Ganor and Kreimerman

An Eighth-Century b.c.e.
Gate Shrine at Tel Lachish, Israel

Saar Ganor and Igor Kreimerman

Excavations conducted on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority at Tel Lachish exposed the
southern half of the six-chambered gate in Level III. In the eastern chamber, a gate shrine was
uncovered. The shrine was split in two: a larger northern room and a smaller southern room.
The southern room, which served as the holy of holies, had a niche in its southern wall in front of
which a double altar was placed. Dozens of bowls and oil lamps were revealed inside the shrine.
At some point, evidently prior to the destruction of Level III by Sennacherib in 701 b.c.e., the
shrine was desecrated and sealed. This act was evident in the breakage of the altar’s horns and
the placement of a latrine in the holy of holies. The available data suggests that the desecration of
the shrine should be associated with Hezekiah’s cultic reform (2 Kgs 18:4).
Keywords: Lachish; Iron Age; cult; gate shrine; altar; toilet; desecration; Hezekiah; cult
reform

L
achish was the second most important city in
Iron Age Judah after Jerusalem. The site is located
on the bank of the Lachish Stream in the Judean
Shephelah, and dominates the road leading from the
coastal plain to the mountainous region around Hebron
and Jerusalem. Due to the importance of the site, and as
part of a project intended to make Tel Lachish accessible
to and attractive for visitors, the authors conducted an
excavation at the site on behalf of the Israel Antiquities
Authority from December 2015 to February 2016.
The Excavation
The excavation exposed the southern half of the in-
ner six-chambered gate. The gate was first identified by a
British expedition, headed by J. L. Starkey, who exposed
several piers along the northern half of the inner gate,
Saar Ganor: Ashkelon, Lachish & Western Negev District,
Israel Antiquities Authority, Rockefeller Museum Building,
P. O. Box 586, Jerusalem 91004, Israel; saarg@israntique.org.il
Igor Kreimerman: Institute of Archaeology and Mandel
School for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 9190501,
Israel; igor.kreimerman@gmail.com
as well as part of the central corridor and the entrance
to the southeastern gate chamber (Tufnell 1953: 94–95).
Forty years later, the excavations led by David Ussishkin
exposed the entire northern half of the gate. The excava-
tors dated the construction of the gate to Level IV (9th or
early 8th century b.c.ə.) and its destruction to Level III,
by the Assyrian king Sennacherib, in 701 b.c.ə. (Ussish-
kin 2004a). The southern half of the gate remained un-
touched until our excavation in 2015–2016 (Fig. 1). The
recent excavation concentrated on the southern half of
the gate and exposed only its final Level III phase. No
excavations below the floors were undertaken.
The southern half of the gate contained four piers with
three chambers between them, almost equal in plan to
the northern half (Figs. 1, 2). The construction of the gate
was carried out using deep stone foundations and a mud-
brick superstructure. The walls of the gate were covered
with a whitish plaster. The western side of the western
chamber was obliterated by the foundation trench of the
southern pier of the inner gate of Level II (Fig. 3).
The western chamber measured 2.8 m wide and
5.25 m long. It was accessed by three steps that led up
to a 1 m-wide entrance. In that chamber, three plastered
benches were built against its eastern wall (see Fig. 3).
The remains of another bench were found on the western
side and continued to the balk. The foundation trench
of Level II may have damaged the other benches along
the western side. The pottery assemblage revealed on the

BASOR 381 (2019). © 2019 American Schools of Oriental Research. 0003-097X/2019/381-0011$10.00. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1086/703343.
212 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN
Fig. 1. The city gate of Lachish following the excavation, looking southwest. (Photo by G. Fitoussi; courtesy of
the Israel Antiquities Authority)
floor of the chamber consisted mainly of storage vessels,
including lmlk storage jars and scoops. The presence of
the benches, together with the nature of the pottery as-
semblage, suggests that the chamber was used for admin-
istrative purposes, and that this may have been the place
where the city elders sat in judgment.
The middle chamber was accessed by two stairs that
led to a 0.90 m-wide opening. The chamber was obliter-
ated in antiquity, probably during the time of Level II,
and no floor level or restorable pottery was preserved in
situ. The eastern chamber and its finds are the topics of
this article and will be discussed in detail.
The Architecture of the Eastern Chamber
It should be noted that Starkey and his team identi-
fied the piers of the chamber and excavated its entrance
at the time (Tufnell 1953: pl. 15:4). This was borne out
with the discovery of modern refuse found in the upper
layers dating to the 1930s.
The width of the chamber is 2.8 m, and its overall
length is 5.65 m (Fig. 4). The chamber is divided into
two rooms: a larger one, Room 1, in the north and a
smaller one, Room 2, in the south. Room 1, measuring
BASOR 381
3.4 × 2.8 m, is approached from its western side through
a set of four stairs (Fig. 5). Its walls and floor were plas-
tered (Fig. 6). The southern side of the floor was sunken.
Room 1 was separated from Room 2 by a partition wall,
0.45 m wide and 2.1 m long, which afforded access to the
southern room from its eastern end. Adjacent to the par-
tition wall in Room 1 was a narrow ledge, ca. 1.2 m long.
Many broken pottery vessels were found (see below) on
the ledge and in its immediate vicinity.
The opening between the rooms (between Walls 120
and 111) was 0.70 m wide. A depression at that point
indicates the existence of a door that was probably made
of wood (Fig. 7a). Traces of plaster in the place where
the door once stood demonstrate that it must have been
plastered over and sealed at some point (Fig. 7b). Most
of these traces were found in the debris that covered the
entrance; however, in one spot, they were found in situ
(Fig. 8). Just north of the opening, four arrowheads and
a slingstone were found. All the arrowheads faced south-
east, suggesting that they were shot from the street into
the chamber.
Room 2 was 2.80 m wide and 1.25 m long. It was de-
fined by Wall 120 to the north, Wall 111 on the east, Wall
103 to the south, and Wall 116 on the west. A 0.15 m-deep
2019 AN EIGHTH-CENTURY B.C.E. GATE SHRINE AT TEL LACHISH, ISRAEL 213

Fig. 2. A plan of the city gate of Lachish. The northern side was excavated by the previous expeditions, while the southern side was
excavated by the present authors. (Drawing by M. Khan and D. Porotsky; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)
214 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN
Fig. 3. The southwestern chamber, looking south. Note the plastered benches and the foundation trench of the
Level II city wall in the back. (Photo by S. Ganor and I. Kreimerman)
niche was discerned in Wall 103 (Figs. 9, 10). The walls
of the room were all plastered and covered with soot.
The floor of the eastern part of the room was paved with
six flat stone slabs (Fig. 10), and the floor of the western
part was plastered. In the west, a ca. 0.8-m diameter pit
(Locus 148) was found cut into the floor. It seems that
the pit started from the floor level and does not represent
later activity. This is supported by several observations.
First, the color of the sediment above the pit is the same
as the color of the sediment that covered the rest of the
room; no trace of the pit could be identified before the
floor was reached, and it was not identifiable in the pho-
tographs taken from that stage of the excavation. Second,
the opening of the pit where it cuts the floor had a regu-
lar, roughly rectangular shape. Third, contrary to what
would be expected from a carelessly dug pit, it did not
damage the plaster covering the adjacent walls. Finally,
no later pottery or other material evidence was found
that could indicate a later pit. A large, rectangular stone
object, interpreted as a toilet seat, was found lying on its
side in the pit (see below). No other noteworthy finds
were discovered in the pit.
In front of the niche, and integrated with Wall 120,
an installation (Locus 138) was found, interpreted as a
double altar (see below). This room was rich with pottery.
BASOR 381
Architectural Analysis
Since the door between Rooms 1 and 2 was sealed at
some point, taking Room 2 out of use, and the pit in Room
2 cuts the floor, the sealing and the pit should be attributed
to a later, separate chronological stage. The discussion be-
low will consider the chamber in its early stage.
A few architectural characteristics of the chamber are
noteworthy. Most importantly, the plan of the eastern
chamber indicates the intentional creation of a hierarchy
between the gate passage—accessible by everyone—and
the increasingly segregated areas of Room 1 and Room 2.
This could be seen by the placement of the entrances. As
mentioned above, the opening that led from the street to
Room 1 was located on the western side of the room and
was closed by a door. It is therefore clear that from the
street, only a glimpse of Room 1 was visible. However,
it is unlikely that the door to Room 2 could be seen, let
alone what was happening inside the southern room.
Similarly, the door to Room 2 was in the east, allow-
ing a person standing in Room 1 to perhaps have only a
glimpse of Room 2, but by no means a view of the altar.
It is possible that each of the three spaces was intended
for different activities. Both in the Tel Aviv University
excavations and the current excavations, large basins,
2019 AN EIGHTH-CENTURY B.C.E. GATE SHRINE AT TEL LACHISH, ISRAEL
Fig. 4. Plan of the southeastern chamber. The key loci are: Locus 137:
four steps that lead to Room 1; Locus 138: a double altar (note that
the northwestern horn was preserved); Locus 142: an offering ledge;
Locus 143: a bench east of the entrance to the chamber; Locus 144: a
bench west of the entrance to the chamber; and Locus 148: the pit in
Room 2 where the toilet seat was found. (Drawing by M. Khan and
D. Porotsky; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)
perhaps foot baths, were found in Locus 4013, just above
the inner gate threshold leading to the city (Ussishkin
2004a: 641; Zimhoni 2004b: fig. 26.2:4, 60:6). These could
have been used for purification before the entrance to the
chamber. East of the entrance to the chamber a bench
(Locus 143) was placed. On this bench, people could sit
while waiting to be allowed inside. Alternatively, offer-
ings could be placed on the bench.1 As mentioned above,
1 As this bench was already excavated by the British expedition
(Tufnell 1953: pl. 15:4), it is unclear which of the possibilities is cor-
215
Fig. 5. The entrance to the southeastern chamber, looking south.
(Photo by S. Ganor and I. Kreimerman)
a ledge was found west of the entrance to Room 2. As
this ledge was only 0.10 m high and 0.15 m wide, it was
clearly not intended for sitting. The large quantity of pot-
tery on and next to the ledge compared to the rest of
the room demonstrates that it was probably used for the
placement of offerings. Room 2 is the only one in which a
clear cultic installation was found—a double altar, which
enabled activities such as libations and incense burning.
The niche in the southern wall of Room 2 has spe-
cial importance. The niche is located roughly in the cen-
ter of the chamber’s southernmost wall. There seems to
have been no functional reason for it; one can easily pass
from the east to the west of the room without it. On the
other hand, it might have had symbolic importance—it
emphasizes the center of the southern wall and the fo-
cus of the activities. Similar niches are well known from
temples. At Arad, the devir is such a niche, 1.2 m in depth
(Herzog 2010: figs. 1, 2). Another example is known from
Building 2161 of Stratum VA at Megiddo (Loud 1948: 45,
rect, because we do not know what was found on the bench. It seems
that when the bench was excavated, there was an armrest on its western
side (Tufnell 1953: pl. 15:4). Alternatively, these could be the remains of
a partially destroyed shallow basin.
216 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN BASOR 381

Fig. 6. Room 1, looking south. The walls and the floor are plastered. Note that the photo was taken prior to the
excavation of the entrance to Room 2. (Photo by S. Ganor and I. Kreimerman)

a.

