‘United Monarchy’ full of splendor and power – Saul, David, and Solomon? Most likely not.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

“The United Monarchy (Claimed United Kingdom of Israel) is the name given to the Israelite kingdom of Israel and Judah,  stated as happening during the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon, as depicted in the Hebrew Bible. This is traditionally dated between 1050 BCE and 930 BCE (around 3,050-2,930). On the succession of Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, around 930 BCE, the biblical account reports that the country split into two kingdoms: the Kingdom of Israel (including the cities of Shechem and Samaria) in the north and the Kingdom of Judah (containing Jerusalem) in the south.” ref

“In contemporary scholarship the united monarchy is generally held to be a literary construction and not a historical reality, pointing to the lack of archaeological evidence. It is generally accepted that a “House of David” existed, but many believe that David could have only been the monarch or chieftain of Judah, which was likely small, and that the northern kingdom was a separate development. There are some dissenters to this view.” ref

“The name “Israel” first appears in the Merneptah Stele c. 1209 BCE: “Israel is laid waste and his seed is no more.” This “Israel” was a cultural and probably political entity, well enough established for the Egyptians to perceive it as a possible challenge, but an ethnic group rather than an organised state; Archaeologist Paula McNutt says: “It is probably … during Iron Age I [that] a population began to identify itself as ‘Israelite’,” differentiating itself from its neighbours via prohibitions on intermarriage, an emphasis on family history and genealogy, and religion.” ref

In the Late Bronze Age there were no more than about 25 villages in the highlands, but this increased to over 300 by the end of Iron Age I, while the settled population doubled from 20,000 to 40,000. The villages were more numerous and larger in the north, and probably shared the highlands with pastoral nomads, who left no remains. Archaeologists and historians attempting to trace the origins of these villagers have found it impossible to identify any distinctive features that could define them as specifically Israelite – collared-rim jars and four-room houses have been identified outside the highlands and thus cannot be used to distinguish Israelite sites, and while the pottery of the highland villages is far more limited than that of lowland Canaanite sites, it develops typologically out of Canaanite pottery that came before. Israel Finkelstein proposed that the oval or circular layout that distinguishes some of the earliest highland sites, and the notable absence of pig bones from hill sites, could be taken as markers of ethnicity, but others have cautioned that these can be a “common-sense” adaptation to highland life and not necessarily revelatory of origins. Other Aramaean sites also demonstrate a contemporary absence of pig remains at that time, unlike earlier Canaanite and later Philistine excavations.” ref

“In The Bible Unearthed (2001), Finkelstein and Silberman summarised recent studies. They described how, up until 1967, the Israelite heartland in the highlands of western Palestine was virtually an archaeological terra incognita. Since then, intensive surveys have examined the traditional territories of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh. These surveys have revealed the sudden emergence of a new culture contrasting with the Philistine and Canaanite societies existing in the Land of Israel earlier during Iron Age I.^[21] This new culture is characterised by a lack of pork remains (whereas pork formed 20% of the Philistine diet in places), by an abandonment of the Philistine/Canaanite custom of having highly decorated pottery, and by the practice of circumcision. The Israelite ethnic identity had originated, not from the Exodus and a subsequent conquest, but from a transformation of the existing Canaanite-Philistine cultures.” ref

“These surveys revolutionized the study of early Israel. The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages – all apparently established within the span of few generations – indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from the Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here were the first Israelites. Modern scholars therefore see Israel arising peacefully and internally from existing people in the highlands of Canaan.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

 Archaeological record

“According to Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, authors of The Bible Unearthed, ideas of a united monarchy are not accurate history but rather “creative expressions of a powerful religious reform movement,” possibly “based on certain historical kernels.” Finkelstein and Silberman do accept that David and Solomon were real kings of Judah about the 10th century BCE, but they cite the fact that the earliest independent reference to the Kingdom of Israel dates to about 890 BCE, while that for the kingdom of Judah dates to about 750 BCE.” ref

“This is supported by Jonathan Tubb, who argues that the story of the united monarchy was fabricated as a Golden Age tale during the Exile. He accepts the historicity of David and Solomon but cautions that “[t]hey must be seen . . . as local folk heroes and not as rulers of international status.” ref

