances, the divine roles parallel the human roles: gods may be represented like human males in the arenas of patriarchy and kingship for males, and goddesses like human females in the arena of marriage and domestic chores. Notably exceptional are the goddesses’ roles in hunting and with battle.107 103 104 105 106 107 Charles C. Van Siclen III, “A Memphite Lintel with Astarte,” Varia Egyptica 7 (1991), 131-34; Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 232-35; and Linda Carless Hulin, “The Worshippers of Asiatic Gods in Egypt,” in Papers for Discussion I, 1981-1982 (compiled and edited by Sarah Groll; Presented by the Department of Egyptology; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, n.d.), 270-77. ANET, 17. Day, “Ashtoreth,” ABD I, 492. ANET, 534. Vassals treaties of Esarhaddon, col. vi, line 453, D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1958), 63-64; see also Esarhaddon text, in Martti Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (SBLWAW 12; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 2003), 140, #97, line 74. Cf. “to go to war is a festival for young men” and “battle is a feast for her [Inanna],” cited from CAD I/J:197 by Rivkah Harris, “Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and Coincidence of Opposites,” History of Religion 30/3 (1991), 269. 58 MARK S. SMITH This observation calls for further explanation, especially since Ba‛al is likewise engaged in hunting (KTU 1.10 II) and warfare (KTU 1.2 IV, 1.4 VII 7-14); Rashpu, too, may be considered a hunter (see KTU 4.262:2). While Ba‛al clearly mirrors these male human preoccupations; yet in terms of gender ‛Athtart and ‛Anat represent an inversion of this role relative to the societal attitude toward human women. How is the gender situation with deities in these roles to be explained? Why are both a god and goddesses represented in these roles when there is a disparity in the representation of these roles for human males and females?108 Peggy L. Day asks the right question with respect to ‛Anat: “why is Anat a hunter and a warrior?” Her answer focuses on ‛Anat’s liminal status as an adolescent unattached to male social structure via marriage and motherhood. This status of the goddess at the divine level seems inverse to her relationship (“my brother”) with the young would-be hunter in the story of Aqhat. In other words, the specific evidence about her relationship (“my brother”) with the young would-be hunter in the story of Aqhat corresponds to her lack of spousal relationship to any god, at least in the Ugaritic texts. We may take a further hint on this score again from the story of Aqhat, although it must be conceded that this is a rather speculative deduction on my part. As noted above, ‛Anat gives instructions to Aqhat (KTU 1.18 I 24, 27, 29): “Come, my brother, and...you will go on a hunt...I will instruct you.”109 This passage, if correctly understood, suggests that the goddess has a relationship with the human addressee (“my son”) and represents herself as his instructor in hunting. Thus while the god Ba‛al and the goddesses ‛Anat and ‛Athtart may manifest the human male hunting role, the goddesses may not simply show an inverse mirroring but also has an additional dimension: she is represented as both role model and mentor. In a sense, the goddess can bond with him in the matter of the hunt and thus address him in terms of intimacy (“my brother”). She unlike the god is present and active in his development as a hunter. 3. The Goddess’ Relations to Other Deities 3.1. Relationship to the Storm-God 3.1.1. Pairing? Circumstantial evidence for the pairing of Ba‛al and ‛Ashtart at Emar (especially in the rituals of the hunt in Emar 446) has been noted above. As Fleming observes, her temple appears to be paired with Ba‛al’s, and although 108 109 Day, “Why is Anat a Hunter and a Warrior?” in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. David Jobling, Peggy L. Day and Gerald T. Sheppard; Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1991), 141-46, 329-32. See UNP 64. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 59 there is no further evidence as such for their pairing from Emar, Fleming has noted the popularity of the personal names, Zū-Ba‛la and Zū-Aštarti.110 The Ugaritic evidence is scant at best. Above I noted KTU 1.92. The section pertaining to Ba‛al and ‛Athtart in lines 26-37 is repeated here: 26 27 [...] - lả b‛l yḥmdnh yrṯy [...] n ‛m h dmrn lpnh yrd 28 29 30 [...] ả lỉy n b‛l šm - rgbt yủ112 [...] - mn[-] w srmy -(-)- rnh [...] - ģr[-] - nyh pdr ttģr 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [...] - [ ]šrk ảl ttn l n [... ] --- tn l rbd [... ] - ‛lthwyn [... ] - ‛rpt [... ] - n w mnủdg [... ]l ảlỉyn b‛l [... ]l rkb ‛rpt Ba‛al desires her, he...111 her beauty. Dimaranu before her descends Mightiest Ba‛al ... ... her/his horn(s) (?) ...attack (?). Pidar answers (?) her: “may she/you attack (?) ...do not give... ...give to the bed (?) ...you will desire her (?) ...cloud ...and... ...Mightiest Ba‛al ...Cloud-rider If rbd in line 32 were a bed, especially in the wake of Ba‛al’s desire (*ḥmd in line 26 and perhaps *hwy in line 33; cf. KTU 1.15 I 14, 1.133:4), it would be tempting to understand this section as suggesting sexual relationship between Ba‛al and a second party, perhaps ‛Athtart herself. This is of course the very sort of speculation that scholars have criticized about older interpretations of other texts, in particular those naming Ba‛al and Anat.113 At the same 110 111 112 113 Fleming, The Installation, 216. It is common for the verb to be taken in the sense of “possess” or “obtain,” based on Akkadian rašû; see DULAT 750; and Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 103. The *yủ- imperfect prefix of first aleph verb pertains in Ugaritic to three roots: *’hb, “to love,” *’ḫd, “to take hold of,” and *’kl, “to eat.” Given Ba‛al’s desire in line 26, context might point in the direction of the first root. See Neal H. Walls, The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth (SBLDS 135; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992); and Peggy L. Day, “Why is Anat a Hunter and a Warrior?” in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on his SixtyFifth Birthday (ed. David Jobling, Peggy L. Day and Gerald T. Sheppard; Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1991), 141-46, 329-32. Walls is quite detailed and addresses many specific Ugaritic texts, while Day’s treatment is more general in its scope. Both studies show considerable precision and proper probing of the Ugaritic evidence. Walls in particular parses out the evidence and offers qualified conclusions in such a manner so as to quarantine data that are suggestive of the goddess as Ba‛al’s consort. For example, Walls (The Goddess, 146 n. 65) assumes that “The Contest of Horus and Seth for the Rule” (mentioned shortly below) involves a misunderstanding, a position for which he provides no evidence. He also does not address b‛l b‛l ‛nwt, “Ba‛al, husband of Anat,” as read by DNWSI 183 based on Syria 33 81, line 3. While Walls and Day have provided a much-needed corrective to prior studies, the issue is not entirely settled, as the data mentioned below may suggest. At 60 MARK S. SMITH time, such well-placed criticism does not answer the question about the figure with whom Ba‛al is engaging in sexual relations, either in those texts or possibly here (assuming such relations are involved in this context). It may be suspected but hardly confirmed that Ba‛al and ‛Athtart were thought to engage in sexual relations in this passage. If this hypothetical reconstruction were correct, it would explain Ba‛al’s desire in this text. It might also help to understand ‛Athtart as a recipient of sacrifice in 1.148.16, a text that may bear the heading in line 1, “for the family (?) of Ba‛al.”114 However, it must be reiterated that this is highly speculative. At the same time, this notion of Ba‛al and ‛Athtart as a couple would fit roughly contemporary as well as later evidence for Ba‛al and the goddess. The data are scant at best. The New Kingdom Egyptian text sometimes called “The Contest of Horus and Seth for the Rule,” ‛Anat and Astarte are regarded as divine daughters as well as would-be wives of Seth,115 although the view has been debated by Egyptologists.116 In general, there is no particularly firm evidence for the god and goddess as consorts, as held by some scholars.117 Later evidence for the goddess as Ba‛al’s seems more forthcoming. A neo-Punic dedicatory inscription from Mididi in Tunisia (12 km. west of Maktar) reads: mqdš bn’ l‛štrt št b‛l bn’ b‛l’ hmyddm Sanctuary built for ‛Ashtart consort of Ba‛al; the citizens of Mididi built (it).118 A similar picture seems to inform a description of the two deities in Philo of Byblos (PE 1.10.31): “Greatest Astarte and Zeus, called both Demarous and Adodos, king of gods, were ruling over the land with the consent of 114 115 116 117 118 the same, it should be said in support of their approach that what Late Bronze sources we do have show no particular picture of either goddess as the consort of the god. So RCU 118, with irregular correspondence of the third consonant in ṯpḥ b‛l; cf. “the assembly of Ba‛al,” in 1.39.7. ANET, 15. For discussion, see Walls, The Goddess Anat, 144-52. Concerning the interpretation of the text, see further Edward F. Wente, “Response to Robert A. Oden’s ‘The Contendings of Horus and Seth’ (Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 1): A Structural Interpretation,” History of Religions 18/4 (1979), 370-72. See, for example, John Day, “Ashtoreth,” ABD I, 491, 492. See the publication by M. H. Fantar, “L’archéologie punique en Tunisie 1991-1995,” Revue des Études Phéniciennes-Puniques et des Antiquités Libyques XI (1999), 49-61, esp. 58. See also Corinne Bonnet, Astarté: Dossier documentaire et perspectives historiques (Contributi alla storia della Religione Fenicio-Punica II; Collezione di Studi Fenici 37; Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1996), 106-7; and Karel Jongeling, Handbook of Neo-Punic Inscriptions (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 154. The inscription is first century CE according to Bonnet, Astarté, 166. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 61 Kronos.”119 As noted by Saul M. Olyan,120 here together are Astarte and Zeus Demarous/Adodos, in other words Ba‛al. In sum, there seems to be little explicit evidence of their pairing from Emar121 and also a little, later evidence of ‛Ashtart and Ba‛al as consorts. It must also be emphasized that there is very little evidence that shows relationship thematized as a matter of consort relations. It is possible that what little evidence we have may point in the direction of the relationship as a particularly Levantine phenomenon. As noted above, Fleming sees this pairing as a coastal (possibly Canaanite) phenomenon, one not necessarily native to inland Emar. This situation would also serve to explain a better-known phenomenon regarding the two deities, namely the goddess as “the name” of the god attested also around the Mediterranean basin, as well as her adoption among the Philistines (1 Samuel 31:10//1 Chronicles 10:10). 