Fig. 7a. The entrance between Rooms 1 and 2, looking south. Note
the depression in the floor representing the place of the door. To the
right are the plaster remains attached to the original plaster of the wall
that was probably applied to seal the door. (Photo by S. Ganor and I.
Kreimerman)

Fig. 7b. The entrance between Rooms 1 and 2, looking west. Note the
gap between the original plaster in the opening to the south (left) and
the newly applied plaster to the north (right). (Photo by S. Ganor and b.
I. Kreimerman)
2019 AN EIGHTH-CENTURY B.C.E. GATE SHRINE AT TEL LACHISH, ISRAEL
Fig. 8a. The entrance between Rooms 1 and 2, looking south. The
original plaster is marked with shades of green while the plaster that
was used to seal the door is marked with blue. Plaster was also found
in situ in the area marked with purple, but it fell off before the photo
was taken (cf. Fig. 7a). (Photo by S. Ganor and I. Kreimerman)
Fig. 9. Room 2 during excavation, looking west. The floor was not yet
reached at this point. On the left, the niche in the southern wall (103)
could be seen. (Photo by S. Ganor and I. Kreimerman)
217
Fig. 8b. The entrance between Rooms 1 and 2, looking west. The
original plaster is marked with shades of green, while the plaster that
was used to seal the door is marked with blue. The sediment between
the green and the blue is the place where the door once stood. Given
the placement of the plaster on both sides, the door could not have
been opened unless the plaster was broken. (Photo by S. Ganor and
I. Kreimerman)
Fig. 10. Room 2 after the floor was reached, looking west. Note the pave-
ment in the eastern side of the room (bottom), the niche on the left, the
altar, and the toilet seat in situ. (Photo by S. Ganor and I. Kreimerman)
218 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN
figs. 96, 388), although its function as a place of cultic
activity is not clear-cut (see below). Similar niches that
represent the sacred focal point are also known from Iron
Age Khirbet ʿAtaruz (Ji 2012: 204–6) and in Bronze Age
and Iron Age temples, most notably in the symmetric
Temples of Hazor, Temple 2048 at Megiddo, and others
(Mazar 1992; Kamlah 2012: 522–26).
The overall plan of the chamber finds its best paral-
lel with the Iron Age temple of Arad.2 Like the chamber
at Lachish, the Arad temple is hierarchical: It is divided
into a large room (the ulam), a smaller broadroom (the
heichal), and an even a smaller room (the devir). As in
the Lachish chamber, the entrance to the temple is from
the side and not the center, and the activities in the
heichal and devir are not seen from outside the structure.
At Arad, the shape of the heichal together with the devir,
which in fact forms a deep niche in the western wall of
the heichal, resembles that of Room 2.
A notable difference between the two structures is
in their orientation. While the orientation of the Arad
temple is toward the west, the Lachish chamber is ori-
ented southward. The orientation of the Lachish chamber
may have been the result of the constraint of its place-
ment within the gate chamber. As the gate chamber is
very narrow, it would have been impossible to build a
hierarchical structure in any other orientation. Another
possible parallel, albeit not without problems, is Building
2161 from Megiddo Stratum VA. That structure, com-
posed of two broadrooms, is located northwest of the
Stratum VA gate and is built in an east–west orientation.
A niche was located in the western wall of the western in-
ner room. The entrance to the western room was flanked
by two plastered benches. The excavators initially identi-
fied the structure as a guard room or a taxation point at
the entrance to the city (Loud 1948: 45, figs. 96, 388).
Zeʾev Herzog (1986: 96) suggested that the structure was
cultic in nature according to its plan. As no finds from
the structure were published, it is difficult to confirm or
reject any of these suggestions.3
Finally, access to the chamber is by way of four stairs,
while in the western chamber, access is by way of three
stairs. Furthermore, the elevation of the floor of the east-
ern chamber was 0.85 m higher than that of the western
chamber. The difference may have been intentional, in
order to stress the importance of the eastern chamber
by raising the floor in accordance with the practice of
elevating temples or cult places above their surroundings
(Hundley 2013: 114, 121–22).
2 For the different phases of the temple, see Herzog 2002; 2010.
3 For a detailed discussion, see Blomquist 1999: 76–81.
BASOR 381
The Double Altar
An installation (Locus 138) of partially hewn soft
limestone covered with plaster was found integrated
into the northern wall of Room 2 (Figs. 11a, 11b, 12).
The installation is 0.37 m wide, 0.65 m long, and was
preserved to a height of 0.90 m. The plaster that covered
the altar was of high quality; only careful examination
revealed that the installation was not a monolith but
rather was constructed of several stones. The installa-
tion and the northern wall were plastered together (see
Fig. 10). The upper stone was broken in two, probably
in antiquity. Evidence of blows by a sharp object were
found in the four corners of the southern half and the
three corners of the northern half of the stone (see Fig.
11b). In the northwestern corner of the stone, the plas-
ter went higher than elsewhere on it and was shaped to
form a horn (see Figs. 10–12). As the plaster elsewhere
on the stone does not end in a straight line, it is most
likely that it went higher in these other places as well.
It therefore appears possible that the other seven cor-
ners of the two stones were also horn-shaped, and, in
fact, the entire installation was completely plastered. It
is evident that at a certain point in time, the horns were
broken off, and a few blows were delivered to the central
part of installation. As a result, the installation went out
of use (see Fig. 11b).
Due to the single well-preserved horn, the unmistak-
able evidence of blows, and the apparent presence of seven
other horns, it is reasonable to assume that the installation
was an eight-horned double altar. The subdivision into two
parts created, in practice, two adjacent altars.
Although there are no exact parallels to a double altar
such as the one at Lachish, none of the characteristics of
these altars is unique. As mentioned above, the altars are
adjacent to, or in fact integrated into, the northern wall
in front of the niche in the southern wall. Altars located
adjacent to walls are known from a number of sites (Gitin
1989; 2002; 2011). Specifically, pairs of altars that were
adjacent to walls are known from Cult Corner 2081 of
Stratum VA at Megiddo (Loud 1948: 45–46, fig. 101; Ze-
vit 2001: 220–25, fig. 3.54). At Khirbat al-Mudayna, three
altars were found, two of which are adjacent to the north-
western wall of the cult corner (Daviau and Steiner 2000:
8, figs. 2, 6). In the altar room at Tel Dan, two altars were
found adjacent to the southern wall (Biran 1986: fig. 9).
The 12th-century b.c.ə. altar at Ashkelon was made of
earth, covered with plaster, and, as at Lachish, was inte-
grated into the wall to which it was adjacent (Master and
Aja 2011: 136–40, figs. 6–8).
A few examples of altars constructed from a num-
ber of stones are known. The best-known example is
the Beersheba altar, which was built from several stones
2019 AN EIGHTH-CENTURY B.C.E. GATE SHRINE AT TEL LACHISH, ISRAEL 219

Fig. 11a. The double altar, looking north. (Photo by S. Ganor and I. Fig. 11b. A close-up of the double altar, looking north. Note the nar-
Kreimerman) row lines that resulted from a blow by a sharp object. (Photo by S.
Ganor and I. Kreimerman)

