MAARAV 20.

1 (2013): 39–51

A New Outlook at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud

and its Inscriptions

Nadav Na’aman
Tel Aviv University

I begin this article by reminding readers that in the last volume of

Ugarit-Forschungen, I published an article titled, “The Inscriptions of
Kuntillet ‛Ajrud through the Lens of Historical Research.”1 To avoid
repetition, I try (a) to distance the present paper from the UF article as
much as possible; (b) to present in short topics that I already analyzed in
detail, simply referencing these former discussions. However, since the
subject matter is the same, my efforts at separating the discussions are
limited.
Kuntillet ‛Ajrud is located in northeastern Sinai, about fifty kilome-
ters south of Kadesh-Barnea and ten–fifteen kilometers west of Darb
el-Ghazza, along the road leading from the coast of Philistia to the Gulf
of Eilat. It was probably constructed by Jeroboam II (ca. 786–746) in an
effort to control the important trade route that passes nearby and possibly
as a religious centre for the cult of the goddess Asherat.2 Since I already
discussed in great detail the cultic-religious aspects of the place, the ar-
ticle will examine only the site’s role in the growing international trade
in the first half of the eighth century b.c.e. and the significance of the
inscriptions discovered in the excavations for the study of the Israelite
religion and culture in this period.

1
  N. Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud through the Lens of Historical
Research,” UF 43 (2011): 299–324.
2
  Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud” (n 1): 312–319; N. Na’aman and N.
Lissovsky, “Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, Sacred Trees and the Asherah,” Tel Aviv 35 (2008): 186–208.
39
40 MAARAV 20.1 (2013)

Kuntillet ‛Ajrud as an Israelite Royal Outpost

According to the biblical account, Amaziah, King of Judah (ca. 817–

788), defeated Edom in the Valley of Salt and gained control over the
route of Arabah. Following his victory over the Edomites, “he captured
Sela‛ in battle and named it Joktheel, as it is called until this day” (2
Kgs 14:7). The outpost constructed near Sela‛ (today as-Sela‛)3 probably
filled the same military-administrative function on the way of Arabah
that Kuntillet ‛Ajrud filled on the Darb el-Ghazza route. Uzziah’s build-
ing of Elath (2 Kgs 14:22) was made possible by his father’s military
victory and the construction of the outpost of Joktheel to control the
Arabah route.
The Book of Kings relates that Joash, King of Israel (ca. 802–786),
defeated Amaziah, King of Judah, in the battle of Beth-shemesh. During
the course of the battle, he took Amaziah captive and proceeded to con-
quer Jerusalem (2 Kgs 14:8–14). Did Uzziah (ca. 788–737),4 Amaziah’s
son, build Elath as an independent king, or did he construct it as a vassal
of Jeroboam, Joash’s son? Unfortunately, we do not know the precise
relations between the two kingdoms at the time of Jeroboam and Uzziah
and how long Judah was subjugated to Israel. Uzziah either freed himself
from the Israelite subjugation after the death of Joash and then proceeded
to build Elath as an independent king, or else he built the place as a vas-
sal of the King of Israel.5
The erection of the fortress of Elath (Tell el-Kheleifeh) near the shore
of the Gulf of Eilat (2 Kgs 14:22) may have taken place at about the same
time as the construction of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud.6 Its foundation is directly

3
  For the identification of Sela at as-Sela‛, a remarkable mountain stronghold located
near the place where a relief of Nabonidus was discovered, see S. Hart, “Sela‛: The Rock of
Edom?” PEQ 118 (1986): 91–95; M. Lindner, U. Hübner and E. Gunsam, “Es-Sela‛—2500
Jahre Fliehburg und Bergfestung in Edom, Südjordanien,” Das Altertum 46 (2001):
243–278, with earlier literature; P. Gentili and C. Saporetti, “Nabonedo a Sela‛,” Geo-
Archeologia 21.1 (2001): 39–58; B. L. Crowell, “Nabonidus, as-Sila‛, and the Beginning
of the End of Edom,” BASOR 348 (2007): 75–88, with earlier literature.
4
  For discussion of the date of Amaziah’s death and the beginning of Uzziah’s reign,
see recently N. Na’aman, “The Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BCE: Biblical Text
Analysis versus Archaeological Research,” Tel Aviv 40 (2013): 250–252, with earlier
literature.
5
  For discussion of the relations between Israel and Judah in the first half of the eighth
century b.c.e., see N. Na’aman, “Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel,” VT 43
(1993): 227–234.
6
 The earliest pottery unearthed at Tell el-Kheleifeh is dated to the first half of the eighth
century b.c.e. and corresponds well with the biblical account of Uzziah’s foundation of the
place. See: G. D. Pratico, “Nelson Glueck’s 1938–1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A
Reappraisal,” BASOR 259 (1985): 1–32; idem, Nelson Glueck’s 1938–1940 Excavations at
 NA’AMAN: A NEW OUTLOOK AT KUNTILLET ‘AJRUD 41

