the archaeology of the israelite cult

The Archaeology of the Israelite Cult:Questioning the Consensus

AvRAHAM F A U S T

The Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and ArchaeologyBar-Ilan UniversityRamat-Gan, 52900

[email protected]

In Memory of Professor Hanan Eshel

Israelite forms of religious expression have received a great deal of scholarly atten-tion. Archaeologists and biblical scholars have scrutinized the textual and archaeologi-cal data, and a consensus regarding the frequency and distribution of Israelite placesof cult seems to be emerging. The aim of this article is to reexamine the available dataon Israelite places of worship within the broader context of Bronze Age and Iron Agetemples. The evidence suggests that current views on ancient Israelite cultic sites, whileoffering many important new insights, have focused on exceptional cases that have beenmischaracterized as representative samples of Israelite religion. A different view ofIsraelite cult practice is therefore offered, one that has the potential to shed new light onIsraelite religion.

I sraelite religion(s) has (have) received a greatdeal of scholarly attention from archaeologistsand biblical scholars. Past generations of scholars

often employed biblical archaeology in the service ofunderstanding the scripture, while modern scholar-ship, driven by a "secular" agenda, has also attributedconsiderable importance to this hotly debated subject.Indeed, dozens of books and hundreds of articles havebeen devoted to the topic. These studies have scruti-nized the textual and archaeological data, and a con-sensus about Israelite cult places has emerged. Thepresent article reexamines the available data on Isra-elite cult buildings within a broader environment andargues that a different interpretation of these structuresmay be helpful in understanding Israelite cult.

DEEINITION AND IDENTIFICATION

The discussion of cultic buildings is fraught withdifficulties, and two preliminary notes—one regardingthe terminology used in referring to such buildings andthe other regarding their identification as cultic—aretherefore in order.

Definition

The term "cultic building," as used in this article, iscomprehensive and refers to any structure built specif-ically for religious purposes. This includes nearly allof the buildings that scholars have defined as temples,shrines, sanctuaries, and other related structures.

Admittedly, such terms have been used diiferentlyby different scholars. J. S. Holladay, for example,defined sanctuaries and shrines in the following way:"I take the term 'sanctuary' to refer to a larger, multi-component or presumably multicomponent structuregenerally incorporating exterior space (courtyardor témenos) into the overall design. A 'shrine,' asthe term is used here, is smaller and simpler than asanctuary, ideally being a unitary structure such as asingle room or a cult room with attached storerooms."He added, " 'shrines' tend to be integrated into theirsurrounding neighborhoods. 'Sanctuaries' dominateand define their neighborhood" (Holladay 1987: 282,n. 1; see also Hess 2007: 39).

Scholars have used various terms to describe thesestructures. Zevit (2001:123-24), for example, referred

23

24 AVRAHAM FAUST BASOR 360

to "cult complex," "cult center," "tempfe," "tempfecompfex," and "shrine," among other terms, whifeDever (e.g., 2005: fff, 135, f67) discussed "focafshrines," "pubfic open-air sanctuaries," and "monu-mentaf temples" (see also Hess 2007: 3f2-f4).

It must therefore be stressed that the wide defini-tion adopted in this articfe embraces both Hoffaday'sshrines and sanctuaries as well as practically anyother definition that has been employed by scholarsfor buildings that were built for cultic purposes. Thedifferences between the various definitions are irrel-evant for the purposes of this articfe. If there is agree-ment that a buifding was buift specificafly for religiouspurposes, it falls within our definition of a cultic buifd-ing. Since the distinction between the various possiblesubtypes of cultic structures is not important, we wiffuse the terms "cultic buildings," "temples," "shrines,"and "sanctuaries" interchangeably.

At the same time, we will not address expressionsof religion within the household or discoveries that areinterpreted as small cultic corners within buildings.'Nor will we try to identify the biblicaf terms for thosebuifdings. These have been the subject of extensiveresearch (e.g.. Smith 2002; Nakhai 200f ; Zevit 200 f;Haran f981), but have no bearing on the main argu-ments presented here.

Identifying Cultic Buildings

Identifying cult in archaeology is notoriously diffi-cult (cf. Flannery 1976: 329-33). Over the years vari-ous explicit methods have been offered to overcomethe difficulties of interpreting archaeological finds asindicating cuft. The most notabfe and influentiaf studyon the identification of cuftic sites has been Renfrew'sf 985 study ofthe sanctuary at Phyfakopi (see afso Ren-frew f994; Renfrew and Bahn 2004: 416-f7; Levy2006). Renfrew examined a number of traits—refatingto architecture and other archaeofogicaf remains—thathe viewed as being indicative of cuft. Among thesetraits was a setting or architecturaf entity that focusesattention or creates a boundary between this worfd andanother one, or that exhibits evidence of participationand offerings to a deity. His approach has been expfic-itly followed in numerous recent studies of Israeliterefigion(s) (e.g., Zevit 200f : 82-83; see afso Nakhai

' Attempts to identify cultic activities in the archaeologicalrecord of ancient Israel are numerous (e.g., the cult room at Lach-ish; Aharoni 1975: 26-32), but the identification of many of thesuggested Iron Age cultic structures or corners can be debated.

200f: 35-36; Hess 2007: 37-39; and others). Sincemany ofthe studies discussed in this article, especiallythose used to compile the "fists" of cultic buildings,have expficitfy used Renfrew's criteria, it is clear thatat feast most of these buildings exhibit a sufficientnumber of the traits to qualify them as "cultic."

It is not the aim of this article to discuss and re-evafuate the structures that have been interpreted ascuftic (afthough, to err on the side of caution, f wiflsometimes comment on structures whose cultic naturehas been seriously questioned). What is important isthat a number of scholars have empfoyed similar cri-teria when identifying various types of Bronze Ageand Iron Age structures found in cities and villages asweff as in different geographicaf regions. Since similarcriteria were (generally) used in establishing tbe culticnature of most structures, any striking differences intheir distribution would call for some explanation.

The patterns discussed in this paper regarding thedistribution and frequency of cultic buildings are thusvalid, and not a result of the application of differentcriteria for different societies, nor of the use of differ-ent methods for identifying cultic buildings. Hence,the existing "database" of cultic structures is appropri-ate for comparative purposes as well as for identifyingpatterns in the distribution, use, and even existence ofsuch structures. In light of the above, different pat-terns should be seen as significant and meaningful,resulting from behavioral characteristics and not fromdifferences in archaeological interpretation.

BACKGROUND

Israelite refigion(s) has (have) fong been of greatinterest to bibfical schofars. (fn pface of a compre-hensive review of the refevant fiterature, readers arereferred to Hess 2007: 43-80, with previous literaturecited there; see more below.) From the inception ofarchaeofogicaf work in the region, scholars were ea-ger to identify any evidence of religious practices. Thebibficaf dimension added to the "normal" interest ofschofars in ancient refigions (cf. Ffannery 1976: 331;Frye f996: 56). While many of the earfy attempts tostudy Israelite religion and to identify temples andshrines on the basis of the archaeological finds wereeclectic and derived from incidentaf finds (see, e.g.,the assessment of Wright f 978: f 49), more systematicattempts foffowed.