(Aharoni 1974). The horn of an altar was found at Tel

Dan (Biran 1982: 24–25, pl. 6:3), and possible horns were
found at Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 29, fig.
31b). The early phase of the main altar from the heichal
in the Arad temple was built from partially hewn stones
(Herzog 2002: 53–56, fig. 23). The altar in the courtyard
of the temple that was recently excavated at Tel Moẓa
was built of fieldstones (Kisilevitz 2015: 151, fig. 3). The
large altar, if it should be identified as such, from the altar
room at Tel Dan was built of several stones (Biran 1986:
181–87, fig. 11). It is possible that the altars from Khirbet
ʿAtaruz were similarly constructed (Ji 2012).
Plastered altars are also well known. The Ashkelon
altar was mentioned above. Remains of plaster and pos-
sibly also of plastered horns that were not preserved were
found in the late phase of the altar at the heichal in the
Arad temple (Herzog 2002: 52–61; 2010: 174–75). The
small altars from Arad had the remains of plaster at-
tached to them, and the excavators suggested that this
Fig. 12. An elevation view of the double altar. looking east (left) and
meant they stood adjacent to a wall (Herzog 2010: 174), looking south (right). (Drawing by M. Khan and D. Porotsky; courtesy
although, of course, this suggestion cannot be verified. of the Israel Antiquities Authority)
220 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN
Fig. 13. The pit in Room 2, looking west. The side of the toilet seat is
visible in the pit. (Photo by S. Ganor and I. Kreimerman)
Fig. 14. The toilet seat fully exposed in the pit, looking west. (Photo by
S. Ganor and I. Kreimerman)
The Toilet Seat
In the western side of Room 2, a pit, ca. 0.8 m in di-
ameter, was found. The excavation of the pit revealed a
finely carved cubical stone, 0.50 × 0.56 × 0.39 m in size,
BASOR 381
Fig. 15. The toilet seat, measuring 0.50 × 0.56 × 0.39 m. (Photo by
C. Amit)
lying on its side (Figs. 10, 13, 14). On the upper part of
the stone, there is a strip that is 0.01 m wide with parallel
incisions on the back side of the stone. In the center of
the stone is a depression with a keyhole-shaped opening;
the circular part measured 0.18 m in diameter, and the
narrow channel is 0.19 m long and 0.07 m wide (Figs.
15, 16). Clearly, the upper part of the stone was better
worked than the lower part (see Fig. 16). Specifically, on
one side of the stone, diagonal incisions can be seen that
might have been used to apply plaster. Therefore, it is
possible that the bottom of the stone was plastered and
perhaps even connected to the floor.
The perforated cubical stone has good parallels to
Iron Age toilet seats. These installations were recently
discussed by Alon De Groot (2012: 172–73). The best
parallels come from the City of David, dated from the
8th to early 6th centuries b.c.ə. The most similar instal-
lation is from Stratum 12 in Area E. It has a 0.01–0.02-m
strip that encircles the upper part of the installation and a
similar keyhole-shaped opening (De Groot and Bernick-
Greenberg 2012a: 99; De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg
[eds.] 2012: 352, fig. 10.3:2) (Fig. 17a). A similar object
was uncovered in secondary use in Stratum 9 of Area E,
although in this case the keyhole channel is shallower
(De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 22; De Groot
and Bernick-Greenberg [eds.] 2012: 347–52, fig. 10.3:1)
(Fig. 17b). In other cases, instead of a keyhole-shaped
opening, there are two disconnected holes: a large one
in the middle and a smaller one in the front. This is the
case in Stratum 10 of Area G (Shiloh 1984: 18, pl. 31:1).
The sediment below that toilet seat was sampled and was
2019 AN EIGHTH-CENTURY B.C.E. GATE SHRINE AT TEL LACHISH, ISRAEL 221

Fig. 16. Technical drawings of the toilet seat. (Drawings by A. Gyrman-Levanon; courtesy of the National Laboratory for Digital Documentation
and Research, Israel Antiquities Authority)

found to contain the remains of fecal matter, strengthen-
ing the assumption that these installations were used as
toilet seats (Cahill et al. 1991). Other such objects were
found in Kathleen Kenyon’s excavations in Square A/
XXIV, local Phase A2, dated to the 7th century b.c.ə.
(Steiner 2001: 94, fig. 6.50, 51) and in R. A. Stewart Ma-
calister’s excavations (Chapman 1992). One complete
item and the fragment of another were revealed in a tower
next to Ramat Raḥel (Eisenberg and De Groot 2006: 131–
32). Additional examples are known from Transjordan
in Amman (Humbert and Zayadine 1992: 253, pls. XIIB,
XIVA) and Busayra (Bienkowski 2002: 166).
As mentioned above, the toilet seat was found lying on
its side in a 0.5-m-deep pit. Thus, it is likely that the seat
fell when the floor collapsed, reflecting the depth of the
pit at that time. Below the toilet seat, a layer of sediment,
0.7 m deep, had accumulated above some stones.
When it was recognized that the object looked like
a toilet seat, it was posited that the pit in which it was
found was a cesspit. A few samples of sediment from
222 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN BASOR 381

Fig. 17. Toilet seats from the City of David excavations in (a) Area E, Stratum 12 (from De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg [eds.] 2012: fig. 10.3:2);
and (b) Area E, Stratum 9 (from De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg [eds.] 2012: fig. 10.3:1). (Courtesy of The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem)

Fig. 18. A west–east section of Room 2 with the locations of two of the samples marked. (Drawing by M. Khan
and D. Porotsky; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)
2019 AN EIGHTH-CENTURY B.C.E. GATE SHRINE AT TEL LACHISH, ISRAEL 223

Fig. 19. (Top) FTIR spectrum of a sample taken from the sediment immediately below the stone object in the pit; and (bottom)
FTIR spectrum of a sample taken from below a plastered floor in another part of the room, outside the studied installation, as
control. Both samples were composed of calcite (bands at 1429/1432, 875, and 713 cm-1), clay (absorbance bands at 1034/1033,
917/915, 469, 3621, and 3698/3696 cm-1) and quartz (a shoulder around 1080, with bands at 797, 779, 694/695, and 1161 cm-1).
(Graph by S. Ganor and I. Kreimerman)

various depths below the object were collected. In addi-
tion, samples from below the plastered floor in the room
but outside the pit were collected as references. The lo-
cation of two of the samples is illustrated in Figure 18.
Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) tests,
conducted in the Laboratory for Sedimentary Archaeol-
ogy at the University of Haifa (headed by Ruth Shahack-
Gross), showed that the sediment immediately below the
toilet seat, as well as the reference sediment outside of the
installation, were composed of calcite, clay, and quartz
(Fig. 19). Notably, the infrared spectrum of the sedi-
ment on which the stone object rested did not indicate
the presence of mineral phosphate compounds.
Fecal matter is known to be rich in phosphates.4 As no
phosphate was found in any of the samples, it seems that
the sediment below the stone object did not contain the
remains of such matter. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out
the possibility that the sediment around the stone object,
which was not sampled, contained the remains of fecal
4 For a discussion of phosphate as an indicator for fecal matter and
a recently excavated cesspit in Megiddo, see Langgut et al. 2016, espe-
cially pp. 380–82.
matter, or that this matter, if present, was a very thin layer
not detected macroscopically during excavation.
There are three options for interpreting the finds:
Δ
The stone object is not a toilet seat, and the pit is not
a cesspit. This conforms to the absence of phosphates
in the sampled sediments. However, the stone object
then requires explaining. Unfortunately, no other par-
allel, aside from a toilet seat, could be found for the
object.
Δ
The stone object is a toilet seat, and the pit functioned
as a cesspit. This conforms to the parallels presented
for the stone object. One would expect the object to
have fallen on top of the material accumulated in the
pit; thus, if fecal matter were in the pit, it would have
been found directly below the toilet seat. However, the
infrared analysis of the sediment below the object did
not detect any indication of cesspit-related deposits.
Δ
The stone object is a toilet seat that was installed sym-
bolically, and therefore the pit did not accumulate
waste. This falls in line with the identification of the
object and the infrared evidence. The problem in this
case is that one must explain why the cesspit was not
used for a fairly prolonged period.
224 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN BASOR 381

None of the three options is free of difficulties or can
easily be rejected. Yet, in light of the toilet seat paral-
lels, the lack of phosphates just below the object, and the
unusual religious context in which the object was found,
and since we have ruled out the possibility of the pit be-
ing dug from a later level (see above), we prefer the third
option. In our opinion, the object is a toilet seat, and it
was installed for symbolic reasons. The circumstances in
which it was placed are discussed below.
The Finds
Most of the finds from the chamber consist of pottery
vessels. In Room 1, the assemblage consisted of nine
complete (or large portions of) bowls, one large hole-
mouth jar, three lamps, and a stand. In addition, there
were 18 fragments of bowls, three jar rims, and four lamp
fragments. Most of these were found close to the ledge
on the south side of the room, lying flat. In addition to
pottery objects, four arrowheads and one slingstone were
found northwest of the entrance to Room 2.
Room 2 contained ten complete (or large portions
of) bowls, two juglets, 15 lamps, and one stand. In ad-
dition, 28 bowl fragments, the base of a lmlk storage jar,
the upper part of a jug, and three lamp fragments were
retrieved. Many of these vessels were lying upside down
or inclined ca. 45°, suggesting that some had fallen from
above, perhaps from shelves. No objects other than pot-
tery were recovered from this room.
As can be seen, most of the assemblage consists of
bowls and oil lamps. This suggests that the activities tak-
ing place in the structure involved mostly small offer-
ings and rituals related to light and the burning of oil
or incense. Bowls are quite common in cultic contexts.
For instance, they comprise a large portion of the assem-
blages of the temple at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985: table 2),
the favissa at Yavneh-Yam (Panitz-Cohen 2015: table
7.2), and Ḥorvat Qitmit (Freud and Beit-Arieh 1995).
The only example of a possible cultic context with abun-
dant lamps is Cave E207 in Samaria, where they com-
prised 15.6% of the assemblage (Steiner 1997: 20). In this
respect, the gate shrine of Lachish is unique.
The Date of the Pottery Assemblage
Below is a description of the main pottery types that
were found. The pottery was compared mostly to re-
cently published sites in Judah.
Bowls. The vast majority of the bowls were of two
types. The first type are flat or shallow bowls (Fig. 20:1–
7), with straight walls and a disc or flat base. Most have a
rounded or cut rim. These bowls first appear at Lachish
in Level V, although they represent only a small fraction

Supplementary Text for Figure 20

Type Context Registration No. Comments

1 Bowl Room 1 135-1159/02 Reddish-brown color, gray core, small and medium white grits
2 Bowl Room 1 135-1132/04 Reddish-brown color, gray core, small and medium white grits
3 Bowl Room 2 139-1184/03 Gray color, medium and small gray and white grits
4 Bowl Room 1 135-1159 Reddish-brown color, light brown core, medium gray grits
5 Bowl Room 2 139-1190 Reddish-brown color, light brown core, medium gray grits
6 Bowl Room 2 139-1198/07 Gray color, small and medium white grits
7 Bowl Room 2 139-1196 Brown color, gray core, large white grits
8 Bowl Room 1 135-1146 Reddish-brown color, gray core, white grits
9 Bowl Room 2 139-1169/06 Gray color, small white grits
10 Bowl Room 2 139-1173 Brown color, gray core, black grits
11 Bowl Room 2 139-1192 Light gray color, white grits
12 Bowl Room 2 139-1184/07 Gray color, gray grits
13 Bowl Room 1 135-1149 Gray color, medium and small gray and white grits
14 Bowl Room 2 139-1169 Brown color, grayish core
15 Bowl Room 1 135-1151 Wheel burnish, brown color, light brown core, gray grits
16 Bowl Room 2 139-1182 Wheel burnish, brown color, gray core, white grits
17 Jar Room 1 135-1146/01 Brown color, coarse gray clay, gray-and-white grits
18 Jug Room 2 134-1167/01 Light brown, orange clay, white grits
19 Juglet Room 2 139-1188 Red slip, light brown core, many medium gray grits
20 Juglet Room 2 134-1290 Red slip, light brown core, many medium gray grits
21 Stand Room 1 135-1151/01 Red slip, light brown core, many medium gray grits
22 Stand Room 2 151-1219 Red slip, light brown core, many medium gray grits
2019 AN EIGHTH-CENTURY B.C.E. GATE SHRINE AT TEL LACHISH, ISRAEL 225