connected to the economic and social transformations that took place in

the eighth century b.c.e. in the Negev and the Arabah. In the late ninth
century, the copper production in the Arabah came to an end. At that
time, the revenues from the Arabian trade, which gradually accelerated
from the early eighth century onward, replaced the gains from the cop-
per trade.7
Mario Liverani has noted that the Arabian trade began already in
the early ninth century, since goods and products originating from
southern Arabia appeared in the Assyrian booty lists from the reign of
Tukulti-Ninurta II (890–884) onward.8 A Suhu inscription, dated to the
mid-eighth century, is the earliest ancient Near Eastern document that
mentions the names of Arabian tribes (namely, Šaba’ and Tema).9 The
inscription describes how the governor of Suhu lay in ambush for a large
Arabian caravan of two hundred camels that reached Hindanu, a city
on the Euphrates, and how he attacked and pillaged it. Shortly after-
ward, the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (745–727) mention several
Arabian tribes that clashed with his troops on the periphery of the Fertile
Crescent, their submission to Assyria, and the heavy tribute they brought
him.10

Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal (ASOR Archaeological Reports 3; Atlanta, GA: Scholars,

1993).
7
  For the copper production in the Arabah in the tenth–ninth centuries b.c.e., see T. E.
Levy et al., “Reassessing the Chronology of Biblical Edom: New Excavations and 14C
Dates from Khirbat en-Nahas (Jordan),” Antiquity 78 (2004): 863–876; T. E. Levy et al.,
“High-Precision Radiocarbon Dating and Historical Biblical Archaeology in Southern
Jordan,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (2008): 16460–16465;
T. E. Levy, “Pastoral Nomads and Iron Age Metal Production in Ancient Edom,” in
Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives
(J. Szuchman, ed.; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the Univ. of Chicago, 2009): 147–176; E.
Ben-Yosef et al., “The Beginning of Iron Age Copper Production in the Southern Levant:
New Evidence from Khirbat al-Jariya, Faynan, Jordan,” Antiquity 84 (2010): 724–746; T.
E. Levy, E. Ben-Yosef and M. Najjar, “New Perspectives on Iron Age Copper Production
and Society in the Faynan Region, Jordan,” in Eastern Mediterranean Metallurgy and
Metalwork in the Second Millennium BC (V. Kassianidou and G. Papasavvas, eds.; Oxford:
Oxbow, 2012): 197–214.
8
  M. Liverani, “Early Caravan Trade between South-Arabia and Mesopotamia,” Yemen
1 (1992): 111–115.
9
 For the inscription, see A. Cavigneaux and B. K. Ismail, “Die Statthalter von Suḫu und
Mari im 8. Jh. v. Chr. anhand neuer Texte aus den irakischen Grabungen im Staugebiet des
Qadissiya-Damms,” Baghdader Mitteilungen 21 (1990): 346–347: iv 26b–38a; 351, 357;
Grant Frame, Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian
Domination (1157–612 BC) (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods 2;
Toronto: Univ. of Toronto, 1995): 300: iv 26b–38a.
10
  Hayim Tadmor and Shigeo Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III
(744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC) Kings of Assyria (Royal Inscriptions
42 MAARAV 20.1 (2013)