Recentfy, archaeofogical discoveries of cultic itemsas welf as the critical analysis of the biblical infor-mation on Israelite religion(s) have led many scholars

2010 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ISRAELITE CULT 25

to attempt to reconstruct the location and manner inwhich Israelite religion was practiced. A growing con-sensus has emerged in the last several decades over therole and function of religious buildings in Iron AgeIsraelite society. This consensus identifies various lociof cult, from the household to the national capitals

• (e.g., Jerusalem). The discussion below focuses on thearchitectural evidence for cultic buildings dated to theIron Age II—the period of the Monarchy in Israel andJudah—and the suggested typologies of the functionof those structures.

Typology of Cultic Buildings:The Emerging Consensus

Holladay's (1987) influential article, "Religion inIsrael and Judah under the Monarchy: An ExplicitlyArchaeological Approach," identified various loci ofcult and created a typology of those buildings andspaces. The article defined which type of cult wastypical of what setting (urban, regional, and so forth),based on the characteristics of the various structuresidentified. It then extrapolated from these finds to thesituation in Israel and Judah at large, distinguishing be-tween "established" regional shrines and "state" tem-ples on the one hand, and "non-conformist" shrines onthe other. "Non-conformist" shrines were buildings inwhich the cult practiced there deviated from the state-sponsored religion. Holladay's "typology" of templesand shrines suggests that the "established worship"was practiced at the town and the national level as wellas at the neighborhood level (1987: 267-68).

Other scholars followed Holladay's lead, and al-though their typologies are not always identical, theconcept of central, regional, and local cultic centersat several levels is now widely accepted. Hess (2007:297-314) has followed Holladay's classification, atleast in its general outlines. After presenting the evi-dence from many sites at which he believes proof ofcultic activities has been unearthed, he refers to theexistence of "local shrines" (Hess 2007:312), conclud-ing that "during the later divided monarchy (eighthto sixth centuries B.c.) the high places continued asstate-sponsored religious centers, while cult centersappeared at village sites, along trade routes, and in al-ternative nonconformist contexts" (Hess 2007: 314).Dever has viewed the evidence as indicative of asimilar reality and concluded that different types oftemples were built in various locales (see, e.g., Dever2005: 174). Zevit (2001), in what is perhaps the mostdetailed study of Israelite religions, scrutinized both

the archaeological and non-archaeological evidenceand also concluded that "the religion was practiceddifferently at home, village, sanctuary, urban temple,and extra-urban sanctuary" (2001: 265). Borowski(2003: 54), in describing daily life in biblical Israel,wrote: " . . . it is safe to assume that every city and townhad a cult center or a shrine" (see also Borowski 2003:24). Finally, Nakhai (2001) described a phenomenonin which temples, sanctuaries, and shrines have beenfound throughout the landscape.

Biblical scholars, in discussing the cultic changesfollowing the religious reforms of the late Iron Age,have frequently noted that local sanctuaries and tem-ples were widespread before these reforms. Hence,Hagedorn (2005: 204) refers to "all the local shrineswhich have previously been centres...." Vogt (2006:44, 46) also speaks about the "local sanctuaries" thatexisted until the time of Josiah (see also Albertz 1994:128,206; for the multiplicity of shrines, see also Smith2002: 161;McNutt 1999: 176-78).

A common thread in many of these studies and ty-pologies is the view that the Israelites built templesand local shrines in almost every locale, and that be-yond the household cult there also existed neighbor-hood and village shrines, town shrines, regional culticcenters, and central temples in the national capitals.Indeed, regarding "the relationship between local andcentral sanctuaries" a consensus has emerged that"during the whole monarchical period both existedside by side" (Kessler 2008: 89; this, until the timeof Josiah).2

The Logic behind the Typology

The authors of the above-mentioned studies scruti-nized all of the available archaeological evidence thatdirectly and indirectly related to Israelite religion andcult. They looked at every possible clue in order toreconstruct every possible form of religious practice,and then extrapolated from the available information tounderstand Israelite religion(s) at large. These studieshave explicitly or implicitly agreed that the fragmen-tary data uncovered is representative of a larger whole.For example, Dever (2005: 170-75), after discussingthe temple at Arad, writes that, "all things considered,there is no reason to suppose that the Arad temple is

^ The reference to Josiah follows Kessler's assessment. Thepresent article focuses on identifying the archaeological pattern, notthe circumstances surrounding the reform or its historicity, nor otherpossible religious reforms.


unique or even exceptional. Rather it appears to be anexample of what was probably a widespread phenom-enon—local temples" (Dever 2005: 175). Hess (2007:303), in a similar vein, suggests that "the sanctuary atArad probably represents a regional center" (see alsoHess 2007: 312), while Albertz (1994:128) views it asa "regular temple complex" and an example of "pro-vincial sanctuaries." But while studies such as the onescited here have been exemplary in their scrutiny ofthe archaeological evidence, in their interdisciplinaryapproach to the data, and in their critical look at thetextual sources, in my opinion their conclusion shouldbe reexamined. Indeed, a more (archaeologically) con-textual approach to the available data indicates that theevidence that served as their basis for reconstructingIsraelite cult places is the exception rather than themle. Hence, the emerging picture is not representativeof Israelite religion. Extrapolating from the exceptionshas not given us a picture of the whole, but rather adistorted image.

NON-ISRAELITE TEMPLESIN THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES

Before trying to assess the data from Iron AgeIsrael and Judah, we should look at the evidence fromCanaanite, i.e., non-Israelite, cult places. A look atthe situation in other Levantine cultures of the BronzeAge and Iron Age will give us a background againstwhich to examine and compare the situation in Israeland Judah.

Temples in Late Bronze Age Settlements

Although Late Bronze Age strata have been un-earthed at more than a few sites, the exposure of theselevels has been limited. To a large extent, this has beena result of the demographic decline that characterizedthe period and the fact that many sites either did nothave Late Bronze Age occupation or the occupationduring this period was relatively limited in scope(Gonen 1992: 216-17; Bunimovitz 1995: 321-24).In addition, in many instances the Late Bronze lay-ers were deep below the mound's surface and thusenabled only limited exposure. Hence, the number ofLate Bronze Age dwellings that have been excavated,for example, is limited (see, e.g., Gonen 1992: 221).However, despite the limited archaeological exposure,over the years more than 20 Late Bronze Age templeshave been unearthed in the southern Levant (for gen-eral treatments, see Nakhai 2001: 119-60; Hess 2007:

125-40; Gonen 1992: 222-32; Mazar 1992: 169-83;Ottosson 1980; Wright 1985: 218-23). A selectivelist of temples includes Shechem, Hazor (at leastfour temples), Megiddo, Lachish (two temples), TelMevorakh, Beth Shean, Timnah, Amman airport, TelKitan, Pella, Tel Nami, and probably also Tell AbuHawam, Tell Abu Al-Kharaz, Tell Deir 'Alia, TellSafut, Khirbet Umm ad-Dananir, and Shiloh. Naha-riya, Tel Mor, Gezer, and perhaps even Mt. Gerizim(if the structures can be dated to the early phase of theLate Bronze Age), might also be included in the list.^Finally, a recent discovery from Tall el-^Umayri (Herrand Clark 2009: 76-81) might supplement the list ofLate Bronze Age temples.

