See, for example, Volkmar Fritz, “What Can Archaeology Tell Us About Solomon’s Temple?” BAR 13:04.


See the following BAR articles: Philip Davies, “What Separates a Minimalist from a Maximalist? Not Much,” BAR 26:02, William Dever, “Save Us from Postmodern Malarkey,” BAR 26:02, and Amihai Mazar and John Camp, “Will Tel Rehov Save the United Monarchy?” BAR 26:02; Amnon Ben-Tor, “Excavating Hazor—Part I: Solomon’s City Rises from the Ashes,” BAR 25:02; “David’s Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality?”: Margreet Steiner, “It’s Not There—Archaeology Proves a Negative,” BAR 24:04, Jane Cahill, “It Is There: The Archaeological Evidence Proves It,” BAR 24:04, and Nadav Na’aman, “It Is There: Ancient Texts Prove It,” BAR 24:04; and Hershel Shanks, “Where Is the Tenth Century?” BAR 24:02.


In the accompanying article in this issue, Lawrence Stager identifies the deity of ‘Ain Dara as Ba‘al-Hadad.


Orthostats are large stones—sometimes undecorated, sometimes bearing complex designs—that are free-standing or that line the lower part of the walls of temples or public buildings. Orthostats carved in the shape of lions or other animals may serve as the base of the doorjambs flanking the entryway to such buildings.


The most detailed description of Solomon’s Temple appears in 1 Kings 6–7. The Book of Chronicles includes a parallel account (2 Chronicles 2–4), but this was written after the First Temple was destroyed. Other references are scattered throughout the Book of Kings and the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (especially Ezekiel 40–46). For more on the Temple’s design, see the following articles: Victor Hurowitz, “Inside Solomon’s Temple,” Bible Review, April 1994; Volkmar Fritz, “What Can Archaeology Tell Us About Solomon’s Temple?” BAR 13:04; Ernest Marie-Laperrousaz, “King Solomon’s Wall Still Supports the Temple Mount,” BAR 13:03.



Portions of this article have been adapted from “The Temples of ‘Ain Dara and Jerusalem,” Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion, eds. Gary Beckman and Theodore Lewis (New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, forthcoming). I would like to thank Anthony Appa for sharing with me his pictures of ‘Ain Dara and his experiences at the site. I am indebted to my mentor, Lawrence E. Stager, for many helpful comments.


Ali Abu Assaf, Der Tempel von ‘Ain Dara, Damaszener Forschungen 3 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1990).


Some scholars believe that the Jerusalem Temple was also built in several phases, one of which was the ambulatory; see D.W. Gooding, “An Impossible Shrine,” Vetus Testamentum Supplements 15 (1965), pp. 405–420.


These other sites are Carchemish, Zinjirli and other Neo-Hittite sites (see Abu Assaf, ‘Ain Dara, pp. 39–41). See more recently Abu Assaf, “Die Kleinfunde aus “‘An Dara,” Damaszener Mitteilungen 9 (1996), pp. 47–111.


Here and throughout the temple reliefs we find the “serpentine curve” pattern known from other finds in the Levant, including a basalt bowl from Hazor Temple H (see Yigael Yadin, Hazor III–IV [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961], pl. 122) and most recently a tenth-century pottery vessel from Tel Rehov (see Amihai Mazar and John Camp, “Will Tel Rehov Save the United Monarchy?” BAR 26:02).


Lawrence E. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260 (1985), pp. 1–35; and “The Song of Deborah: Why Some Tribes Answered the Call and Others Did Not,” BAR 15:01.


See Alan Millard, “The Doorways of Solomon’s Temple,” Eretz-Israel 20 (1989), pp. 135*–139*.


David Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan: The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), illus. 47, 94, 108.


The association of temple and palace in one building compound has been well attested in Mesopotamia and Egypt. It proved to be a popular layout in the Levant as well, as noted by Ussishkin (“Solomon and the Tayanat Temples,” Israel Exploration Journal (IEJ) 16 (1966), pp. 104–110; “Solomon’s Palace and Building 1723,” IEJ 16 [1966], pp. 174–186). In 1971 Theodor Busink published all known parallels in one monograph: Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes: Eine archäologische-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelhaus, vol. 1, Der Tempel Salomos (Leiden: Brill, 1971). Despite the numerous similarities between the Biblical description and Canaanite and Syrian temples, he considered many of the features in the Jerusalem Temple to be Israelite innovations (p. 617)—a point on which we disagree.


Two seminal articles on this subject were written by David Ussishkin; see note 9. For earlier studies, see G. Ernest Wright, “The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East,” part 3, “The Temple in Syria-Palestine,” Biblical Archaeologist (1944), pp. 65–77; Leroy Waterman, “The Damaged Blueprints of the Temple of Solomon,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies (1943), pp. 284–294.


Mazar’s typology is the most comprehensive proposed to date; see “Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age,” in The Architecture of Ancient Israel, ed. Aharon Kempinski and Ronny Reich (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1992), pp. 161–187. See also Volkmar Fritz, “What Can Archaeology Tell Us About Solomon’s Temple?” BAR 13:04. The temples range in date from the third to first millennium B.C.E. and include Munbaqa, Emar, Ebla D, Mari, Chuera, Hayyat, Kittan, ‘Ain Dara, Tayinat, Ebla B1, N, Hazor Area A, Hazor Area H, Dab‘a, Alalakh I, Hamath, Shechem, Megiddo, Haror, Alalakh VII, IV, Byblos II, Carchemish, Lachish P, Beth-Shean VI and the temenos at Dan.