*2.1. Cultic Buildings, Temples, Shrines, and Sanctuaries*

In the following I use the term "cultic building" in a comprehensive manner, and take it to refer to any structure that was built specifically for religious purposes.

Notably, scholars used various terminologies to describe cultic buildings and activities. Examples include Zevit (2001, pp. 123–24), which referred (among other terms) to "cult complex," "cult center," "temple," "temple complex," and "shrine", Dever's (e.g., Dever 2005, pp. 111, 135, 167) discussion of "local shrines," "public open-air sanctuaries," and "monumental temples", and Schmitt's (2014, partial list) "neighborhood shrine", "village shrine", "city temple", "regional sanctuary", and "supra-regional sanctuary" (see also Holladay 1987, and see especially 282, n. 1; Zwickel 1994, p. 9; Hess 2007, pp. 39, 312–314). While a sort of hierarchy seems to be inherent in all of these studies (and will be discussed below), and although most do have an internal consistency in their use of the various terms, there is clearly no systematic terminology across studies.

For our purposes, therefore, any building that was used specifically for cultic activities (see below, Section 2.2) will be included within the broad definition of a cultic building adopted here. Although the distinction between the various possible sub-types of cultic structures is not important for our purposes—and is not used in any consistent way throughout scholarship in any case2—for clarity I will use either the term "cultic structures" (or "buildings") or "temples" (unless when quoting others).

It should also be noted that this paper will not systematically discuss expressions of religion within the household or finds that are interpreted as small cultic corners within buildings (see for example (Albertz and Schmitt 2012); and various papers in (Albertz et al. 2014), and references, and a few examples at the beginning of Section 5). Nor will I try to identify the biblical terms of those buildings (e.g., Smith 2002; Alpert Nakhai 2001; Zevit 2001; Haran 1981).

#### *2.2. Identifying Cultic Buildings*

Identifying cult in archaeology is notoriously difficult (cf., Flannery 1976, pp. 329–33). Various scholars, however, have offered explicit methods to overcome the difficulties of interpreting archaeological finds as indicating cult. The most famous and influential study on the identification of cultic sites is Renfrew's (1985) study of the sanctuary at Phylakopi (see also Renfrew 1994; Renfrew and Bahn 2012, pp. 403–8; Levy 2006). Renfrew examined a number of traits which he viewed as indicative of cult, relating to settings, architecture and finds, for example, a setting or architecture that focuses attention or creates a boundary between this world and another one, or that exhibits evidence of participation and offerings to a deity.

Since in this article I do not intend to review and examine each and every cultic building identified in the past, it is important to note that some previous scholarship has explicitly attempted to follow

<sup>1</sup> Identifying sites as Israelites is not always straightforward, and various criteria were offered over the years (e.g., Dever 2003; Bloch-Smith 2003; Faust 2006a, and references). While no consensus had been reached, during the Iron II, which is the focus of this paper, the questionable sites are fewer and, moreover, there is usually an agreement whether a certain temple was Israelite or not. Moreover, at this time there seems to have been an intended policy in Israel and Judah, expressed for example in the fate of the temples in sites like Megiddo, Tel Qasile, and others (discussed in Section 5.3), allowing us to examine the situation in these kingdoms at large.

<sup>2</sup> This can be exemplified by the treatment of Arad. As we will see below (Section 3.2 for example) not only do different scholars use different terms to describe this structure, but sometimes the same scholar used different terms interchangeably.

Renfrew's criteria, and this is especially true for some of the studies which were used to compile the "lists" of cultic buildings referred to below (e.g., Zevit 2001, pp. 82–83; Alpert Nakhai 2001, pp. 35–36; Hess 2007, pp. 37–39; Schmitt 2014, and others). Moreover, since the phenomenon addressed in this paper is very striking, little subtleties are not important, and unless the entire scholarly literature is completely useless, the pattern identified is extreme and requires an explanation. Thus, as problematic as some past studies are, it is clear that many of the buildings, at least, have enough traits to qualify them as "cultic." Finally, the same (whether good, or loosely defined) criteria were applied to all structures discussed in this article, including those of the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, and any obvious differences in their distribution would therefore require an explanation.