It is therefore clear that during the Late BronzeAge, temples were common and widespread. Therewas at least one temple in each settlement (includingrelatively small settlements), and in some cases therewas more than one such structure at a single site. Fur-thermore, a number of temples have been unearthedoutside settlements (e.g., the Fosse Temple at Lachishand the Amman airport temple), providing additionalevidence for the wide distribution of temples in thisera.

Rural Cult in the Bronze Age

Due to the demographic decline of the Late BronzeAge, no examples of Late Bronze Age villages havebeen excavated to an extent that would allow for anysocial analysis of a community. However, the datafrom Middle Bronze Age villages may be consideredillustrative.

Six Middle Bronze Age villages have been exca-vated or surveyed to an extent that allows some re-construction of settlement planning and communityorganization. These have been discussed in detail in arecent analysis of the social organization of the MiddleBronze Age Canaanite village (Faust 2005a). The sitesare Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer 1994; 1995), Tel Kitan

3 This is a partial list composed of sites mentioned by Gonen(1992: 222-32) and Nakhai (2001: 119-60); it excludes some sitesat which no architectural remains (or other sufficient evidence fortemples) were unearthed, e.g., Aphek, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and evenJafifa, as well as the structure north of Jerusalem, the remains ofwhich were unearthed at St. Etienne (and interpreted by Barkay asa temple). Mazar (1992: 169-83) was more critical, rejecting theidentification of some of the above-mentioned sites as temples, buteven he identified more than 10 such buildings. Furthermore, sinceMazar did not discuss all the relevant sites (e.g.. Pella), it is likelythat even the most critical "counting" will end up with a figure thatapproaches 15 Late Bronze Age temples.


(Eisenberg 1976; 1993b), Givat Sharet (near Beth-Shemesh) (Bahat 1975; 1993), Nahal Rephaim (Eisen-berg 1993a), Manahat (Edelstein 1993), and probablyKfar Rupin (Gophna 1979). Interestingly, templeshave been unearthed at all six sites. Differences ex-ist between the sites: at some, the temples were largeand dominated the settlement (Tell el-Hayyat andTel Kitan); at others, the temples were small (NahalRephaim, Manahat, and Givat Sharet). The importantpoint, however, is that temples appear to be typicalof Middle Bronze Age villages. Overall, these sitessuggest that during the Middle (and probably Late)Bronze Age, temples were prevalent in rural settings,and there was probably a temple or cultic building inevery Canaanite village (Faust 2005a).

Iron Age Temples Outside the Kingdoms ofIsrael and Judah

Although the polities surrounding the Iron Agekingdoms of Israel and Judah have been excavated toa much more limited extent, temples have been foundfairly frequently in those regions. In Philistia, for ex-ample, a series of Iron Age temples were found at TellQasile (Mazar 1980) and at Ekron/Tel Miqne (Dothan2003; Gitin 2003), and another one was unearthed atNahal Patish (Nahshoni 2008; 2009). In addition, atemple has very recently been reported at Tell es-Safi/Gath (see, e.g., the report by Hartman 2010)."* It thusseems that temples were a typical feature of Philistinesites. Interestingly, Ekron and Gath are the only sitesamong the four that continued into the Iron II period,and both sites had temples dating to that period.

Although excavations in Moab have been ex-tremely limited, a temple or shrine was recently foundat Khirbat al-Mudayna (Daviau and Steiner 2000).Cultic structures have also been found outside set-tlements, such as at Wadi Thamad Site 13 in Moab(Daviau and Dion 2002), at Khirbet Qitmit in the Ne-gev (Beit-Arieh 1991; 1995), and also just outside thefort of "̂ En Hazeva in tfie Aravah (Cohen and Yisrael1995: 224-28). Whether these structures should beassociated with the Edomites (e.g., Beit-Arieh 1991;1995 [for Qitmit]) or any other group is of less impor-tance (we tend to associate the phenomenon with theArabian trade; see already Finkelstein 1995: 139-53).

•' Some scholars also identified a temple at Ashdod (e.g., Wright1985: 224; Dothan 1993: 100; Nakhai 2001: 197). Still, it is likelythis was only a cult room, part of a larger building (Mazar 1992:186); in order to err on the side of caution, it will not be discussedhere.

What is notable is that these group(s) in the southernparts of Israel and Jordan built special structures forcultic purposes.

Temples are also known from the Iron Age politiesto the north of Israel and Judah. Despite their limitedexposure. Iron II temples have been unearthed at vari-ous sites in the Aramaean states to the north, e.g., atTell Ta'̂ yinat, "̂ Ain Dara, Aleppo, and Hama (Akker-mans and Schwartz 2003: 370-75). The same is truefor the Phoenician cities: while excavations have beenextremely limited in number and scope. Iron AgePhoenician shrines have been exposed at Sarepta,Tell Sukas, and Tell Arqa, and probably at Kition onCyprus (e.g., Markoe 2000: 125-29).^

TEMPLES IN IRON II ISRAELAND JUDAH

Despite the large number of excavations of IronAge II levels in Israel and Judah, and the large over-all exposure of many sites, and notwithstanding thegreat academic interest in Israelite religion(s), hardlyany temples or buildings devoted to cultic purposeshave been unearthed in the areas of these kingdoms.One can scrutinize the list of cultic places supplied byvarious scholars, but to no avail. Most of the Iron IIcult places are caves or cultic corners within structures(and the cultic nature of many has been doubted).

The only "real" temple excavated in Israel andJudah is the temple at Arad (Aharoni 1993, and refer-ences cited therein). The complex at Dan might also beincluded (Biran 1994: 159-233), although the identifi-cation here also depends on the biblical text.

In an article on the temples of the Bronze and IronAges, Mazar (1992: 161-83) devoted a lengthy dis-cussion to the many temples of the second millen-nium B.c.E. and then noted the paucity of evidence fortemples in the Iron II (Mazar 1992: 183): "[WJhereasfinds from the Late Bronze Age are abundant, only asmall number of sacred structures from the Iron AgeII (tenth-sixth centuries B.c.) have been uncovered inIsrael. These buildings are diversified in form and eachof them is problematic" (p. 183; emphasis added).