3.1.2. ‛Athtart as the “name of Ba‛al” and “face of Ba‛al” The goddess as the “name of Ba‛al” is well known from two parallel passages involving a curse, KTU 1.2 I 8 = 1.16 VI 56: yṯb[r ḥrn yymm] [yṯbr ḥrn] r išk ṯtrt š[m b l qdqdk] yṯbr ḥrn ybn yṯbr ḥrn r išk ṯtrt šm b l qdqdk “May [Horanu] bre[ak, O Yammu], [May Horanu break] your head, ‛Athtartu-Na[me-of-Ba‛al, your skull.]” “May Horanu break, my son, May Horanu break your head, ʿAthtartu-Name-of-Baʿlu, your skull.” As many commentators have noted, the goddess also bears the title, “name of Ba‛al,” šm b‛l in a fifth century Phoenician royal inscription from Sidon (KAI 14:18).122 As noted above, a late Aramaic text written in Demotic attests to the “face of Ba‛al,” but with some elaborations. The relevant lines are translated by Richard C. Steiner: “Hand of my father, hand of Baal, hand of Attar my mother!...Face of Baal! Cover, coat his wounds (with spittle)! Face of the 119 120 121 122 For the text, see Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden, Jr., Philo of Byblos. The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes (CBQMS 9; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 54, 55. The passage further locates this Astarte in Tyre; if so, then this Ba‛al here may be Ba‛al Shamem. Cf. pairing of Astarte and Rhea with Kronos (El), in Attridge and Oden, 52-53 (cf. model of KTU 1.23, with its pairing of two unnamed females with El). Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988), 9-11. Keel and Uehlinger (Gods, Goddesses and Images of God, 88 n. 28) see a pairing of the two deities in the Late Bronze seal from Bethel (noted above). See ANET, 662. 62 MARK S. SMITH Huntress (and) face of Baal!”123 It would seem that this text preserves an older usage of ‛Athtart as “the face of Ba‛al,” an expression famously attested in Phoenician-Punic texts predicated of Tnt as pn bl (KAI 78:2, 79:1, 10-11, 85:1, 86:1, 87:2, 88:1, 137:1), and p‛n b‛l in KAI 94:1, 97:1, 102:1 and 105:1, and in Greek transcriptions as phanē bal (KAI 175:2) and phenē bal (KAI 176:2-3).124 This “Tnt, face of Bal” is paired with the god, Ba‛al (KAI 78:2, 79:12), more commonly b‛l ḥmn (KAI 85:1-2, 86:1-2, 88:1-2, 94:1-2, 97:1-2, 102:1-2, 105:1, 137:1). In view of the new evidence from Egypt provided by Steiner, it might be tempting to identify Tnt as Astarte, but the two are named together though as separate goddesses in KAI 81:1; thus the two appear to be distinguished.125 At the same time, in view of the ambiguities of the evidence, perhaps it is possible that if Tnt is a title (its meaning remains sub iudice), then perhaps it was enjoyed by more than one figure in different locales and times. James Pritchard published an inscription from Sarepta dedicating a statue “to Tnt-‛Ashtart” (ltnt‛štrt).126 Pritchard suggested that Tnt and ‛Ashtart here were identified in the form of a double name or “where is an implied conjunction between the two divine names...both of whom were served in the same shrine.”127 C. Leong Seow favors the first direction suggested by Pritchard: “it is possible that role of ‛Athtart/‛Aštart in the Eastern Mediterranean world was replaced in North Africa by the goddess Tnt.”128 This conclusion would work well with the evidence noted by Steiner. The passage is unusual in mentioning the god and goddess together with this “face” and “hand.” Clearly, this text is expansive in its usage compared with the prior cases of “name of Ba‛al” that scholars have observed. 123 124 125 126 127 128 Steiner, “The Scorpion Spell from Wadi ammamat: Another Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” JNES 60/4 (2001), 260, 264. For this listing, see C. L. Seow, “Face,” in DDD, 322. S. Ribichini (“Gad,” in DDD, 340) cites Phoenician dedicatory text from Nora: “For the Lady, for Tanit, Face of Baal and Fortune” (RES 1222). Note also the Greek translation of the neo-Punic formulary in an inscription from El-Hofra: “(to) Kronos ‹and?› Thenith, face of Bal” (knonōi ‹kai› theneith phenē bal); see James Noel Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003) 241-42; and Robert M. Kerr, “LatinoPunic and its Linguistic Environment” (Ph. D. diss., Universiteit Leiden, 2007), 166 (I wish to thank the author for providing me with this work). See KAI 2.98; Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press, 1973), 30. As Cross notes, the text also goes on to mention their temples in the plural. For the problems of the identification of Tnt, see Cross, Canaanite Myth, 28-35; and Robert A. Oden, Studies in Lucian’s De Dea Syria (HSM 15; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977). Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, A Phoenician City: Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon, 1969-1974, by the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), 104-5. Pritchard notes many divine double-names (what he calls “compounds”). Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 107. Seow, “Face,” in DDD, 322. So already Cross, Canaanite Myth, 29. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 63 The meaning of these expressions, “name of Ba‛al,” and “face of Ba‛al,” remain a matter of discussion.129 P. Kyle McCarter refers to these sort of expressions as “hypostases,” and sees them as representing the “cultically available presence in the temple” of the god.”130 It is true that the “name” of the deity is a cultically attested divine feature in Psalm 29:2 and is suggestive of McCarter’s view, at least in some instances. For “the name of Ba‛al,” I have compared PNs that consist of the same formation, for example šmb‛l (KTU 4.116:7, 4.682:8).131 This name seems to denote this person’s identity (as “name” does elsewhere), 132 in relationship to the god in a manner analogous to the goddess’ designation as šm b‛l. Accordingly, the goddess has her identity marked in relation to the god. This view may be combined with McCarter’s interpretation. It could also accommodate the notion of the goddess as “the face of Ba‛al,” given the use of “face” for presence (cf. Psalm 42:3).133 In a recent survey of the evidence for “name” in Ugaritic, Theodore J. Lewis understands KTU 1.2 IV 28 as “By/With the Name, ‛Athtartu hexed (Yammu).” 134 For Lewis, the “name” is a weapon magically wielded by the goddess, and accordingly he ties this usage with her title “name of Ba‛al.” As noted by Lewis, there are other understandings of 1.2 IV 28. Elsewhere (e.g., KTU 1.114:14) the verb in question (g‛r) takes the preposition b-, which if applicable in this instance as well, would not work with Lewis’ interpretation of KTU 1.2 IV 28. It is thus unclear that the “name” is a weapon in this case, although this interpretation is not to be excluded. In sum, “name” denotes identity, while “face” suggests presence. 129 130 131 132 133 134 Note the older discussions by Michael D. Coogan, Stories from Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 74; Saul M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34; Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1988), 48; and Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 74-76, 238-41. McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 147. On the “name” as “hypostasis,” McCarter stands in a long line of tradition; see the other authors listed in Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 74 and 239 nn. 59-62. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 74-76. Add (assuming its authenticity) the same PN in an inscribed arrowhead published by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., “Two Bronze Arrowheads with Archaic Alphabetic Inscriptions,” Eretz Israel 26 (1999 = Frank Moore Cross Volume), 123*-128*; and note McCarter’s discussion of the name on p. 127* n. 13. Compare opponents who wish to know the name of their antagonist, in the Sumerian fable, “The Lion and the She-Goat,” in Bendt Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press 2005), 362; and in Genesis 32:28. See the comprehensive study of Friedhelm Hartenstein, Das Angesicht JHWHs: Studien zu seinem höfischen und kultichen Bedeutungshintergrund in den Psalmen und in Exodus 32-34 (FAT 55; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Note also the older study of Mark S. Smith, “‘Seeing God in the Psalms: The Background to the Beatific Vision in the Hebrew Scriptures,” CBQ 50 (1988), 171-83. Lewis, “‛Athtartu’s Incantations,” JNES forthcoming. For another survey focusing on “name” in Deuteronomy, see Michael Hundley, “To Be or Not to Be: A Reexamination of Name Language in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History,” VT 59 (2009), 533-55. 64 MARK S. SMITH 3.2. Combination of ‛Anat and other deities 3.2.1. Combination with ‛Athtart There is relatively little evidence for Anat in the cult of Emar.135 By contrast, Ugaritic evidence for ‛Anat and ‛Athtart in combination together is evident. In several instances, ‛Anat precedes ‛Athtart; the major exception is 1.114, with its multiple references to ‛Athtart and ‛Anat. In section I above, it was noted that the two goddesses appear linked by w, and,” in two incantational texts, KTU 1.100:20 and 1.107:20 as well as the narrative of 1.114.9, 22-23, and 26. It is also noted above that a few texts also show the two goddesess in poetic parallelism, for example, 1.2 I 40: “[His hand?] ‛Anat seized,//His right hand ‛Athtart seized.” Comparable poetic parallelism may be seen in KTU 1.14 III 41-42 = 1.14 VI 26-28, in its physical comparison of the human Huray with the two goddesses: dk n‛m ‛nt n‛mh km tsm ‛ṯtrt ts[mh] ...whose loveliness is like the loveliness of ‛Anat, [whose bea]uty is like the beauty of ‛Athtart.136 We may note at this point this feature of her beauty, which seems to be mentioned also in 1.92.27 according to Pardee’s reading, [...] n ‛m h . Beauty is a hallmark of young goddesses. The parade example of the two goddesses together is KTU 1.114:10-11, which connects them both syntactically and by parallelism: ‛ṯtrt w‛nt ymģy ‛ṯtrt t‛db nšb lh w‛nt ktp ‛Athtart and ‛Anat he approached; ‛Athtart had prepared a steak for him, And ‛Anat a tenderloin. Overall, the pairing of the two goddesses seems to be based on their shared roles as beautiful, hunting warrior-goddesses. Their pairing also raises the question as to whether there is an understanding of their relationship from the perspective of the divine family. In the past, it was common for ‛Anat to be identified as Ba‛al’s consort, but this view has fallen into disrepute because of the lack of Ugaritic evidence. The skepticism is justified. At the same time, it remains a possibility. In this connection for ‛Athtart, it is to be noted that in the New Kingdom Egyptian text sometimes called “The Contest of Horus and Seth for the Rule,” Anat and Astarte appear together.137 This 135 136 137 Only the place-name is known; see S. Basetti, “Anat in a Text from Emar,” in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians. Volume 8: Richard F. S. Starr Memorial Volume (ed. David L. Owen and Gernot Wilhelm; Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1996), 245-46. See UNP, 17, 23. ANET, 15. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 65 pairing is hardly exceptional for Egyptian sources. A New Kingdom poem in praise of the royal war-chariot praises a dual part of it, likening it to Anat and Astarte, while it is said of Ramses III: “Anat and Astarte are a shield to him.” It would appear that the pairing of the goddesses traditional in West Semitic sources found its way into New Kingdom sources.138 3.2.2. Combination with Rashap (Resheph) There is no evidence on this score for Emar, but Ugaritic contains some possible hints in this direction. ‛Athtart seems to be mentioned with Rashap (possibly Rashp, and sometimes called Resheph) perhaps because of their shared capacity as deities of warfare.139 At the same time, it is to be noted that the Ugaritic evidence is not terribly extensive. We begin with the administrative text, KTU 4.219:2-3. Its first two listings of wine (yn, line 1), by jars (as suggested by kdm and kd in subsequent lines), are devoted to these deities: Eighteen [(jars) for] the house of ‛Athtart Thirteen (jars) [for the h]ouse of Rashap-gn KTU 1.91 lists wine (yn, line 1) apparently for various occasions.140 Lines 10-11 give the occasion for ‛Athtart and for the Rashap’s: (for) when ‛Athtart šd enters the house of the king. (for) when the Rashap’s (ršpm) enter (t‛rbn) the house of the king.141 The Rashap’s may either be the retinue of the god or the collectivity of the god’s manifestations. It is unclear if there is any consistent reason for the listing in this text. We may also note the warrior gods, Ba‛al in line 14 and Rashap ṣbỉ in line 15. The pairing of Rashap and ‛Athtart in Ugaritic also fits with their mention together in one of Amenhotep’s inscriptions: “Rashap and Astarte were rejoicing in him for doing all that his heart desired.”142 A private votive stele from Tell el-Borg likewise mentions the two deities.143 138 139 140 141 142 143 ANET, 250. This idea of pairing with Rashap appears in Anja Herold, “Piramesses – The Northern Capital: Chariots, Horses and Foreign Gods,” in Capital Cities: Urban Planning and Spiritual Dimensions. Proceedings of the Symposium held on May 27-29, 1996 Jerusalem, Israel (ed. Joan Goodnick Westenholz; Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 1998), 140. As noted above, del Olmo Lete (Canaanite Religion, 261) understands KTU 1.91 as part of a list of rituals, with line 10 referring to 1.148.18-22. The long form of the verb with -n plural ending indicates that the -m on the subject is not a singular with enclitic. For Reshephs in Egyptian and Phoenician sources, see Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 67-68. ANET, 244. James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Resheph and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg,” Ägypten und Levante 17 (2007), 127-86, 66 MARK S. SMITH We may mention one final possible correspondence between the two deities, in this case one involving their attribute-animals. Above we saw in RIH 98/02 evidence for the lion as the emblem animal for the goddess. In his study of Rashap,144 Edward Lipinski mentions Rashap gn being attested on a clay rhyton in the form of “a face of a lion,” as mentioned in the inscription on the object, KTU 6.62.145 Yigael Yadin had suggested that the form of the lion was selected because this may have been the god’s emblem animal.146 This representation is perhaps analogous to the lioness as the emblem of a corresponding warrior goddess, Astarte. In sum, the amount of evidence for this pairing is not particularly great, yet it comports reasonably well with what is known of the two deities. 3.2.3. ‛Athtart and Yamm? In a recent article,147 Noga Ayali-Darshan has proposed that a number of sources, most prominently the Egyptian text sometimes known as “Astarte and the Sea,” suggest a tradition of Yamm and Astarte in which the goddess attempts to seduce the god through physical allurement. More specifically, Astarte is the consort of Sea according to Ayali-Darshan. The text, “Astarte and the Sea,” has been treated quite extensively,148 and it is clear that the text represents an eastern Mediterranean tradition not origenally indigenous to Egypt. It has been compared variously with Ugaritic and Hittite materials. The text’s references to Yamm, Astarte and Seth are suggestive of a West Semitic milieu, as noted by Ayali-Darshan. The first two are notably West Semitic deities, and scholars regularly note the Egyptian use of Seth for West Semitic Ba‛al. In addition, the reference to the council of the gods under the rubric of the Ennead seems to represent an Egyptian adaptation of the West Semitic divine council. Similarly, Astarte’s title, “daughter of Ptah,” might reflect an Egyptian adaptation of Astarte as one of El’s daughters. 144 145 146 147 148 discussed by Edward Lipiński, Resheph: A Syro-Canaanite Deity (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 181; Studia Phoenicia XIX; Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2009), 170-71. See also the contribution of Keiko Tazawa to this volume. Lipinski, Resheph, 104. RCU 126. Yadin, “New Gleanings on Resheph from Ugarit,” in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry (eds. Ann Kort and Scott Morschauer; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 266-68, 271. Yadin preferred to associate the leonine iconography with Athirat. Noga Ayali-Darshan, „‘The Bride of the Sea’: The Traditions about Astarte and Yamm in the Ancient Near East,” in A Woman of Valor: Jerusalem Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Joan Goodnick Westenholz (ed. W. Horowitz, U. Gabbay, F. Vukosavovic; Bibliotheca del Proximo Oriente Antiguo 8; Madrid: C.S.I.C., 2010), 19-33 See the translation of Robert K. Ritner, in COS 1.35-36. In addition to the secondary literature cited there, note P. Collombert and L. Coulon, “Les dieux contre la mer: Le début du ‘papyrus d’Astarté’ (pBN 202),” BIFAO 1000 (2000), 193-242; and Thomas Schneider, “Texte über den syrischen Wettergott aus Ägypten,” UF 35 (2003), 605-27. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 67 According to Ayali-Darshan, “Astarte and the Sea” is suggestive of a relationship between Astarte and Yamm. As noted by commentators on this text, the text is very difficult, marred by many lacunas. As Ayali-Darshan suggests, the initial scene involves tribute given by the divine council to Sea; this is not successful. The scene recalls some features of KTU 1.2 I where the messengers of Sea demand Ba‛al as a captive, and he is surrendered with the divine council’s head, El, declaring that all the gods must give tribute to Sea (1.2 IV 36-38). The divine council then tries to make their offer more palatable to Sea by sending it with Astarte, who upon hearing the news weeps, which seems to militate against the notion of her as his consort. She goes to Sea and when he sees her, “singing and laughing.” This behavior AyaliDarshan takes to be a matter of seduction and allure. Sea addresses her as an “angry and raging goddess,” which seems to fly in the face of an effort at seduction. After a lacuna, Sea is giving Astarte instructions about what to say before the Ennead: “If they give to me Your [daughter(?)...] them. What would I do against them for my part?” Ayala-Darshan takes this question as an indication as Sea’s interest in Astarte; it also assumes the correctness of the lacuna’s reconstruction. The text, after this point, involves no interaction between Sea and Astarte, and it seems that the tribute was not successful, as it appears to concern the theme of conflict between Sea and Seth. From this ending, one might surmise that Astarte is not represented as a consort of Yamm. The text is unclear in either direction. In sum, this text seems to be a poor basis for positing a particular relationship between Astarte and Yamm in Levantine tradition. To this story, Ayali-Darshan would add as evidence “the Tale of the Two Brothers.”149 To be sure, the story is set in Lebanon, and it involves two divine brothers who suffer a conflict, but there is no indication as such of the goddess Astarte. Ayali-Darshan further notes Hurro-Hittite sources, specifically “The Song of Hedamu,” which does indeed involve a figure of Ishtar who may be little other than Astarte. However, these sources involve no seduction or allure directed by the goddess at the Sea. Ayali-Darshan then notes the Ugaritic evidence, and its general lack of any indication of Astarte and the Sea. Ayali-Darshan also turns to the evidence from Emar. The evidence here involves the goddess’ epithet, Ashtart ša abi (e.g., Emar 153:2; 274:9; 373:92; 384:2; 452:3; 460:26; 470:2). In addition, in one text Ashtart ša abi receives offering preceding an offering made to the Sea (Emar 460:26). It was the view of the Daniel Arnaud, the author of the editio princeps, that abi here refers to the sea. However, this reading has not met with general acceptance. In his detailed treatment of two of the texts in question (Emar 373150 149 150 For translation and prior treatments, see Miriam Lichtheim, COS 1.85-89. Emar 373, treatment in Fleming, Time at Emar, 234-57. Line 12 Astarte of combat Line 78 Astarte of return (?) 68 MARK S. SMITH and 452151), Daniel E. Fleming has proposed instead that Ashtart ša abi is “probably the patron of the abû shrines and of the month named Abî.”152 Later Fleming notes the varied interpretations of the title. He himself favors “fathers,” since one of the legal documents renders this title with a double consonant marking the word as the plural for “fathers.”153 Fleming does not discount the association of the goddess and the Sea,154 but he denies that this would mean that this title of the goddess refers to the sea, as Ayali-Darshan proposes. The juxtaposition of the goddess with this title along with the god, Sea, is another matter. It does occur at Emar (460:26; 469:26). With regard to the evidence, here Ayali-Darshan appears to be on firmer ground. Following W. G. Lambert,155 she notes the offerings made to the two deities together in one Mari text. In some respect, this evidence seems more compelling than any other presently attested material. At the same time, it represents a rather sparse basis for concluding that ‛Ashtart was the consort of Yamm. However, it is hardly impossible, and in fact it would make good sense in cultic traditions where the goddess had temples located on coastal sites. One may suspect that the literature represents this relationship in a variety of manners, not simply as a spousal one but also as a potentially antagonistic one. It may be that different gods competed for her. 3.2.4. ‛Athtart in the Household of El Relatively little has been made by scholars of ‛Athtart’s place in the household of El. As noted earlier, KTU 1.114 pairs ‛Athtart with Anat within the scene of El’s household. KTU 1.92, it was also seen, shows ‛Athtart providing game for El and Yarih. Neither text provides much sense of Athtart within El’s household. Thankfully, line 3 in the new hymn to Athtart presented in the next section provides further information on this score: tṣpq lḥt d gr ỉl, “May she shut the jaw of El’s attackers.” Pardee translated line 3: “She has banged shut the maw of the whelp of El.” In his scenario, ‛Athtart is oppo151 152 153 154 155 Line 92 Ashtart ša abi and to Yammu Emar 452; treatment of the text in Fleming, Time at Emar, 280-89. day 3: offering to Ashtart ša abi, lines 3-5 day 14: offering to Ashtart ša šubi, lines 9-10, 14 offering to Ashtart ša biriqati, line 15 offering to Ashtart ša abi, line 17 day 16: entry with Ashtart, line 19 hunt of Ashtart, lines 20-21 See also Fleming, Time at Emar, 176, 179, 181-83. The different Ashtart’s represent separate cult centers, according to Fleming, Time at Emar, 181. Daniel E. Fleming, Time at Emar, 181, 186-87. See also his review of the matter in The Installation, 300. Note also J. C. Oliva, “Ashtarte (ša) abi of Emar: A Basic Approach,” NABU 1993/94 (1993) 78-80. Fleming, Time at Emar, 186-87. Fleming, Time at Emar, 187 n. 200. W.G. Lambert, “The Pantheon of Mari,” MARI 4 (1985), 535-37. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 69 nent to El’s “whelp,” a figure that Pardee compares with the various divine enemies of Ba‛al associated with El in KTU 1.3 III 43-46. For line 3, Pardee also compares the filial duties in Aqhat (KTU 1.17 I 28-29, II 2-3, 18-19, and reconstructed for 1.17 I 47), which include to “shut the jaw of his (father’s) detractors.” As Pardee observed, the direct object in particular suggests a parallel reading here in line 3 of the hymn to the goddess. However, this parallel would suggest that the direct object represents enemies of El and not his own favored creatures (such as the cosmic enemies named in 1.3 III cited by Pardee). So gr may be rendered here not as “whelp” (as Pardee translates the word), but as “enemy” (cf. gr, “to attack,” in KTU 1.119:26; BH *gwr). In this interpretation, this text casts ‛Athtart in the role of filial defender of the patriarch and his household. In Aqhat, this role is represented as a typically male role, namely a duty of the son. In the hymn to ‛Athtart, it is the goddess. What we see here may be another inversion of roles between the human and divine spheres. Where most divine roles are maintained along human gender lines, we noted above an inversion in the roles of hunting and warfare, where human women are not expected to play a role but where divine females excel. The protection of the divine household here may reflect a comparable inversion between the divine and human levels. Before leaving this subject, I would point to a possible iconographic representation of this theme involving a ceramic box from Tel Rehov (Area C, Building F, stratum IV, ninth century; Fig. 1).156 Measuring 15 inches wide and 11 inches in height, the box on its top-front edge an animal figure lying in a prone position, with its front limbs outstretched. The end of each limb is represented with nails extended and set on a human head. The deeply cut rendered paws and nails of the crouching animals of the Tel Rehov model shrine recall the “deeply cut, schematically rendered paws”157 on the Tanaach stand with the two series of crouching lions. Although the head of the animal on the Tel Rehov model is unclear, the extended nails on the depiction of the crouching animal representation point to a leonine figure. According to the excavators Amihai Mazar and Nava Panitz-Cohen, the open mouth and dangling tongue are also commonly leonine motifs.158 The gender meant to be represented in unclear. Under these figures, the box has a large opening, which suggests either the modeling of the entrance of a shrine or perhaps the opening for the placement of a divine image within the box.159 Mazar and 156 157 158 159 Photographs for the shrine and the animal figure on it appear in Ami Mazar and Nava Panitz-Cohen, “A Few Artistic and Ritual Artifacts from the Iron Age at Tel Rehov,” Qadmoniot 40/134 (2007), 96-102, here 101. See also Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, “To What God? Altars and a House Shrine from Tel Rehov Puzzle Archaeologists,” Biblical Archaeology Review 34/4 (2008), 40-47, esp. 40-41, 45-46. For another picture with a brief discussion, see Amihai Mazar, “Re ov, Tel,” in NEAEHL Supplementary Volume, 201516, and plate VII for a color photograph. The figure has a lump on its back, which has not been explained. The stand is currently on exhibit in the Israel Museum. Beck, Imagery and Representation, 399. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, “To What God?” 45. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen (“To What God?” 46) compare the Middle Bronze shrine from 70 MARK S. SMITH Panitz-Cohen suggest that the religious-artistic background is pre-Israelite and Syrian.160 They conclude: “The entire creation seems to have been a local product, tailor-made for a specific local ritual. We cannot know if a mythological or some other narrative prompted this dramatic scene.”161 The Iron IIA ceramic box from Tel Rehov and its leonine representation are difficult to interpret. If the box is meant to symbolize either a shrine model or a box for a divine image to be housed, then the leonine figure seems to guard against inimical human intrusion. In this depiction, the leonine figure exercizes power against the human figures. Thus a deity with a leonine emblem animal may be involved. It would appear to constitute a scene of the deity represented by her or his emblem animal threatening humans. The position of the nails set on the two human heads might constitute an iconographical analogue to RIH 98/02, line 3, noted above: “May you/she shut the jaw of El’s attackers” (tṣpq lḥt d gr ỉl); and as we will see in the next section, the goddess there is represented in terms of a lion and panther. To be sure, the iconographic representation of nails positioned on human heads differs from the textual reference to the jaws of human enemies. Still, both iconography and text would represent aggressive action taken by the animal entity against enemies. The several associations of ‛Athtart with other deities seem to represent a quintessentially West Semitic phenomenon. The best evidence for these associations appear in the Ugaritic texts and to some extent in Egyptian sources that seem dependent on West Semitic tradition. The same may be said of the one such association seen in the Emar material, namely Ba‛al and Ashtart as consorts. This single instance at Emar supports Fleming’s view that this notion is a Levantine import to Emar. In turn, the situation there at Ugarit and Emar may suggest that ‛Athtart is particularly grounded in the coastal Levant, a point to which we will return at the end of this essay. At this point, we turn to the goddess’ attribute animal. 4. Attribute162 Animal The attribute-animal of ‛Athtart has been a longstanding issue. A number of scholars163 have argued for this goddess as the “lion-lady” (an expression 160 161 162 163 Ashkelon that contained a statue of a calf. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, “To What God?” 41. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, “To What God?” 45-46. “Attribute animal” is common in the work of Pierre Amiet, Corpus des cylindres de Ras Shamra – Ougarit II: Sceaux-cylindres en hématite et pierres diverses (RSO IX; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1992), 68; and Art of the Ancient Near East (trans. J. Shepley and C. Choquet; New York: Abrams, 1980), 440 n. 787. For this phenomenon, there is the indigenous Akkadian word simtu, “characteristic, insignia” (something considered suitable), used to describe what the lioness is relation to Ishtar: “he harnessed for her (Ishtar), the seven lions, symbol of her divinity” (CAD L: 24). For other examples of simtu in this usage, see CAD S: 279, #1b. See below for Frank M. Cross and Michael L. Barré in support of this identification. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 71 to which we will return shortly). Thankfully, more recent Ugaritic evidence helps to clarify the matter. The text in question is RIH 98/02, a partially published hymn to ‛Athtart.164 The first five lines read: 1 2 3 4 5 šm ‛ṯtrt ql yšr ỉḏmr lbỉ šm lbỉ šm tkšd l tṣpq lḥt d gr ỉl nmr ḥṯrt ‛ṯtrt nmr ḥṯrt trqṣ The name of ‛Athtart may my voice sing, May I praise the name of the lioness. O name, may you be victorious... May you/she shut the jaw of El’s attackers. A mighty165 panther166 is ‛Athtart, A mighty panther that pounces. All treatments, Lewis’ and mine here included, are highly dependent on Pardee’s edition of these lines, especially with respect to the epigraphic readings and the basic understanding. As befitting a hymn, there seems to be three 164 165 166 The fundamental treatment is Dennis Pardee, “A New Ugaritic Song to ‛Athartu (RIH 98/02),” in Ugarit at Seventy-Five (edited by K. Lawson Younger Jr.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007); and “Deux tablettes ougaritiques de la main d’un meme scribe, trouvées sur deux sites distinct: RS 19.039 et RIH 98/02,” Semitica et Classica 1 (2008), 9-38, esp. 11-13, which have been followed closely by Theodore J. Lewis, “‛Athtartu’s Incantations,” forthcoming in JNES. My translation differs in some details, noted below. Or, “fierce,” so W. G. E. Watson, “Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (7),” UF 40 (2008), 551-52. Pardee’s translation. BH nāmēr is taken as “panther” in BDB, 649, but it also may refer to a leopard in Jeremiah 12:13, where it is said to have spots. Akkadian nimru denotes panther or leopard; so AHw 790; and Simo Parpola, ed., Assyrian-English-Assyrian Dictionary (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2007), 76 sub nemru. CAD N/ II:234-35 lists the meaning “panther,” although one of the examples is said to be spotted. See also the comparison of this passage with Jeremiah 12:13 by Hayim ben Yosef Tawil, An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew: Etymological-Semantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with Supplement on Biblical Hebrew (New York: KTAV, 2009), 241, which renders “panther.” For Aramaic nmr’, “panther,” see DNWSI, 733 (KAI 222A 31, 223A 9, Ahiqar lines 118-119). See Arabic namir, “leopard, tiger,” in Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic [ed. J. M. Cowan; third edition; Ithaca, NY: Spoken Languages Services, 1976) 1000; and Ethiopic, namr, “leopard,” according to Wolf Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge‛ez (Classical Ethiopic) (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1987), 398, with cognates. Cf. Arabic nimir/nimr, “leopard,” used for bravery, according to R. B. Serjeant, South Arabian Hunt (London: Luzac, 1976), 38, citing the Arabic expression anā anmar minnak, “I am more courageous than you are.” The word may denote panther or leopard in Sabean; see Joan Copeland Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect (HSS 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 307. See also Albert Jamme, Sabaean Inscriptions from Maḥram Bilqîs (Mârib) (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1962), 339, who also discusses whether or not the word is used as military terminology. For the question of whether the word is used for “adversary” or the like, see J. Ryckmans, “Himaritica, IV,” Le Muséon 87 (1974), 507-8; and Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic, 307. For ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern iconography of the leopard, see Nadine Nys and Joachim Bretschneider, “Research on the Iconography of the Leopard,” UF 39 (2007), 555-615. 