*5.3. The Fate of Older Canaanite Temples in Israelite Controlled Areas*

An additional evidence for the scarcity of temples in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah comes from the fate of existing Iron I Canaanite temples once they were incorporated within Israelite territories. Indeed, the transformation in the function of locales which for centuries served for sacred purposes is most revealing. Ottosson (1980, p. 106), for example, writes, "(A)t sites such as Megiddo, Hazor, and Shechem, where clearly delimited temple areas could be excavated, however, the cultic tradition vanishes completely during the Iron Age" (see also Halpern 2000, p. 559). At Megiddo the change is most noticeable, and with the destruction of Megiddo VI in the early 10th century, the millennia long cultic tradition came to an end, and no temple stood any more in what used to be Megiddo's sacred precinct. At Shechem, the Canaanite Fortress Temple (strata XVI–XV), was destroyed already at some point during the Iron Age I and never rebuilt in the later, probably Israelite phases (Stager 1999, and references). At Hazor, too, although the Late Bronze Age city boasted a number of temples (above), no temples were unearthed in the small Iron II city that was built in the 10th century BCE. Even more striking is the fact that the area of one the Canaanite cultic complex, located within the smaller Iron Age city, was left as an unbuilt, empty area—as Sandhaus (2013, p. 111) wrote: "The Israelite city developed around these ruins and always avoided building on top of them, possibly as a result of some sort of building ban on this location." Cessation in cultic activity in the Iron II can also be seen in Tel Qasile and Beth-Shean. In the former, the temple area grew and developed in the course of strata

XII–X, but only scant remains were found after the stratum X temple was devastated, indicating at most some ephemeral use in the area after it was most likely incorporated with the Israelite polity (for the scanty remains, see Mazar 1980, pp. 50–53; 2009b, p. 327). And at Beth-Shean (according to Mazar's interpretation, e.g., Mazar 2006, pp. 34–35; 2009a, pp. 27–28), too, the earlier temples ceased to exist in the Iron Age IIA, apparently when the site was incorporated within the Israelite state.

Clearly, other than at Arad, probably Moza, and perhaps also Dan (along with Jerusalem, which is known from literary sources7), no temples are known from Iron Age II Israel and Judah. Given the contextual data from other epochs or polities this is striking, and in the following section we will attempt to show how extreme the rarity of temples in Israel and Judah is.

#### **6. Israelite Temples in Context: A Quantified Analysis**

Since, as we have seen above, Iron Age II levels were exposed to a much greater extent than those of the Late Bronze Age, if Iron II temples were as prevalent as those of the Late Bronze Age, then many dozens of Iron II temples should have been found.

This is a result of a number of factors (presented at length in Faust 2010; see also Faust and Safrai 2015, and therefore only presented briefly here).

First, the Iron II was a much more densely populated period, with a much higher population than the Late Bronze Age; common estimates are in the scale of 8:1.8 Although the numbers can be contested, the general trends are safe (as the various studies used the same methods and coefficients).9

The difference can be seen not only in the estimated population, but also in the number of excavated sites. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (NEAEHL; Stern 1993) and the salvage excavations databases (e.g., Faust and Safrai 2005, 2015) serve as a general guide (the latter covers only Cisjordan, and while the former includes also a few sites in Transjordan, those were not counted).<sup>10</sup> The number of sites in the NEAEHL (which is biased toward large sites and mounds) in which settlement remains from the Late Bronze Age were found is only 87, while the number of the Iron II settlements is 158. When the salvage excavations database (biased toward small, rural sites) is examined, the difference is even larger. While only 45 Late Bronze Age settlement sites might be inferred, the number of the Iron II sites is 136.<sup>11</sup> The above shows that the Iron II was far more populated than the Late Bronze Age, and that sites from the Iron Age II were excavated to a much larger extent than those of the Late Bronze Age. Hence, more remains of all types (including cultic buildings) are expected to have been found in those Iron II levels, should they have been present there in the same frequency.