The only two examples of excavated Iron Age IItemples cited by Mazar are the temple at Arad andthe complex at Dan (Mazar 1992: 184-86; see alsoNiditch 1997: 19). Other scholars have tnentioned

' For a longer list of possible non-Israelite temples, see Nakhai2001: 197, n. 26; the identification of some of the sites on the listascultic can be que.stioned.


only the sanctuary at Arad (e.g., Ottosson 1980: 108;see also Fritz 1995: 147; Wright 1985: 214, 252;Dever 2005: 170). The scarcity of temples was alsoexpressed in Barkay's (1992) chapter on the Iron IIperiod in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (Ben-Tor1992). Although this is the longest chapter in the book(and rightly so, given the large exposure of levels fromthis period), it does not have a section or heading ontemples and cultic structures, in stark contrast to chap-ters devoted to earlier periods (see, e.g., Gonen 1992:222-32; Kempinski 1992: 174-175, 196-97).

Many of the scholars cited above, who discussedIsraelite religion(s), were, of course, aware of the pau-city of the evidence, and Dever (2005: 170) explic-itly wrote that "the only known full-fledged Israelitetemple of the monarchic period is the one excavatedat Arad . . ." (see also Dever 1983: 573). Zevit ad-mitted (2001: 124) that, "by quirk of fate, the clearestincontrovertible examples of cult sites relative to thereligion of Israelites come from excavations at sitesbelonging to Israel's Iron Age neighbors . . ." (seealso Wright 1985: 248-49; Fritz 1995: 145). Whilethe present article is not suggesting that the temple(s)at Arad (along with the probable sanctuary at Dan)was (were) the only cultic building(s) that existed inIron Age II Israel and Judah—it is quite clear that therewas one in Jerusalem, for example, and one may as-sume that there were a few more that have not yet beendiscovered—the evidence indicates that such build-ings were a rare phenomenon, much rarer than in theBronze Age or in the surrounding Iron Age polities.

Urban Temples in Iron Age Israel and Judah

Iron II levels have been exposed at dozens of sitesin the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, but as notedabove, hardly any temples have been found. More-over, a number of Iron II levels were excavated to auniquely large extent—such an extensive exposure hasno parallel in the second millennium B.C.E.—but tono avail. For example, the site at Beth-Shemesh hasbeen excavated almost in its entirety by three expedi-tions (see Bunimovitz and Lederman 1993; and ad-ditional references), but no shrine was found. At Tellen-Nasbeh (biblical Mizpah), too, almost the entireIron Age II city was exposed (Zorn 1993a; 1993b;and references), but no temples were found. The situ-ation in Tell Beit Mirsim is similar (Albright 1943;1993; although its exposure was less massive). Largeareas were excavated also in Beersheba (e.g., Herzog1993), but despite the search, no temple was found (adismantled horned altar was discovered, but no cul-

tic building). The excavation of Iron II levels at othersites—e.g., Hazor and Tell el-Far'̂ ah (N)—also greatlyexceeded those at most Late Bronze Age settlements,but still no Iron II cultic buildings were unearthed.

It is important also to consider the changing urbanlandscape in various Iron Age cities, where areas thatfor centuries served sacred purposes changed theircharacter and became secular in the Iron II. As Ottos-son (1980: 106) has noted, "at sites such as Megiddo,Hazor and Shechem, where clearly delimited templeareas could be excavated,. . . the cultic tradition van-ishes completely during the Iron Age" (see also Hal-pern 2000: 559).

In summary, other than at Arad, and perhaps Dan(along with Jerusalem, which is known from liter-ary sources), no temples are known from urban siteswithin the area encompassing Iron Age II Israel andJudah.

Rural Temples in Iron Age Israel and Judah

A number of Israelite Iron II villages have beenexcavated to a large extent (e.g., Faust 2000b), espe-cially at Khirbet Jemein (Dar 1986), Beit Aryeh (Rik-lin 1997), and Khirbet Jarish (Amit 1989-1990). Insome cases, such as Khirbet Jemein and Beit Aryeh,almost the entire area of the settlement has been ex-cavated. Still, despite the fact that this exposure waslarger than that of the Bronze Age villages describedabove, and notwithstanding the eagerness of archae-ologists to find evidence for Israelite cult, no templesor shrines were found at any of these sites.

ISRAELITE T E M P L E S :

A QUANTIFIED ANALYSIS

If temples were as prevalent in the Iron II as in theLate Bronze Age, many dozens of temples shouldhave been found, since the Iron Age II levels havebeen exposed to a much greater extent than those ofthe Late Bronze Age. This phenomenon is the resultof a number of factors. For one thing, the Iron II wasa much more densely populated period, with a muchhigher population than during the Late Bronze Age.The population of the Iron II (west of the Jordan River)has been estimated at 400,000 (Broshi and Finkelstein1992), while that at the peak of the Late Bronze Agehas been estimated at only 50,000 (e.g., Dever 2003:98; Stager 1998).^ Although the precise numbers can

s Other scholars have suggested slightly lower (46,000 peopleaccording to Herzog 1999: 48) or higher (60,000 people according


be debated, the general trends are clear, since thevarious studies have used similar methods and coeffi-cients. Admittedly, the total figures compare the LateBronze Age population with the entire population ofthe Iron II (and not just in the kingdoms of Israel andJudah). According to Broshi and Finkelstein (1992:54), the estimated population of the kingdoms of Is-rael and Judah was 332,500 (west of the Jordan Riveronly), i.e., six to seven times larger than the estimatedpopulation of the entire country in the Late BronzeAge.

The differences between the two periods can be seennot only in the number ofthe estimated population, butalso in the number of excavated sites. The New Ency-clopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the HolyLand (NEAEHL; Stern 1993)^ and the salvage excava-tion databases (e.g., Faust and Safrai 2005) can serveas a general guide (the latter covers only Cisjordan,and while the former includes also a few sites in Trans-jordan, those have not been counted). The number ofsites in the NEAEHL (which is biased toward largesites and mounds) in which settlement remains fromthe Late Bronze Age were found is only 87, while thenumber of Iron ff settlements is 158. When the salvageexcavations database (which is biased toward small,rural sites) is examined, the difference becomes evenlarger: while only 45 Late Bronze Age settlement sitesmight be inferred, the number of fron II sites is 136.̂

The above data reveal that the country was farmore populated during the Iron II than during the LateBronze Age, and sites belonging to the Iron Age flwere excavated to a much larger extent than thosebelonging to the Late Bronze Age. Hence, more re-mains of all types (including cultic buildings) shouldbe expected to turn up in the Iron II levels—if theywere present in the same frequency.

Furthermore, the above evidence reveals only partof the gap between the two periods, since it takes intoaccount only the number of sites and not the extentof exposure of the different strata. Many Iron 11 fev-els—which typically are the upper levels in most an-cient mounds—have been exposed to a large extent(as noted above), while no Late Bronze Age sites have

to Broshi 1993a: 423; 60,000-70.000 people according to Broshi1993b: 14) figures.