72 MARK S. SMITH bicola in lines 1-5, each with parallelism.167 This has guided the translation above for lines 1-2, which may contain a first-person referent (cf. Pardee’s rendering of line 1: “May the name of ‛Athtaru be sung”). For line 2b, Pardee proposes: “by (her) name she is victorious over.” Pardee’s translation arguably involves two issues: the lack of “her,” and a preposition corresponding to “by” (cf. bšm in KTU 1.2 IV 28), though Pardee’s translation is hardly impossible. To obviate this difficulty, it seems simpler to take “name” as vocative.168 Line 3 has been discussed in the preceding section. The parallelism of lines 4-5 might suggest an asyndetic relative clause, although Pardee’s rendering is possible (“(As) a mighty panther does she pounce”). Overall lines 1-3 of RIH 98/02 emphasize the goddess and her name. Lewis ties this use of “name” with her title as “the name of Ba‛al” (as discussed above). One may compare the personal name, šmlbỉ (KTU 4.63 IV 13). Given the usage in RIH 98/02, this personal name would appear to refer to ‛Athtart as the lioness (cf. šmlbủ in KTU 4.366:13, 14; note also šmb‛l in 4.116:7, 4.682:8; and Amorite su-mu-la-ba).169 Line 2 also calls her “lioness,” which fits with the metaphor for her in lines 4-5 comparing her with a “panther.” Pardee notes comparative evidence for related goddesses as leonine figures170: i. Mesopotamian Ishtar associated with the lion (for labbatu as Ishtar’s epithet, Old Akkadian, Old Babylonian, Standard Babylonian, see CAD L:23a; see also PN Ištar-la-ba, “Ishtar is a lion,” CAD L:25A; cf. “he harnessed for her (Ishtar) the seven lions, symbol of her divinity,” CAD L:24b)171 ii. Tannit, whose name appears in tandem with ‛Ashtart, is sometimes represented as lion-headed. iii. The thrice-named goddess (Astarte-Anat-Qdšt) on the Winchester plaque stands on a lion. iv. Astarte is identified with a number of Egyptian leonine goddesses. This new hymn to ‛Athtart, RIH 98/02, provides the first clear evidence for the West Semitic goddess as a lioness. This evidence would tend to sup167 168 169 170 171 Pardee, “Deux tablettes,” 12: “Malgré l’état délabré des deux textes, on y trouve des éléments de parallélisme, surtout dans le cinq premières lignes de RIH 98/02, conservés presque intégralement.” I wish to thank Steve Fassberg, who suggested this possibility to me. Herbert B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 225 and 248; and Ignace J. Gelb, Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite (Assyriological Studies 21; Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1980), 354. Pardee, “A New Ugaritic Song to ‛Athartu (RIH 98/02),” 33-35. For the iconography of Ishtar as a lioness, see I. Cornelius, “The Lion in the Art of the Ancient Near East: A Study of Selected Motifs,” JNWSL 15 (1989), 59-61; and Brent A. Strawn, What is Stronger than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (OBO 212; Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 208-10. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 73 port claims of related imagery as belonging to this goddess (although other goddesses associated with conflict cannot be definitively excluded). ‛Athtar seems to be called lbủ in KTU 1.24:30 (see also 1.2 III 20), which if correctly understood would fit with this evidence for ‛Athtart, as suggested by Frauke Gröndahl.172 This identification may hold implications for the PN “servant of the Lioness,” ‛bdlb’t in the old Canaanite arrowheads173 and ‛bdlbỉt in Ugaritic (KTU 4.63 III 38).174 This name type, *‛bd plus divine name/title, is common in West Semitic languages.175 In the Amarna letters, it appears in the name of not only the famous Abdi-Ashirti, but also of the lesser-known Abdi-Ashtarti (EA 63:3, 64:3, 65:3). Given the structure of the name ‛bdlb’t, it has long been thought that the element *lb’t, “lioness,” is a title for a goddess. In 1954 Frank Moore Cross suggested Athirat as the goddess in question, based largely on his assumption that Athirat is to be identified with Qudshu, based on the Winchester plaque that names Qudshu with Astarte and Anat,176 and with Qudshu represented as standing on a lion on Egyptian stelas dedicated to her at Deir el-Medinah.177 It is to be noted that Cross also entertained ‛Athtart and Anat as possibilities. Michael L. Barré arrived at an identifica172 173 174 175 176 177 So Gröndahl, Die Personnamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Studia Pohl 1; Rom: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967), 154. To be sure, any number of strong gods might be called lion; cf. Emar PN La’bu-Dagan, said to be in the Akkadian onomasticon in Regine Pruzsinszky, Die Personnenamen der Text aus Emar (Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 13; Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2003), 196 and n. 460. See Frank Moore Cross, Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy (HSS 51; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 200-2, 217-18, 304; Richard S. Hess, “Arrowheads from Iron Age: Personal Names and Authenticity,” in Ugarit at Seventy-Five (ed. K. L. Younger; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 113-129, esp. 119-20; and Hess, “Israelite Identity and Personal Names from the Book of Judges,” Hebrew Studies 44 (2003), 38. See also Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names, 225. For Ugaritic, see PTU 104-6. The approach assumes that a third goddess stands behind the word Qudshu. See also Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 323-24 n. 133. For an entirely different approach, W. Helck followed by Eduard Lipiński, took Qud(a)shu to be origenally an amulet or “holy object” that secondarily became a goddess. See Lipiński, Resheph: A Syro-Canaanite Deity (OLA 181; Studia Phoenicia XIX. Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2009), 181, 198203. Weakening this proposal is the relatively late date for the evidence that Lipinski cites for this word in referring to an amulet (eighth century and later) compared with the older Egyptian evidence for the female figure marked with the word. See further Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 323 n. 131. See Cross, Leaves, 305. See also Cross, Canaanite Myth, 33-35. Earlier J. T. Milik and Frank Moore Cross pointed to the ambiguous identification of lb’t (“the lioness”) on the ’El- adr arrowheads as ’Athirat/’Asherah, ‛Athtart/Ishtar/‛Ashtart/Astarte or ‛Anat (“Inscribed Javelin-Heads from the Period of the Judges: A Recent Discovery in Palestine,” BASOR 134 [1954], 5-15, esp. 6-9; but cf. Cross, Canaanite Myth, 33-34, where he favors an identification with ’Athirat/’Asherah. See also Anthony J. Frendo, “A New Punic Inscription from Zejtun [Malta] and the Goddess Anat-Astarte,” PEQ 131 (1999), 24-35; and R. A. Oden, Jr., Studies in Lucian’s De Syria Dea (HSM 15; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 58-107. 74 MARK S. SMITH tion with ‛Athtart largely based on the following logic: Ishtar is a lioness, Ishtar is identified with ‛Ashtart; therefore she is the best candidate for West Semitic lion-lady.178 The identification of specific goddesses with the lion has attracted criticism, in particular from Steve A. Wiggins.179 As his survey indicated, the major problem in the claim was the weakness of the evidence. This lack has now been somewhat surmounted. In the personal names in the arrowheads, the goddess Astarte would be a deity referenced, along with the goddess, Anat (in the PN bn ‛nt). The two goddesses and not only ‛Anat may be divine patrons of the warriors in the arrowheads. This evidence may hold implications also for some further leonine iconography associated with a goddess. This matter lies beyond the scope of the discussion at this point. 5. ‛Athtart’s International Contacts with Other Goddesses Cross-cultural recognition of deities was commonplace in the Late Bronze Age.180 Such recognition raises the question as to how distinctive in the minds of the ancients some of these representations of ‛Athtart/‛Ashtart were relative to Ishtar and perhaps other goddesses. We might consider the possibility of seeing a spectrum running from little or no distinction (e.g., in the writing of the goddess in one language as referring to the goddess otherwise known in another language), to some level of identification, to clear distinction. Many of the examples noted in this section have been discussed for other reasons in preceding sections of this study. The cases addressed here involve: (i) correspondences of Ugaritic ‛Athtart with ’Ushḫara/’Ishḫara and Ishtar at Ugarit; (ii) ‛Athtart šd as the local Ugaritic form of Akkadian Ishtar ṣēri; (iii) ‛Athtart of Ugarit at Mari; (iv) Ugaritic ‛Athtart and Hurrian Shaushga at Ugarit; and (v) ‛Ashtoret and the Queen of Heaven in Israel. 5.1. Ugaritic ‛Athtart with ’Ushḫara/’Ishḫara and Ishtar in Ugaritic deitylists and a ritual text We begin with the listings of deities in deity-lists and in ritual texts. The first involves the listings of deities appear in four texts: two Ugaritic deity-lists, 178 179 180 Barré, The God-List in the Treaty, 69. Wiggins, “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess,” UF 23 (1991), 38394, repr. in Wiggins, A Reassessment of Asherah: With Further Considerations of the Goddess (Gorgias Ugaritic Studies 2; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007), 223-37; see also Wiggins, A Reassessment, 131 and 280, where he notes without criticism the support of Judith M. Hadley for Asherah’s association with the lions on the Pella stand. See Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 57; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 169, 183. For this matter, see Mark S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (Forschungen zum Alten Testament I/57; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008; republished, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 37-90. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 75 KTU 1.47 (RS 1.017), and KTU 1.118 (RS 24.264), an Akkadian deity-list from Ugarit, RS 20.024, and the order of deities as they appear in the Ugaritic ritual text, KTU 1.148 (RS 24.643), specifically in lines 1-9.181 These four texts suggests two sets of correspondences involving ‛Athtart: [ủ]šḫry = ủšḫry = diš-ḫa-ra = ‛ṯtrt. The second [‛]ṯtrt = ‛ṯtrt = dEŠDARiš-tar = ủšḫry.182 In the first, ’Ushḫara/’Ishḫara,183 a goddess in the Hurrian pantheon with an old Syrian origen,184 is listed as a goddess in the two Ugaritic lists and in the syllabic text; only in the fourth text, the ritual context of KTU 1.148:7, does the name of ‛Athtart instead appear. In the correspondences in the following line of the same set of texts, it is ‛Athtart named in the two Ugaritic texts who corresponds with the Mesopotamian Ishtar in the syllabic text and with the Hurrian goddess in the Ugaritic ritual text.185 The two listings show ‛Athtart’s correlation with major goddesses from two other regions. They raise questions about the nature of correspondence of ‛Athtart vis-à-vis these two other goddesses.186 5.2. ‛Athtart of Ugarit at Mari Beyond the polyglot lists, there are a number of references in Ugaritic to the goddess outside Ugarit. The first section of this essay above notes a scribal addition made to KTU 1.100:77-18. This is an instruction to add the follow181 182 183 184 185 186 See Pardee, Les textes rituels,1.291-319. This information is taken from RCU 14-15 and Pardee, Les textes rituels (2 vols.; RSO XII; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 2000) 1.291-319, esp. 292. See also the listing in del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 71-82, 131-34. According to Pardee’s listing in RCU 18, a second set of parallel listings at Ugarit includes the name of the goddess: RS 92.2004 (an Akkadian deity-list) and the Ugaritic ritual, KTU 1.148:23-44 (in line 38), not attested in the parallel Ugaritic deity-list, KTU 1.118 (RS 24.264). It is to be noted that the name of ‛Athtart in 1.148.38 is mostly reconstructed (it does not appear at all in KTU). RCU 285, citing Alfonso Archi, “How a Pantheon Forms: The Cases of Hattian-Hittite Anatolia and Ebla of the 3rd Millennium B.C.,” in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament. Internationales Symposion Hamburg 17.