The Great Temple of Early Bronze I Megiddo

Author(s): Matthew J. Adams, Israel Finkelstein and David Ussishkin

Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 118, No. 2 (April 2014), pp. 285-305
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.118.2.0285 .
Accessed: 26/09/2014 17:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
field report
The Great Temple of Early Bronze I Megiddo
Matthew J. Adams, Israel Finkelstein, and David Ussishkin
Abstract
Tel Megiddo in the Jezreel Valley of Israel has been the
most cited type-site of the Early Bronze Age Levant since
the excavations of the University of Chicago in the 1920s
and 1930s. Through the efforts of the Tel Aviv University
Megiddo Expedition, the stratigraphic sequence of the
Early Bronze Age has been significantly refined, and a new
monumental temple dating to Early Bronze Age IB (ca.
3000 B.C.E.) has been discovered. This Great Temple has
proven to be the most monumental structure of the period
in the Levant. This discovery provides new evidence for
the rise of social and political complexity in the region.*
introduction
The Oriental Institute (OI) of the University of
Chicago’s 1935–1939 excavations at Megiddo (figs.
1, 2) Area BB revealed the complete sequence of the
mound, including five strata (XX–XVI) dated to the
Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.1 While bedrock
was reached in the eastern portion of this area, exca-
vation in the western portion stopped with the expo-
sure of the stratum XV triple-temple complex, which
was dated by the excavators to the “Middle Bronze
I.”2 This left about 4,500 m3 available for future exca-
vations. From 1992 to 2010, the Megiddo Expedition
conducted excavation in this portion of the site—
which was designated Area J—and published three
major stratigraphic reports.3 The work of the renewed
excavations has produced two major results: (1) a re-
fined stratigraphic sequence (levels J-2 to J-7) of Early
* Figures are by Adams unless otherwise noted.
1
Loud 1948, 5.
2
Note that Loud’s (1948, 5) use of the term “Middle Bronze
I,” especially vis-à-vis his equation of Megiddo stratum XV to
Tell Beit Mirsim strata I and H, represents what the Megiddo
Expedition and others term the “Intermediate Bronze Age”
and what some scholars (e.g., Richard 2003) refer to as Early
Bronze (EB) IV. “Intermediate Bronze Age” better classifies
the nonurban nature of this period compared with the one
before (EB III) and the one after (Middle Bronze). In any
case, the nature of Intermediate Bronze Age society in the
southern Levant (agropastoral nonurban) is markedly differ-
ent from that of EB IV society in the northern Levant (urban),
as is accentuated by recent and forthcoming radiocarbon
studies (e.g., Regev et al. 2012; [forthcoming]).
285
American Journal of Archaeology 118 (2014) 285–305
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Bronze Age (EB) (ca. 3300–2500 B.C.E.) Megiddo
(table 1); and (2) the discovery of an EB IB (level J-4)
temple of unprecedented monumentality, referred to
here as the Great Temple.
This Great Temple (level J-4/stratum XVIII) has
now been exposed to the fullest extent possible, re-
vealing a 1,100 m2 building in a broad-room style.
This architectural tradition has a history at Megiddo
reaching back to the earlier EB IB level J-3 temple and
possibly to the underlying EB IB level J-2 temple. The
Great Temple has proven to be the most monumen-
tal single edifice so far uncovered in the EB I Levant
and ranks among the largest structures of its time in
the Near East. This temple is a new datum for un-
derstanding the evolution of social complexity in the
late fourth millennium B.C.E. This article presents a
synthesis of the archaeological data concerning the
temple, including its design and construction, the
cultic activity that took place in relation to it, and its
eventual abandonment. Finally, the temple is placed
in context with discussions of parallel architectural
traditions and regional settlement patterns.
stratigraphic overview and date of the
great temple
The presence of Neolithic and Chalcolithic activity
is demonstrated by ceramics and lithics, which were
both retrieved from fills and mudbricks on the mound
and collected in surface surveys to the north and east of
3
Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000a; Finkelstein et al. 2006a;
Adams 2013a. The renewed excavations at Megiddo are car-
ried out by Tel Aviv University, with the George Washington
University as senior American partner. Consortium institu-
tions are Chapman University, Loyola Marymount University,
Vanderbilt University, University of Oklahoma, University of
Hawai’i, and the Jezreel Valley Regional Project (Penn State,
the University of Southern California, and the University of
Bern also participated until 2000). Finkelstein and Ussishkin
(Tel Aviv University) are the expedition directors, and Eric H.
Cline (the George Washington University) is associate direc-
tor. Baruch Halpern of Penn State served as codirector from
1994 to 2000. Jennifer Peersmann supervised the excavation
of Area J from 1996 to 2000, and Adams supervised from 2004
to 2010.
286 Matthew J. Adams et al.
Fig. 1. Map of the southern Levant, showing the location
of Megiddo in the Jezreel Valley and other selected sites
mentioned in the text.
it.4 The first stratigraphically identified occupation on
the mound is evidenced by the bedrock carvings and
poorly preserved walls of level J-1 (see table 1), which
represent multiple phases of activity.5 The first clear
and discrete architectural phase, level J-2, is defined
by a cultic structure near the high point of the site.6
This building was accessed from the eastern slope by
way of a stone pavement that was incised with figures
of animals and humans, as well as other motifs, some
of which may be Egyptianizing.7 Ceramics from be-
4
Finkelstein et al. 2006b, 720–23; Adams et al. (forthcom-
ing). Note that to date no clear in situ Neolithic or Chal-
colithic material has been excavated at the site. However,
Chalcolithic material has been identified within deposits
observed to the east of the mound, which apparently originat-
ed from the tell (Adams et al. [forthcoming]).
5
Loud 1948, 59–63.
6
Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000a, 38–55; Adams 2013a, fig.
2.19.
7
Loud 1948, 61; Keinan 2007, 2013; Yekutieli 2008.
8
Joffe 2000; Adams 2013b.
9
Ussishkin 1980; Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000a, 38–55;
Adams 2013a, fig. 2.20.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 118
neath this pavement secure an EB IB date for its con-
struction.8 The structure was rebuilt in level J-3 as a
broad-room building (OI Temple 4050) in the style of
the earlier, Chalcolithic/Ghassulian En-Gedi temple.9
Later, but still within EB IB, the cultic landscape of
the site was reenvisioned, and a massive new monu-
mental temple was constructed (level J-4) (figs. 3–6).10
The complex consisted of several terraces that cre-
ated a spacious cultic acropolis crowned by the Great
Temple (see figs. 2, 7).11 The temple was abandoned
at the end of EB IB and left to deteriorate; after its
abandonment, it was occasionally visited by passersby
or by those interested in perpetuating the cult within
the ruins (level J-4a).
The site was reoccupied at some point in EB III
(levels J-5, J-6), when a large palatial building was con-
structed on the eastern terrace (OI Building 3177).12
This palatial compound was joined to a larger urban
space on the upper, western terrace; the urban space
is defined by a large round altar (OI Altar 4017) and
by flagstone-paved streets flanked by elaborate build-
ings, some of which appear to have been public.13 The
long-lived levels J-5 and J-6 underwent at least three
remodelings. Still later, this area became the focus of
cultic activity once more with the construction of the
three temples in antis in level J-7 (OI Temples 4040,
5192, 5269).14 The dating of this phase is disputed (see
table 1),15 but regardless of how it is ultimately settled,
the cultic area had been significantly reconfigured by
the Middle Bronze Age (level J-8/OI stratum XIV).
Ceramic typology puts the date of the Great Temple
in EB IB. All architectural and occupational remains
from level J-4 produced nothing later than EB IB ce-
ramics.16 Some fragments of very late EB IB or EB II
pottery were present in the level J-4a squatter’s phase,
providing a terminus ante quem for the abandon-
ment of the temple.17 That level J-4 is the latest in a
sequence of three major EB IB stratigraphic phases
at the site further supports the interpretation that the
construction and abandonment of the temple belong
10
Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000a, 55–65; Finkelstein et al.
2006c, 36–40; Adams 2013a.
11
See the section “Reconstruction of the Great Temple and
Its Surroundings” for the authors’ differing opinions about
the terracing of the mound.
12
Loud 1948, 70–8, figs. 392, 393.
13
Adams 2013a, 82–94, 109–17.
14
Loud 1948, 78–84; Adams 2013a, 95–100, 117–18.
15
Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000a, 68–71; Adams (forth-
coming).
16
Joffe 2000; Greenberg 2006; Adams 2013b.
17
Adams 2013b, 300–1, fig. 8.3.
2014] The Great Temple of early Bronze I Megiddo 287