^ I did not include the information from the fifth volume oftheNEAEHL. The data in the first four volumes are sufficient for statisti-cal purposes, and since the fifth volume also includes many smallsites, it is less suitable for comparative purposes (and its "urban"bias is more limited).

" The vast majority of the excavations were carried out withinthe boundaries of the Iron Age II kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

been excavated to such a degree. This means that theactual difference in exposure is much larger than thatrevealed only by looking at the number of sites. Thenumber of excavated Late Bronze Age dwellingsversus those of the Iron Age can serve as a good ex-ample of this gap.

Gonen (1992: 22f), for example, has noted thescarcity of excavated dweflings from the Late BronzeAge. Daviau (f 993: 2f 9-436) examined the evidencefor excavated structures from the Late Bronze Age,and whife she concfuded that the data on many of thestructures were insufficient for her purposes, her studygives an idea as to the number of complete structuresthat were exposed. One can debate whether a housefaffs into the category of a complete building, but itseems that a generous counting of complete houseswill arrive at a total of no more than 45 buildingsthroughout the country (including structures thatDaviau did not study in detail due to the lack of avail-able information). Since the above was a generous es-timate, it is safe to assume that enlarging the numberof excavated Late Bronze Age dwellings to 50 will bethe maximal figure possible.'

As for the Iron Age II period, well over 200 IronII dwellings have been exposed in Israel and Judah,'"and if the archaeological evidence is carefully exam-ined, the number will probably be larger still, espe-cially if the non-Israelite regions (e.g., the coast andthe northern valleys) are also taken into account. Toerr on the side of caution, we can compare a highfigure of 50 Late Bronze Age dwellings and the lowestimate of 200 Iron fl dwellings. If such numbersare taken as a rough guide to the areas exposed forboth periods, we should expect to have roughly fourtimes more Iron II finds than simifar finds from theLate Bronze Age, shoufd their relative frequency besimilar. On a random basis, we might therefore expect

' The aim in "counting" the structures is not to arrive at an es-timate ofthe number of Late Bronze Age buildings, nor at the totaland exact number of excavated dwellings. Rather, it aims to estab-lish a basis of comparison between periods. If a few more houseswere excavated after Daviau's book was published (or even if somestructures were not discussed by her at all), this is immaterial for ourpurposes and would not change the overall picture.

'" In an earlier work, for example, I disctissed (2005b: 232-36),130 complete houses, but this is only a partial list (compiled in1997, for other purposes) of complete hou.ses, and even then onecould have added dozens of additional structures at various sites.For example, only 26 structures at Tell en-Na.sbeh were discussedin Fau.st 2005b: 81-85, whereas Zorn (1993b: 116-20) analyzedsome 70 structures (most of which can be regarded as "complete").For Beth-Shemesh, the discusstion includes only three structures,though dozens were exposed. A similar situation exists wilh regardto additional sites, e.g., Beersheba and Tell Beit Mirsini.


Iron II temples to be more numerous by a factor offour than those of the Late Bronze Age. Since at least20 Late Bronze Age temples have been unearthed, nofewer than 80 Iron Age tefnples might be expected tobe found, if they were as frequent in this period as inthe Late Bronze Age. Since this is not the case, and anunequivocal Iron Age temple has only been found atArad (and perhaps one also at Dan), it is clear that thefinds are not random, and the difference is remarkableand requires an explanation."

The same phenomenon is true when comparing theIron Age II finds in Israel and Judah with those of theirneighbors. In Philistia, for example, only four Iron IIPhilistine sites have been excavated to an extent thatallows for discussion (Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron [TelMiqne], and Gath [Tel Zafit/Tell es-Safi]), and eventhose were excavated only to a very limited extent. AtEkron, for example, only 4% of the area of the IronAge site was excavated (Gitin 1998: 276), and the situ-ation at other sites is similar. Thus, the discovery of thetemples at Ekron (and probably at Gath) indicates thattemples existed in Philistia,'^ and there were possiblyeven a few at every site. Given the extensive exposureof so many sites in Judah and Israel, the absence oftemples within those kingdoms is striking, especiallywhen compared with Philistia, Phoenicia, Moab, andother nearby regions.

It seems, therefore, that the absence of built templesor shrines is an important feature of Israelite religion(see already Dever 1995: 205; Faust 2006: 93-94).This stands in contrast to the way Canaanite religionswere practiced during the Bronze Age, and also to theIron Age religious practices outside Israel and Judah.Therefore, the absence of built temples may be consid-ered a unique characteristic of Israelite religion, andthis phenomenon needs to be addressed.

The Absence of Evidence

Critics will say that it is impossible to argue onthe basis of the non-discovery of something. Whilethis claim sounds sensible, it is not necessarily thecase. If no research has been done, then we cannotsay that since something was not found, it did not ex-

" The above is not intended to give a sense of exact numbers,but it does convey the lack (or rarity) of temples in the Iron Age.Even if one were to claim that only 10 "real" Late Bronze templeshave been identified—the rest being secular buildings—the numberof Iron Age II temples would still be extremely low when comparedwith those of the Late Bronze Age, and this is what the quantifieddiscussion is intended to express.

'̂ Note that some scholars suggested that a temple was foundalso at Ashdod (see above, n. 4).

ist. When research has been conducted, however, andcertain finds that were supposed to be found were not,then the lack of such finds might be meaningful. Theharder one looks for something that, on the basis ofevidence from other sites or periods, is supposed tobe present (but is not), the more the absence gains sig-nificance, and eventually one may conclude that that"something" is at least very rare. The absence of pigbones in certain contexts (whatever the explanationfor tbe absence; see, e.g., Hesse and Wapnish 1997;and references cited there) is a good example of wherethe absence of evidence requires an explanation. Yetanother example of "absent" elements—tombs of theearly Iron Age—will be discussed below. We haveseen that from a quantitative perspective, temples wereexpected to be found in Iron Age Israel and Judah.Their absence is therefore significant.

DISCUSSION

Our survey of non-Israelite cultic structures in theBronze and Iron Ages puts the archeological finds inthe kingdoms of Israel and Judah in their proper con-text. The archaeological evidence discussed by previ-ous studies on Israelite religion(s) might indeed relateto cult, but as far as cultic structures (like Arad) areconcerned, they are exceptional rather than the rule.As a whole, "real" temples or sanctuaries are almostentirely missing from tbe archaeological record of IronAge II Israel and Judah. There was no "city temple,""village shrine," or "neighborhood sanctuary" in thosepolities, and there were no regional cultic centersspread across the landscape—or at least no identifi-able special structures that were built for this purpose.