Fig. 20. Selection of pottery from the gate shrine. (Drawings by A. Gyrman-Levanon; courtesy of the National Laboratory for Digital Docu-
mentation and Research, Israel Antiquities Authority)
226 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN
of the assemblage, and continue to Levels III and II
(Zimhoni 2004a: V–IV-B-1, 1657–58; 2004b: III-B-1,
1793). They appear in Beth-Shemesh, Level 2 (Bunimo-
vitz and Lederman 2016: fig. 12.34: BL flt, fig. 12.36)
and comprise a very small fraction of the assemblages
of Tel Batash, Strata III–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen
2001: BL15, 49–50, pls. 14:2, 60:5). They also appear in
the City of David, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-
Greenberg 2012b: BL6a, b, 60–61); Ramat Raḥel (Freud
2016: B2.1, B2.2, table 16.1); Arad, Strata X–VI (Singer-
Avitz 2002: B1, B3, B4); Beersheba, Stratum II (but not
Stratum III) (Singer-Avitz 2016: B-3, 586, graph 12.2);
and Tel Malḥata, Strata IV–III (Freud 2015: B1, 164).
The second type is of a fairly shallow bowl, carinated
in the mid-wall, with a disc or ring base (Fig. 20:8–11).
The rim is plain or slightly thickened. These bowls are
known from Lachish, where they first appear in Level IV
and continue to Level III (Zimhoni 2004a: B-15, 1666;
2004b: 1793, fig. 26.3:8, 9). They were also found in Tel
Batash, Strata IV–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:
BL24, 44–45); Arad, Strata X–VII (Singer-Avitz 2002:
B11); Beersheba, Strata III–II (Singer-Avitz 2016: B11,
589); and Tel Malḥata (Freud 2015: fig. 4.62:1).
Other types of bowls appear sporadically. One thin,
delicate, small deep bowl with low carination was found
(Fig. 20:12). Such bowls were found at Lachish, Level III
(Zimhoni 2004b: fig. 26.3:1, 3); Beth-Shemesh, Level 2
(Bunimovitz and Lederman 2016: fig. 12.34: BL thn-evrt);
Tel Batash, Strata III–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:
BL 46, 47–48); City of David, Area E, Strata 12–11 (De
Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: B7, 61–62); and
Beersheba, Strata III–II (Singer-Avitz 2016: B-17, 591).
Six samples of rounded bowls with folded rims, thick
walls, and ring bases were found (Fig. 20:13–16). The
two large, nearly complete samples were rounded and
had no carination. Such bowls are known from Lachish,
Levels III–II (Zimhoni 2004b: 1793–94, fig. 26.3:16–18).
They also appear in Beth-Shemesh, Level 2 (Bunimovitz
and Lederman 2016: fig. 12.34: BL thick-rim, fig. 12.36);
Tel Batash, Strata IV–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:
BL13, 39–40); City of David, Area E, Strata 13–10 (De
Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: B8b, 62–65); Arad,
Strata X–VII (Singer-Avitz 2002: B24); and Beersheba,
Strata III–II (Singer-Avitz 2016: B-15, 590, graph 12.2).
Storage Jars. One nearly complete holemouth stor-
age jar was uncovered. It has a thickened, rounded rim, a
wide body, four handles, and two ridges near the handles
(Fig. 20:17). Such vessels from Level III were published by
Orna Zimhoni (2004b: group III: SJ-4, 1797). They were
also found at Tel ʿEton (Katz and Faust 2012: storage jar
5, fig. 10:2) and Beersheba (Singer-Avitz 2016: SJ-12, 619).
BASOR 381
Two rims of storage jars were found (not illustrated).
Their neck slopes inward, and they have a plain, slightly
thickened rim. The fabric is light brown with gray grits.
For these reasons, it seems that the two fragments best
correspond to Zimhoni’s group III: SJ-2, the “lmlk-like”
storage jars rather than the royal lmlk jars (group III:
SJ-1) (Zimhoni 2004b: 1794–95). These jars were identi-
fied in Beth-Shemesh, Level 2 (Bunimovitz and Leder-
man 2016: fig. 12.34: SJ lmlk-like); Tel Batash (Mazar
and Panitz-Cohen 2001: SJ8, 93–96); Arad, Strata X–VIII
(Singer-Avitz 2002: SJ-11); and Beersheba, Stratum II
(Singer-Avitz 2016: SJ-4).
In addition, one sherd of a neckless storage jar was
found (not illustrated). This type was thoroughly dis-
cussed by Zimhoni (2004b: group III: SJ-5, 1797–98).
Jugs. The rim and the upper part of a neck of a jug
were uncovered (Fig. 20:18). The rim is trefoil, and the
neck is wide and has a ridge. The handle is attached to the
rim. Such jugs are known from Iron Age IIB–C contexts.
Good examples come from the City of David, Area E,
where they appear infrequently in Stratum 11, becom-
ing common in Stratum 10 (De Groot and Bernick-
Greenberg 2012b: 78–79, J3b, fig. 4.23:1); Arad, Strata
X–VII (Singer-Avitz 2002: J2); and Beersheba, Stratum II
(Singer-Avitz 2016: 625, J-3, fig. 12.16:10, 65:12).
The lower part of a red-slipped jug with a rounded
base was also found (Fig. 20:19). Such jugs are very com-
mon in Iron Age IIB contexts and were found at Lachish
(Zimhoni 2004b: fig. 26.4:10, 13:1, 23:4); Beth-Shemesh
(Bunimovitz and Lederman 2016: fig. 12.34: JG rnd); City
of David, Area E, Strata 12B–11 (De Groot and Bernick-
Greenberg 2012b: 79–80, J4, fig. 4.4:14); Arad, Strata X–
VIII (Singer-Avitz 2002: J1); and Beersheba, Strata III–II
(Singer-Avitz 2016: J-17).
Juglet. Only one juglet was found. It is a dipper ju-
glet with a cylindrical body and a handle from the rim to
the shoulder (Fig. 20:20). Such juglets continue the Iron
Age IIA tradition. They are found at Lachish, Level III
(Zimhoni 2004b: fig. 26.21:5); Beth-Shemesh, Level 2
(Bunimovitz and Lederman 2016: fig. 12.34: JT clndr);
Tel Batash, Strata IV–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:
JT7, 124–7); City of David, Area E, Stratum 13 (De Groot
and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: JT1a, 71); and Beersheba,
Strata III and II (Singer-Avitz 2016: JD-1, 633–34).
Stands. Two small stands were found, featuring thin
walls and rims with a triangular section and an outer
ridge (Fig. 20:21, 22). Such stands were uncovered in
Levels III–II at Lachish (Tufnell 1953: 108, 123, 220, pls.
77:31, 90:396–97; Zimhoni 2004b: fig. 26.20:11, 43:10)
2019 AN EIGHTH-CENTURY B.C.E. GATE SHRINE AT TEL LACHISH, ISRAEL
and Tell Beit-Mirsim (Albright 1932: pl. 71:9). Although
not the same, parallels can be found at Arad in Strata IX
and VI (Singer-Avitz 2002: figs. 33:6, 47:13).
Lamps. All of the lamps found in the shrine are shallow
and have a broad rim. They can be distinguished according
to their base. Half of the lamps uncovered have a thickened
base, very typical of the 8th century b.c.ə. (Fig. 21:1–4).
Such lamps are well known from previous excavations at
Lachish (Tufnell 1953: pl. 83:151; Zimhoni 2004b: 1794,
fig. 26.5:6–8); Beth-Shemesh (Bunimovitz and Lederman
2016: fig. 12.34: LP l-dsk); Tel Batash, Strata III–II (Mazar
and Panitz-Cohen 2001: LP3a, 134); City of David, Area E
(De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: L2, 92); Arad,
Strata X–VIII (Singer-Avitz 2002: L1); and Beersheba,
Strata III–II (Singer-Avitz 2016: L-2, 642).
The rest of the lamps have a flat (Fig. 21:5, 6) or
rounded (Fig. 21:7, 8) base. This type of lamp continues
from the Iron Age IIA and finds parallels in Iron Age IIB
contexts at Lachish, Level III (Zimhoni 2004b: figs.
26.21:12, 13; 27:15; 34:8; 34: 6, 8); Tel ʿEton (Katz and
Faust 2012: lamp 2, 38, fig. 12:9); Tel Batash, Strata III–II
(Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: LP4, 134–35); City of
David, Area E, Stratum 12B—but they do not persist in
the following phases (De Groot and Ariel 2000: fig. 19:18;
De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: L1, 90–92, fig.
4.9:1); Beersheba, Strata III–II (Singer-Avitz 2016: LP1,
642, pl. 12.20:L1); and Tel Malḥata, Strata IV–IIIB, but
not Stratum IIIA (Freud 2015: L1, L4, 228–29).
Most of the vessels find parallels in Level III at Lachish;
all are known from Iron Age IIB strata in Judah. Thus, a
date of the end of the 8th century b.c.ə. seems reasonable
and also fits the stratigraphic context of the finds.
The Cultic Activity in the Shrine
We contend, on the basis of the architecture and the
finds, that the southeastern chamber of the gate was a small
shrine, and the gate shrine was desecrated by turning it
into a latrine and sealing the holy of holies. Theoretically,
if one does not accept the identification of the installation
in Locus 138 as an altar and our architectural parallels, one
could argue that the chamber was simply a toilet. Yet this
idea must be rejected. First, the chamber was sealed, and