Furthermore, the above reveals only part of the gap between the two periods, since it takes into account only the number of sites and not the extent of exposure of the different strata. Many Iron II levels, which are typically the upper levels in most ancient mounds, were exposed to a large extent (as noted above), while no Late Bronze Age sites were excavated to such a degree. And since the former were usually also larger, this means that the actual difference in exposure is much larger than that revealed by looking only at the number of sites.

<sup>7</sup> And apparently a few other temples that are attested in the Bible.

<sup>8</sup> Cf., Broshi and Finkelstein (1992) estimate of some 400,000 peoples for the Iron II, with Dever's (2003, p. 98) and Stager's (1998) estimate of some 50,000 for the Late Bronze Age. Other scholars suggested slightly lower (46,000 people according to Herzog 1999, p. 48) or higher (60,000 people according to (Broshi 1993a, p. 423); 60,000–70,000 people according to (Broshi 1993b, p. 14)) figures for the Late Bronze Age, but these differences are marginal compared with the gap with the Iron Age figures.

<sup>9</sup> Notably, these figures compare the Late Bronze Age population with the entire population of the Iron II, and not only to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. According to Broshi and Finkelstein (1992, p. 54), the latter's population was 332,500 (west of the Jordan River only), i.e., six to seven times larger than the estimated population of the entire country in the Late Bronze Age.

<sup>10</sup> For extensive discussion of these sources of information, see Faust and Safrai 2015.

<sup>11</sup> The vast majority of the excavations were carried out within the boundaries of the Iron Age II kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

The number of Late Bronze Age versus Iron Age dwellings unearthed can serve as a good example of this gap. Gonen (1992b, p. 221), for example, had already noted the scarcity of excavated dwellings from the Late Bronze Age. Daviau scrutinized the evidence for excavated structures from the Late Bronze Age (Daviau 1993, pp. 219–436), and while she concluded that the data on many of the structures was insufficient for her purposes, her study gives an idea as to the number of complete structures that were exposed. A generous counting of complete houses will arrive at no more than 45 Late Bronze Age buildings throughout the country (including structures which Daviau did not study in detail due to the lack of data on the finds unearthed). Since the above was a generous estimate, it is safe to assume that enlarging the number to 50 Late Bronze Age dwellings will be the maximal figure possible.<sup>12</sup>

As far as the Iron Age II is concerned, however, well over 200<sup>13</sup> Iron II dwellings were exposed in Israel and Judah. We believe that if the evidence will be thoroughly examined then the number will be larger, especially if the non-Israelites regions (e.g., the coast and the northern valleys) will also be taken into account. To err on the side of caution, let us compare the high figure of 50 Late Bronze Age dwellings, and the low estimate of 200 Iron II dwellings. If these figures are taken as a rough guide to the areas that were exposed in both periods, we should expect to find four times more Iron II finds than similar finds from the Late Bronze Age, should their relative frequency be similar. Therefore, if finds were random, we should expect Iron II temples to be more numerous at least by a factor of four than those of the Late Bronze Age. Since at least 20 Late Bronze Age temples were unearthed, then no less than some 80 Iron Age temples would have been found, if they were as frequent in this period as in the Late Bronze Age. Since this is not the case, and unequivocal Iron Age temples were found only at Arad, probably Moza, and perhaps also at Dan, it is clear that the finds are not random, and the difference is remarkable and requires an explanation.

The same is true when comparing the Iron Age II finds in Israel and Judah with their neighbors. Given the extensive exposure of so many sites in Judah and Israel, the absence of temples is striking, especially when compared to Philistia, Phoenicia, Moab, and other nearby regions (above). While the dearth of information from most regions makes a comparison very tricky, the situation in Philistia, where the number of excavations is known, enables it. Iron II temples were uncovered at Ekron and Gath (above).<sup>14</sup> Two temples might seems a small figure, but when taking into account that only four Iron II sites which are clearly Philistine were excavated to any extent (in addition to Ekron and Gath, also Ashdod and Ashkelon), and that in all four only a small fraction of their area was exposed, then one must conclude that temples were common in Iron II Philistine sites. Given the above, it is likely that a few temples existed in every Philistine city. Hence, the contrast between the situation in non-Israelite sites (Philistine and others alike) and in the Israelite ones is striking.