The construction of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Elath (and possibly Joktheel)

manifests the efforts of the kings of Israel and Judah to participate in the
growing international trade that developed near the Gulf of Eilat and
along the routes leading from the Gulf westward and northward, and to
profit from its revenues. The building operations support the documen-
tary evidence of the growth of the Arabian trade in the first half of the
eighth century. They indicate that the Arabah route and Darb el-Ghazza
played a central role in the transportation of the goods from the Gulf to
their final destinations—namely, Egypt and the Levant.
Many researchers believed that the building at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud served
as a trade station (caravanserai) for caravans travelling from the coast
of Philistia to the Gulf of Eilat.11 Recently, Erhard Blum elaborated the
assumption, and on the basis of the Kuntillet ‛Ajrud plaster inscrip-
tions—which were written in the Phoenician script and in the Phoenician
language (see below)—posited that the site was a station for merchants
and has a distinct international character.12 In his words:
Gewiss zeigen das Onomastikon, die Orthographie (der
Grussinschriften und von 4.6) sowie der gelegentliche Bezug
auf YHWH Šōmrōn nicht nur die vorrangig nordisraelitische
Population/Frequentation der Anlage an, sondern legen auch

of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011). For discussion, see
Israel Eph‛al, The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th
Centuries B.C. (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1982): 21–36, 82–92; R. Bryne, “Early
Assyrian Contacts with Arabs and the Impact on Levantine Vassal Tribute,” BASOR 331
(2003): 11–25.
11
 See for example: P. Beck, “The Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud),” Tel
Aviv 9 (1982): 61; A. Lemaire, “Date et origine des inscriptions hébraïques et phéniciennes
de Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” SEL 1 (1984): 136; idem, “Remarques sur les inscriptions phéniciennes
de Kuntillet ‛Ajrud,” Semitica 55 (2013): 98; J. M. Hadley, “Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: Religious
Centre or Desert Way Station?” PEQ 125 (1993): 115–124; idem, The Cult of Asherah
in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (University of Cambridge
Oriental Publications 57; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 2000): 106–120; C-H. C. Ji, “Is
Kuntillet Ajrud a Cultic Center? A Psychological and Archaeological Reassessment,” Near
Eastern Archaeology Society Bulletin 39–40 (1995): 14–16; Othmar Keel and Christoph
Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of Gods in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1998): 247; M. Dijkstra, “I Have Blessed You by YHWH of Samaria and His Asherah:
Texts with Religious Elements from the Soil Archive of Ancient Israel,” in Only One God?
Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah (B. Becking et
al., eds.; London and New York: Sheffield Academic, 2001): 17–21; L. Singer-Avitz, “The
Date of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: A Rejoinder,” Tel Aviv 36 (2009): 115–117; J. M. Hutton, “Local
Manifestations of Yahweh and Worship in the Interstices: A Note on Kuntillet ‛Ajrud,”
JANER 10 (2010): 187–189; E. Blum, “Der historische Mose und die Frühgeschichte
Israels,” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 (2012): 55.
12
 E. Blum, “Die Wandinschriften 4.2 und 4.6 sowie die Pithos-Inschrift 3.9 aus Kuntillet
‛Ağrūd,” ZDPV 129 (2013): 48–50.
 NA’AMAN: A NEW OUTLOOK AT KUNTILLET ‘AJRUD 43

eine Unterhaltung und Verwaltung durch das Nordreich

nahe. Doch spiegeln die Texte (direkter als die materielle
Ausstattung) den regionalen und kulturellen Hintergrund der
Besucher der Karavanserei.13

In my article on Kuntillet ‛Ajrud, I examined in detail all the available

evidence from the site and arrived at the conclusion that the exceptional
features of the site, including the elaborate inscriptions and paintings on
the plastered walls and doorjambs, do not fit the caravanserai hypothe-
sis.14 Moreover, Z. Meshel has noted that the site had no space to accom-
modate travellers, who likely camped by the thamileh (pits) rather than
at the site itself.15 This would explain why only a few cooking pots were
found at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud—a finding that in itself contradicts the notion
that the site functioned as a guesthouse.16 Furthermore, the Yahwistic
personal names attested in the site, the absence of Phoenician personal
names, the frequent references to YHWH in the inscriptions, the Hebrew
script of the inscriptions written on pottery, and the origin of most of
the pottery vessels from Judah and Israel all indicate that the site was
constructed by the Kingdom of Israel and that those who stayed there or
visited the place were mainly Israelites, not Phoenicians.17
Scholars who suggested that the site was a kind of khan (roadside inn)
did not examine the application of the term to the Bronze and Iron Ages.
Caravanserai is a name for a roadside inn built by the state to shelter
travellers, goods, and animals, which supplied accommodation and fa-
cilitated movement of travellers between regions. The institution is well
known from the Hellenistic-Roman and the Mamluk-Ottoman world,18