In light of the above, I would like to suggest that the patterns that will be discussed below regarding the distribution and frequency of cultic buildings are valid, and are not a result of the application of different criteria to different societies or eras, or of inappropriate methods of identifying cultic buildings. Hence, despite the difficulties inherent in past scholarship, the existing "database" of cultic structures is valid for comparative purposes and for identifying patterns in the distribution, usage, and even existence of such structures. Thus, different patterns are significant and meaningful, and are clearly a result of past behavior and not of biased data collection or from differences in interpretation.

## **3. Israelite Places of Worship: The Consensus**

The earliest attempts to study Israelite religion and to identify cultic buildings or temples on the basis of the archaeological finds were eclectic and derived from incidental finds (see, e.g., the assessment of Wright 1978, p. 149). Following the accumulation of archaeological discoveries of cultic buildings and mainly religious items, however, and in light of critical analysis of the biblical information on Israelite religion(s), many scholars have attempted to systematically reconstruct the location and manner in which Israelite religion(s) was practiced. As far as cultic buildings were concerned, there was a growing consensus regarding their place in the social landscape of Israelite Iron Age society, and in the late 20th and early 21st century it was agreed that there were various loci of cult, from the individual household, through villages, urban and regional temples, to even more central temples in the national capitals.

#### *3.1. Typology of Israelite Cultic Buildings: The Emerging Consensus*

We shall begin our survey with Holladay's (1987) highly influential article, "Religion in Israel and Judah under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach." Holladay identified various loci of cult, and created a typology of those buildings and spaces. He concluded which type of cult was typical of what setting (urban, regional, etc.) based on the characteristics of the structures he identified, and then extrapolated from these finds to the reality in Israel and Judah at large. He distinguished between "established" regional shrines and "state" temples on the one hand, and "non-conformist" shrines on the other. The term "non-conformist" shrine refers to buildings in which the cult practiced deviated from the state-sponsored religion. Holladay's "typology" of cultic buildings suggests that the "established worship" was practiced at the town and the national level, as well as at the neighborhood level (Holladay 1987, pp. 267–68).

Other scholars followed, and although the typologies are not identical, the concept of central, regional, and local cultic centers at several levels is widely accepted. Thus, Richard Hess (2007, pp. 297–314) followed Holladay's classification, at least in its general outlines, he refers to the existence of "local shrines" (p. 312), concluding that "[D]uring the later divided monarchy [eighth to sixth centuries BC] the high places continued as state-sponsored religious centers, while cult centers appeared at village sites, along trade routes, and in alternative nonconformist contexts" (p. 314). William Dever also viewed the evidence as indicative of a similar reality, and concluded that different temples were built in many locales (e.g., Dever 2005, p. 174, but see Dever 2017, and more below). Ziony Zevit (2001), in what is perhaps one of the most detailed attempt to reconstruct Israelite religions,

scrutinized the archaeological (and non-archaeological) evidence, referring to various temples and cultic buildings, and also concluded that "the religion was practiced differently at home, village, sanctuary, urban temple, and extra-urban sanctuary" (2001, p. 265). Rudiger Schmitt's (2014) recent typology is among the most detailed, and included, among other types or locales, also "neighborhood shrine", "village shrine", "city temple", "regional sanctuary", and "supra-regional sanctuary." And Oded Borowski (2003, p. 54), in describing the daily life in biblical Israel, also wrote, "[ ... ] it is safe to assume that every city and town had a cult center or a shrine" (see also p. 24). A reality in which cultic buildings are found throughout the landscape is also depicted by Beth Alpert Nakhai (2001, but see below) and S.A. Geller (2016, p. 312).

Many biblical scholars who discussed the cultic changes following the religious reforms of the late Iron Age also noted that local temples were prevalent before those reforms. Hence Hagedorn (2005, p. 204) refers to "(A)ll the local shrines which have previously been centers [ ... ]" Vogt (2006, pp. 44, 46) also speaks about the "local sanctuaries" that existed until the time of Josiah (see also (Albertz 1994, pp. 128, 206); for the multiplicity of such buildings, (see also Smith 2002, p. 161; McNutt 1999, pp. 176–78)).

Common to these studies and typologies is the conclusion that the Israelites built temples or cultic buildings in almost every locale, and that beyond the household cult, there were cultic structures in neighborhoods, villages, towns, and there were even regional cultic centers, and central temples in the national capitals. The following quote, regarding "the relationship between local and central sanctuaries," reflects the consensus that "[ ... ] during the whole monarchical period [until the time of Josiah. A.F.] both existed side by side" (Kessler 2008, p. 89).3