Fig. 2. Topographic map of Megiddo, showing the location of the Great Temple (OI = the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago; TAU = Tel Aviv University).

Table 1. Summary of the Early Bronze Age Stratigraphy of Area J.

TAU OI Stratumb Descriptionc Periodc

Levela
J-1 -XX,d XX carved bedrock and associated structures Chalcolithic–EB I
J-2 not detected temple and picture pavement EB IB
J-3 XIX Temple 4050 EB IB
J-4 XVIII the Great Temple EB IB
J-4a not detected abandoned acropolis; sporadic squatter activity EB IB–II (Adams);
within the Great Temple (Adams and Finkelstein); late EB IB (Finkelstein)
possible reconstruction after an earthquake (Ussishkin)
Gap – period of abandonment EB II
J-5/J-6 XVII–XVI palatial compound, streets, houses EB III
J-7 XV Temples 4040, 5192, 5269 EB III (Finkelstein);
Intermediate Bronze Age
(Adams and Ussishkin)
a
Stratigraphic sequence established by the Tel Aviv University Megiddo Expedition during the 1992–2010 excavations in Area J.
Contra other areas where the current expedition operates, where the layers are numbered from top to bottom, in Area J they
are numbered from the bottom up; this is because excavations here began with the earliest monuments already exposed by the
OI excavations.
b
Stratigraphic sequence established by the OI during the 1935–1939 excavations.
c
Names in parentheses indicate that the authors hold differing opinions.
d
“-XX” is the term used by the OI to represent evidence predating stratum XX (Loud 1948, 59).

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
288 Matthew J. Adams et al. [AJA 118

Fig. 3. Aerial view of the Great Temple at the end of the 2008 season. North is to the bottom.

Fig. 4. Plan of the Great Temple, level J-4. Basalt appears in black; wall sections already exposed by the OI excavations
appear in dark gray. Stairs over the western corridor are marked with an arrow. Labels (e.g., 00/21) designate walls.

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2014] The Great Temple of early Bronze I Megiddo 289

Fig. 5. Isometric drawing of the Great Temple. The staircase over the western corridor is not reconstructed here.

to the later part of this period. Three short-lived radio-

carbon samples (olive pits) from the Great Temple—
two from the rear corridors and one from the temple
sanctuary—provided a calibrated radiocarbon range
of 3090–2910 B.C.E. (2σ).18

the architecture of the great temple

The main edifice of the Great Temple—as recon-
structed by the authors—is a 47.5 x 22.0 m broad-room
sanctuary with two rear corridors (see figs. 3–5).19 Its
3.45 m thick walls are composed of mudbricks on a
six-course, 1.5 m tall limestone socle. Each stone is
roughly rectangular in shape and of the same general
dimensions, 36 x 24 x 60 cm. The socle of the main Fig. 6. Northern circular basalt table.
edifice alone represents approximately 1,100 m3 of
stone (ca. 2,900 metric tons). The blocks were bound
with a thick mud mortar, and the interior (and pos- of this mudbrick fill alone, we might hypothesize an
sibly also the exterior) walls were coated with a white original height of up to 4 m for the temple walls. A
chalk paste. Later (level J-5), the mudbrick walls of the second story or open roof space appears to have been
temple were dismantled nearly down to the top of the reached from the western side of the temple by way of
socle. These bricks were then used as fill within the a staircase (built into the intersection of Walls 96/7
corridors and the sanctuary to level the area for new and 98/33 [see fig. 4]) in line with the western corri-
construction in EB III (the northernmost socle was dor. Two steps are preserved, and plaster on the inner
almost completely robbed).20 Based on the volume walls of the staircase is evident in several places. The

18
Boaretto 2006, 550–51. Samples were processed at the et al. (forthcoming).
Kimmel Center for Archaeological Science at the Weizmann 19
For the archaeological data underlying the architectural
Institute of Science, Israel. Two additional samples taken in description in this section, see Adams 2013a.
2012 also agree with this dating and will be published in Regev 20
Adams 2013a, 83–6.