13
  Blum, ibid., 49.
14
  Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud” (n 1): 314–315.
15
  Z. Meshel, “The Nature of the Site and Its Biblical Background,” in Kuntillet ‛Ajrud
(Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious site on the Judah-Sinai Border (Ze’ev Meshel,
ed.; Jerusalem: IES, 2012): 67–68.
16
 Cooking pots represent only seven percent of the ceramic assemblage. See E. Ayalon,
“The Iron Age II Pottery Assemblage from Ḥorvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud),” Tel Aviv 22
(1995): 155–156, 186–188 (repr. in Meshel, Kuntillet ‛Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman) [n 15]: 216,
239–240).
17
  Keel and Uehlinger ([n 11]: 245) suggested that “[t]he wall paintings show especially,
with all the clarity one could desire, that the caravanserai was a royal/state outpost on a
trade route that was under government control.” Oddly, they overlooked the incongruity
between the definion of the place as caravanserai and its role as a royal/state outpost.
18
  For ancient caravanserais in the Levant, see K. A. C. Creswell, “Two Khans at Khan
Tuman,” Syria 4 (1923): 133–139; M. F. Abu Khalaf, “Khan Yunus and the Khans of
Palestine,” Levant 15 (1983): 178–186; M. Lee, C. Raso and R. Hillenbrand, “Mamluk
Caravanserais in Galilee,” Levant 24 (1992): 55–94; Ji (n 11): 14–16; M. Hawari, “Khan
44 MAARAV 20.1 (2013)

but is unknown in ancient Near Eastern documents,19 in the Bible,20 and

in the archaeological record of the Bronze and Iron Ages.21 Within the
second and first millennium Assyrian and Babylonian records, I could
find neither a term that designates a caravanserai nor a reference to a
building constructed as a road lodging for traders.22 The numerous
Neo-Babylonian and Late Babylonian harrānu transactions about long-
distance trade did not mention trade stations.23 The Assyrian texts refer
only to buildings constructed by the state for controlling the routes and

al-Lubban: A Caravanserai on the Damascus-Jerusalem Road,” Levant 33 (2001): 7–20; Y.

Thareani-Sussely, “Ancient Caravanserais: An Archaeological View from ‛Aroer,” Levant
39 (2007): 123–129, with earlier literature.
19
  I. Eph‛al (“Karawane: C. 1st Millennium B.C.,” in RLA 5:421b) suggested that “the
Assyrian term for caravanserai is bīt mardīti.” However, bīt mardīti is a “road station”
and was used by the Assyrian administration to accomodate troops and horses. For further
details, see n 24 below.
20
  No biblical term refers to caravanserai. The biblical mālôn (from the verb lyn)
means “lodging, shelter for the night.” Jeremiah 9:2 [MT 1] melōn ¥oreḥīm bammidbār, “a
wayfarer’s lodging in the desert,” refers to a humble, temporary lodging of wayfarers in
the desert, which the prophet prefers over his life in the midst of his adultering, treacherous
people. For the verb lyn and its derivatives, see E. B. Oikonomou, “‫ לין‬lîn; ‫ מלון‬mālôn;
‫ מלונה‬melûnâ,” in TDOT 7.543–546.
21
  Thareani-Sussely ([n 18]: 123–141) identified a large building erected outside the
fortifications of Tel ‛Aroer in the Negev and dated to the seventh–early sixth centuries
b.c.e. as caravanserai, located near the trade route that led from the Beersheba Valley to
the Arabah. She suggested a few examples of ancient caravaserais constructed outside the
fortifications of a town (p. 125). However, the identification of the building as a caravanserai
is uncertain, and it might have been the residence of either the regional “sheikh of all
sheikhs,” or that of the Assyrian qēpu that governed the region. Moreover, Kuntillet ‛Ajrud
is an isolated site located far away from any other site, and thus entirely different from the
building located besides the town of ‛Aroer.
22
  My colleague Prof. Ran Zadok kindly drew my attention to the Akkadian place name
bīt bēri, literally “double hour house,” which CAD (B:211) translates as “road station.”
The place names are recorded in Middle Babylonian and Neo-Babylonian documents and
are located in south Babylonia. See Khaled Nashef, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der
mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit (RGTC 5; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas
des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B Nr. 7/5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1982): 56, with earlier
literature; Ran Zadok, Geographical Names According to New- and Late-Babylonian Texts
(RGTC 8; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B Nr. 7/8; Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1985): 85.
23
 The Neo-Babylonian business partnership was called a harrānu. The word designating
such partnerships means “journey,” that is, business trip. Agents of the temples generally
conducted long-distance trade with regions outside of Babylonia, and only rarely did
private business companies engage in such transactions. For the harrānu transactions, see
Hugo Lanz, Die Neubabylonischen harrânu-Gescheftsunternehmen (Berlin: Schweitzer,
1976); C. Wunsch, “Neo-Babylonian Entrepeneurs,” in The Invention of Enterprise:
Entrepeneurship from Ancient Mesopotamia to Modern Times (D. S. Lander, J. Mokyr
and W. J. Baumol, eds.; Princeton: Princeton Univ., 2010): 51–55, with earlier literature.
 NA’AMAN: A NEW OUTLOOK AT KUNTILLET ‘AJRUD 45

