*3.2. The Logic Behind the Typology*

The above-mentioned studies meticulously studied the available archaeological evidence that could be, directly and indirectly, related to Israelite religion and cult. These scholars looked at every possible clue, in order to reconstruct every possible form of religious practice, and then extrapolated from the available information in order to understand Israelite religion(s) at large. All studies explicitly or implicitly agree that the fragmentary data uncovered is representative of a larger whole. William Dever (2005, pp. 170–75), for example, after discussing the temple at Arad, wrote, "(A)ll things considered, there is no reason to suppose that the Arad temple is unique or even exceptional. Rather it appears to be an example of what was probably a widespread phenomenon—local temples" (p. 175). Hess (2007, p. 303), in a similar vein, suggested that "[T]he sanctuary at Arad probably represents a regional center" (see also Hess 2007, p. 312), and Albertz (1994, p. 128) viewed it as a "regular temple complex," and an example of "provincial sanctuaries" (see also Geller 2016, p. 332).

While these studies are exemplary in their detailed analysis of the archaeological evidence and in their interdisciplinary approach, in which the archaeological information is interpreted in light of the data available from a critical analysis of the textual sources, my 2010 article aimed to show that they are wrong, and what they viewed as "examples" are in reality exceptions.

The next sections, therefore, aim to show that a more archaeologically contextual approach to the available data indicates that the evidence used for extrapolation and which served as the basis for reconstructing Israelite cult places is the exception, rather than the rule. The emerging picture, therefore, is not representative; by multiplying the exceptions, we do not get a picture of the whole, but rather a distorted image, requiring a new approach to Israelite religion.

<sup>3</sup> Many scholars were of course aware of the fact that not all the structures were temples or buildings erected solely for cultic purpose (see below). Still they discussed the finds as part of a spectrum, assuming the existence of many such structures, and subsequently did not identify their rarity (and see more below).

#### **4. The Context: Non-Israelite Temples in the Bronze and Iron Ages**

Below we will review the scarce evidence for cultic buildings in Iron II Israel and Judah, but in order to assess this data, I would first like to put it in perspective, and will therefore briefly examine the evidence from non-Israelite cult places. Reviewing the reality in other cultures of the Bronze and Iron Age Levant (cf., Greener, Steiner, Ben-Shlomo, and Tyson, all in this issue) will give us a background against which to examine and compare the situation in Israel and Judah.

Temples are ubiquitous in Bronze Age sites (e.g., Greener, this issue; see also Bunimovitz 2019). While a comprehensive discussion is beyond the scope of this article, the next section will briefly discuss a few periodical or topical case studies.

## *4.1. Late Bronze Age Temples*

Although Late Bronze Age strata were unearthed at quite a few sites, the exposure of those levels is usually limited. This limited exposure is a result of a combination of factors, including the demographic decline which characterized the period and the fact that many sites either did not have Late Bronze Age occupation whatsoever, or that occupation from this period was relatively limited in scope (Gonen 1992b, pp. 216–17; Bunimovitz 1995, pp. 321–24; 2019; see also Greener, in this issue, and more below), as well as the fact that in most instances the Late Bronze layers were deep below the mound's surface, and hence only limited exposure is possible. The number of Late Bronze Age dwellings that were excavated, for example, is limited (e.g., Gonen 1992b, p. 221), and this is of course a result of this limited exposure (more below). Still, despite the limited archaeological exposure, more than 20 Late Bronze Age temples were unearthed over the years throughout the country (for a general treatment, see Alpert Nakhai 2001, pp. 119–60; Hess 2007, pp. 125–40; Gonen 1992b, pp. 222–32; Mazar 1992a, pp. 169–83; Ottosson 1980; Wright 1985, pp. 218–23; Bunimovitz 2019; see also Greener, this issue). A selective list of temples includes Shechem, Hazor (apparently five temples), Megiddo, Lachish (at least two temples), Tel Mevorakh, Beth Shean, Timnah, Amman airport, Tel Kitan, Pella, Tel Nami, and probably also Tell Abu Hawam, Tell Abu Al-Kharaz, Tell Deir 'Alla, Tell Safut, Kh. Umm ad-Dananir, and Shiloh. In addition, Nahariya, Tel Mor, Gezer, and perhaps even Mt. Gerizim (if they are dated to the early phase of the Late Bronze Age) might also be included in the list.<sup>4</sup> A recent find from Tall el-'Umayri (Herr and Clark 2009, pp. 76–81) might supplement the list of Late Bronze Age temples.

The evidence, therefore, clearly shows that during the Late Bronze Age temples were common. There was apparently at least one temple in each settlement, including relatively small settlements, and in many cases there was even more than one such building at a settlement. Furthermore, quite a few temples were unearthed outside settlements (e.g., the Fosse Temple at Lachish and the Amman airport temple), providing additional evidence of the wide distribution of temples in this era.

#### *4.2. Bronze Age Rural Temples*

Due to the demographic decline of the Late Bronze Age, no examples of Late Bronze Age villages have been excavated to an extent that allows for any social analysis. However, the data from Middle Bronze Age villages are quite illustrative.

Six Middle Bronze Age villages were excavated or surveyed to an extent that allows some reconstruction of settlement planning and community organization, and they were discussed in detail

<sup>4</sup> This is a partial list composed mainly of sites mentioned by Gonen (1992b, pp. 222–32), and Alpert Nakhai (2001, pp. 119–60), and excludes some sites in which no architectural remains (or other sufficient evidence) were unearthed, e.g., Aphek, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and even Jaffa, as well as the structure north of Jerusalem. I would like to note that Mazar (1992a, pp. 169–83) was more critical, rejecting the identification of the some of the above-mentioned sites as temples, but even he (in an article originally published in Hebrew in 1987) identified more than 10 such buildings. Furthermore, since Mazar did not discuss all the relevant sites (e.g., Pella), and as a few sites were discovered only after he published his paper, it is clear that even the most critical "counting" will end up with at least 15 Late Bronze Age temples.

in an attempt to reconstruct the communities that inhabited them (Faust 2005). The sites are Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer 1994, 1995), Tel Kitan (Eisenberg 1976, 1993b), Givat Sharet (near Beth-Shemesh) (Bahat 1975, 1993), Nahal Rephaim (Eisenberg 1993a), Manahat (Edelstein 1993), and probably Kfar Rupin (Gophna 1979). Interestingly, in all six sites, temples were unearthed. Sometimes the temples were large and dominated the settlement (Tell el-Hayyat and Tel Kitan), while in others the temples were relatively small (Nahal Rephaim, Manahat, and Givat Sharet). Still, despite differences between the sites, the existence of temples is characteristic, and in most cases the identification of the structures as temples seems well established. Clearly, temples are a typical feature of Middle Bronze Age villages.

This indicates that in the Bronze Age, temples were prevalent also in rural settings, and that there was probably a temple or cultic building in every Canaanite village (Faust 2005).