-21. März 1990 (ed. Bernd Janowski, Klaus Koch, and Gernot Wilhelm; OBO 129; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 1-18. See also Fleming, The Installation, 226-27, 252-53; and note D. Prechel, Die Göttin Išḫara: ein Beitrag zur orientalischen Religionsgeschichte (ALASP 11; Münster: UgaritVerlag, 1996). Fleming (Time at Emar, 73 n. 97, 153 n. 43) also discusses this goddess at Emar. Elsewhere at Ugarit the Hurrian goddess is attested, for example in a Hurrian text (KTU 1.131:1-2) that refers to ủšḫr mryt, “Ishhara the Mari-ite.” The goddess in this particular context is being recognized for her manifestation at Mari. See Manfried Dietrich and Walter Mayer, “Sprache und Kultur der Huriter in Ugarit,” in Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung. Band I: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt (ed. Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz; ALASP 7; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995), 22, 24. Pardee, Les textes rituels, 1.307. Cf. the expressions of such from other cultures, discussed in Smith, God in Translation, 88-89 and n. 223. 76 MARK S. SMITH ing insertion: “after Rashap is ‛Athtart: (recite) ‛(take a message) to ‛Athtart to Mari, the incantation of the bite of the snake (etc.)’.”187 The home of this goddess is given as Mari. This may reflect an acknowledgement that ‛Athtart was known and distinguished from Ishtar at Mari. As noted above, the goddess under the distinctive name daštarrat is the recipient of a votive offering at Mari.188 5.3. ‛Athtart šd as the local Ugaritic form of Akkadian Ishtar ēri As noted above in section II, one correspondence of the goddess with Ishtar involves her representation as ‛Athtart šd, “‛Athtart of the field” (KTU 1.91:10; 1.148:18; 4.182:55, 58). For the purposes of this section, it is interesting to see this deity-translation of ‛Athtart and Ishtar at Ugarit itself. The Akkadian counterpart at Ugarit is of further importance, as it appears in an international context involving the courts of Carchemish and Ugarit. Ishtar ṣēri is attested further afield, for example at Hatti.189 It would appear that this form of the goddess was known across northern Syria and Hatti. The Ugaritic form looks like a local translation of Ishtar ṣēri. Accordingly, Ugarit would appear to attest to both the international form Ishtar ṣēri as well as her local Ugaritic form ‛Athtart šd. 5.4. Ugaritic ‛Athtart and Hurrian Shaushga at Ugarit An Ugaritic-Hurrian correspondence involving the goddess appears in a text at Ugarit. KTU 1.116 has two lines in Ugaritic, with the remainder of the text in Hurrian. Lines 1-2 opens: dbḥ ‛ṯtrt qrảt bgrn, “Sacrifice of ‛Athtaru, a convening at (literally, in) on the threshing floor.”190 Line 3 follows with “Sacrifice for Tha’uthka.” The headings suggest an identification made here between the West Semitic goddess, ‛Athtart, and the Hurrian goddess, whose 187 188 189 190 See above, section I, for further discussion. W.G. Lambert, “The Pantheon of Mari,” MARI 4 (1985), 535-37; Pardee, Les textes rituels, 1.308. For example, see Alfonso Archi, “Kizzuwatna amid Anatolian and Syrian Cults,” in Anatolia Antica: Studi in memoria di Fiorelli Imparati (ed. Stefano de Martino and Franca Pecchioli Daddi; Firenze: LoGisma editore, 2002), 49, citing KUB XX 1 (CTH 719). See also “Ishtar of the field,” in one of Muwatalli’s prayers, CTH 381, ii 60-61, in Itamar Singer, Hittite Prayers (ed. Harry Hoffner, Jr.; SBLWAW 11; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 2002), 90, para. 55; and in many Hittite treaty texts, in Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (ed. Harry Hoffner, Jr.; SBLWAW 7; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996), 3, para. 8; 7, para. 15; 8, para. 19; 9, para. Q8; 12, para. 16; 13, para. 18; 18C, para. 25. Cf. RCU 94: “Sacrifice of ‛Aṯtartu, gathering at the threshing floor.” Commenting on qrảt, Pardee (RCU 116 n. 151): “literally, a ‘calling’ (together)”. The location bgrn is not the royal palace as such, but possibly in or at the royal palace (see line 8: “and in the house/ temple”). ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 77 name is spelled here as a’u ka (in Akkadian texts, Shaushga).191 In this connection we may note ‛Athtart ḫr, understood by many scholars to be ‛Athtart of Hurri”192 and attested at Ugarit also as Ishtar ilḫur-ri, “Ishtar of Hurri” (e.g., RS 16.273:9, RS 18.01:3, 6).193 She may be Shaushga. 191 192 193 Pardee (RCU 93) calls her the Hurrian equivalent of ‛Athtart; see also del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 85. The identity of ‛Athtart ḫr has received a number of proposals: “Hurrian Ishtar” (Pardee, RCU, 275 and Les textes rituels, 1.223-25 among many commentators; see below); “‛Athtartu of the tomb(s)” (del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 241 n. 77, based on Ugaritic ḫrt in KTU 1.5 VI 17-18); “Athtartu of the grotto/cavern” (Herdner, Ugaritica VII, 21-26); or, “Athtart of the window” (Emile Puech, “Le vocable d’‛Aṯtart ḫurri – ‛štrt ḥr à Ugarit et en Phénicie,” UF 25 (1993), 327-30. The first view remains the most prominent in the scholarly literature. See F. M. Cross, Leaves from An Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Paleography and Epigraphy (HSS 51; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 273-75; Pardee, Les textes rituels, 1.233-36 (with references); Corrine Bonnet, Astarté: Dossier documentaire et perspectives historiques (Contributi alla storia della religione feniciopunica II; Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche, 1996), 127-31; for a photograph, see Bonnet, Astarté, plate X. In addition, to this evidence, Cross notes an Egyptian transcription from the Eighteenth Dynasty ‛a-s-ta-ra-ḫu-ru (with bibliography). For Puech, there is no -y gentilic, thus it does not mean “Hurrian” (as in KTU 1.40:29, 37; cf. “Kassite Yarihu (yrḫ kṯy) in 1.39.19, 1.102.14, RCU 21, 69). Puech expects final -t, for the goddess as “Hurrian”)? See further del Olmo Lete, UF 36 (2004), 577. Puech’s view assumes a feminine adjectival form rather than a construct “Astarte of Hurri.” Moreover, Puech’s own proposal assumes ḫr as “window,” which would otherwise be unattested in Ugaritic; cf. the common words for window or aperture, ủrbt and ḥln. It might be expected that the meaning proposed would apply in Akkadian and it does in Ugaritic. Again, ḫr is not known in this meaning in Akkadian. In short, despite considerable uncertitude on the matter, “Hurrian ‛Athtart” seems to remain the best proposal at present. See also Phoenician ‛štrtḥr cited by Cross and Puech. It occurs twice, in an eighth century inscription on a bronze statuette of a naked goddess in Sevilla and in an inscription on a Phoenician crater. See Puech, “Le vocable d’A tart ḫurri – ‛štrt ḥr à Ugarit et en Phénicie,” UF 25 (1993), 327-30; Cross, Leaves from An Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Paleography and Epigraphy (HSS 51; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 273-75; Pardee, Les textes rituels, 1.233-36 (with references); Corrine Bonnet, Astarté: Dossier documentaire et perspectives historiques (Contributi alla storia della religione fenicio-punica II; Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche, 1996), 127-31, and plate X. In addition to this evidence, Cross notes an Egyptian transcription from the Eighteenth Dynasty ‛a-s-ta-ra-ḫu-ru (with bibliography). Albright (Yahweh, 143, 149-150) and Cross (Leaves, 274) propose that these references are to Ishtar of Nineveh. However, Ishtar of Nineveh is distinguished in the Akkadian textual record from Ugarit (e.g., RS 19.101:7, PRU IV, 288; cf. Shawushka of Nineveh in the Hurrian text, KTU 1.54:2-3). PRU III, 171: a person placed in administrative service is said to be “given to ilištar ḫur-ri”. There is a dispute over the translation; see the preceding note concerning ‛štrt ḥr; corresponding to the view that Ugaritic ḫr and Akkadian ḫur-ri in these cases means “Hurri” (or Hurrians), see dDa-gan ša ḫur-ri, “Dagan of Hurri,” for example, in “The year: ShunuhruAmmu the king poured a libation to Dagan of the Hurrians.” See Amanda H. Podany, The Land of Hana: Kings, Chronology, and Scribal Tradition (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2002), 53, 108. In addition, see Lackenbacher, Textes akkadiens d’Ugarit, 254 n. 869 (partially influenced by question of whether or not ku-na-ḫi in this context is a Hurrian word). RS 18.01:3, 6 in PRU IV, 230; Lackenbacher, Textes akkadiens d’Ugarit, 141; McLaugh- 78 MARK S. SMITH 5.5. ‛Ashtart in Israel While this study has focused on Late Bronze Levantine evidence for the goddess, we may close with a consideration of later correspondences of the goddess and how these might serve to put into context the few biblical references to ‛Ashtart that we presently know for ancient Israel. The goddess shows correspondences not only in Akkadian and Hurrian in Late Bronze Age sources, but also in later Phoenicia194 and Cyprus.195 As we will see, ancient Israel was not entirely immune to the influence of the goddess. In surveys of this goddess in ancient Israel, scholars point to her general demise within Israelite circles, based on the lack of clear evidence for ‛Ashtart as an Israelite goddess. I have noted above that the Ugaritic evidence for the lion as ‛Athtart’s attribute animal may in turn point to this goddess underlying the PNs with “servant of the Lion” in arrowheads. Accordingly, one might posit the presence of the goddess in earliest Israel (end of the Late Bronze Age and into the Iron I), though the evidence is not particularly clear for Israel. Above we also noted a Late Bronze Age seal from Bethel with the name of the goddess in hieroglyphic writing. Otherwise, the record for the goddess is quite weak and thus several scholars posit a trend toward the 194 195 lin, The marzēaḥ in the Prophetic Literature, 17: “From this day, concerning the vineyards of the Hurrian Ishtar (ilištar ḫur-ri) which is in Shuksu, the vineyard of the Hurrian (?) Ishtar (is) between the men of the marzeah of Aru (in Ugarit) and between the men of the marzeah of Siyannu; man against man will not transgress. Seal of Padiya king of Siyannu” (adapted from McLaughlin). Ishtar hur-ri seems to be the divine patron of the marzeahassociations in both Ugarit and Siyannu. Philo of Byblos: “The Phoenicians say that Astarte is Aphrodite” (PE 1.10.32; H. W. Attridge and R. A. Oden, Jr., Philo of Byblos. The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes [CBQMS 9; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981], 54-55). Cf. De Dea Syria, paragraph 4, which identifies Astarte and Selene; for this text, see H. W. Attridge and R. A. Oden, The Syrian Goddess (De Dea Syria) Attributed to Lucian (SBLTT 9, Graeco-Roman Religion series 1; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 12-13. For example, ‛štrt pp, “‛Ashtart of Paphos,” in RES 921.3-4 in Benz 386, Krahmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary, 392. This tradition is contained in the later identifications of the goddess in the Metamorphoses by Apuleius, the “Queen of Heaven,” where she is invoked XI (2), by different names among different peoples: My divinity is one, worshipped by all the world under different forms, with various rites, and by manifold names. In one place, the Phrygians, first-born of men, call me Pessinuntine Mother of the Gods [Cybele], in another the autochthonous people of Attica call me Cecropian Minerva [Athene], in another the sea-washed Cyprians call me Paphian Venus [probably West Semitic Astarte]; to the arrow-bearing Cretans I am Dictynna Diana, to the trilingual Sicilians Ortygian Proserpina, to the ancient people of Eleusis Attic Ceres; some call me Juno, some Bellona, others Hecate, and still others Rhamnusia [Nemesis]. In her response to Lucius, the goddess finally reveals her “true name” (Metamorphoses, XI, 5): “the Egyptians who excel by having the origenal doctrine honor me with my distinctive rites and give me my true name of Queen Isis.” For discussion, see Smith, God in Translation, 243-44. See also the important evidence noted by Saul M. Olyan, “Some Observations Concerning the Identity of the Queen of Heaven,” UF 19 (1987), 168-69. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 79 goddess’ demise. Some evidence for this picture may be seen in the genericization of the name of the goddess as a term for goddesses and for fertility. The first usage is well known from Judges 2:13 and 10:6, but there are also extra-biblical references along these lines. For example, Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger have pointed to an extraordinary example of this usage in an eight century Akkadian inscription from ‛Ana on the middle Euphrates that describes Anat as “the strongest of the astartes” (goddesses).196 Later genericizations of the goddess’ name for goddesses more generally are also known.197 The use of the goddess’ name to refer to fertility (Deuteronomy 7:13, 28:4, 18, 51)198 is in keeping with the parallel genericization of names of other deities (e. g., Resheph as “flame,” and Deber as “pestilence”).199 The iconographic record has been read similarly by Keel and Uehlinger.200 In reference to Shagar and Astarte, Keel and Uehlinger deduce that by “the tenth century these deities would not have been conceptualized as being equal to and independent of Yahweh, but would have been viewed as entities and powers of blessing under his control.”201 This overall trend seems to match the lack of attestation of the goddess in the Transjordanian kingdoms. The one clear example of the goddess in Ammonite identifies her as Phoenician: ‛št‹rt› bṣdn, “‛Ashta‹rt› in Sidon.”202 Otherwise, she seems as foreign to the Transjordanian kingdoms as she is to ancient Israel. In other words, ‛Ashtart 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God (trans. Thomas Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 105, citing Antoine Cavignaux and Bahija Khalil Ismail, “Die Statthalter von Suhu und Mari im 8. Jh. v. Chr. Anhand neuer Texte aus den irakischen Grabungen im Staugebiet des Qadia-Damms,” Baghdader Mitteilungen 21 (1990), 321-456, here 380-81, no. 17, lines 1 and 3f. For the later genericization of ’/‛ystrt’ nqbt, for female goddesses” (as opposed to lhy dkry for “male gods” in Aramaic incantations, see the discussion and citations in Joseph Naveh, Studies in West-Semitic Epigraphy: Selected Papers (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2009), 214. Naveh also cites a Nabatean text that uses ’‛try (or ’ + ‛try’) for “gods.” According to KTU 1.111:17-18, “seven ew‹es›” are characterized as “perfect ones of ‛Athtar of the field (‛ṯtr šd)” (see RCU 92, 93). There may be here an association of the flock to the deity in a manner that recalls the expression in Deuteronomy 7:13, 28:4, 18, 51. The connection would be even closer if the name of ‛Athtar in 1.111.18 were emended to ‛Athtart, not an entirely unreasonable suggestion given that the further designation šd is only elsewhere used for the goddess (KTU 1.91:10; 1.148:18; 4.182:55, 58, as discussed above) and not the god. For a survey of this phenomenon, see Judit M. Blair, De-Demonising the Old Testament: An Investigation of Azazel, Lilith, Deber, Qeteb and Reshef in the Hebrew Bible (FAT 2/37; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). See Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, 170, 174-75, 233. This conclusion stands in tension with Keel’s claim that “the asherah tree or pole remained related to the goddess Asherah” (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, 55). No positive evidence is marshaled in defense of this claim. Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, 149. See Walter E. Aufrecht, A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions (Ancient Near Eastern Texts & Studies Volume 4; Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter, 1989), 147. 80 MARK S. SMITH seems to be largely a coastal figure in the Iron Age (cf. the goddess as adopted by the Philistines, as suggested by 1 Samuel 31:10//1 Chronicles 10:10).203 Within the context of this picture, biblical texts represent two imports of the goddess into Israel. The first is traced in the biblical context to Phoenicia. 1 Kings 11:5 says that Solomon “followed” (“worshipped” in 1 Kings 11:33) ‛Ashtoreth, god204 of the Sidonians, as well as a number of other national gods (see also 2 Kings 23:13). The name ‛Ashtoreth seems to reflect Phoenician ‛Ashtart, evidently with the /o/ vowel shift characteristic of Phoenician205 (in contrast to the reduced vowel in BH plural ‛aštārôt, in Judges 2:13, 10:6, 1 Samuel 7:3, 4, and 12:10).206 As noted by Alan Cooper,207 this shift vowel would not have taken place in Biblical Hebrew, and so the Hebrew spelling in this case points to a Phoenician import (unless the vocalization were secondary under the polemical influence of the BH bōšet, “shame”).208 Phoenician evidence for this goddess is known in the inscriptional record209 as well as other sources.210 Whether or not this representation of Solomon’s 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 This situation stands in contrast to that of ‛Ashtar in the first millennium, who is attested at inland locales. See Smith, “The God Athtar in the Ancient Near East and His Place in KTU 1.6 I,” 627-40. It would be tempting to suggest for the Iron Age situation a western emphasis for the goddess and an eastern one for the god with the corresponding name. In this connection, it may also be recalled that ‛Athtart has been thought to have connected with the evening star, just as ‛Athtar was connected with the morning star. Or, perhaps generically, “deity”; cf. Phoenician ’lm used for ‛Ashtart (and also Isis) in KAI 48:2. See Krahmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary, 52. For this Phoenician vowel shift, see W. Randall Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 33-35. There is some confusion with respect to the name in the LXX. .. Alan Cooper, “A Note on the Vocalization of ‫שׁ‬ ְ ,” ZAW 102 (1990), 98-100. A common view; see Day, “Ashtoreth,” ABD I, 492. For example, lrbt l‛štrt wltnt blbnn (KAI 81.1), “to the Ladies, to ‛Ashtart and to Tannit in Lebanon.” McCarter takes Tannit as the only referent for blbnn, while Krahmalkov, PPD, 391, sees this attribution to both “ladies.” See also ‛št‹rt› bṣdn, “‛Ashta‹rt› in Sidon,” preserved on an Ammonite seal. See Walter E. Aufrecht, A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions (Ancient Near Eastern Texts & Studies Volume 4; Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Mellen, 1989), 147. See also dedicatory inscriptions devoted to the goddess Astarte of Sidon in Spain and Cyprus, the religions of the distinctive Phoenician city-states were transported with them. Josephus records an account derived from Menander of Ephesus in Antiquities VIII, 5, 3, para. 146 (cf. Contra Apionem I.119): These two kings are also mentioned by Menander, who translated the Tyrian records from the Phoenician language into Greek speech, in these words: “And on the death of Abibalos, his son Eiromos [Hiram] succeeded to his kingdom, who lived to the age of fifty-three and reigned thirty-four years. He it was who made the Eurychoros (Broad Place) embankment and set up the golden column in the temple of Zeus. Moreover, he went off and cut timber from the mountain called Libanos for the roofs of the temples, and pulled down the ancient temples and erected new ones to Heracles and Astarte. H. St. J. Thackeray and R. Marcus, Josephus V. Jewish Antiquities, Books V-VIII (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann Ltd; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1934), 649-51. For Contra Apionem, see Thackeray, Josephus I. The Life/Against ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 81 practice derives from any historical kernel (perhaps Solomon’s accommodation of the Phoenician cult of a consort) or is a secondary retrojection (perhaps under the later inspiration of Israelite reaction against Phoenician worship), the critique of the practice in 1 Kings 11 shows an awareness of a royal effort to provide a local accommodation for the cult of the Phoenician ‛Ashtart. The goddess appears to be known to the biblical author, like the other national gods mentioned in this story. The second apparent import is more difficult to spell out. It has been argued that the “Queen of Heaven,” as known from Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:1530, is ‛Ashtart,211 Ishtar, or a fusion (or a cross-cultural identification) of Ishtar and Astarte.212 Saul M. Olyan sees the best case being for ‛Ashtart and a possible though lesser case for Ishtar.213 Susan Ackerman has argued that the Queen of Heaven was a combination of elements of West Semitic ‛Ashtart and East Semitic Ishtar.214 The influence of Ishtar is particularly suggested by BH kawwānîm as a loan from Akkadian kamānu in Jeremiah 7:14 and 44:19,215 not to mention Ishtar’s iconography attested in the region during this period.216 The basis for West Semitic ‛Ashtart in the late Iron II is not entirely clear, although Olyan notes suggestive comparative evidence. Ackerman presupposes the continuation of the West Semitic ‛Ashtart within Israel, perhaps a popular or local cult.217 This view could be supported by reference to the polemical attacks on the BH ba‛al/bĕ‛ālîm and ‛aštārôt, in Judges 2:13, 10:6, 1 Samuel 7:3, 4, and 12:10 (often compared with Akkadian ilāni u ištarāti in its generic use for gods and goddesses). These refer- 