Two Early Israelite Cult Sites Now Questioned

048

In recent years, two early Israelite cult sites have been discovered. The first is referred to as the “Bull Site” because archaeologists were led to it by the accidental discovery there of a cultic bronze statuette of a bull.^a The second early Israelite cult site encloses the massive altar discovered in the course of an archaeological survey on Mt. Ebal.^b

Both sites date to approximately the early 12th century B.C., the early part of Iron Age I in archaeological terms; in Biblical terms, this is the period of the Judges, when the Israelites first emerged in the Promised Land. About this dating, there is no dispute.

But a bitter dispute has arisen about the Mt. Ebal site. Is it really a cult site or is it nothing more than an old farmhouse.^c

Now a highly regarded American scholar has entered the lists. He has not only considered the question of whether the Mt. Ebal site is cultic, but wonders about the Bull Site as well, and even questions whether these sites are Israelite sites.

In the January/June 1987 issue of the Palestine Exploration Quarterly (a venerable scholarly journal that appears only twice a year, despite its name), Michael Coogan, formerly at Harvard and now at Stonehill College, develops four criteria for identifying a cultic site (in the absence of written evidence):

1. Isolation. “In most cultures,” Coogan notes, “there is a conscious separation between the holy and the profane. Architecturally this finds expression in a temenos wall which separates a holy place from its immediate context, whether natural or settled.” So the first question we must ask is whether an allegedly cultic site is isolated in this way.

2. Exotic materials. “The special function of cultic sites will normally result in the presence of material not typical of other contexts,” writes Coogan. So we are likely to find unusual artifacts such as miniature vessels, figurines or expensive objects. However, cautions Coogan, “If the cultic site was served by personnel on a regular basis, elements of normal repertoires, especially such domestic material as cooking pots, will also occur.” Nevertheless, the proportion of exotic artifacts to usual ones such as domestic cooking pots will probably vary as between a cultic site and a non-cultic site.

3. Continuity. In multi-period sites, the cultic function of the site is likely to be retained from period to period. The outstanding example of this is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which has retained its cultic character for nearly 3,000 years.

4. Parallels. Questionable cultic sites are likely to have parallels, if they are truly cultic, at other unquestionably cultic sites. Thus, Coogan tells us, “building plans, altars, pedestals, and the like should show resemblance to cultic installations known from written or non-written sources.”

Using these criteria, Coogan concludes that the Bull Site, whose cultic character has not been previously questioned, is not a cultic site, at least not a public one; he further concludes that the Mt. Ebal site, the subject of considerable controversy, probably is a cultic site.

But he questions whether either of the sites can be identified as Israelite.

050

The Bull Site, located on the summit of a high ridge in northern Samaria, consists of a dilapidated wall of large fieldstones that had originally enclosed an elliptical area about 10 feet in diameter. Found within the enclosure were a slightly worked stone, 4 feet long and 3 feet high, which may have served as an altar, and a paving of rough, flat stones that is adjacent to this worked stone.

Is the site cultic?

As Coogan points out, “There are five other small unexcavated sites with Iron Age pottery within a 5 km. radius” of the Bull Site. So it cannot be said to be isolated. It did have a circular enclosure wall, but this need not have any cultic significance in this context. This enclosure wall could well be a corral for livestock with a dwelling for the shepherd.

The scanty pottery found at the site “represents a typical domestic repertoire,” argues Coogan. A fragment of the base of a ceramic object belonged, according to the excavator, Hebrew University’s Amihai Mazar, to a large cult-object, either a model shrine or an incense burner. But, according to Coogan, “since the pottery base is only a small fragment Mazar’s conclusion is not compelling.” In addition, a number of flints were found (used in animal sacrifices?) that Coogan describes as “a typical domestic flint assemblage.” The large, partially worked stone that Mazar interprets as a standing stone (a massebah) or, lying flat, an altar, could as easily be, according to Coogan, a table top or a pillar of a house. Such pillars were commonly used in houses of the period. Thus, for Coogan, “the only significant piece of evidence which cannot easily be interpreted as domestic is the bull figurine.”

Since the Bull Site is a one-period site, the criterion of continuity is irrelevant. As to parallels, Mazar has not cited any close ones.

Coogan therefore concludes that the Bull Site is not a cultic site. “The pottery and lithics are unexceptional, and fit best into a domestic context.” As for the bull figurine, Coogan concedes this “probably had a ritual function.” But “it could just as easily have been used in some sort of private, domestic ritual.”