one cannot think of a reason to seal a toilet. Next, we found
no evidence for the actual use of the toilet (see above).
Furthermore, that would be a waste of space, as toilets
are usually located in narrow rooms; why would an entire
chamber be allocated for only one seat? One could place at
least three toilets in this space. Finally, one would have to
explain the function of the niche and the identification of
the installation in Locus 138 if it was not an altar.
227
The gate shrine is pivotal for understanding cult in
Judah during the 8th century b.c.ə. First, the location of
the shrine in a chamber of the city gate—the main and
possibly only entrance to the city—shows that this was a
formal cult place established by the regime. On the other
hand, its accessibility and especially its modest dimen-
sions rule out the idea that it was the city’s main cult place
and suggest that it was built to fulfill a specific function.
Cultic activity in or near city gates is a well-known
phenomenon5 from sites such as Tel Dan (Biran 1996),
Bethsaida (Arav 2009: 40–50), Khirbet Qeiyafa (Freik-
man and Garfinkel 2014: 137), and possibly Tell el-
Farʿah (North) (Chambon 1984: 25–26).6 Yet there is a
significant difference between the gate shrine at Lachish
and other cultic structures and installations at city gates.
In most cases, the cultic activity was practiced in front
of standing stones or other cultic installations that were
open and accessible to the public. In such instances, it
seems that anyone who arrived at the city gate could
make an offering or perform a libation ritual in front
of the divine symbols; a priest was not needed to per-
form the cultic activity. In the Lachish gate shrine, this is
not the case since, as described above, the shrine had an
inner hierarchy. This suggests that the structure had dif-
ferent levels of access, and cultic activity was restricted
and reserved for priests (Haran 1985: 177–78; Hundley
2013: 122–24), who were the only ones to enter Room
2, the holy of holies. At Khirbet Qeiyafa, where two cul-
tic rooms were found by the two city gates (Garfinkel
and Ganor 2012; Garfinkel, Kreimerman, and Zilberg
2016: 84–94) and Khirbat al-Mudayna, where a cultic
structure was found by the city gate (Daviau and Steiner
2000), it also seems that the cult was restricted; thus,
cultic activities were performed by a priest. In that sense,
cultic activity at those sites resembled that at Lachish.
Nevertheless, there is still a significant difference be-
tween the cult in the gate shrine at Lachish and the other
cases. The plan of the gate shrine at Lachish conceptually
resembles the plan of a hierarchical temple. Hierarchical
temples such as Arad, and probably also the temple in
Jerusalem,7 were the main temples in the city. Of course,
one cannot argue that this small gate shrine was the main
temple of Lachish, a structure that must have been lo-
cated elsewhere in the city. However, one can make a case
for the possibility that the gate shrine was designed to
fulfill the same function as the main temple of the city
5 For a detailed list, see Bernett and Keel 1998; Blomquist 1999;
and May 2014.
6 For reservations about the nature of the installation at Tell el-
Farʿah (North), see Stager and Wolff 1981: 99–100.
7 The Tel Moẓa temple may have had a hierarchical plan, but the
exact plan is not clear (Kisilevitz 2015).
228 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN
but on a minor scale and adjacent to the entrance to the
city. The only possible parallel to this phenomenon could
be Building 2161 in Megiddo; however, as noted above,
that case is somewhat problematic.
But why would there have been a need for a temple at
the city gate? There can be no way to answer this question
definitively. Still, the role of the city gate as described in
the Bible might offer a solution. The city gate is known to
have served as a location for a tribunal, headed by elders
(Bovati 1994: 176, 230; Blomquist 1999: 189–204; May
2014: 95–100). On some occasions, when the evidence
was not enough for a ruling, it was a common practice
to ask for divine assistance (e.g., Exod 22:6–11; Num
5:11–30; see also Bovati 1994: 270–76 and Blomquist
1999: 189–204). As Lachish was second in importance
only to Jerusalem, it is reasonable that many residents
of nearby towns and villages arrived at its city gate to re-
solve disputes. Inevitably, in some cases, the evidence was
insufficient for a ruling, and the case was reduced to one
person’s word against another’s. The main temple of the
city was probably very busy with other matters, located
far away from the gate, and required that the disputants
be brought into the city, which was not necessarily desir-
able. Thus, one of the gate chambers was converted into a
gate shrine. This suggestion is in line with the presence of
the benches in the western chamber, where the city elders
would probably have sat.
The predominance of oil lamps and bowls in the pot-
tery assemblage suggests that the cult evolved around
offerings, incense burning, and possibly libation. The
possibility that various materials were burned is sup-
ported by the presence of soot on the plaster of the walls.
The small size of the altars would indicate that they could
only have been used for sacrificing small body parts.
As the structure is located in Judah and since this was a
formal cultic place, it seems most reasonable that the cultic
activity was dedicated to Yhwh. The presence of a double
altar might hint that the cult focused on two deities, per-
haps as at Arad, Megiddo in Room 2081, Kuntillet ʿAjrud,
and other sites (Gilmour 1995: 59–60; Zevit 2001).
Supplementary Text for Figure 21
Context Registration No.
1 Lamp Room 2 139-1177
2 Lamp Room 2 139-1187
3 Lamp Room 2 139-1170
4 Lamp Room 2 139-1171
5 Lamp Room 1 135-1150
6 Lamp Room 2 139-1188
7 Lamp Room 2 139-1191
8 Lamp Room 2 139-1184/01
BASOR 381
The Desecration of the Shrine and
Hezekiah’s Cultic Reform
The activity in the shrine was terminated before Sen-
nacherib’s campaign in 701 b.c.ə. This is evident, as men-
tioned above, by the blockage of the door to the holy of
holies and the fact that four arrowheads and a slingstone
were found by the door but not inside the holy of ho-
lies. Thus, it appears that when Sennacherib conquered
the city, the shrine was inactive. The fact that the horns
of the altar were found broken and a latrine was placed
inside the holy of holies points to the desecration of the
shrine before it went out of use. It is likely that the act of
desecration in such a prominent place was carried out as
part of public gathering in the presence of city officials
and commoners. The desecration of the shrine could also
explain the lack of clearly cultic objects such as scepters,
prestige items, and perhaps standing stones (maṣṣevot).
These were probably broken and discarded as part of the
desecration ritual, and the metal objects could have been
smelted, a practice known from textual and archaeolog-
ical contexts (Garfinkel 2009). One should note that in
the Arad temple as well, hardly any cultic objects were
found other than the two altars and the maṣṣevot (Herzog
2002: 58–72).
The act of desecrating a temple by converting it into
a latrine is known from the story of Jehu. After he as-
cended the throne, he destroyed the cult of Baal (2 Kgs
10: 26–28):
‫ אֵת מ ְַצּבַת‬,‫ִתּצוּ‬ ְ ‫ ַויּ‬,‫וַיּ ִֹצאוּ ֶאת מ ְַצּבוֹת ֵבּית ַה ַבּעַל‬
ְ ‫ ַויּ‬.ָ‫ִשׂ ְרפוּה‬
(‫)למוֹצָאוֹת‬ ְ ‫ְשׂמֻהוּ למחראות‬ ִ ‫ ַוי‬,‫ִתּצוּ ֶאת ֵבּית ַה ַבּעַל‬ ְ ‫ַה ָבּעַל; ַויּ‬
.‫ִשׂ ָראֵל‬
ְ ‫ ִמיּ‬,‫ַשׁמֵד י ֵהוּא אֶת ַה ַבּעַל‬
ְ ‫ ַויּ‬.‫עַד הַיּוֹם‬
“And they brought out the pillars of the Temple of Baal
and burned them. They destroyed the pillar of Baal, and
tore down the temple of Baal, and turned it into a latrine,
as is still the case. Thus, Jehu eradicated Baal from Israel.”
These verses have probably been corrupted, and dif-
ferent readings have been reconstructed over the years.
Comments
Brown color and clay, many white grits
Brown color, gray clay
Brown color, light brown clay
Yellowish-brown color, gray grits
Brown color, gray core
Brown color, gray core, many medium gray-and-white grits
Orange color and clay gray grits
Orange color, yellowish core, gray grits
2019 AN EIGHTH-CENTURY B.C.E. GATE SHRINE AT TEL LACHISH, ISRAEL 229