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
290 Matthew J. Adams et al. [AJA 118

Fig. 7. Reconstruction of the site in level J-4, with the Great Temple and eastern terraces. Basalt appears in black; wall sections
already exposed by the OI excavations appear in dark gray. Labels (e.g., 96/1) designate walls.

western interior corridor, whatever its other function,
served as the stairwell beneath the floating staircase
that ascended into the mudbrick superstructure.21
Two exterior corridors surrounded the main edifice
along the southern and western sides. The former,
being of a width similar to that of the corridors of the
main edifice and connected by doorways to them, was
bound by a narrower wall (96/23). This narrow wall
separated the main edifice from an apparently open
space to the south.
The sanctuary was entered through a doorway (3.5 m
wide based on the authors’ reconstruction) in the
northern wall on the central axis of the building. On
one side of this doorway was a door socket 17 cm in
diameter, which indicates that there once were large
leafed doors; presumably there is another door socket
adjacent to the unexcavated jamb. The threshold was
paved with basalt slabs. The remains of a stone plinth
along the doorjamb and several collapsed pieces of
thin, finely worked basalt suggest that a basalt dado
may have lined the jambs of the entrance.22
Directly opposite the entrance along the central axis
and against the rear wall of the sanctuary is the altar,
which is a rectangular installation composed primar-
ily of stone and mudbrick.23 As this installation is par-
tially denuded, its overall morphology is unclear, but
there are at least two phases—an earlier, smaller altar
coated with a thick white chalk paste and a somewhat
later expansion coated with a notably thinner paste.24
It is possible that a cultic niche was built into the rear

21
See evidence in Adams 2013a, 83–6. Cf. the similar cham-
bers flanking the sanctuaries in Eridu and Uruk temples,
some of which have been hypothesized to have served as stair-
wells (see, e.g., Nissen 1988, 97).
22
Adams 2013a, 58–9, figs. 2.30, 2.31. In the view of two of
this article’s authors, Adams and Finkelstein, if this arrange-
ment can be considered a precursor to that of the later ortho-
stat dados common in temple and palace construction, then
it represents the earliest known use of this architectural tech-
nique in the ancient Near East, which is otherwise unattested
before the Middle Bronze (MB) I examples at Ebla (Mardikh
IIIA) and Aleppo. For the MB I examples, see Harmanşah
2007, 75–7.
23
Finkelstein et al. 2006c, 36–40; Adams 2013a, 66–9.
24
In Finkelstein et al.’s (2006c, fig. 3.18) photograph of the
altar after excavation, a person crouches on the expansion,
holding his brush near the chalk coating of the earlier altar.
Note that the level J-3 temple also had an earlier altar sub-
sumed by an expansion. Note also the correction of interpre-
tation here—the plaster was originally reported as part of a