“Oded Lipschits wrote in the Jewish Study Bible that “the pre-monarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of “united monarchy” is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past.” ref

“On the other hand, while Amélie Kuhrt does acknowledge that “there are no royal inscriptions from the time of the united monarchy (indeed very little written material altogether), and not a single contemporary reference to either David or Solomon,” she concludes that “[a]gainst this must be set the evidence for substantial development and growth at several sites, which is plausibly related to the tenth century.” Kenneth Kitchen reaches a similar conclusion, arguing that “the physical archaeology of tenth-century Canaan is consistent with the former existence of a unified state on its terrain.” ref

“

“In August 2015, Israeli archaeologists discovered massive fortifications in the ruins of the ancient city of Gath, supposed birthplace of Goliath. The size of the fortifications show Gath to have been a very large city in the 10th century BCE, perhaps the largest in Canaan at the time. The professor leading the dig, Aren Maeir, estimated that Gath was as much as four times the size of contemporary Jerusalem, casting doubt that David’s kingdom could have been as powerful as described in the Bible.” ref

“In 2016, the Gezer excavators discovered an Egyptian jar stopper inside the 10th century stratum, with a ‘design’ typical of 22nd Dynasty pharaohs. The only 22nd Dynasty pharaoh known to have invaded Israel and Judah is the Egyptian pharaoh Shishak (aka Sheshonk I), who did so about five years after Solomon is said to have died, and was succeeded by Rehoboam. Rehoboam – unlike his fabled father – is generally accepted to be a historic figure. “Shishak’s ascension to the throne reunified the Egyptian kingdom and led to reinvolvement in the Levant,” Egyptologist Shirley Ben Dor Evian told Haaretz. The Egyptian forces also swarmed over the Aravah copper mines. Shishak’s raid of Israel and Judah is described in the bible (1 Kings 14:25, 26; 2 Chronicles 12:1-12).” ref

“In contrast to Exodus, for example, there is archaeological evidence for Shishak’s invasion of Israel and Judah, and of the copper mines in the Aravah. A scarab found at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, at the gateway to the copper district in Faynan – explored by Prof. Thomas Levy with Dr. Mohammad Najjar of the University of California – reads, “Bright is the manifestation of Re, chosen of Amun/Re” which corresponds with the throne name of Shishak. The pharaoh’s name also appears on a fragment of stele left in a dump at Megiddo by the excavators in 1925. The stele may have been erected to commemorate his victory.” ref

“Regarding Jerusalem, the situation is less clear. A relief on a temple wall at Karnak describes Shishak’s campaign and lists cities in Israel and Judah that his forces captured. Jerusalem isn’t on the list. The Karnak stone is broken and that part may have gone missing. Another theory is that Shishak never destroyed Jerusalem because King Rehoboam, cringed and paid him tribute. The bible for its part describes how Shishak enters the Temple and strips it of its treasures (1 Kings 14:25), which may have induced the pharaoh to spare the city.” ref

“In other words, this evidence is painfully indirect, but if the biblical description of Shishak’s conquest of Jerusalem is true, it could lend credence to the narrative of the United Kingdom. Barkay believes it. “Psychologically, why would the writers invent it if not true, especially since they admired the house of David and the house of God?” he asks. “In addition, Shishak captured cities around Jerusalem. Being so close, it is unthinkable he would not strip Jerusalem of its treasures.” While many scholars accept Shishak’s invasion of Israel and Judah in 925 B.C.E. as a historical event, they don’t necessarily think that supports the biblical narrative prior to the Egyptian invasion –  in effect, the United Monarchy.” ref

“Shishak was interested in places where there might be threats. A campaign against a Saulide ‘Israel’ is entirely plausible. But there is no evidence that Jerusalem was the seat of political power,” says Davies. “It was probably still a rather small village.” Furthering that point, Finkelstein notes that as Shishak set out to reestablish Egyptian domination over Canaan, he could have targeted the nascent Israelite polity centered in the Gibeon Plateau. “Sites in this region are mentioned by Shishak,” Finkelstein told Haaretz, adding, “Jerusalem is not either Jerusalem cooperated with the Pharaoh, or it was unimportant.” ref 