The Mt. Ebal site, however, fares better in Coogan’s judgment. Located on a rocky northeastern ridge of the highest mountain in northern Samaria, the site’s principal feature is a nearly square, stone structure that stands almost nine feet high. According to the excavator, Haifa University’s Adam Zertal, a ramp once led to the top of the structure, which he has interpreted as an altar. A thin, elliptical wall, possibly a temenos 052wall, surrounds the supposed altar and the land that is adjacent to it.

Turning again to the criteria for determining whether this is a cultic site, Coogan notes that “there are no other Iron Age sites on the mountain; this site is therefore isolated.”

As for the pottery, 70 percent of the vessels were collar-rim storage jars; 20 percent were jugs and chalices. It is significant that a number of miniature vessels were uncovered, but “very few cooking pots were found,” observes Coogan.

Although the site is a one-period site, it did have two phases. In the early phase, stone installations were found in association with ashy debris, which might represent a continuity of cultic functions. In addition, the excavator cites a number of archaeological and literary parallels to other cultic sites.

As to the Mt. Ebal site, Coogan concludes:

“In view of the absence of significant numbers of elements of the ordinary domestic ceramic repertoire and the presence of miniature vessels, the isolation of the site from contemporary settlements, and some of the parallels adduced by Zertal, I tentatively concur with his interpretation of the function of the site as cultic.”

But Coogan questions whether either site is Israelite. In identifying the sites as Israelite, the excavators relied on geography and chronology. Both sites are in areas assigned to the tribe of Manasseh in the Bible, and they flourished during a period (Iron Age I) when the Israelite tribal confederation is said to have occupied the land. To this Coogan responds:

“The problem of identification is, however, not so simple. The division of the land as described in Joshua is an ideal picture, as the early chapters of Judges make clear; this ideal is in many cases a retroversion of later geopolitical realities.”

Just because a site is within these ideal boundaries does not mean it is necessarily Israelite. As Coogan points out:

“What distinguished the Israelites from their non-Israelite contemporaries was metaphysical, not physical … acceptance of Yahweh, the god of Israel, and concomitant allegiance to fellow Yahwists.”

Coogan goes on to say:

“The biblical record makes it clear that as Israel developed in Canaan it grew in part by the conversion of individuals and groups who had not been part of the original nucleus … Just as Israelites could commit apostasy by ‘yoking themselves’ to such deities as Baal Peor (Numbers 25:3; Psalms 106:28), so non-Yahwists could commit themselves to Yahweh and his adherents and join Israel. Notable examples include Rahab and her family (Joshua 2, 6:25) [and] the Gibeonites (Joshua 9, 18:25).”

Coogan argues that the houses and pottery of Yahwistic Israelites and their non-Yahwistic Canaanite neighbors are indistinguishable. He also notes that certain features such as collar-rim jars and the so-called four-room house,^d which were previously thought to identity the early Israelites, have “now [been] prove[n] to have a much wider distribution.” Both the collar-rim jar and the four-room house, says Coogan, “must now be seen as characteristic of the period throughout the larger region rather than isolated to one specific [ethnic] group.”

In questioning whether these sites are Israelite, Coogan also relies on the similarities and continuities between Canaanite material culture of the Late Bronze Age and Israelite material culture in the succeeding Iron I period in the same geographical area.

Coogan concludes:

“Given the demonstrable continuities between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age and the complicated biblical picture of the origins of Israel, it is methodologically questionable to label specific exemplars by a designation which is religious and political. Only toward the end of the Iron I period do distinct national cultures emerge; until then it would be wise to avoid labels such as Israelite or Canaanite unless there is conclusive evidence for using them.”

“Neither the enclosure where the bull figurine was found, nor the cultic installation on Mount Ebal, were necessarily Israelite, and it is misleading and ultimately unhelpful for the larger historical task of biblical archaeologists … to presume that these sites were Israelite.”

In conclusion, Coogan raises the possibility that the Mt. Ebal site may have been “a local Canaanite shrine which was also (or later) used by Israelites, or at least that it was ‘Israelitized.’”

In recent years, two early Israelite cult sites have been discovered. The first is referred to as the “Bull Site” because archaeologists were led to it by the accidental discovery there of a cultic bronze statuette of a bull.a The second early Israelite cult site encloses the massive altar discovered in the course of an archaeological survey on Mt. Ebal.b Both sites date to approximately the early 12th century B.C., the early part of Iron Age I in archaeological terms; in Biblical terms, this is the period of the Judges, when the Israelites first emerged in the Promised Land. […]