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2014] The Great Temple of early Bronze I Megiddo
wall of the sanctuary behind the altar, but the wall is
missing at this point, and our limited excavation at
this location could not decide the issue.
A mudbrick bench abutted only the west side of the
altar and continued at least 12 m along the southern
wall of the sanctuary.25 Another mudbrick bench, this
one coated with chalk paste, is located along the north
side of the sanctuary, flanking the western side of the
entrance. While the function of these benches is not
readily apparent, benches are well known from cultic
architecture of the ancient Near East from the Neolith-
ic and the Chalcolithic through the Early Bronze Age.26
A row of column bases supported by a foundation
of fist-sized stones is located along the longitudinal
axis of the sanctuary.27 Five bases were found west of
the central axis, equidistant from one another (and
from the western sanctuary wall), while a sixth, clos-
est to the temple axis, does not respect this pattern.
Had this base been placed at the next appropriate
distance, it would have interrupted direct access to
the altar from the doorway. Therefore, this off-center
base with a presumed counterpart to the east was in-
tended both to help span the extra-long gap with an
additional architrave beam and to leave the axis of the
temple clear (see figs. 4, 5).
Perhaps the most striking feature of the whole
temple is the system of massive basalt slabs set in two
rows flanking the longitudinal axis of the sanctuary.28
Seven of these slabs were found in the excavations, but
there were likely 12 in all: four circular, eight rectan-
gular. The rectangular slabs are approximately 1.0 x
1.5 m. The circular ones are not of uniform size; the
most stunning is 1.6 m in diameter (see fig. 6). All ex-
cavated slabs are about 20 cm thick, with an average
weight near 1 ton. They were lowered into foundation
trenches only slightly larger than the size of the slabs
and then secured with medium-sized fieldstones. This
socketing of the slabs allowed the tops to be only a few
centimeters above the floor of the temple. The center
of each slab is equidistant from the center points of
the neighboring slabs in the same row, and the center
line of the slabs in each row is parallel to the other (see
the section “Planning and Metrology” below). Basalt is
basin built into the altar, but this was before recognition that
the “basin” is the negative impression of a brick structure rep-
resenting an earlier phase of the altar (cf. Adams 2013a, 66).
25
Adams 2013a, 64.
26
E.g., the Jerf el-Ahmar “Communal Building” (Stordeur
et al. 2000), En-Gedi temple (Ussishkin 1980), and Hirbet ez-
Zeraq9n (Genz 2002, fig. 2). ˘ 34
27
Adams 2013a, 59–60.
28
Adams 2013a, 61–3.
29
Sneh et al. 1998, sheet 1 (Carmel).
30
Marquet-Krause 1935; Callaway et al. 1965.
31
Callaway et al. 1965, 34–7, fig. 15.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
291
relatively abundant in the Jezreel Valley, particularly
in the vicinity of Megiddo, along the valley ridge that
extends from the mouth of the Wadi Qena to Migdal
HaEmeq.29 The most direct sources along the ridge
are at Giv’at Yoshiyahu (1.5 km to the southwest of
the temple) and HaYogev (2.5 km to the northeast).
The closest parallels for these slabs are those un-
earthed in the slightly later EB II Acropolis Temple at
‘Ai,30 where the in situ rectangular slabs have dimen-
sions similar to those of the rectangular slabs in the
Great Temple. Additionally, the ‘Ai slabs were sock-
eted according to the same principle as the Megiddo
ones—the foundations were cut into the underlying
strata, and the slab was supported by fieldstones and
protruded a few centimeters above the floor.31
The only evidence for the function of the slabs is a
finely carved spheroid cavity in the northern circular
slab (see fig. 6).32 This cavity, off-center in favor of the
north, is 12 cm deep with a rim diameter of 23 cm. It
was presumably a receptacle for a liquid that played a
role in the cult. That the cavity is off-center suggests
that something else held the center position, perhaps a
cult statue or other fetish. In this light, the term “ritual
table” for the slabs seems apt.
Behind and to the south of the sanctuary are two
long narrow corridors built into the main edifice of
the temple and a third corridor that afforded access
to the others from the rear of the building.33 All three
spaces were found filled with bone refuse and appear
to have served as favissae for animal bones from sac-
rifice. Wapnish and Hesse determined that different
locations (esp. each corridor) within the favissae were
reserved for different debris from various stages of the
carcass processing. The structured deposition and seg-
regation of this material according to locations within
the favissae lend support to the sanctity of the process
and suggest that there was a ritual dimension to the
discard procedure.34
reconstruction of the great temple and
its surroundings
The main edifice of the temple is delineated by
Walls 96/1, 98/33, and 00/21 on the south, west, and
32
Adams 2013a, fig. 2.33.
33
Marquet-Krause 1935; cf. Callaway et al. 1965. Cf. the cor-
ridor behind the EB II Acropolis Temple at ‘Ai, which appears
to have been accessible only from behind the building in the
later phase. In the earlier phase, a door in the sanctuary may
have afforded access to the corridor.
Wapnish and Hesse 2000, 449; Adams 2013a. A similar
structured deposition is apparent in the distribution of lithics
within these spaces (Shimelmitz and Adams [forthcoming]).
Shimelmitz and Adams also note it is likely that the lithics and
bones were deposited in the corridors only at the end of the
life of the temple.
292 Matthew J. Adams et al.
north, respectively, and by the partially preserved wall
at the east end of Wall 96/1 (see fig. 4); all these walls
are 3.5 m thick. This reconstruction gives an overall
exterior dimension of 47.5 x 22.0 m, which is sup-
ported by the metrological analysis presented below.
Wall 00/19 on the west and Wall 96/23 on the south
demonstrate that the main edifice sat within a larger
complex, and the use of the corridor on the south
side of the temple for the deposition of bones indi-
cates that the spaces outside the building were also
integral to the cult.
Several pieces of evidence dictate the symmetrical
altar-entrance-axis reconstruction of the main edifice
of the Great Temple (see figs. 4, 5). First, the basalt
slabs on either side of this axis were all rectangular,
suggesting a local symmetry. Second, the overall inte-
rior length of the building is known. On the eastern
side, the inside corner of the eastern wall was found
at the edge of Wall 96/1 in square B/11, while on the
western side the inner plastered face of the western
wall was uncovered in squares J/7 and K/9. This inner
length of 40.5 m is perfectly bisected by a north–south
axis through the entrance and altar (fig. 8).35 This axis
of symmetry provides space for 12 pillar bases (includ-
ing two out of alignment to support the axis-spanning
beam) and 12 basalt ritual tables (eight rectangular
and four circular) arranged in six pairs (see figs. 4, 5).
At the eastern slope of the mound, the OI team
exposed a large, 4 m thick stone wall with buttresses
(Wall 4045) (see figs. 2, 7).36 The interpretation and
date of this wall are much debated: suggested func-
tions include a city wall or a terrace wall, and dates
vary from EB I to EB III.37 This article’s authors differ
in their interpretation of this wall. According to Ad-
ams and Finkelstein, the wall was another component
of the ambitious construction project undertaken in
level J-4. Finkelstein, based on what he believes is the
architectural similarity between Wall 404538 and the
massive walls of the Great Temple, has already sug-
gested that the former be affiliated with level J-4 and
be interpreted as part of an enclosure wall for the
temple precinct.39 Adams and Finkelstein believe the
new evidence discovered during the 2008 excavations
35
Add 3.5 m for each wall thickness for 47.5 m total exte-
rior length.
36
Loud 1948, 64–70, fig. 391.
37
Summary in Esse 1991.
38
See esp. Loud 1948, 68–9, esp. fig. 154 (where the header
construction similar to that of the Great Temple’s walls can
be seen).
39
Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000b, 580–81.
40
For details, see Adams 2011; 2013a, 71–4.
41
The OI affiliated Wall 4114 with strata XVII–XV (Loud
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 118
supports this theory of affiliation, but they suggest that
Wall 4045 functioned as a terrace wall.40 The Great
Temple was constructed some 40 m up the slope from
this terrace and was itself supported by terracing, cer-
tainly on the east side (OI Wall 4114) and possibly also
on the west (Wall 00/19).41 South of the temple, a
2 m thick wall (Wall 96/23) separated the edifice from
an elevated and apparently open space with an area
of more than 500 m2 (see fig. 7). A gatelike structure
(OI Building 4113) may have afforded access to this
space from the eastern terrace.42 According to this re-
construction, the size and monumentality of the Great
Temple at the top of this terraformed acropolis suggest
an unprecedented engineering venture that required
significant cutting and terracing of the original narrow
hill to support it. The result was an artificially terraced
acropolis crowned by a massive temple, a topography
that would determine the shape and architectural
layout of the mound for the rest of the Early Bronze
Age and beyond.
In Ussishkin’s interpretation, Walls 4045 and 4114
on the eastern slope of the mound have nothing to do
with the Great Temple.43 There is no stratigraphic or
physical connection between the Great Temple and
these walls, and the Great Temple opened toward the
northern slope. The massive Wall 4045 is therefore
probably an EB III terrace wall.44 There is some su-
perficial resemblance between the thick walls of the
Great Temple and Wall 4045, but this proves neither
their contemporaneity nor that they both belong to
a single complex. While the walls of the Great Tem-
ple are neatly built and their cores are made of fairly
large, meticulously placed boulders, the core of Wall
4045 contains a large amount of dirt. As for Walls 4113
and 4114, which are located in the upper part of the
eastern slope, they are not connected to the Great
Temple: they are differently oriented, and nothing is
known about their date or function.
the foundation of the great temple
Excavation has provided a reasonably complete
picture of the practical constructional aspects of the
building as well as several aspects of the formal ritual
1948, 70, figs. 392–94). The Megiddo Expedition’s strati-
graphic and architectonic observations demonstrate that it
originated in level J-4/OI stratum XVIII. In this reconstruc-
tion, Wall 4114 was bonded to the southeastern corner of the
Great Temple and acted as a terrace wall (Adams 2011; 2013a,
71–2, fig. 2.21; Keinan 2013, figs. 2.9, 2.10).
42
Adams 2013a, 71–4.
43
See Ussishkin’s view in Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000b,
581; Ussishkin 2013.
44
Esse 1991.
2014] The Great Temple of early Bronze I Megiddo 293

Fig. 8. Great Temple with 6-cubit module grid (green), diagonals intersecting on main altar (blue), 7-module x 7-module wings
(red), and additional 6-cubit module measurements (orange) (1 cubit = 0.525 m).

of constructing the sacred space. The construction
area was first leveled by cutting. The amount of earlier
accumulation that was removed is not determinable,
but evidence beneath the floor of the sanctuary sug-
gests substantial earlier building activity.45 The level J-4
temple itself had no foundations but was constructed
directly on this cut surface.
Near the axis of the temple, sandwiched between its
floor and the underlying cut strata, we found a lone
slab of limestone with drill marks around its outer
edges.46 This stone was placed onto the cut construc-
tion surface and covered by the dense mud of the final
temple floor. Three similar perimeter-marked slabs
are known from the incised pavement of level J-2 on
the eastern slope. While the significance of the pat-
tern is not clear,47 the presence of one such slab within
the floor makeup of the temple calls for a discussion.
Textual material and archaeological evidence from
Egypt and the Near East detail rituals and traditions
associated with the erection of important buildings,
such as palaces, temples, and tombs.48 The attention
given to these often elaborate rituals and the invest-
ment spent on precious deposits speak to the vital
nature of these acts to the ultimate success of the
structure, its occupants, and the community. With
this dedication to the sacred space and building, it is
not surprising that similar importance was placed on
desacralizing such structures once they had served
their purpose or ceased to function. These acts can
be labeled “termination rituals.”49 Such was also the
case when a sacred space was to be built anew. The old
structure would be desacralized, and the new structure
would then go through the foundation rituals. Both
actions were required to transfer the sanctity from the
old building to the new building.
Given the similarity of the foundation slab beneath
the floor of the Great Temple to the slabs from level
J-2, it is likely that the former did in fact originate in