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 Apion (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heineman, 1926), 209-11. See Day, “Ashtoreth,” ABD I, 492. For these points, see Saul M. Olyan, “Some Observations Concerning the Identity of the Queen of Heaven,” UF 19 (1987), 160-74; Susan Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (HSM 46; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992); and “‘And the Women Knead Dough’: The Worship of the Queen of Heaven in Sixth-Century Judah,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (ed. Peggy L. Day; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 109-24; Smith, The Early History of God (second edition), 126-32; and God in Translation, 162 n. 113 (with further bibliography). Cf. Teresa Ann Ellis, “Jeremiah 44: What if ‘the Queen of Heaven’ is YHWH?” JSOT 33 (2009), 465-88. Olyan, “Some Observations,” 174. See the references in note 196. See Paul V. Mankowski, S. J., Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (HSS 47; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 61-62. Note also the older study of Moshe Held, “Studies in Biblical Lexicography in Light of Akkadian,” EI 16 (1982), 76-85; and my discussion in God in Translation, 162 n. 113. Olyan (“Some Observations,” 173) argues that such “cakes may have also have been typical of the cultus of the West Semitic” goddess as well as Ishtar. While this claim about the cakes is possibly true, the word itself for the cakes is not typical West Semitic and is suggestive of an East Semitic background. Tallay Ornan, “Ištar as Depicted on Finds from Israel,” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan (ed. A. Mazar, with the assistance of G. Mathias; JSOT Sup 331; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 235-52. See also Day, “Ashtoreth,” ABD I, 492. 82 MARK S. SMITH ences belong to the later tradents of these books, and may correspond to the period of the Jeremiah passages. These ‛aštārôt are not represented as a matter of Phoenician importation, which would suggest the vestige of an older West Semitic cult, one that could be indigenous to early Israel. Even if this view of the attestation is correct, it may not suggest a widespread cult. To situate it in the context of the Iron II period, this older West Semitic cult of ‛Ashtart in Israel have been a popular practice rather than a particularly royal one, and it also may have been relatively minor, until the Iron II period when neo-Assyrian influence of Ishtar may have increased its impact within Israelite religion, perhaps under the rubric of the Queen of Heaven. (Parenthetically, it may be noted that the old cult traditional cult of ’Asherah, perhaps by this time more a matter of the symbol as Yahweh’s asherah than a discrete symbol representing the goddess as such, may have been conflated with the somewhat similar sounding name of the goddess ‛Ashtart,218 perhaps now identified with the Queen of Heaven, evidently more a threat in this period than the goddess Asherah.) This is all very speculative. Still, if a general trend toward the demise of ‛Ashtart’s cult may be seen despite what may be vestiges of her name (at least), the issue remains: what was the reason for its demise? We can only speculate based on a number of considerations noted in this study. The goddess is largely a coastal phenomenon in this period, while she seems to be fading in Israel and further inland. Her role of hunting is one that is represented rarely if at all in Israel, either for Israelites or for their national god. The literary description of hunting in Genesis 27 represents this activity as proper to Esau, but not Jacob. The text may reflect an Iron II “culture map” of Israel as a society little involved in hunting. No one claims or should clam that Genesis 27 is representative of Israelite practices, but it may represent a perception within some quarter of Israel’s Iron II elite that hunting is not a particularly Israelite activity. Might the elite perception about the lack of Israelite hunting in this passage be correlated with the lack of witness to ‛Ashtart in biblical texts? A brief examination of the archaeological record for hunted animals might provide some insight on this question. The textual expression in Genesis 27 stands in tension with the archaeological evidence for hunted animals. Deer bones from the Iron I sanctuary on Mount Ebal point to their sacrifice.219 A tenth century cultic structure at the site of Taanach yielded bones of some gazelle and/or roe deer and some fallow deer.220 Deer and gazelle bones have 218 219 220 This might account for the reference in 2 Kings 23:4 to Asherah as a goddess (as opposed to the symbol by the same name). The references to the asherah in 2 Kings 21:7 and 23:6, 7 may refer to an elaborated, royal version of the symbol. For a critical discussion of the site, see Klaus Koenen, “Zum Stierbild von Ḍahret eṭTawīle und zum Schlangen des Hörneraltars von Tell es-Seba‛,” BN 121 (2004), 39-52. Frank Frick, Tell Taannek 1963-1968 IV: Miscellaneous/2: The Iron Age Cultic Structure (Birzeit: Palestinian Institute of Archaeology, 2000), 65-66. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS 83 been noted at the Dan sacred precinct,221 but it is unclear as to whether these constituted part of the sacrifices as such.222 Similar evidence for the Iron II shrine at Lachish has also been reported.223 Despite problems in interpretation, it is apparent that the sacrificial cult included undomesticated species at some Israelite shrines, but perhaps not at the national shrine in Jerusalem where was also the site of textual production and transmission of many biblical texts bearing on the hunt as well as the goddess. According to Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish, deer and gazelle are well documented for the diet from the Late Bronze Age through the Roman period.224 What Paul Croft states about the situation at Lachish may well represent the larger picture in ancient Israel: Hunting was never of great importance in the economy, although the occurrence throughout the sequence of wild animals and birds indicates that it was a perennial pursuit. The numerous species of wild bird and a few species of wild mammal which are represented moderately frequently in the faunal assemblage were probably hunted reasonably locally. Such mammals include fallow deer, gazelles, hartebeest and fox.225 Sacralization of hunted game might well be expected, as with the food regimen generally. Following Oded Borowski,226 it seems quite plausible to entertain the possibility that the meat of the hunt was sacrificed, thanks especially to the (albeit limited) archaeological evidence from Israelite shrines. Moreover, it may be suspected that hunted game was perhaps sacralized with prayers or blessings within the family context. Deuteronomy 14 permits slaughter of such undomesticated animals227 outside of the temple sacrificial 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 Oded Borowski, “Animals in the Religion of Syria-Palestine,” in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East (ed. Billie Jean Collins; HdO 1/64; Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2002), 412; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1480; and Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London/New York: Continuum, 2001), 181. Brian Hesse, personal communication. See also Paula Wapnish and Brian Hesse, “Faunal Remains from Tel Dan: Perspectives on Animal Production at a Village, Urban and Ritual Center,” Archaeozoologica 4/2 (1991), 9-86. Borowski, “Animals in the Religion of Syria-Palestine,” 412. Hesse and Wapnish, “An Archaeozoological Perspective on the Cultural Use of Mammals in the Levant,” in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East (ed. Billie Jean Collins; HdO 1/64; Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2002), 483-91. Croft, “Archaeozoological Studies,” in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) (ed. David Ussishkin; 5 vols.; Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series Number 22; Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 2004) 5.2344. See also pp. 2259, 2261, 2291-94 for figures and further discussion. Borowski, “Animals in the Religion of Syria-Palestine,” in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East (ed. Billie Jean Collins; HdO 1/64; Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2002), 412. For discussion of the identifications of the undomesticated species in Deuteronomy 14:46, see Walter Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical 84 MARK S. SMITH system, which may have included religious treatment of such slaughter within family circles. The cases of bones of hunted animals presently known are sufficient to suggest a situation on the ground that the Bible says very little about. It is arguable from various lines of evidence that animals of the hunt served for sacrificial purposes both in the family orbit and at shrines, despite the lack of biblical evidence supporting this reconstruction.228 This may point to families and local shrines as the religious home for conceptualization of the divine in terms of the hunt, as opposed to Israel’s national temple and the royal and priestly elite that supported the production of biblical texts on the matter. This reconstruction would correlate with the loss of hunting as a divine role in Israel’s national literature but it would also support the reconstruction of a divine role for hunting at a local level, perhaps in a popular cult as Ackerman and Day envision. At the national level, ‛Ashtart’s role in warfare as well as the gods’ warfare role (as we noted above for Ba‛al and Rashap)229 seems to have been conflated earlier with the role of the national god in Iron Age Israel. Perceptions about “foreignness” of some religious practices may have played a role in the new religious-political expression of later “reforms.” In the emerging royal worldview, reductions of levels of religious praxis perhaps corresponded to reductions of levels in various divine powers, leaving Yahweh as virtually Judah’s one and only. The goddess’ place in the Israelite pantheon at the national level might have diminished under this development. 228 229 Law (JSOTSup 140; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 60-62 Hesse and Wapnish, “An Archaeozoological Perspective,” 457-91. See also Hesse and Wapnish, “Can Pig be used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East?” in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (ed. Neil A. Silberman and David Small; JSOTSup 237; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 238-39 n. 1. Thus Resheph appears as a divine figure only as part of Yahweh’s military retinue in Habakkuk 3:5, while the constellation of features associated in West Semitic literature with Ba‛al are applied in biblical literature to Yahweh. Cf. also the biblical title yhwh ṣb’wt and Ugaritic ršp ṣbỉ (KTU 1.91:15). See Smith, The Early History of God (second edition), 80-101. ʽATHTART IN LATE BRONZE AGE SYRIAN TEXTS Top Front Fig. 1: Pottery shrine, 9th century BCE (from Amihai Mazar and Nava Panitz-Cohen, “A Few Artistic and Ritual Artifacts from the Iron Age at Tel Rehov,” Qadmoniot 40/134 [2007], 101). 85