Older scholarship was heavily influenced by tbebiblical data, and to a large extent Israelite religionwas reconstructed on the basis of the interpretationof the texts. Israelite religion has been a focus of in-tensive research; and prior knowledge, based on thetext, has long influenced the research questions. Tobe more specific, we "knew" that the Israelite religionwas practiced all over the country until Josiah's re-forms, and therefore we reconstructed such a religion(or religions).'3 Biblically driven conceptions influ-enced historical reconstructions. Thus, "at the end ofthe monarchy in Judah the relationship between localand central sanctuaries was reversed. While in the pré-state period there were only local sanctuaries, and dur-

'3 For the significance of Josiah's (and Hezekiah's) reforms inthis context, see, e.g., Albertz 1994; Vogt 2006; see also Fritz 1995;145; Borowski 2003; 24.


ing the whole monarchical period both existed side byside, under Josiah at the end of the seventh century thelocal sanctuaries were closed and the cult was central-ized in Jerusalem" (Kessler 2008: 89; see also Hage-dorn 2005: 204; Vogt 2006: 44, 46).

What seems clear is that scholars have used thedata from Bronze Age Canaanite temples to recon-struct the existence of Iron Age cult buildings.''' Thefew (exceptional) Iron Age cultic buildings in Israeland Judah have been regarded as representative, andhave been used to complement a picture that, on thebasis of a hypothesis derived from the Bible, has beendrawn using the evidence from the Bronze Age orfrom neighboring Iron Age cultures.'^

While such an integrative methodology, which in-corporates updated archaeological data with criticaltextual analysis, is the right approach in many cases,it also has its risks. It appears that in this case, thebiblically driven expectations led (1) to a strong willto look for evidence for cult in general and cultic struc-tures in particular (and at times encouraged the inter-pretation of finds as cultic, even when the evidencewas questionable, but this is beyond the scope of thispaper), and (2) to extrapolate from the finds, i.e., touse the data that was unearthed as an example of whatmust have been the reality. While this would be theright procedure when the finds are representative, itdoes not seem to be the case here. Instead, unique situ-ations have been treated as representative examples ofIsraelite cult-places.

Why Was the Pattern Not Identified?

An interesting question is, why has this patternnot been identified before? The answer lies in severalfactors. First, we must remember the biblical infiu-ence and the expectation of archaeologists to find theperiod's many supposed shrines. Not less important,however, has been the tendency of archaeologists toexplain the evidence that has been unearthed, and,with a large degree of justification, to ignore "things"that have not been found. As with the temples dis-cussed here, the same has been true for burials. Hardly

any Iron Age I (and early Iron Age II) burials havebeen found in Israel and Judah, but although thiswas "known" (e.g., Tappy 1995: 65-66; Ilan 1997a:385; 1997b: 220), the pattern was not systematicallyconsidered until recently (Kletter 2002; Faust 2004).Studies of Iron Age burial practices quite naturallyconcentrated on the famous Judahite tombs of thelate Iron Age (and on the few tombs from the earlierphases of the period), and the "absence" of the findsfrom most of the period was not dealt with. The fewearly tombs that were unearthed were discussed, andthe degree of continuity between them and those ofthe preceding and succeeding periods was analyzed.As a result, the most important element—that most ofthe population was not buried in such tombs—was of-ten left unmentioned. This was yet another case wherearchaeological scholarship has focused on the excep-tion and ignored the rule, if the evidence, for whateverreason, was not present. After well over a century ofextensive archaeological research on ancient Israel,we cannot ignore elements that were supposed to befound but were not.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Temples have played an important role in manyperiods and societies and are therefore abundantamong the remains of many cultures. Still, despitethe exposure of large areas—sometimes almost com-plete settlements—archaeologists have unearthedhardly any Israelite Iron II cult buildings. Given themany excavations and the large exposure of Iron Agesettlements—exposure that greatly exceeds that ofother periods—this rarity seems to be a significantaspect of Israelite cult. However the Israelites prac-ticed their religion, the archaeological evidence sug-gests that it generally was not performed in templesor other cultic buildings erected for this purpose. Therealization that temples and shrines were rare in thekingdoms of Israel and Judah is an important step inunderstanding Israelite religious practices and shouldencourage scholars to reframe their understanding ofIsraelite religion.'^

''' In some cases, previous studies of Israelite religion(s) alsotreated Iron Age non-Israelite sites, and this has added to the eon-fusion. Compare, for example, Nakhai's discussion of (Iron I) TelQiri and similar sites (2001: 174, 176), with FinkeKstein's (1999)and Faust's (2000a) views of that site's inhabitants as Canaanites.

'̂ To this, scholars have added the limited evidence for culticactivity unearthed in other locations, such as inside structures or incorners or rooms (.see, e.g., Aharoni 1975: 26-32; note that eventhose may be questioned in many cases).

" To reiterate, there is archaeological evidence for cult in theIron Age, but not for cultic buildings as defined above (with theexception of the structures mentioned in the text). The evidencefor eult in other locales can teach us a great deal about how theIsraelites did practice cult, but the argument in this paper has beenthat it was only rarely practiced in structures ereeted specilicallyfor this purpose.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I had the opportunity to discuss some of the ideasexpressed in this article with Raz Kletter, William Dever,and Ziony Zevit, and I am grateful to them for their com-ments and suggestions. I would also like to thank the late

Professor Hanan Eshel for reading and commenting on anearlier draft of this article, and to the editor of this journaland the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions. All mis-takes and errors are, of course, mine.

REFERENCES

Akkermans, P. M. M. G., and Schwartz, G. M.2003 The Archaeology of Syria: Erom Complex

Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies(ca. 16,000-300 BC). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity.

Aharoni, M.1993 [Arad] The Israelite Citadels. Pp 82-87 in The

New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excava-tions in the Holy Land, Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Aharoni, Y.1975 Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and

the Residency (Lachish Vj. Publications of theInstitute of Archaeology 4. Tel Aviv: Gateway.

Albertz, R.1994 A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Tes-

tament Period. 2 vols. Trans. J. Bowden, fromGerman. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox.

Albright, W. E1943 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, Vol. 3: The

Iron Age. Annual of the American Schools ofOriental Research 21-22. New Haven: Ameri-can Schools of Oriental Research.

1993 Beit Mirsim, Tell. Pp. 177-80 in The New Ency-clopedia of Archaeological Excavations in theHoly Land, Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. New York: Si-mon & Schuster.

Amit, D.1989- Khirbet Jarish. Excavations and Surveys in Is-1990 rae/9: 157-58.

Bahat, D.1975 Excavations at Giv'at Sharett near Beth-Shem-

esh. Qadmoniot 8/30-31: 64-67 (Hebrew).1993 [Beth-Shemesh] Givat Sharet. Pp. 253-54 in The

New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excava-tions in the Holy Land, Vol. I, ed. E. Stern. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Barkay, G.1992 The Iron Age II-III. Pp. 302-73 in The Archae-

ology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor. Trans.R. Greenberg, from Hebrew. New Haven: YaleUniversity.