45
Adams 2013a, 101–8. 49
This term has been introduced recently to Levantine
46
Adams 2013a, 69–70, figs. 2.38–40. archaeology from Mesoamerican archaeology (Zuckerman
47
See Keinan (2007, 2013) for hypotheses and references. 2007).
48
Ellis 1968; Weinstein 1973.

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
294 Matthew J. Adams et al.
one of the earlier temples. Two needs would have con-
fronted the architect of the Great Temple: (1) to legiti-
mately desacralize the earlier level J-3 temple, and (2)
to transfer the sanctity to the new construction and/or
install the deity in the new edifice. While several activi-
ties might be involved in satisfying these needs, three
methods are known from Mesopotamia that illustrate
this necessity and help explain our foundation slab.
The detailed temple-building process known from
the third-millennium Gudea Cylinders describes the
act of inviting and welcoming the deity into the newly
constructed building.50 Involved in this part of the
ritual, the text of Cylinder B discusses the “perfecting
the me” of the temple, which apparently refers to the
activation of the new building.51 Sumerian me can be
understood in this context as “essence,”52 but it can
also be embodied in an emblematic object or “a two di-
mensional symbol or image, engraved or painted on a
sign, banner or standard, representing the underlying
abstract concept.”53 In the context of Gudea’s temple
dedication, the implication is that the installation of
certain symbols or objects officially activated the new
temple and made it appropriate for the deity to take
up residence. The urubātu ritual (third to first mil-
lennium B.C.E.) involves the return of a deity to the
temple after renovations.54 Here, the deity is accom-
panied into the temple by a keystone or key brick that
apparently originated from the previous building.55
The text of the later, but illustrative, Mesopotamian
kalû ritual prescribes the removal of one brick of the
old temple, the libittu mahrı̄tu (former brick). This
˘
brick is to be placed in a special location, where special
foundation offerings for the new temple are to take
place.56 In the case of the Great Temple at Megiddo,
the slab from the earlier temple was placed beneath
the floor either during the physical laying out of the
building or in the final stages of construction before
the laying of the floor.
the fall of the great temple
The Great Temple does not appear to have been
in active use for very long and was abandoned and al-
lowed to deteriorate before the beginning of EB II.
50
Cylinder B 2.7–24.8; Averbeck 2000; 2010, 29.
51
Averbeck 2010, 29–30.
52
Averbeck 2000, 418 n. 2.
53
Klein 1997, 212.
54
Ambos 2010, 235–36.
55
Ambos 2010, 235.
56
Thureau-Dangin 1921; Ellis 1968, 13, 184; Novotny 2010,
117–18.
57
For a detailed presentation of the evidence for these con-
clusions, see Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2003; Finkelstein et al.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 118
Much evidence pertaining to the abandonment of
the temple was uncovered during excavation, but the
authors differ in their interpretation of it.
Finkelstein and Ussishkin maintain that the destruc-
tion and abandonment of the temple may have been
precipitated by an earthquake.57 This conclusion is
based on evidence of cracking and separation in the
stone socle. In several places, long cracks run through
a series of adjacent stones, parallel to the face of the
walls.58 As no such cracks can be found in the walls of
the later, superimposed EB III Temple 4040, it appears
that the shock wave that caused the cracks occurred
before the construction of the later temple. Addition-
ally, the north face of Wall 96/1 (square D/10) has a
vertical crack, and the wall east of the crack has sunk
slightly toward the slope.59 Likewise, the north face
of Wall 96/7 (square H/9) displays a pulling apart of
the wall and a sinking of the wall west of the crack.60
Ussishkin further maintains (though Finkelstein
is not in agreement on this point) that the level J-4a
phase represents the partial restoration and reuse of
the Great Temple. As evidence, he points to the con-
struction of a few support walls across the corridors
and the renovation of the damaged eastern section
of Wall 96/1, where the mudbrick superstructure of
the wall was renewed and the floor of the corridor
was raised. Additionally, the accumulation of material
within the sanctuary (including hearths) following the
reconstruction points to continued activity.61
Adams, in contrast, believes that the detailed evi-
dence from the 2004–2008 excavations undermines
the earthquake hypothesis, as well as the conclusion
that the temple was then partially restored; he has ar-
gued that broader social and political developments
underlie the abandonment of the temple in the tran-
sition from EB I to EB II.62 The material accumulated
during the abandonment period (level J-4a) was micro-
stratigraphically and micromorphologically studied
during the excavation of the sanctuary,63 and it shows
evidence of two basic phases: a period in which the
sanctuary was totally abandoned and left to slowly de-
teriorate, followed by a period of more intense dete-
rioration and sporadic human activity.
2006a, 846; 2006c, 51–2; Marco et al. 2006.
58
Marco et al. 2006, fig. 31.3d.
59
Finkelstein et al. 2006c, 49; Marco et al. 2006, fig. 31.3f.
60
Adams 2013a, fig. 2.45.
61
See details and images in Finkelstein et al. 2006c; Adams
2013a.
62
For a point-by-point discussion of the earthquake hypoth-
esis, see Adams 2013a, 79–81.
63
For detailed data on the process of deterioration, see
Adams 2013a; Friesem and Shahack-Gross 2013.
2014] The Great Temple of early Bronze I Megiddo
On the basis of the microstratigraphic study, Adams
and Finkelstein agree on the following reconstruction
of the J-4a period. The earliest event in the abandon-
ment of the temple was the collapse of the basalt dado
lining the entrance onto the paved threshold. There
is no evidence of any structural damage prior to the
deterioration and slow collapse of the temple. There-
fore, the collapse of the basalt dado may be evidence
of the ritual termination of the structure by its own-
ers. The intentional damaging of certain portions of
structures for the purpose of desacralizing them (by
the inhabitants or by enemies) is a well-attested prac-
tice in Mesoamerica and is an increasingly identified
practice in the ancient Near East and the Mediter-
ranean.64 Here, the destroyed dado may indicate the
foreknowledge that the site was to be abandoned and
the careful decommissioning of the Great Temple.
As the period of abandonment wore on, the lack of
regular upkeep resulted in the slow deterioration of
the building.65 Owls roosted in the sanctuary, leaving
behind the discarded refuse of their meals in several
places in the sanctuary and its corridors. Rainwater
seeped into cracks in the roof and percolated between
the mudbrick and stone walls and their chalk facing.
The weakened plaster collapsed slowly in places and is
evident in small patches around the sanctuary through-
out the abandonment phase. Eventually the roof col-