Fig. 21. Selection of lamps from the gate shrine. (Digital rendering by A. Gyrman-Levanon; courtesy of the National Laboratory for
Digital Documentation and Research, Israel Antiquities Authority)
230 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN
However, the conversion of the Temple of Baal into a la-
trine seems untouched (Burney 1903: 306; Montgomery
and Gehman 1951: 410–11, 415–16; Cogan and Tadmor
1988: 116). The word ‫ מחראות‬is generally understood as
“latrine” (Burney 1903: 306; Montgomery and Gehman
1951: 410–11, 415–16) and appears as such in the Sep-
tuagint, although Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tad-
mor (1988: 116) suggest that it might stand for “dung
heap” or “public dump.”8 Either way, the desecration of
the temple, as appears in the text, involved the use of
bodily waste. Of course, there is no proof that the des-
ecration of the Temple of Baal by Jehu indeed took place
as described in the Bible. However, it probably reflects a
widespread practice, or at least one that was known to
the biblical writer.
As the shrine was desecrated and due to its dating to
Level III, it seems reasonable to attribute this act to He-
zekiah’s cultic reform (2 Kgs 18:4):
;‫שׁ ָרה‬ ֲ ‫ אֶת ָה‬,‫ ְוכָרַ ת‬,‫שׁ ַבּר אֶת ַה ַמּצֵּבֹת‬
ֵ ‫א‬ ִ ‫ ְו‬,‫הוּא ה ִֵסיר אֶת ַה ָבּמוֹת‬
‫ָמים ָה ֵהמָּה הָיוּ‬
ִ ‫ ִכּי עַד ַהיּ‬,‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ָשׂה מ‬
ָ ‫ֲשׁר ע‬ ֶ ‫שׁת א‬ֶ ֹ ‫ְו ִכתַּ ת ְנחַשׁ ַהנְּח‬
.‫ֻשׁ ָתּן‬
ְ ‫ ְנח‬,‫ִק ָרא לוֹ‬
ְ ‫ ַויּ‬,‫ִשׂ ָראֵל ְמקַ ְטּ ִרים לוֹ‬
ְ ‫ְבנֵי י‬
“He removed the High Places and smashed the pillars
and cut down the sacred post. He also broke in pieces the
bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until that time
the Israelites had been offering sacrifices to it; it was called
Nehushtan.”
Hezekiah’s cultic reform has garnered much attention
in both biblical and archaeological scholarship. Thus, we
must consider both the textual and archaeological evi-
dence. Many scholars accept the description in the book
of Kings, and even the description in Chronicles, as de-
pictions of real events (e.g., Rosenbaum 1979; Halpern
1981; 1991; Borowski 1995; Dever 2005; Herzog 2010).
The abolishment of the cultic sites at Arad and Beersheba
was attributed by their excavator, Yohanan Aharoni, to
the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah.9 Aharoni suggested
that the Arad temple remained in use until Stratum VII
and was only then abolished, indicating that its termina-
tion should be dated to the reign of Josiah. Although,
the sacrifices, according to Aharoni, terminated already
in the time of Hezekiah (Aharoni 1968). Herzog (2002;
2010) revised the site’s stratigraphy and showed that the
latest phase of the temple could be associated with Stra-
tum IX. As the pottery of Strata X–VIII is very similar,
and Stratum VIII was destroyed by Sennacherib in 701
b.c.ə., it thus seems reasonable that the Arad temple
8 The reading ‫ָאוֹת‬‫ מוֹצ‬is a euphemism. For a similar case, see 2 Kgs
18:27.
9 Some scholars have also suggested that the cultic room at Lachish
excavated by Aharoni (1975: 26–32) went out of use as part of the same
reform (Finkelstein and Silberman 2006: 272–75). However, an exam-
ination of the pottery and stratigraphy of the site shows that this is not
reasonable, and the cultic room went out of use much earlier (Ussishkin
2004b: 105–9; Zukerman 2012; Kang 2016).
BASOR 381
went out of use a fairly short time before Sennacherib’s
campaign. Consequently, Herzog (2010: 175) argued that
the termination of the Arad temple should be associated
with Hezekiah’s cultic reform. The stones of the altar at
Beersheba were found in secondary use within Stratum
II structures. As the city of Stratum II was destroyed in
Sennacherib’s campaign (Singer-Avitz 2016: 656–58),10 it
seems that the abolishment of cult took place no later
than the late 8th century b.c.ə. As this action must have
been carried out prior to the construction of Stratum II,
it has been suggested that it took place early in Hezekiah’s
reign in agreement with the biblical narrative (Herzog
2002; 2010).
Despite the evidence presented above, many scholars
have raised concerns as to the historicity of the events,
mostly on a textual basis. The majority of scholars consider
the book of Kings a more reliable source than Chronicles.
In Kings, the centralization of cult was carried out by two
kings: Hezekiah and Josiah. While in Josiah’s case the re-
form is described in detail in 2 Kgs 23:4–19, Hezekiah’s
reform is only briefly mentioned immediately after the in-
troductory accession formula of his reign (2 Kgs 18:4) and
also in Rabshakeh’s speech (2 Kgs 18:22).11 Furthermore,
Hezekiah is generally described as a good king, and his
acts were contrasted to the acts of “bad kings,” who were
condemned for their religious behavior. For these reasons,
some scholars have suggested that Hezekiah’s reform was
a later addition by the biblical editor (see Edelman 2008:
386–87 and Pakkala 2010, with references to earlier stud-
ies). Although attempts have been made to compare the
reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah to other events in the an-
cient Near East, such as the transfer of the gods from the
outlying cities to Babylon by Nabonidus during the siege
imposed by Cyrus (Weinfeld 1964), these comparisons are
far from satisfactory (Kratz 2010).
Furthermore, other biblical texts that do not rely di-
rectly on Kings but discuss the period of Hezekiah, such
as Isaiah and Micah, do not mention the details of such
reforms (Rosenbaum 1979: 24; Pakkala 2010: 204–5).12
This has led to the suggestion that the description of the
reforms reflects a post-exilic ideology intended to legiti-
mize the new rule and a new reality in which cult takes
place only in the Jerusalem temple (see Pakkala 2010,
with references). An alternative explanation argued
that if Hezekiah’s reform did take place, it should not
be seen as a pre-conceived action that originated from
ideological or theological considerations but rather as
a result of Sennacherib’s destructive campaign in Judah
that brought about a de facto centralization of cult (e.g.,
Handy 1988; Fried 2002; Edelman 2008).
10 Contra other suggestions, such as in Yadin 1976 and Knauf 2002.
11 Also in Isa 36:7 and possibly another reference in Isa 27:9, al-
though here the reference is indirect.
12 But see n. 11 above.
2019 AN EIGHTH-CENTURY B.C.E. GATE SHRINE AT TEL LACHISH, ISRAEL
The critique referred not only to textual sources but
also to the termination of cultic activity at Arad and
Beersheba, through which Hezekiah’s reform was ques-
tioned. The arguments followed three main lines:
Δ
The termination of the cult at Arad need not have been
part of a cultic reform. Instead, use of the temple may
have been terminated to protect the structure from in-
evitable Assyrian destruction (Handy 1988; Fried 2002:
447; Uehlinger 2005: 290). Alternatively, Arad may
have been conquered and utilized by the Assyrian army,
which did not need the temple (Edelman 2008: 417–18).
Δ
It has been argued that the dating of the end of cultic
activity at both sites need not have been contempo-
raneous, and that it could have happened after Sen-
nacherib’s campaign to Judah (Edelman 2008); or that
the temple at Arad went out of use in Hezekiah’s time,
while the altar at Beersheba went out of use much ear-
lier (Naʾaman 2002). Some scholars have even tried
to suggest on archaeological grounds that if there was
a reform, it took place only after Sennacherib’s cam-
paign (Knauf 2002).
Δ
The Lachish relief shows soldiers bearing large in-
cense burners as booty, thus cult at Lachish must
have continued until its conquest by Sennacherib.
Furthermore, there is evidence of a cult place dating
to Level III (Aharoni 1975: 42; Borowski 1995: 152;
Naʾaman 1995: 191–93).
Recently, Herzog (2010) compellingly rejected the first
two points of criticism. Nevertheless, admittedly the chro-
nology of Arad and Beersheba is only relative and thus
not precise. Therefore, one may ostensibly still maintain
that the abolishment of cult was not contemporaneous at
both sites and need not be associated with Hezekiah’s re-
form. Yet this criticism can be easily refuted in the case
of Lachish. First, the placement of a toilet seat in the holy
of holies was a clear act of desecration intended to defile
the shrine and its cult. Furthermore, the dating of the de-
struction of Lachish in Level III is indisputable (Tufnell
1953; Ussishkin 1977). David Ussishkin (2003: 215) and
Christoph Uehlinger (2003: 285) addressed the third point
of criticism by arguing that the incense burners in Sen-
nacherib’s relief may have originated from the palace and
need not have been associated with a temple. The alleged
evidence for a cult place in Locus 81 that was constructed
in Level V and continued until Level III (Aharoni 1975:
30–32) is problematic. It is unclear if the context had any-
thing to do with cult (Ussishkin 2004b: 107), and even if
it had, the nature of the activity and its dating are unclear
(Zevit 2001: 217–18; Zukerman 2012: 31–33).
If, despite the chronological problems with Arad and
Beersheba, the termination of cult occurred simultane-
ously at all three sites, one may point to a difference in
231
the execution of the acts of desecration in each case. At
Arad, a military fortress with a small population that also
used the temple, the temple was buried respectfully and
cleared of all cultic items. In Beersheba, a medium-size
city, far from the capital, the altar was dismantled and in-
corporated into other buildings. To date, despite extensive
excavations, no scholarly consensus has emerged with re-
gard to the original location of the altar and a possible
temple.13 Thus, it seems that all evidence of cultic activity
was thoroughly removed as part of the desecration ritual.
At Lachish, second in importance only to Jerusalem, the
shrine was defiled by the erection of a latrine and break-
ing the horns of the altars, which, as noted, probably took
place as part of a public ritual. We cannot rule out the
possibility that the desecrated shrine was used as a latrine
for a short period. Later, however, the holy of holies, and
perhaps also the shrine itself, were sealed and never took
on a new function. It therefore seems that the chamber
remained a symbol of the reform exercised by Hezekiah.
Since all three sites contain evidence of the abolishment
of cultic shrines, it is reasonable to assume that these ac-
tions were part of a directive dictated from above, while
implementation of the directive was a matter of choice
by the officials in each city, perhaps in the spirit of the
depiction in 2 Chr 31:1.
Conclusions
The excavations of the southern side of the six-
chambered gate of Lachish, Level III revealed two well-
preserved chambers. The western chamber was devoted
to administrative activities and was probably the seat of
the city elders. The eastern chamber functioned as a gate
shrine. As seen from the shrine’s architecture and finds,
it seems most probable that it was constructed as a small
version of a temple in which cultic activity was conducted
by a priest or other privileged individuals. The main use
of that temple was, in our view, related to cases where dis-
putes brought before the city elders could not be resolved
by evidence and divine intervention was required. This
type of gate shrine is, so far, unique in the archaeological
record. The Lachish gate shrine is the second hierarchi-
cal-type temple known from the archaeological record of
the kingdom of Judah.14
The desecration of the shrine by breaking the horns of
the altars and placing a latrine in the holy of holies can
be reasonably associated with Hezekiah’s cultic reform.
Together with the cases of Arad and Beersheba, there are
13 For different opinions, see Yadin 1976; Herzog, Rainey, and
Moshkovitz 1977; Rainey 1994; and Fried 2002: 448.
14 This is not to say that there are no other cultic places (for a thor-
ough summary, see Zevit 2001 and Kamlah 2012). However, the other