Beit-Arieh, I.1991 The Edomite Shrine at Horvat Qitmit in the Ju-

dean Negev: Preliminary Excavation Report. Tel18: 93-116.

1995 Horvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the BiblicalNegev. Monograph Series 11. Tel Aviv: Emeryand Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, In-stitute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Ben-Tor, A., ed.1992 The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. Trans.

R. Greenberg, from Hebrew. New Haven: YaleUniversity.

Biran, D.1994 Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration

Society.Borowski, O.

2003 Daily Life in Biblical Times. Archaeological andBiblical Studies 5. Atlanta: Society of BiblicalLiterature.

Broshi, M.1993a Methodology of Population Estimates: The

Roman-Byzantine Period as Case Study. Pp.420-25 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990:Proceedings of the Second International Con-gress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem,June-July 1990, ed. A. Biran. Jerusalem: IsraelExploration Society.

1993b The Population of Iron Age Palestine. Pp. 14-18 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Pre-Congress Symposium: Population, Productionand Power, Jerusalem, June 1990: Supplement,ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: IsraelExploration Society.

Broshi, M., and Finkelstein, I.1992 The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II. Bulle-

tin of the American Schools of Oriental Research287: 47-60.

Bunimovitz, S.1995 On the Edge of Empires—Late Bronze Age

(1500-1200 BCE). Pp. 320-31 in The Archaeol-ogy of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy.New York: Eacts on Eile.

Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z.1993 Beth-Shemesh. Pp. 249-53 in The New Encyclo-

pedia of Archaeological Excavations in the HolyLand, Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon &Schuster

Cohen, R., and Yisrael, Y.1995 The Iron Age Fortresses at 'En Haseva. Biblical

Archaeologist 52,: 223-35.


Dar, S.1986 Hirbet Jemein—A First Temple Village in

Western Samaria. Pp. 13-73 in Shomron Stud-ies, ed. S. Dar and Z. Safrai. Tel Aviv; HakibutzHameuchad (Hebrew).

Daviau, P. M. M.1993 Houses and Their Furnishings in Bronze Age

Palestine: Domestic Activity Areas and Arte-fact Distribution in the Middle and Late BronzeAges. JSOT/ASOR Monographs Series 8. Shef-field; JSOT

Daviau, P M. M., and Dion, P-M.2002 Moab Comes to Life. Biblical Archaeology

Review 2Sn:3S-49, 63.Daviau, P. M. M., and Steiner, M.

2000 A Moabite Sanctuary at Khirbat al-Mudayna.Bulletin of the American Schools of OrientalRe.search 320: 1-21.

Dever, W. G.1983 Material Remains and the Cult in Ancient

Israel; An Essay in Archaeological Systematics.Pp. 571-87 in The Word of the Lord Shall GoForth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freed-man in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed.C. L. Meyers and M. O'Connor. Winona Lake,IN; Eisenbrauns.

1995 Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel'sOrigins. Biblical Archaeologist 5S: 200-213.

2003 Who Were the Early Israelites, and Where DidThey Come From? Grand Rapids; Eerdmans.

2005 Did God Have a Wife ? A rchaeology and Folk Re-ligion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids; Eerdmans.

Dothan, M.1993 Ashdod. Pp. 93-102 in The New Encyclope-

dia of Archaeological Excavations in the HolyLand, Vol. I, ed. E. Stern. New York; Simon &Schuster.

Dothan, T.2003 The Aegean and the Orient; Cultic Interactions.

Pp. 189-213 in Symbiosis, Symbolism and thePower of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel andTheir Neighbors from the Late Bronze Agethrough Roman Palaestina: Proceedings of theCentennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Insti-tute of Archaeological Research and AmericanSchools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May29-31, 2000, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin.Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns.

Edelstein, G.1993 Manahat—A Bronze Age Village in Southwest-

ern Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 26/\03-\04: 96-102(Hebrew).

Eisenberg, E.1976 The Middle Bronze Age Temples at Tel Kittan.

Qadmoniot 9/36: 106-8 (Hebrew).1993a Kitan, Tel. Pp. 878-91 in The New Encyclope-

dia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy

Land, Vol. 3, ed. E. Stern. New York; Simon &Schuster.

1993b Nahal Rephaim—A Brotize Age Village inSouthwesterti Jerusaletn. Qadmoniot 26/103-104; 82-95 (Hebrew).

Falconer, S. E.1994 Village Economy and Society in the Jordan Val-

ley; A Study of Bronze Age Rural Cotnplex-ity. Pp. 121-42 in Archaeological Views fromthe Countryside: Village Communities in EarlyComplex Societies, ed. G. M. Schwartz andS. E. Falconer. Washingtoti, DC; SmithsonianInstitution.

1995 Rural Responses to Early Urbanism; BronzeAge Household and Village Econotny at Tell el-Hayyat, Jordan. Joumal of Field Archaeology22; 399-419.

Faust, A.2000a Ethnic Complexity in Northern Israel during the

Iron Age II. Palestine Exploration Quarterly132; 1-27.

2000b The Rural Cotnmunity in Ancient Israel duringIron Age II. Bulletin of the American Schools ofOriental Research 317; 17-39.

2004 Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology; TheLack of Iron Age I Burials in Highlands in Con-text. Israel Exploration Journal 54; 174-90.

2005a The Canaanite Village; Social Structure of Mid-dle Bronze Age Rural Communities. Levant 37;105-25.

2005b Israelite Society in the Period of the Monarchy:An Archaeological Perspective. Jerusalem; YadBen Zvi (Hebrew).

2006 Israel's Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction,Expansion and Resistance. London; Equinox.

Faust, A., and Safrai, Z.2005 Salvage Excavatiotis as a Source for Recon-

structing Settlement History in Ancient Israel.Palestine Exploration Quarterly 137; 139-58.

Finkelstein, I.1995 Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology and

History of the Negev, Sinai and NeighbouringRegions in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Mono-graphs in Mediterranean Archaeology 6. Shef-field; Sheffield Acadetnic.

1999 State Fonnation in Israel and Judah; A Contrastin Context, A Contrast in Trajectory. Near East-ern Archaeology 62; 35-52.

Flannery, K. V, ed.1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York;

Acadetnic.Fritz, V.

1995 The City in Ancient Israel. Biblical Seminar 29.Sheffield; Sheffield Academic.

Frye, R. N.1996 The Heritage of Central Asia: From Antiquity to

the Turkish Expansion. Princeton; Wiener.


Gitin, S.1998 The Philistines in the Prophetic Texts: An Ar-

chaeological Perspective. Pp. 273-90 in HesedVe-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs,ed. J. Magness and S. Gitin. Brown Judaic Stud-ies 320. Atlanta: Scholars.