lapsed, and the deterioration intensified. Numerous
ephemeral hearths among the collapsed debris attest
to the temple’s sporadic use during this time. These
hearths occur at various levels and demonstrate that
the collapse was slow enough that visitors came and
went throughout this phase. Most of the ritual tables
and pillar bases were covered with collapsed debris
before hearths were present, indicating not only that
the roof had collapsed but also that the visitors’ activ-
ity was quite different in nature from the activity as-
sociated with the temple’s original use. According to
Adams, small amounts of EB II pottery associated with
these hearths provide the general time frame of the
period of abandonment;66 Finkelstein, however, cites
the earlier reports of Joffe and Greenberg in counter-
ing that there is no unequivocal evidence for EB II
pottery at Megiddo.67 As to the nature of the activity in
64
Zuckerman 2007 (with bibliography).
65
For the evidence underlying the description here, see
Adams 2013a, 74–82.
66
Adams 2013b.
67
Joffe 2000; Greenberg 2006. No ceramics from the sanc-
tuary were yet excavated when these reports were published.
68
Adams 2013a, 83–6. The particularly careful filling-in of
former sacred structures to prepare for new construction is
well known in Syria and Mesopotamia (Collins 2000, 40; Ak-
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
295
level J-4a, the evidence is not conclusive, but it would
appear that the visitors were simply passersby with no
qualms about lodging in the once-sacred structure and
no vested interest in occupying it long-term. However,
we cannot rule out the possibility that the purpose of
these visitations was to carry out cultic activity.
When the site was fully reoccupied in EB III (level
J-5), the roof had already caved in, but the mudbrick
walls, although weathered by years of exposure, were
probably still standing to at least half if not most of
their original height. The level J-5 inhabitants of the
site dismantled portions of the temple, robbed stone
from the walls, and filled in the sanctuary with mud-
brick debris to create a flat space for their construc-
tion activity.68
It remains to refer briefly here to the problematic
cache of Egyptianizing pottery.69 A group of 16 re-
storable vessels was found, concentrated in the de-
bris covering the Great Temple, beneath a wall of the
overlying level J-7 Temple 4040. Petrographic analysis
indicated that the vessels originated in the vicinity of
Megiddo, but typologically and technologically they
resemble Egyptian pottery.70 The date and purpose of
the cache is not clear. According to the excavation data
as analyzed by Finkelstein and Ussishkin, the cache
could date stratigraphically either to the later phase of
the Great Temple (level J-4a) or to the overlying level
J-5/J-6.71 Joffe, who published the cache, ultimately
settled for an EB IB date on the basis of typology but
remained open to an early EB III date.72 Adams dates
the cache to late EB III or the Intermediate Bronze
Age on the basis of a new assessment of the stratigra-
phy and ceramic typology and argues that the cache
is a foundation deposit for level J-7 Temple 4040.73
planning and metrology
Inspired by the metrological studies conducted
by de Miroschedji on Early Bronze Age Yarmut and
Megiddo,74 the authors conducted a metrological
survey of the Great Temple, which comprised field
measurements and digital reconstruction. The survey
suggests that the temple was laid out using a 0.525 m
unit of measurement (a cubit) in modules of six
(see fig. 8). This is the earliest attestation of the use
kermans and Schwartz 2003, 199) and is locally attested at
sites in the southern Levant, such as Pella (Bourke 2012, 163).
69
Joffe 2000; Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2003; Adams (forth-
coming).
70
Goren 2000.
71
Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000a, 65–7; 2003.
72
Joffe 2000.
73
Adams (forthcoming).
74
de Miroschedji 2001.
296 Matthew J. Adams et al.
of such a cubit in the Levant and is earlier than the
demonstrated use in Egypt.75 Traditionally, this unit
of measurement has been seen as an Egyptian innova-
tion that diffused to the Near East. Its use in the Great
Temple does not necessarily reflect Egyptian influence
(or vice versa); it only suggests that, whatever its ori-
gin, this was a widespread standard very early in the
ancient Near East.76
According to the reconstruction of the main edifice
of the temple presented above (see figs. 4, 8), the over-
all exterior dimensions of the building are 90 cubits
wide x 42 cubits long—that is, 15 modules x 7 modules.
The result is an overall width that is one 6-cubit mod-
ule wider than that required to compose a ratio of 1:2.
The axial module, representing perfectly the width of
the entrance and mudbrick altar, serves to bifurcate
the overall plan of the temple into two equal parts:
a western wing and an eastern wing, which are each
7 modules x 7 modules (42 cubits x 42 cubits). Each
wing contains six basalt tables, six column bases, and
one rear corridor. Therefore, the axis module (with
the entrance and mudbrick installation) is metrically
segregated from the two wings.77
Additional observations can be made regarding the
metrological planning and arrangement of architec-
tural features on the basis of the 6-cubit module. The
columns are exactly one module apart, and each of
the offset column bases near the axis is exactly half a
module from its closest neighbor. Each row of basalt
slabs lies on a module line—that is, one module sepa-
rates each slab from its twin (on center). Two modules
separate slabs in the same line. In terms of modules,
the rear corridors are separated from the main sanctu-
ary, appended as the southern two modules. Without
the corridors, the temple still fits the grid perfectly (17
modules x 5 modules). Finally, the geometric center
of the temple as determined by the intersection of
the building’s diagonals falls squarely onto the altar
opposite the entrance.
These metrological observations demonstrate two
aspects of the planning of the main edifice of the
Great Temple. First, the design and construction of
75
Earliest demonstrated use in Egypt is from the step pyra-
mid of Djoser, ca. 2700 B.C.E. (Lauer 1931, 59).
76
The primary unit of linear measurement from contem-
porary Mesopotamian sites appears to be 49 cm (Collins 2000,
41), so the 52.5 cm cubit seems to be a Levantine and Egyptian
phenomenon.
77
Note also that the foundation deposit is also metrologi-
cally segregated from the central axis.
78
E.g., the width of the sanctuary and the width of the walls
were accurate to within 2 cm in every field measurement that
the authors were able to make.
79
The fourth- and third-millennium cult sites in the Ne-
gev attest basins near standing stones (Avner 1984). Farther
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 118
the building was meticulously executed using highly
accurate measurements.78 This suggests a very profes-
sional and highly skilled team of architects and build-
ers. Second, the design of the 6-module scheme was
not simply a convenient measuring and organizational