cult centers do not have such a hierarchical plan, except perhaps the
one at Tel Moẓa.
232 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN
now three archaeological attestations to the reform. Jo-
siah’s cultic reform, which is considered more likely to
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Mendel Kahn and Dov Porotsky
(surveying, plans, sections), Joseph Bukengolts and Tamar
Gonen (pottery restoration), Guy Fitoussi and Emil Aladjem
(aerial photography), Clara Amit (studio photography), Argita
Gyrman-Levanon and Avshalom Karasik (digital photography,
drawing)—all on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. We
also thank Yosef Garfinkel, David Ussishkin, Lily Singer-Avitz,
Alon De Groot, Yael Abadi-Reiss, Hamoudi Khalaily, Gideon
Avni, Jon Seligman, and Zvi Greenhut for visiting the excava-
tion and for their useful advice. Special thanks are extended to
Ruth Shahack-Gross, head of the Laboratory for Sedimentary
References
Aharoni, Y.
1968 Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple. Biblical Archae-
ologist 31: 1–32.
1974 The Horned Altar of Beer-Sheba. Biblical Archae-
ologist 37: 2–6.
1975 Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Res-
idency (Lachish V). Publications of the Institute of
Archaeology 4. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology,
Tel Aviv University.
Albright, W. F.
1932 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine, Vol. 1:
The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns. Annual of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 12. New
Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Arav, R.
2009 Final Report on Area A, Stratum V: The City Gate.
Pp. 1–122 in Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore
of the Sea of Galilee, ed. R. Arav and R. A. Freund.
Bethsaida Excavation Project: Reports & Contex-
tual Studies 4. Kirksville, MO: Truman State Uni-
versity Press.
Bernett, M., and Keel, O.
1998 Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor: Die Stele von
Betsaida (et-Tell). Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 161.
Freibourg: Academic; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Bienkowski, P.
2002 Busayra Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett, 1971–
1980. British Academy Monographs in Archae-
ology 13. Oxford: Published for the Council for
British Research in the Levant by Oxford University
Press.
Biran, A.
1982 The Temenos at Dan. Eretz-Israel 16: 15–43 (He-
brew; English summary on pp. 252*–53*).
1986 The Dancer from Dan, the Empty Tomb, and the
Altar Room. Israel Exploration Journal 36: 168–87.
BASOR 381
have occurred based on textual grounds, still lacks any
supportive archaeological evidence.
Archaeology at the University of Haifa. Special thanks also go
to Tali Erickson-Gini and Miriam Feinberg Vamosh for the En-
glish editing. We thank Yair Segev for his useful advice. Finally,
we wish to thank the anonymous reviewers whose careful read-
ing and useful comments helped us to clarify our arguments.
The excavation was conducted on behalf of the Israel An-
tiquities Authority and with the permission and assistance of
the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. The study was partially
conducted within the framework of the Jack, Joseph, and Mor-
ton Mandel School for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
1996 High Places at the Gates of Dan? Eretz-Israel 25:
55–58 (Hebrew; English summary on p. 89*).
Blomquist, T. H.
1999 Gates and Gods: Cults in the City Gates of Iron Age
Palestine; An Investigation of the Archaeological and
Biblical Sources. Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testa-
ment Series 46. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
International.
Borowski, O.
1995 Hezekiah’s Reforms and the Revolt against Assyria.
Biblical Archaeologist 58: 148–155.
Bovati, P.
1994 Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts, and
Procedures in the Hebrew Bible. Trans. M. J. Smith,
from Italian. Journal for the Study of the Old Tes-
tament Supplement Series 105. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic.
Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z.
2016 “Your Country Is Desolate, Your Cities Are Burned
with Fire”: The Death of a Judahite Border Town,
Level 2: Iron IIB, ca. 790–701 bcə. Pp. 419–69 in
Tel Beth-Shemesh: A Border Community in Judah;
Renewed Excavations 1990–2000; The Iron Age, Vol.
1, ed. S. Bunimovitz and Z. Lederman. Monograph
Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of
Archaeology 34. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Burney, C. F.
1903 The Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings. Oxford: Clar-
endon.
Cahill, J. M.; Reinhard, K.; Tarler, D.; and Warnock, P.
1991 It Had to Happen: Scientists Examine Remains of
Ancient Bathroom. Biblical Archaeology Review 17
(3): 64–69.
Chambon, A.
1984 Tell el-Farʿah I: L’Âge du Fer. Editions Recherce sur
les Civilisations Mémoire 31. Paris: Éditions Re-
cherche sur les Civilisations.
2019 AN EIGHTH-CENTURY B.C.E. GATE SHRINE AT TEL LACHISH, ISRAEL
Chapman, R.
1992 A Stone Seat Found in Jerusalem in 1925. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 124: 4–8.
Cogan, M., and Tadmor, H.
1988 II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. Anchor Bible 11. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Daviau, P. M. M., and Steiner, M. L.
2000 A Moabite Sanctuary at Khirbat al-Mudayna. Bul-
letin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
320: 1–21.
De Groot, A.
2012 Discussion and Conclusions. Pp. 141–84 in Exca-
vations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed
by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. 7A: Area E: Stratigraphy and
Architecture, ed. A. De Groot and H. Bernick-
Greenberg. Qedem 53. Jerusalem: The Institute of
Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
De Groot, A., and Ariel, D. T.
2000 Ceramic Report. Pp. 91–154 in Excavations at the
City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh,
Vol. 5: Extramural Areas, ed. D. T. Ariel. Qedem 40.
Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The He-
brew University of Jerusalem.
De Groot, A., and Bernick-Greenberg, H.
2012a Stratigraphy. Pp. 9–138 in Excavations at the City
of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol.
7A: Area E: Stratigraphy and Architecture, ed. A. De
Groot and H. Bernick-Greenberg. Qedem 53. Jeru-
salem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
2012b The Pottery of Strata 12–10 (Iron Age IIB). Pp. 57–
198 in Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985,
Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. 7A: Area E: Stratigraphy
and Architecture, ed. A. De Groot and H. Bernick-
Greenberg. Qedem 53. Jerusalem: The Institute of
Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
De Groot, A., and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds.
2012 Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed
by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. 7A: Area E: Stratigraphy and Ar-
chitecture. Qedem 53. Jerusalem: The Institute of Ar-
chaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Dever, W. G.
2005 Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion
in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Edelman, D.
2008 Hezekiah’s Alleged Cultic Centralization. Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 32: 395–434.
Eisenberg, E., and De Groot, A.
2006 A Tower from the Iron Age near Ramat Raḥel. New
Studies on Jerusalem 11: 129–33 (Hebrew; English
summary on p. 37*).
Finkelstein, I., and Silberman, N. A.
2006 Temple and Dynasty: Hezekiah, the Remaking
of Judah and the Rise of the Pan-Israelite Ideol-
ogy. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30:
259–85.
233
Freikman, M., and Garfinkel, Y.
2014 Area C. Pp. 93–226 in Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 2: Exca-
vation Report, 2009–2013: Stratigraphy and Archi-
tecture (Areas B, C, D, E), ed. Y. Garfinkel, S. Ganor,
and M. G. Hasel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society; The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem; Collegedale, TN: Southern
Adventist University.
Freud, L.
2015 The Pottery of Strata V–III. Pp. 153–236 in Tel
Malḥata: A Central City in the Biblical Negev, ed. I.
Beit-Arieh and L. Freud. Monograph Series of the
Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology
32. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in
Archaeology.
2016 Pottery of the Iron Age: Typology and Summary.
Pp. 254–65 in Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of
Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962),
Vol. 1, ed. O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, and L. Freud.
Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler
Institute of Archaeology 35. Tel Aviv: Emery and
Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology; Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Freud, L., and Beit-Arieh, I.
1995 Pottery. Pp. 209–57 in Ḥorvat Qitmit: An Edomite
Shrine in the Biblical Negev, by I. Beit-Arieh.
Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler
Institute of Archaeology 11. Tel Aviv: Institute of
Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Fried, L. S.
2002 The High Places (Bāmôt) and the Reforms of Heze-
kiah and Josiah: An Archaeological Investigation.
Journal of the American Oriental Society 122: 437–65.
Garfinkel, Y.
2009 The Destruction of Cultic Objects and Inscriptions
during the First Temple Period. Eretz-Israel 29:
100–104 (Hebrew; English summary on pp. 285*–
86*).
Garfinkel, Y., and Ganor, S.
2012 Cult in Khirbet Qeiyafa from the Iron Age IIA—
Cult Rooms and Shrine Models. New Studies in the
Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region 6: 50–65.
Garfinkel, Y.; Kreimerman, I.; and Zilberg, P.
2016 Debating Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified City in Ju-
dah from the Time of King David. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society; The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
Gilmour, G. H.
1995 The Archaeology of Cult in the Southern Levant in
the Early Iron Age: An Analytical and Comparative
Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oxford University.
Gitin, S.
1989 Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel and Judah: Con-
text and Typology. Eretz-Israel 20: 52*–67*.
2002 The Four-Horned Altar and Sacred Space: An
Archaeological Perspective. Pp. 96–123 in Sacred
Time, Sacred Space: Archaeology and the Religion
234 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN
of Israel, ed. B. M. Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
2011 Stone Incense Altars. Pp. 581–88 in Ashkelon 3:
The Seventh Century b.c., ed. L. E. Stager, D. M.
Master, and J. D. Schloen. Final Reports of the
Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon 3. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Halpern, B.
1981 Sacred History and Ideology: Chronicles’ Thematic
Structure—Indications of an Earlier Source. Pp.
35–54 in The Creation of Sacred Literature: Com-
position and Redaction of the Biblical Text, ed. R. E.
Friedman. University of California Publications:
Near Eastern Studies 22. Los Angeles, CA: Univer-
sity of California Press.
1991 Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century
bcə: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Lia-
bility. Pp. 11–107 in Law and Ideology in Monarchic
Israel, ed. B. Halpern and D. W. Hobson. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
124. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
Handy, L. K.
1988 Hezekiah’s Unlikely Reform. Zeitschrift für die Alt-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 100: 111–15.
Haran, M.
1985 Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An
Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the His-
torical Setting of the Priestly School. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
Herzog, Z.
1986 Das Stadttor in Israel und in den Nachbarländern.