2003 Israelite and Philistine Cult and the Archaeologi-cal Record in Iron Age II: The "Smoking" GutiPhenomenon. Pp. 279-95 in Symbiosis, Symbol-ism and the Power ofthe Past: Canaan, AncientIsrael and Their Neighbors from the Late BronzeAge through Roman Palaestina: Proceedings ofthe Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Insti-tute of Archaeological Research and AmericanSchools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May29-31, 2000, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Wi-nona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Gonen, R.1992 The Late Bronze Age. Pp. 211-57 in The

Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor.Trans. R. Greenberg, from Hebrew. New Haven:Yale University.

Gophna, R.1979 A Middle Bronze Age II Village in the Jordan

Valley, re/AviV 6: 28-33.Hagedorn, A. C.

2005 Placing (a) God: Central Place Theory in Deu-teronomy 12 and at Delphi. Pp. 188-211 in Tem-ple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. J. Day.Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies422. London: T & T Clark.

Halpern, B.2000 Centre and Sentry: Megiddo's Role in Tran-

sit, Administration and Trade. Pp. 535-75 inMegiddo III: The 1992-1996 Seasons, ed. I.Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern. 2vols. Monograph Series 18. Tel Aviv: Emeryand Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology,Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Haran, M.1981 Temples and Cultic Open Areas as Reflected

in the Bible. Pp. 31-37 in Temples and HighPlaces in Biblical Times, ed. A. Biran. Jerusa-lem: Hebrew Union College.

Hartman, B2010 Temple Found in Philistine Home of Goliath,

Jerusalem Post, 29 July 2010. http://www.Jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id= 182962 (accessed 22 September 2010).

Herr, L. G., and Clark, D. R.2009 From the Stone Age to the Middle Ages in Jor-

dan: Digging Up Tall al-'̂ Umayri. Near EasternArchaeology 72: 68-97.

Herzog, Z.1993 [Beersheba] Tel Beersheba. Pp. 167-73 in The

New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excava-

tions in the Holy Land, Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

1999 The Canaanite City between Ideology and Ar-chaeological Reality. Pp. 42-50 in MaterialCulture, Society and Ideology: New Directionsin the Archaeology of the Land of Israel, ed.A. Faust and A. Maeir. Ramat Gan: Bar-IlanUniversity (Hebrew).

Hess, R. S.2007 Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and

Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.Hesse, B., and Wapnish, P.

1997 Can Pig Remains Be Used for Ethnic Diagno-sis in the Ancient Near East? Pp. 238-70 in TheArchaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past,Interpreting the Present, ed. N. A. Silbermanand D. Small. Journal for the Study of the OldTestament Supplement 237. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic.

Holladay, J. S.1987 Religion in Israel and Judah under the Monar-

chy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach.Pp. 249-99 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essaysin Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller,P D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia:Fortress.

Ilan, D.1997a Burial Sites. Pp. 384-86 in The Oxford Encyclo-

pedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 1,ed. E. Meyers. New York: Oxford University.

1997b Tombs. Pp. 218-21 in The Oxford Encyclope-dia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 5, ed.E. Meyers. New York: Oxford University.

Kempinski, A.1992 The Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 159-210 in The

Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor.Trans. R. Greenberg, from Hebrew. New Haven:Yale University.

Kessler, R.2008 The Social History of Ancient Israel: An Intro-

duction. Trans. L. M. Maloney, from German.Minneapolis: Fortress.

Kletter, R.2002 People without Burials? The Lack of Iron 1 Buri-

als in the Central Highlands of Palestine. IsraelExploration Journal 52: 28-48.

Levy, T. E.2006 Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanc-

tuary at Gilat, Israel, London: Equinox.Markoe, G. E.

2000 Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of California.Mazar, A.

1980 Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part One: ThePhilistine Sanctuary: Architecture and CultObjects. Qedem 12. Jerusalem: Institute ofArchaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.


1992 Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Age andthe Iron Age. Pp. 161-87 in The Architecture ofAncient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Per-sian Period: In Memory of Immanuel (Munya)Dunayevsky, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich.Jerusalem; Israel Exploration Society.

McNuU, P M.1999 Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel.

Louisville; Westminster John Knox.Nahshoni, P.

2008 Evidence for Cult in a Rural Shrine in the North-western Negev. Paper presented at a conferenceon Philistines in Southern Israel; New Studies,Ben-Gurion University.

2009 A Philistine Temple in the Northwestern Negev.Qadmoniot A2I\3%: 88-92 (Hebrew).

Nakhai, B. A.2001 Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and

Israel. ASOR Books 7. Boston; AmericanSchools of Oriental Research.

Niditch, S.1997 Ancient Israelite Religion. New York; Oxford

University.Ottosson, M.

1980 Temples and Cult Places in Palestine. Acta Uni-verstatis Upsaliensis, BOREAS 12. Uppsala;Altnqvist & Wiksell.

Renfrew, C.1985 The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at

Phylakopi. Supplementary Volume (BritishSchool at Athens) 18. London; British School ofArchaeology at Athens.

1994 The Archaeology of Religion. Pp. 47-54 in TheAncient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeol-ogy, ed. C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow. Cam-bridge; Cambridge University.

Renfrew, C, and Bahn, P2004 Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice.

4th ed. London; Thames and Hudson.Riklin, S.

1997 Bet Aryé. 'Atiqot 32; 7-20 (Hebrew), 37*-38*(English summary).

Smith, M. S.2002 The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other

Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids;Eerdmans.

Stager, L. E.1998 Forging an Identity; The Emergence of Ancient

Israel. Pp. 123-75 in The Oxford History of theBiblical World, ed. M. D. Coogan. New York;Oxford University.

Stern, E., ed.1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem;Israel Exploration Society.

Tappy, R.1995 Did the Dead Ever Die in Biblical Judah. Bulle-

tin of the American Schools of Oriental Research298; 59-68.

Vogt, P T2006 Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance

of Torah: A Reappraisal. Winona Lake, IN;Eisenbrauns.

Wright, G. E.1978 A Characteristic North Israelite House. Pp.

149-54 in Archaeology in the Levant: Essaysfor Kathleen Kenyon, ed. R. Moorey and P. Parr.Warminster; Aris & Phillips.

Wright, G. R. H.1985 Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine.

2 vols. Handbuch der Orientalistik 7;I ;2;B3.Leiden; Brill.

Zevit, Z.

2001 The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis ofParallactic Approaches. New York; Continuutn.

Zorn, J.1993a Nasbeh, Tell en-. Pp. 1098-1102 in The New

Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations inthe Holy Land, Vol. 3, ed. E. Stern. New York;Simon & Schuster.

1993b Tell en-Nasbeh; A Re-Evaluation of the Archi-tecture and Stratigraphy of the Early BronzeAge, Iron Age and Later Periods. Ph.D. disserta-tion. University of California, Berkeley.

Copyright of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is the property of American Schools of

Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without

the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.

the archaeology of the israelite cult

Documents