system for the builders. This scheme was probably also
used to endow the building with highly symbolic and
ritually oriented spaces. The grid provided for five
precisely placed zones: (1) a central 1-module-wide
axis containing the entrance and the mudbrick plat-
form at the geographic center of the structure (note
how the offset column bases and foundation deposit
closest to this axis were not permitted in this space);
(2, 3) an eastern and a western sanctuary wing, each
appointed with six tables and six columns; and (4, 5)
an eastern and a western corridor.
aspects of the megiddo cult
The peculiarities of the cult of the Great Temple
can be seen in four basic types of evidence: the archi-
tecture, the remains within the sanctuary, the remains
in the favissae, and the finds in the surrounding area.
Architectural Indications of the Cult
At the geometric center of the temple is the mud-
brick altar (see fig. 8). While the centrality of the altar
indicates its importance, its function within the build-
ing is not clear—it may have acted as a bench for cult
objects or as the locus of specific ritual activity. An ash
lens was found at the base of the altar, but it appears
to have been deposited there secondarily and not as
a result of in situ burning.
As suggested above, the basalt slabs themselves ap-
pear to have been essential elements in the cult, prob-
ably acting as tables for offerings or for placing cult
fetishes. The significance of the two different shapes
of the slabs, circular and rectangular, however, is un-
clear. The receptacle found carved into the circular
basalt slab is off-center. Similar receptacles found in
sanctuaries are known from the Levant and Mesopo-
tamia in the late fourth and the third millennia.79 The
level J-2 temple at Megiddo yielded a hole-mouthed
afield, the phase 5 temple at Tell Brak (Ninevite 5) had a
bitumen-lined basin at the foot of a freestanding altar (Mat-
thews 1996). The Early Dynastic III Ishtar Temple H at Assur
contained several oval hemispherical bowls embedded in the
floor near the edge of the internal sanctuary podium (Andrae
1922, 39, figs. 11, 12; Ellis 1968, 127). The contemporary cella
of the Temple of Ishtar at Mari also had numerous similar oval
bowls sunk near architectural features such as benches and
pedestals (Parrot 1956, esp. fig. 30a–d, pl. 11.2–4; Ellis 1968,
127). A particularly early example comes from the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic A Göbekli Tepe Construction B “temple.” Pillar 9 is
associated with a stone bowl embedded in the floor (Schmidt
2006, 133, fig. 51; Kornienko 2009, 95–7).
2014] The Great Temple of early Bronze I Megiddo
jar embedded in the floor near one of the basalt slabs,
which was found to contain animal bones;80 if these
bones are secondary, this receptacle may have served
a function similar to that of the ones in the slabs of
the Great Temple. One function of the receptacles
appears to have been to hold liquid, but it is unclear
whether the receptacle was meant to accept a libation
or whether the receptacle was used to store liquid for
use in another kind of ritual action.
In addition, at least two benches or shelves have
been found in the building, and based on the Meso-
potamian model they were probably used for the
placement of offerings or statues (votive or cult)—a
phenomenon already occurring in the Chalcolithic
En-Gedi temple. All in all, the Great Temple is fur-
nished with numerous architectural features on which
to place objects essential to ritual activity. Presumably,
each of these morphologically different locations in-
dicates a different status or function for the object
placed on it.
This dualistic nature of the plan of the Great Tem-
ple might suggest that any numerological significance
is related not to the number 12 (as in 12 pillars or
ritual tables) per se but rather to two groups of six.
While symmetry is often a guiding force in ancient ar-
chitecture and is probably often an aesthetic choice,
the metrological arrangement of the Great Temple’s
symmetry, which segregates the axial module from
the perfectly composed wings, suggest a symbolic,
mythological, and/or ritual choice. Traditionally,
temples have been understood as houses of the gods,
and temples in the broad-room style were inspired by
the domestic realm.81 But it seems that in this case,
the building’s plan requires a far more sophisticated
interpretation than that of a simple dwelling of a god.
While the design may have specific cosmogonic, cos-
mological, mythographic (e.g., dodekatheon), or orga-
nizational (e.g., amphictyony) significance, it is worth
mentioning in this regard that the lunar cycle of 12
was one of the earliest and most common organizing
principles for ritual across the Near East and Egypt.82
Finally, the orientation of the temple may have had
relevance for the cult, but the authors differ in their
interpretation. Adams and Finkelstein argue that it is
80
Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000a, fig. 3.24; Wapnish and
Hesse 2000, 444.
81
Ben-Tor 1973.
82
See Noth (1966) for the original observation that 12 is a
reoccurring number in cultic administration in the ancient
Mediterranean; see also Flemming 2000, 211–21; del Olmo
Lete 2004, 24–7; supra n. 48.
83
For the argument by Peersmann and Ussishkin, see Fin-
kelstein et al. 2006c, 48–50. For the idea that water was inte-
gral to cult in the Early Bronze Age, see also de Miroschedji
1993, 2011.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
297
unclear what vector was essential to orientation: was
it the direction in which the offerant faced (as in a
mosque) or the direction of the central axis one faced
when looking out of the temple from the entrance (as
in an Egyptian temple)? If the former, then the temple
faces the broad open elevated space to the south. If
the latter, then the axis of the temple may have been
aligned with the location of the adjacent spring, ‘Ein
el-Qubbi (see fig. 2). Peersmann and Ussishkin have
argued that the orientation toward the spring is sig-
nificant and suggested that the cult was associated
with water and that the spring played an important
role in the ritual.83 An analogous case can be found in
the earlier En-Gedi temple, where the main entrance,
located at the upper edge of the slope, faces the En-
Gedi spring situated farther down the slope. It is pos-
sible that a large entrance courtyard extended from
the Great Temple down in the direction of the spring,
as was the case in the temple of level J-3.
Activity Within the Sanctuary
Virtually no nonarchitectural evidence for activity
within the temple was found. The floor was nearly
clean and the sanctuary emptied of contents. A thin
ashy layer was detected around the altar, where it had
been compacted into a thin laminate. No evidence
of in situ burning was found anywhere nearby. It is
possible that this ash, which goes beneath the second
“phase” of the altar, belongs to its foundation ritual.84
In the northwestern corner of the temple, a thicker
deposit of ash was found. It was not possible to estab-
lish whether it belongs to the occupation of the temple
or to the later, level J-4a activity.
Evidence from the Favissae