supervising the nearby regions. Thus, for example, the stations that the
Assyrians constructed in the eastern Syria desert were called bīt mardīti,
“road station,” and served to supervise the movement of the Arabs in the
desert front of the empire.24 Clearly, the use of the term caravanserai for
Kuntillet ‛Ajrud is anachronistic, involving the borrowing of an institu-
tion from a later time-period and applying it to a society that did not
know such an institution. In sum, the caravanserai hypothesis does not
accord with the unique features of the site or the reality of the Iron Age
and thus should be abandoned.

Notes on the Kuntillet ‛Ajrud Inscriptions

Kuntillet ‛Ajrud was excavated in the years 1975–1976, and many of

the inscriptions uncovered there have been published gradually over the
years and discussed in detail.25 In the final report of the excavations in
2012, S. Aḥituv, E. Eshel and Z. Meshel published a new edition of all
the inscriptions—including transliteration, transcription and translation
as well as detailed commentary of each text.26 They also published large
black-and-white and color photographs of the important inscriptions, but
did not prepare new facsimiles on the basis of the available photographs.

24
  For bīt mardīti (pl. bīt mardiāti), “road station,” see CAD M/1:278b; Mikko Luukko,
The Correspondence of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud (SAA 19;
Helsinki: Helsinki Univ., 2012): No. 194. For letter ABL 414, see Simo Parpola, The
Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West (SAA 1; Helsinki:
Helsinki Univ., 1987): No. 177; F. M. Fales, “Central Syria in the Letters to Sargon II,”
in Kein Land für sich allein. Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und
Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag (U. Hübner and E. A. Knauf, eds.;
OBO 186; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002):
138–139.
25
  See for example: André Lemaire, Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans
l’ancien Israël (OBO 39; Fribourg: Édition Universitaires and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1981): 25–33; Johannes Renz, Die althebräischen Inschriften. Part 1: Text
und Kommentar, in Handbuch der althebräischn Epigraphik (J. Renz and W. Röllig, eds.;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche, 1995): 47–66; Keel and Uehlinger (n 11): 225–248; Ziony
Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London
and New York: Continuum, 2001): 379–400; F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, J. J. M. Roberts, C.
L. Seow and R. E. Whitaker, Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the
Monarchy with Concordance (New Haven and London: Yale Univ., 2005): 277–298;
Shmuel Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical
Period (Jerusalem; Carta, 2008): 313–329.
26
  S. Aḥituv, E. Eshel and Z. Meshel, “The Inscriptions,” in Kuntillet ʿAjrud [n 15]:
73–142.
46 MAARAV 20.1 (2013)

In my aforementioned article I suggested transliterations, translations

and analysis for the major inscriptions and will not repeat these here.
In what follows, I examine briefly three of the inscriptions written on
pottery vessels and one plaster inscription. The translation and short
commentary help in identifying the persons who visited the site and the
identity of the deities that conveyed blessings to the devotees.

(1) Many scholars have already discussed the inscription on Pithos

A.27 I suggested translating the text as follows:28
Message of [so and so], “the Ki[n]g’s friend” (r¿ hm[l]k).
Speak to Yahēl[yō], and to Yō¿āśā, and to [so and so]. I have
blessed you by YHWH of Samaria and to Asherata.

The inscription begins with the word ¥ōmer (“message”), followed by

a three-letter name of the person bestowing the blessing (¥[xx]). He was
a royal Israelite official who held the title r¿ hmlk, known from the Bible
(2 Sam 15:37; 16:16; 1 Kgs 4:5; 16:11; 1 Chr 27:33) and from various
ancient Near Eastern documents.29 The “King’s friend” was probably a
counsellor and trustworthy attendant of the King.
The inscription includes the blessing bestowed by the said “King’s
friend” official on three unknown persons on behalf of YHWH of
Samaria and his consort, the goddess Asherat. His presence in the site
fits well its character as a royal outpost on the road to the Gulf of Eilat.

