Previous Interpretations and Methodological Presuppositions

The prevailing scholarly interpretations can be divided into four major subheadings. First, figurines are frequently interpreted as goddesses, most commonly as consorts of the Hebrew Bible's deity, “Yahweh” (Pilz 1924, 161; Pritchard 1943, 85; McCowan 1947, 245; Tufnell 1953, 66, 374; Albright 1974, 96-98; Engle 1979, 52; Ahlstrom 1984, 22; Holladay 1987, 278; Kletter 1996, 77; Dever 2005, 194).

Throughout the various scholars represented in these four interpretive approaches one finds a single consistent methodological presupposition, namely that the population making and using the figurines and figurine function can be divined from observations based on figurine design. More specifically, the breasts of the figurines are treated as the main adjudicators for figurine user and function. In its most extreme form, one hears statements like the figurines, “emphasized the breasts, so much so that the eye is inevitably drawn there (there being nothing else to see)” (Dever 2005, 187).

Moreover, archaeological data are often treated as proof for these assumptions, despite the fact that their primary basis is in iconological rather than archaeological interpretation. For example, because figurines are found primarily in domestic units their archaeological context is frequently cited as evidence that figurines were used by females or for “female” concerns, like eroticism, procreation, and lactation (e.g., McCowan 1947, 245; Holladay 1987, 275-80; Daviau 2001, 203-4; Meyers 2007, 123-26). Of course, the general domestic context can only be used to support such assertions if one concludes that men did not live in Israelite houses, that men were unconcerned with the needs of their families, or that the only thing going on in Israelite houses was sex.

Furthermore, although JPFs are found in almost every site in every region of Judah and over a range of ca. two hundred years, scholars rarely recognize regional or site diversity (e.g., Kletter 1996). Rather, the context of figurines at one site is used to interpret the entire corpus, despite clear evidence for regionally and locally specific figurine distribution and iconographic preferences (Darby 2014, 237-58). In other words, most scholars assume that the relatively standard design of the figurines must mean their functions were standard and homogenous as well. In sum, archaeological context is used to undergird interpretations of figurine iconography, but, in actuality, the data are often misinterpreted and claims made upon them are aggrandized.

In part, these problems cannot be avoided because of the model of religion applied to ancient Israelite women.

Instead, in the attempt to describe ancient Israelite female piety, interpreters actually use the relatively homogenous iconography of the figurines to re-create a single homogenous way all Israelite women must have thought about and/ or used JPFs, despite their varied regional and local contexts. Moreover, the longstanding assumption, popularized by Protestant Reformers, that female piety must be intricately tied to procreation and child-rearing (e.g., Porterfield 1991) may have influenced interpreters to propose either that procreation and childrearing were the primary aspects of ancient female piety or that these concerns were largely absent in the beliefs and practices of other family members. Ultimately, the interpretation of female religion as “interior” and “family-driven” may have obscured the ways in which religious rituals of the household would have interacted with local, regional, national, and Levantine practices.