On Cult Places and Early Israelites: A Response to Michael Coogan
In the January/February 1988 BAR an article entitled “Two Early Israelite Cult Sites Now Questioned,” BAR 14:01, presents the views of Professor Michael Coogan to the effect that the so-called “Bull Site” that I excavated in the Samaria mountains is not a cultic installation and is of questionable Israelite ethnicity.a
Of course, every silent archaeological discovery can be interpreted in different ways. The question is what is the most sensible explanation of a particular archaeological phenomenon. In this case, I disagree with Coogan’s views on several basic points.
Coogan lists four criteria that, to his mind, characterize a cult place. Yet many cult places and temples in ancient Palestine reflect only some of Coogan’s criteria. For example, his first criterion relates to whether the site in question is “isolated” architecturally. The temples at Tell Qasile, a temple in area A at Hazor, the temple at Arad and others all fail to meet this criterion, yet they are clearly temples.
Coogan’s second criterion—the presence of “exotic materials”—is not found at several important temples that were deserted or robbed of finds in their final phase (such as the Chalcolithic temple at Ein-Gedi, the Early Bronze temples at Megiddo, the Canaanite temple 2048 at Megiddo and the temples at Shechem).
Nevertheless, as to the “Bull Site,” I find that several of Coogan’s criteria are satisfied. The “Bull Site” meets the first criterion, “isolation,” since it is a truly isolated site, located at a considerable distance from the nearest contemporaneous settlement. Its location—on the top of a high ridge—is one aspect of its isolation. Indeed, this site is more isolated than most other cult places I know of in ancient Palestine.
Coogan’s second criterion—the presence of “exotic materials”—definitely exists in our case. The unique bronze bull statuette found at this site is obviously such an item. The fragmentary corner of a square, pottery cult-object is another example. In contrast to Coogan’s claim, this object cannot be anything other than a square, pottery cult-stand or shrine of a type known in the Iron Age in Israel.
Coogan correctly claims that the few pottery sherds found at the site do not differ from domestic pottery of the period, but this is also true of pottery found in various temples in Palestine (such as at Lachish, Megiddo, Hazor, Tell Qasile, etc.). Pottery used in offerings and ritual services does not differ in principle from contemporaneous domestic pottery, except as regards particular forms that are used in a particular ritual function.
Let us look at Coogan’s third criterion, “continuity.” Coogan himself agrees that this criterion cannot be applicable to the “Bull Site,” because the “Bull Site” is a one period site, like many other settlement sites of Iron Age I (see below).
As for Coogan’s fourth criterion, “parallels,” if we expect to find parallels to every new archaeological feature, we probably will never be able to advance our research in this field of study. The “Bull Site” indeed lacks parallels elsewhere. But this does not mean that it should be defined as a dwelling site, as Coogan suggests. No similar dwelling sites are known either! Moreover, I cannot understand how this site could function as a dwelling site. There are no houses, and there is no evidence of any domestic architecture or activity. The site is composed of only the round, stone enclosure and the installations in it. The center of the circle was found empty of any structures; perhaps it was the location of a sacred tree. Thus, the site could have been one of the High Places built on hilltops and near sacred trees, often mentioned in the Bible but never before defined archaeologically!b
The ethnic identification of the builders of the “Bull Site” is naturally a debated issue, as at present there is disagreement among scholars about when and where Israel emerged on the stage of history. My identification of the “Bull Site” as an Israelite site was based on a general and widely agreed concept regarding the archaeological phenomena relating to the Israelite settlement. This concept has the support of many scholars (such as Yohanan Aharoni, Benjamin Mazar, Moshe Kochavi, Lawrence Stager, Israel Finkelstein and Adam Zertal, to name just a few).c This concept is that the establishment of many small sites in the hill country of the land of Israel, and especially in the lands of Manasseh, Ephraim and Benjamin, is the expression of the Israelite settlement in these regions during the 12th–11th centuries B.C. As both the “Bull Site” and the Mount Ebal site (which Coogan also discusses) are part of this wide-scale settlement phenomenon, I claim that both should be identified as Israelite sites.
Coogan, and other scholars who do not agree with this concept of Israel’s emergence, contests the presence of any Israelite entity in the heartland of the land of Israel during the time of the Judges. Such scholars have to find some other explanation for the emergence of a network of new settlements in the hill country of Palestine during Iron Age I. By defining these sites as Canaanite, as Coogan does, a new problem is created, because we know of no such pattern of settlement among the Canaanites. During the preceding Late Bronze Age, when the Canaanite culture was at its peak, such settlements were unknown. What were the circumstances that caused Canaanites to establish these small sites in Iron Age I? In referring to these sites as Canaanite, Coogan was perhaps inspired by George E. Mendenhall and Norman K. Gottwald’s theories concerning the Canaanite origin of the Israelites. But even according to this theory (which I do not accept), the small villages in the hill country can be defined as Israelite, as they represent the stage when the presumed “Canaanite” ancestors of the Israelites changed to a new pattern of settlement, most probably reflecting a new social organization and new way of life. Why should we not define them at this stage as Israelites and we their history as reflected in the Book of Judges?