(2) Scholars have already discussed the first inscription on Pithos B as

well.30 I suggest translating the text as follows:31
Message of ¥Amaryō: Say to Adonay (l¥dny). Are you well? I
have blessed you by YHWH of Teman and Asherata. May He

27
  See for example: Renz (n 25): 61; Dobbs-Allsopp et al. (n 25): 289–292; Aḥituv,
Eshel and Meshel (n 26): 87–91.
28
  Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud” (n 1): 302–303.
29
 A. van Selms, “The Origin of the Title ‘The King’s Friend’,” JNES 16 (1957): 118–123;
H. Donner, “Der ‘Freund des Königs’,” ZAW 73 (1961): 269–277; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger,
Solomonic State Officials: A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite
Monarchy (Coniectanea Biblica 5; Lund: Gleerup, 1971): 63–69; Udo Rüterswörden, Die
Beamten der israelitischen Königszeit. Eine Studie zu śr und vergleichbaren Begriffen
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1985): 73–77; Nili S. Fox, In the Service of the King: Officialdom
in Ancient Israel and Judah (HUCM 23; Cincinnati: HUC, 2000): 121–128.
30
  See for example: Renz (n 25): 62–63; Dobbs-Allsopp et al. (n 25): 293–294; Aḥituv,
Eshel and Meshel (n 26): 95–97.
31
  Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud” (n 1): 303.
 NA’AMAN: A NEW OUTLOOK AT KUNTILLET ‘AJRUD 47

bless you and may He keep you, and may He be with the lord
of your house(?) (bytk[?]).

¥Amaryo’s identity is unknown. Since blessings are always addressed

to named persons, I suggest rendering the name of the recipient of the
blessing “Adonay,” probably a short form of Adoniyō or Adoni¿am,
rather than ădōni, “my lord,” as scholars have posited to date. According
to this rendering, ¥Amaryo blesses not only his colleague on behalf of
YHWH, but also the lord of his colleague’s house—possibly the King
of Israel.

(3) Pithos B features another inscription comprising three lines. The

deciphering of Line 2 is controversial and quite uncertain.32 Here is my
translation:33
May he bless you (y[b]rk) by YHWH of Teman and Asherata.
Whatever the “favorer of the father(?) and his quiver” (ḥnn
h¥b[?] w¥špth) asked (š¥l) from a man—YHW(H) shall give
him according to his wish.

With all due caution, I suggest that “the father” (if this is indeed the
correct rendering) refers to Joash, father of Jeroboam, the contemporary
King of Israel. In light of this interpretation, the subject of the blessing
and the person who carried the title “the favorer of the father and his
quiver” is probably Jeroboam II, who participated in his father’s wars
against the Arameans. The writer wishes that YHWH grant him what-
ever he asked of his subjects.
The anonymous writer first blesses an individual, who is likely his
superior, in the name of YHWH and Asherat; then he addresses the King,
wishing him that YHWH will grant all his wishes.
Fragments of five inscriptions written on plastered walls and jambs
were discovered near the two entrances leading from the bench room
and the western storeroom to the central court.34 The inscriptions are
written in the Phoenician script—some/most of them in the Phoenician
language.35 Notably, the corpus of texts discovered at Samaria and oth-
er North Israelite centers is extremely limited, and we know very little

32
  Aḥituv, Eshel and Meshel (n 26): 98–100; Blum, “Die Wandinschriften 4.2 und 4.6”
(n 12): 44–47.
33 
Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud” (n 1): 306–307.
34
  Aḥituv, Eshel and Meshel (n 26): 105–122.
35
  Lemaire, “Remarques sur les inscriptions phéniciennes” (n 11): 94–98; Blum, “Die
Wandinschriften 4.2 und 4.6” (n 12): 29–30, 48–50.
48 MAARAV 20.1 (2013)

of the dialect spoken in Samaria’s royal court. Lemaire considered it

simpler and more reasonable to assume the presence of one or several
Phoenician scribe(s) at the site. This suggestion:
. . . soulignent seulment à quel point le phénicien et l’hébreu,
surtout l’hébreu du nord, étaient très proches du point de vue
linguistique, tous deux étant des dialectes cananéens voisins.
De fait, Phéniciens et Israélites du nord pouvaient probable-
ment assez facilement communiquer verbalement.36