“In 2017, Evidence of extensive copper mining is found which some wish to link to a united kingdom. The copper industry in the region – at Timna and Khirbat en-Nahdas in southern Israel, and at Faynan in Jordan – was clearly vast. More than 100,000 tons of slag from the Iron Age have been discovered in the area. Archaeology has provided precious little evidence for the biblical account of a powerful Judaic kingdom 3,000 years ago, but the sheer extent of copper mining in Timna, when Egypt was in a state of collapse, is otherwise hard to explain.” ref 

“In the 10th century B.C.E., the Israelite tribes were led by judges, but cried out against them, and yearned for a leader. Samuel warned them of the follies of kings: “And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you“. Yet Saul was elected anyway, and would be followed by King David and his wise son Solomon. These kings created a powerful United Monarchy stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. So goes the biblical story (Samuel 8:1-14).” ref 

“Yet no archaeological evidence has been found that even remotely supports the grandeur described in the biblical accounts of David and Solomon, who ostensibly reigned between 1050 B.C.E. and 930 B.C.E. The only material sign of the kings’ existence is controversial too: a stele found in northern Israel, from the mid-9th century B.C.E., inscribed with the words “House of David.” But not everyone agrees that’s what the stone even says. Until the collapse of Mediterranean civilizations in 1200 B.C.E., Cyprus had been the main regional source of copper. After the collapse, the mines in the Aravah valley came to the fore, Ben-Yosef and Prof. Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University told Haaretz.” ref

“According to the bible, after David assumed the throne and conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites, he consolidated the kingdom, including by conquering Edom. David’s son Solomon took it further, building up Jerusalem and the Temple and entering into political alliances. After Solomon died, in around 930 B.C.E., his son Rehoboam was unable to hold the kingdom together: it split into Israelite and Judahite entities fighting each other. Is that what happened? Did a great United Monarchy take form, chiefly under David, develop further under his son, and then fall apart?” ref

“There are archaeological remains from the 10th century B.C.E., but they have settled nothing. “Maximalists” comb the remains for support for the biblical narrative. “Minimalists” argue that the ruins have not been proved to be related to an Israelite kingdom, let alone one run by David or Solomon. Take the stone palace found in Jerusalem. Maximalists say it dates to the appropriate time and obviously belonged to David. Minimalists say its period hasn’t been proven, let alone its provenance.” ref

“Everyone agrees that the actual 10th-century B.C.E. miners were the Edomites. The question is who was in control.Irrespective of who controlled them, Prof. Philip R. Davies of the University of Sheffield speculates that the copper mines were particularly active in the 10th century B.C.E. because of heavy demand for copper in Egypt, especially when the supply from Cyprus collapsed.”Any major power in the region would want to control the mines,” Davies added, “I don’t see that any of the small emerging kingdoms of the Levant could have secured control of this operation. My preferred candidate is Egypt. Edom does not seem to have been politically developed to the extent of organizing all this.” ref

“Finkelstein doesn’t necessarily agree with Davies that the Edomites were inadequate to controlling the mines, though the Edomites were desert nomads, like the Bedouins today.  Finkelstein feels the mines may have empowered the Edomites, and that outside control, whether from Jerusalem or Egypt, was not necessary.” ref

Divided kingdom of united critics

“Israel Finkelstein is famously careful when dealing with biblical material. He sees the description of a great United Monarchy – a sort of a Golden Age – as the product of authors who lived around 250 years after the time of David and Solomon, who were advancing a royal ideology of their own time. “I see David and Solomon as historical figures – the founders of the Jerusalem dynasty. But at the same time I see the text as layered,” Finkelstein told Haaretz. “For Solomon, there is very little information about his actual reign. For David, there is more, especially the material that describes him as a leader of a Habiru band on the southern fringe.” ref