Mainz am Rhein: Zabern.
2002 The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim Re-
port. Tel Aviv 29: 3–109.
2010 Perspectives on Southern Israel’s Cult Centraliza-
tion: Arad and Beer-Sheba. Pp. 169–99 in One
God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological and
Biblical Perspectives, ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieck-
ermann. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft 405. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Herzog, Z.; Rainey, A. F.; and Moshkovitz, S.
1977 The Stratigraphy at Beer-Sheba and the Location of
the Sanctuary. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 225: 49–58.
Humbert, J.-B., and Zayadine, F.
1992 Trois campagnes de fouilles à Ammân (1989–1991):
Troisième terrasse de la citadelle (Mission Franco-
Jordanienne). Revue Biblique 99: 214–60.
Hundley, M. B.
2013 Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in
the Ancient Near East. Writing from the Ancient
World Supplements 3. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature.
Ji, C.-H.
2012 The Early Iron Age II Temple at Ḫirbet ʿAṭārūs and
Its Architecture and Selected Cultic Objects. Pp. 203–
21 in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture
and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant
BASOR 381
(2.–1. Mill. b.c.e.); Proceedings of a Conference on
the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute
of Biblical Archaeology at the University of Tübingen
(28–30 May 2010), ed. J. Kamlah in cooperation with
H. Michelau. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Paläs-
tina-Vereins 41. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kamlah, J.
2012 Temples of the Levant—Comparative Aspects. Pp.
507–34 in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Archi-
tecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the
Levant (2.–1. Mill. b.c.e.); Proceedings of a Con-
ference on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of
the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the Univer-
sity of Tübingen (28–30 May 2010), ed. J. Kamlah
in cooperation with H. Michelau. Abhandlungen
des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Kang, H.-G.
2016 Four Notes on Tel Lachish Level V. Pp. 283–94 in
From Shaʿar Hagolan to Shaaraim: Essays in Honor
of Prof. Yosef Garfinkel, ed. S. Ganor, I. Kreimer-
man, K. Streit, and M. Mumcuoglu. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society.
Katz, H., and Faust, A.
2012 The Assyrian Destruction Layer at Tel ʿEton. Israel
Exploration Journal 62: 22–53.
Kisilevitz, S.
2015 The Iron IIA Judahite Temple at Tel Moẓa. Tel Aviv
42: 147–64.
Knauf, E. A.
2002 Who Destroyed Beersheba II? Pp. 181–95 in Kein
Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in
Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Man-
fred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. U. Hübner
and E. A. Knauf. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 186.
Freibourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht.
Kratz, R. G.
2010 The Idea of Cultic Centralization and Its Supposed
Ancient Near Eastern Analogies. Pp. 121–44 in One
God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological and
Biblical Perspectives, ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieck-
ermann. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft 405. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lamon, R. S., and Shipton, G. M.
1939 Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–1934, Strata I–V. Orien-
tal Institute Publications 42. Chicago: The Oriental
Institute, The University of Chicago.
Langgut, D.; Shahack-Gross, R.; Arie, E.; Namdar, D.; Amrani,
A.; Le Bailly, M.; and Finkelstein, I.
2016 Micro-Archaeological Indicators for Identifying
Ancient Cess Deposits: An Example from Late
Bronze Age Megiddo, Israel. Journal of Archaeolog-
ical Science: Reports 9: 375–85.
Loud, G.
1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39. Oriental Institute
Publications 62. Chicago: The Oriental Institute,
The University of Chicago.
2019 AN EIGHTH-CENTURY B.C.E. GATE SHRINE AT TEL LACHISH, ISRAEL
Master, D. M., and Aja, A. J.
2011 The House Shrine of Ashkelon. Israel Exploration
Journal 61: 129–45.
May, N. N.
2014 Gates and Their Functions in Mesopotamia and
Ancient Israel. Pp. 77–121 in The Fabric of Cities:
Aspects of Urbanism, Urban Topography and Society
in Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome, ed. N. N. May
and U. Steinert. Culture and History of the Ancient
Near East 68. Leiden: Brill.
Mazar, A.
1985 Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part 2: The Philistine
Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions,
Appendixes. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: The Institute of
Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
1992 Temples from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and
the Iron Age. Pp. 161–87 in The Architecture of An-
cient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Peri-
ods; In Memory of Immanuel (Munya) Dunayevsky,
ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society.
Mazar, A., and Panitz-Cohen, N.
2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Mil-
lennium bce. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: The Institute of
Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Montgomery, J. A., and Gehman, H. S.
1951 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books
of Kings. International Critical Commentary on the
Holy Scriptures. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Naʾaman, N.
1995 The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform
in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Re-
search. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissen-
schaft 107: 179–95.
2002 The Abandonment of Cult Places in the Kingdoms
of Israel and Judah as Acts of Cult Reform. Ugarit-
Forschungen 34: 585–602.
Pakkala, J.
2010 Why the Cult Reforms in Judah Probably Did Not
Happen. Pp. 201–35 in One God—One Cult—One
Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives,
ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann. Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
405. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Panitz-Cohen, N.
2015 The “Plain” Pottery: Typological and Technologi-
cal Aspects. Pp. 97–137 in Yavneh II: The “Temple
Hill” Repository Pit; Fire Pans, Kernos, Naos, Painted
Stands, “Plain” Pottery, Cypriot Pottery, Inscribed
Bowl, Dog Bones, Stone Fragments, and Other Stud-
ies, ed. R. Kletter, I. Ziffer, and W. Zwickel. Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 36.
Fribourg: Academic; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Rainey, A. F.
1994 Hezekiah’s Reform and the Altars at Beer-Sheba
and Arad. Pp. 333–54 in Scripture and Other Arti-
facts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor
235
of Philip J. King, ed. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and
L. E. Stager. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
Rosenbaum, J.
1979 Hezekiah’s Reform and the Deuteronomistic Tradi-
tion. Harvard Theological Review 72: 23–44.
Shiloh, Y.
1984 Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1982, Di-
rected by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. 1: Interim Report of the
First Five Seasons. Qedem 19. Jerusalem: The In-
stitute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
Singer-Avitz, L.
2002 Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages. Tel Aviv
29: 110–214.
2016 Pottery from Strata III–I: The Iron Age IIB Period.
Pp. 583–991 in Beer-Sheba III: The Early Iron Age
IIA Enclosed Settlement and the Late Iron IIA–Iron
IIB Cities, Vol. 2: The Pottery, ed. Z. Herzog and L.
Singer-Avitz. Monograph Series of the Sonia and
Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 33. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Stager, L. E., and Wolff, S. R.
1981 Production and Commerce in Temple Courtyards:
An Olive Press in the Sacred Precinct at Tel Dan.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re-
search 243: 95–102.
Steiner, M. L.
1997 Two Popular Cult Sites of Ancient Palestine: Cave
1 in Jerusalem and E 207 in Samaria. Scandinavian
Journal of the Old Testament 11: 16–28.
2001 Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem,
1961–1967, Vol. 3: The Settlement in the Bronze and
Iron Ages. London: Sheffield Academic.
Tufnell, O.
1953 Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) III: The Iron Age. The
Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expe-
dition to the Near East 3. London: Published for the
Trustees of the Late Sir Henry Wellcome by Oxford
University.
Uehlinger, C.
2003 Clio in a World of Pictures—Another Look at the
Lachish Reliefs from Sennacherib’s Southwest Palace
at Ninveh. Pp. 221–305 in “Like and Bird in a Cage”:
The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 bce, ed. L. L.
Grabbe. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 363; European Seminar in Histor-
ical Methodology 4. London: Sheffield Academic.
2005 Was There a Cult Reform under King Josiah? The
Case for a Well-Grounded Minimum. Pp. 279–316
in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah
in the Seventh Century bce, ed. L. L. Grabbe. Li-
brary of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 393;
European Seminar in Historical Methodology 5.
London: T & T Clark International.
Ussishkin, D.
1977 The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the
Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars. Tel Aviv 4:
28–60.
236 GANOR AND KREIMERMAN
2003 Symbols of Conquest in Sennacherib’s Reliefs of
Lachish: Impaled Prisoners and Booty. Pp. 207–17
in Culture through Objects: Ancient Near Eastern
Studies in Honour of P. R. S. Moorey, ed. T. F. Potts,
M. Roaf, and D. L. Stein. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
2004a Area GE: The Inner City-Gate. Pp. 624–89 in The
Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish
(1973–1994), Vol. 2: The Iron Age Stratigraphy and
Architecture, by D. Ussishkin. Monograph Series of
the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeol-
ogy 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publica-
tions in Archaeology.
2004b A Synopsis of the Stratigraphical, Chronological
and Historical Issues. Pp. 50–122 in The Renewed
Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994),
Vol. 1, Part 1: Introduction, by D. Ussishkin. Mono-
graph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Insti-
tute of Archaeology 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire
Yass Publications in Archaeology.
Weinfeld, M.
1964 Cult Centralization in Israel in the Light of a Neo-
Babylonian Analogy. Journal of Near Eastern Stud-
ies 23: 202–12.
Yadin, Y.
1976 Beer-Sheba: The High Place Destroyed by King
Josiah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 222: 5–17.
BASOR 381
Zevit, Z.
2001 The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Paral-
lactic Approaches. London: Continuum.
Zimhoni, O.
2004a The Pottery of Levels V and IV and Its Archaeologi-
cal and Chronological Implications. Pp. 1643–1788
in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at La-
chish (1993–1994), Vol. 4: The Iron Age and Post-
Iron Age Pottery and Artefacts, ed. D. Ussishkin.
Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler
Institute of Archaeology 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and
Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.
2004b The Pottery of Levels III and II. Pp. 1789–1899 in
The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish
(1993–1994), Vol. 4: The Iron Age and Post-Iron Age
Pottery and Artefacts, ed. D. Ussishkin. Monograph
Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of
Archaeology 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass
Publications in Archaeology.
Zukerman, A.
2012 A Re-Analysis of the Iron Age IIA Cult Place at
Lachish. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 49: 24–60.