Just as Assyrian scholars comprehended the Babylonian dialect of

Akkadian and were well acquainted with the Babylonian literature, so
were the Israelite scholars and elite probably familiar with the West
Semitic Phoenician dialect and with the Phoenician literature. As the two
dialects were quite close linguistically and the inscriptions were written
at an Israelite center, conceivably, the plaster inscriptions were also writ-
ten for an Israelite audience.
Only one of the plaster inscriptions was written in Hebrew.37 I sug-
gested rendering and translating it as follows:38
1. [May he (God)] bless ([y]brk) their days so they may have
[plenty] to eat (wyśb¿w [lḥm]) [and . . .] recount (praises)
(ytnw) to YHWH of the Teman and Asherata [. . .].

2. YHWH of the Te[man] did good [. . . .], set the vine [and
the fig tre]e(??) (hyṣb· [h]gpn [wht¥n]h[??]). YH[WH] of the
Te[man] has [. . . .]

The text presents YHWH of the Teman (htymn) as the provenance of

the blessing on his devotees. The reference to the vine and fig trees (if
this is the correct restoration) indicates that the travellers arrived from
cultivated regions, but while staying in the south attributed the agricul-
tural success to the local patron god.
Since Kuntillet ‛Ajrud was an Israelite royal center, the frequent men-
tion of YHWH of Teman reflects the religious beliefs of the Israelite
travellers who arrived at the place. No evidence exists for the presence
of local inhabitants at the site. According to chemical and petrographic
analysis, the pottery vessels uncovered at the site originated mostly from

36
  Lemaire, “Remarques sur les inscriptions phéniciennes” (n 11): 98.
37
  Aḥituv, Eshel and Meshel (n 26): 105–107; see Blum, “Die Wandinschriften 4.2 und
4.6” (n 12): 49.
38
  Na’aman, “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud” (n 1): 308–309.
 NA’AMAN: A NEW OUTLOOK AT KUNTILLET ‘AJRUD 49

Judah, with a few from the Kingdom of Israel and the Phoenician coast.39
No vessels of Negevite Ware, of the sort commonly attributed to nomads
of the desert regions, were found—suggesting that the site’s occupants
hail from distant regions, and not from among the local nomadic pas-
toralists.40 In this respect, the site differs from all other Iron Age settle-
ments in the Negev Highlands, northern Sinai (including the fortress of
Kadesh-Barnea) and the Arabah, many of which did contain Negevite
pottery.41 Thus, evidently, Kuntillet ‛Ajrud does not illuminate the reli-
gious beliefs and material culture of the local population of the Negev
and Arabah at this time. Moreover, no indication exists that YHWH was
worshiped in Edom in the first millennium b.c.e. The earliest king of
Edom known to date is Qauš-malaka, mentioned in a list of Assyrian
tributaries in Tiglath-pileser III’s 732 b.c.e. inscription.42 The name in-
dicates that already in the eighth century, Qaus was the national God of
Edom. Moreover, not a single Edomite name with the theophoric element
yhw was ever discovered. In light of the absence of pastoral nomads at
the site and the absence of Yahwistic names among the local population,
all efforts to extrapolate from the mid-eighth century North Israelite in-
scriptions of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud to the biblical tradition of YHWH’s origin
in the south in the early Iron Age are methodologically and materially
unlikely.43 The only legitimate conclusion is that the eighth century in-
habitants of Israel considered “YHWH of Teman” to be the god of the
Negev and Arabah regions. Hence, while staying in the southern desert
regions, they sought blessings from YHWH-of-the-south, rather than
from the more remote god of Samaria.