Therefore, the “Golden Age” should be understood as a Golden Age to come rather than an account of the past, according to Finkelstein, who suspects that if anything, David and Solomon ruled over little more than a village located on the Temple Mount. “In order to understand Jerusalem of the 11th and 10th centuries B.C.E., one needs to take a broader look. First, I think that the original mound of Jerusalem was located on the Temple Mount. Second, Jerusalem started expanding from this original mound only in the 9th century B.C.E. This means that in the 11-10th centuries, the city was inhabited, but was still modest in size and material culture,” Finkelstein says. It is a convenient theory, but there is not one shred of evidence to support it.” ref

“The descriptions of King Solomon and David in the bible were probably embellished, to paint a picture of a vast, prosperous kingdom. But the bible’s writers typically lived centuries after the period they were writing about. Nor were they beholden to today’s principles of veracity, and, as they say, the story is written by the winners. When we read and try to interpret biblical narratives it is vital that we understand how historical narrative and cultural memory works. The bible mythologies the grandeur of David and Solomon and the memory of their kingdom have changed over time, all the individual stories have been forgotten. All cultures smooth the individual stories into one useful narrative. Apparently sometimes the Bible is right, other bits have been distorted, and often we simply cannot know. The Old Testament describes Assyrian kings and Egyptian pharaohs whose existence has been proven beyond doubt. But we may never know the truth of what really happened in the 10th century B.C.E., the time of David and Solomon. And even if no grandeur from a Davidic kingdom has survived, unlike the ruins still evident of the grand empires of Assyria and Egypt, the biblical stories of David and Solomon live on.” ref 

“In 2018, “Surveying by mole rat burrowing in studying Tel ‘Eton in the Hebron hills, sways the debate toward the existence of a major United Monarchy in the Davidic and Solomonic eras, archaeologist claims.” ref

“The new discovery at Tel ‘Eton, located in the Judean Shephelah to the east of the Hebron hills, seems to suggest that the highland kingdom controlled larger areas than some scholars believe”, Faust added. The dig, led by  Professor Faust of Bar-Ilan University, is at Tel Eton, in the valley near the Hebron hills. The city that once stood at the site has been identified by scholars as Eglon, a city which, according to the Bible, fought against the Israelites as part of the five Amorite kings coalition and was later listed as part of the tribe of Judah.” ref 

The discovery has become part of an ongoing dispute among archaeologists about whether King David actually existed as a real historical figure or whether he was just a mythological figure existing only in the pages of the Bible.. The finds from Tel ‘Eton, recently published by Faust and Yair Sapir in the journal Radiocarbon, led the authors to claim that the city was once part of David’s kingdom.  The structure was dated to the 10th century – the time in which King David was supposed to have ruled according to the Bible – on the basis of radiocarbon dates of samples from the floor make-up and from the foundation deposit. After describing the building and the reasons that led them to date it to the 10th century BCE, Faust and Sapir wrote: “This has bearings on the date in which social complexity evolved in Judah, on the debate regarding the historicity of the kingdom of David and Solomon.” ref

“Dr. Faust explained, We, of course, did not find any artifacts that said ‘King David’ or King Solomon’ but we discovered at the site signs of a social transformation the region underwent, including the construction of a large edifice in a plan known to archaeologists as ‘the four-room house’ which is common in Israel but is rare to non-existent elsewhere. This seems to indicate that the inspiration or cause for the transformations are to be sought in the highland. The association with David is not based on any archaeological evidence but on circumstantial grounds only. Since the source of the change seems to be in the highlands, and since it took place at the time when David was supposed to have existed, the link is plausible,” Professor Faust told Breaking Israel News. “Moreover, the changes are consistent with larger regional changes, all connected with the highlands, and all taking place at a time the Kingdom of David was supposed to have to spread into this region.” ref

“The association with the highland kingdom, as well as the time of the change, are the main discovery, and if someone thinks that there was no King David, that person should come with a different name for the highland king in whose time the region was incorporated into the highland kingdom,” Professor Faust added. “The association with the highland kingdom, as well as the time of the change, are the main discovery, and if someone thinks that there was no King David, that person should come with a different name for the highland king in whose time the region was incorporated into the highland kingdom”. This connection between the Bible and archaeology made by Professor Faust can be problematic, as Dr. Eilat Mazar, a prominent Israeli archaeologist, explained. “Archaeology does not begin with a belief and the Bible and then a search for proof,” Dr. Mazar told Breaking Israel News. “We first find evidence and then try to understand the truth behind the evidence.” For the most part, evidence of Biblical events is lacking, Dr. Mazar noted.” ref

“If verified, Tel Eton will be the second major archaeological site attributed to King David. In 2007,  Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University found a large military fortress at Khirbet Qeiyafa approximately 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem. He eventually dated the fortress to the early 10th century BCE when King David is thought to have ruled over Israel concurrent with the structure at Tel Eton. Professor Faust noted that the site at Tel Eton indicates a level of social complexity, indicating the society at the time was complex politically. The archaeological site covers 15 acres, making it the third largest in the Judean region behind Jerusalem and Lachish. When Professor Faust’s group first began excavations, they discovered fortifications, suggesting the regional importance of the site. Most of the buildings at the dig were from the 8th century BCE, several hundred years later than the period of King David. But further studies suggested the site had a much more ancient history.” ref

“The site of Tel Eton, including the massive house, was destroyed by the Assyrians during the eighth century B.C. As such, the house held a vast amount of remains dating to that century, but relatively few remains that date to 3,000 years ago when the house was first built. This “old house effect” is a problem commonly seen in Israel and at archaeological sites in other countries, the archaeologists said. “Buildings and strata can exist for a few centuries, until they are destroyed, but almost all the finds will reflect this latter event,” wrote Faust and Sapir, noting that archaeologists need to be careful to dig down and find the oldest remains of the structures they are excavating so they don’t miss remains that could provide clues to the United Monarchy. Israel Finkelstein, a professor at Tel Aviv University who has written extensively about the United Monarchy debate, expressed skepticism about the results.” ref

“Two of the four samples used for radiocarbon dating are olive pits, which pose a problem, he said. “The single olive pits come from fills [material that accumulated on the surface of the floor before the floor broke apart]. They have no importance whatsoever [for] dating the building. At Megiddo, my dig, samples like this, single items/fills, are not being sent to the lab to be dated, because they enter bias into the dating system,” Finkelstein said. “There is no connection whatsoever between the finds at Tel Eton and the biblical description of the United Monarchy.” Faust told Live Science he expects that some archaeologists would be critical of the use of material found in the remains of the floors for radiocarbon dating. He noted that all the radiocarbon dates, those from the olive pits and from the charcoal, converge around 3,000 years. “The convergence of the dates suggest that we are on safe grounds,” Faust said. He also noted that one of the charcoal samples is not from the floor but from the foundation deposit (the chalice), strengthening the conclusion that the house was built around 3,000 years ago.” ref

“In 2019, Finkelstein claimed that mounting evidence from archaeological digs has led him to believe that a united monarchy of sorts did exist, but that it was under Jeroboam II, some two centuries after the reigns of David and Solomon. Finkelstein claimed that the Biblical narrative was likely invented under the reign of King Josiah to justify expansion and that the historical united monarchy was the inspiration.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref 

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworld. Ki and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

“Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref

Tutelary deity

“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Korean shamanism, jangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the Seonangdang. In Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (Kawi, Sundanese, Javanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythology, Tiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States 

“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and Ur; Ancient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as Florence, Siena, Ferrara, Milan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen Itza, Tikal, Copán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coast; Ragusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref

“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref

“Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref

“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref

“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref

“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref 

Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)

“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref

“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref

“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref

“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:

• Brownie (Scotland and England) or Hob (England) / Kobold (Germany) / Goblin / Hobgoblin
• Domovoy (Slavic)
• Nisse (Norwegian or Danish) / Tomte (Swedish) / Tonttu (Finnish)
• Húsvættir (Norse)” ref

“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref

“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref

“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref

“William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:

The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …

In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:

• Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
• Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
• Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
• Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
• Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
• Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
• Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ref

This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess “Value Conscious/Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com