39
  J. Gunneweg, I. Perlman and Z. Meshel, “The Origin of the Pottery of Kuntillet
‘Ajrud,” IEJ 35 (1985): 270–283 (repr. in Meshel, Kuntillet ‛Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman) [n
15]: 279–287); Ayalon (n 16): 141–205 (repr. in Meshel, Kuntillet ‛Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman)
[n 15]: 205–273); Y. Goren, “Petrographic Analyses of Ḥorvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud)
Pottery,” Tel Aviv 22 (1995): 206–207 (repr. in Meshel, Kuntillet ‛Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman)
[n 15]: 275–276).
40
  Meshel, “The Nature of the Site and Its Biblical Background” (n 15): 67b.
41
  For the Negevite pottery, see recently J. M. Tebes, “Iron Age ‘Negevite’ Pottery:
A Reassessment,” Antiguo Oriente 4 (2006): 95–117, with earlier literature; H. Bernick-
Greenberg, “The Negebite Ware Typology,” in Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-
Qudeirat) 1976–1982 (R. Cohen and H. Bernick-Greenberg, eds.; IAA Reports 34:1–2;
Jerusalem: IAA, 2007): 187–210; A. Dagan, “Negebite Pottery beyond the Negev,” Tel
Aviv 38 (2011): 208–219.
42
 Tadmor and Yamada (n 10): 123 line 11.
43
  Contra Blum, “Der historische Mose und die Frühgeschichte Israels” (n 11): 58–60.
50 MAARAV 20.1 (2013)

Kuntillet ‛Ajrud in Retrospect

(1) Kuntillet ‛Ajrud was an Israelite outpost constructed by the King

of Israel, probably Jeroboam II, near the road leading from the coast of
Philistia to the Gulf of Eilat. It was built in an attempt to control and
supervise the Darb el-Ghazza route and became the major component
in the Israelite King’s efforts to participate in the growing international
trade and gain part of the revenues of the Arabian trade. The building
was a royal edifice and all the discovered inscriptions, paintings and ar-
tefacts reflect its function as a royal Israelite center.
The site was possibly selected due to a magnificent sacred tree that
grew in a nearby location. The cult of the goddess Asherat, YHWH’s
consort and the goddess of fertility, took place outside the edifice, prob-
ably near the sacred tree.
Like Israel, Judah also made efforts to participate in the international
trade of the eighth century b.c.e. Amaziah, King of Judah, defeated Edom
and built Joktheel, probably a Judahite outpost near the road to Elath, to
control and supervise the Arabah route. His son, Uzziah, built Elath (Tell
el-Kheleifeh) in the crossroad of Darb el-Ghazza and the Arabah route. It
remains unclear whether he built it as an independent king, or as a vassal
of Jeroboam II.

(2) An analysis of the inscriptions from Kuntillet ‛Ajrud demonstrates

not only the site’s distinctive religious nature, but also the abiding inter-
est of the authorities of the Northern Kingdom in the place. The figure
of a ruler, probably the King of Israel, seated on a throne and holding a
lotus flower, was painted on plaster on the building’s entrance wall.44 The
front room was covered with plaster and paintings, and several inscrip-
tions in the prestigious Phoenician script and language adorned its walls
and jambs. One plaster inscription, written in Hebrew, presents YHWH
of Teman as showering prosperity and blessing on his believers. The
inscription on Pithos A was written by a royal high official (“the King’s
friend”) who arrived at the place. The inscription on Pithos B probably
includes a blessing to “the lord of your house,” possibly the King of
Israel. Another inscription on Pithos B possibly mentions “the favorer of
the father and his quiver,” which I interpreted as a reference to Jeroboam,
who took part in his father’s wars against the Arameans. The cumulative

44
  P. Beck, “The Art of Palestine during the Iron Age II: Local Traditions and External
Influences (10th–8th Centuries BCE),” in Images as Media: Sources for the Culture History
of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE) (C. Uehlinger,
ed.; OBO 175; Fribourg: Édition Universitaires and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2000): 80–181.
 NA’AMAN: A NEW OUTLOOK AT KUNTILLET ‘AJRUD 51

textual and artistic evidence points to a site of religious nature, estab-

lished by the King of Israel and maintained by his administration.

(3) The assemblage of inscriptions unearthed at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud pres-

ents, for the first time, the wealth of inscriptions written in the Kingdom
of Israel at its peak, in the era of Jeroboam II. Similar inscriptions have
not been discovered to date in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah—a fact
that might hint at the limitation of archaeological research and demon-
strate the need to avoid drawing conclusions on the basis of negative evi-
dence. Only a few, sporadic inscriptions survived from the rich corpus
that was available in the past; this situation must be taken into account in
every discussion of the early history of Israel.

(4) The major significance of YHWH in the inscriptions discovered

at the site is remarkable. The Book of Kings and the prophetic books
present Israel as a sinner kingdom, which adopted the cult of Ba‛al. The
inscriptions indicate the devotion of their authors to YHWH and their
belief in his omnipotence. In this sense, they draw a picture of Israel
similar to that of Judah as presented in the biblical texts.