The corridor favissae built into the rear of the tem-
ple complex contained the remains of animals that
had entered the sacrificial system and were therefore
deemed symbolically charged. The animal remains
from the corridors, as examined by Wapnish and
Hesse, consisted primarily of young sheep and goats
and contained less than 20% cattle.85 This assemblage
contrasted significantly with the general assemblage
outside of the favissae in other parts of the site.86
84
Adams 2013a.
85
Wapnish and Hesse 2000, 439–40, 448–49.
86
E.g., the bones from the open court south of the temple
contained numerous limbs and few axial fragments. While
most of the animal parts in the corridors were from sheep and
goats, significantly more cattle were found in the open court
(although sheep/goat was the main type of animal there,
too)—all of which suggests that sheep/goats were preferred
for sacrifice related to cult, while cattle were apparently much
more acceptable in open court activities.
298 Matthew J. Adams et al.
Wapnish and Hesse also determined that the western
and eastern corridors differed significantly in the types
of refuse they contained.87 The western corridor con-
tained notably more cut bones, which suggests that
these bones came from early stages of carcass process-
ing. The eastern corridor contained far more burned
bones and more articulation, which indicates that
these were “the remains from later stages of carcass
processing and utilization, i.e. discards from meals and
burned detritus.”88 Correspondingly, the western cor-
ridor had lots of limbs but few heads, and the eastern
had large numbers of head fragments but few limbs;
the two corridors were opposites. This suggests that
each of the favissae was used as a deposit for sacral re-
fuse resulting from different rituals or different steps
within a ritual. Further, the corridor just south of
the temple yielded a higher percentage of cow axial
parts, while sheep/goat heads were notably absent,
which is significant given that sheep/goat was by far
the preferred animal in all assemblages. In sum, the
three corridors each specialized in different animal
parts: the eastern corridor, crania, mandibles, and
teeth; the western, fore and hind limbs; the south-
ern exterior, ribs and vertebrae. Additionally, while
primarily young sheep/goats were used for sacrifice,
the cattle profile suggests that cattle served two func-
tions in the Megiddo cult system: young cattle, rep-
resented by meaty parts, were used for sacrifice, and
older cattle, represented primarily by toes, were used
for their skins.89
Finds from the Surrounding Area
Enormous quantities of ash and bone were found
distributed across the large open area south of the
temple.90 Since this space appears to have been the
locus of similar activity in levels J-2 through J-4, the
burial of a fully articulated Bos primigenius attributed
87
Wapnish and Hesse 2000, 449. A similar structured de-
position is apparent in the distribution of lithics within these
spaces (Shimelmitz and Adams [forthcoming]).
88
Wapnish and Hesse 2000, 446.
89
Wapnish and Hesse 2000, 442–43. Cf. Leviticus 7:8, which
records that skins from some sacrificial victims become prop-
erty of the priest. This may have been common practice in the
ancient world. See comparative material in Burkert 1983, 7.
90
Wapnish and Hesse 2000, 435 (“Area AL”); Finkelstein et
al. 2006c, fig. 3.14; Adams 2013c.
91
Only a small sample of bones from this area was present-
ed in Wapnish and Hesse 2000, fig. 14.2. There is now a large
deposit of bones from level J-4 contemporary with the temple
awaiting further study (Adams 2013a, 109–10). Detailed study
of the faunal assemblage from the Great Temple in compar-
ison with the contemporary domestic assemblage from the
associated settlement at Tel Megiddo East is underway by L.
Sapir-Hen, D.N. Fulton, M.J. Adams, and I. Finkelstein.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 118
to either level J-2 or J-3 may mean that the space was
used for intense ritual activity, perhaps sacrifice prepa-
ration and feasting.91
the broad-room temple in context
The Great Temple fits into the somewhat vague
category of broad-room sanctuaries known from the
Levant in the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.
This overused category has become a catchall for a
wide variety of structures that may or may not have
any morphological relationship to one another.92
Within this broad category, however, one can single
out a more coherent grouping of Early Bronze Age
temples, which we will refer to as “broad-room table
temples” and which are defined by two elements: a
broad room and central ground-level stone slabs at
regular intervals within the room (fig. 9).
Broad-room table temples of the fourth and third
millennia as defined here are limited to the earlier
level J-3 temple (and possibly also the level J-2 temple)
at Megiddo,93 the Chalcolithic temple at En-Gedi,94
the Acropolis Temple at ‘Ai,95 the Bâtiment Blanc at
Yarmut,96 the stratum II sanctuary at Hartuv,97 Tem-
ple F1 at Khirbet al-Batrawy,98 and possibly Sanctuary
B at Bab edh-Dhra (see figs. 1, 9).99 In all cases, the
slabs have usually been interpreted as bases for roof-
supporting columns. The Bab edh-Dhra sanctuary
produced potential evidence of columns, in the form
of circular charred wood remains on one slab,100 but,
given the informal arrangement of these slabs, the
temple’s inclusion in this category remains tenuous.
A dubious claim for evidence of columns was made
for ‘Ai.101 In no other structure is there evidence for
the use of the slabs as column bases. In fact, at both
Yarmut and Hartuv at least one slab was discovered
abutting one of the side walls, a feature incongruous
with a roof-support system.
92
Cf. Ottoson 1980; Wright 1985; Kempinski 1992.
93
Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000a, 36–49; Ussishkin 2013.
94
Ussishkin 1980. Note that in this earliest example of the
form, the central “tables” are represented by central bench-
like installations.
95
Marquet-Krause 1935, pls. L, LI. Note that multiple phas-
es obscure the plan of the two main strata of the Acropolis
Temple. It is hoped that the final publication of the acrop-
olis will clarify the architectural stratigraphy (Callaway et al.
1965).
96
de Miroschedji 1988, 38–41, pl. 8.
97
Mazar and de Miroschedji 1996.
98
Nigro 2008, 269–305.
99
Rast and Schaub 2003, 157–66.
100
Rast and Schaub 2003, 163.
101
A piece of charcoal found on one slab with no accompa-
nying ash (Marquet-Krause 1935, 327; 1949, 14–15; Callaway
et al. 1965, 34 n. 24).
2014] The Great Temple of early Bronze I Megiddo 299

Fig. 9. Comparative plans of EB I–III broad-room table temples: a, Great Temple of Megiddo; b, Chalcolithic temple at En-Gedi
(modified from Ussishkin 1980, fig. 3); c, Megiddo level J-3/stratum XIX temple (modified from Adams 2013a, fig. 2.20); d,
stratum II sanctuary at Hartuv (modified from Mazar and de Miroschedji 1996, fig. 6); e, Acropolis Temple at ‘Ai (modified
from Marquet-Krause 1935, pl. L; Callaway et al. 1965, fig. 12); f, Sanctuary B at Bab edh-Dhra (modified from Rast and Schaub
2003, fig. 8.2); g, Temple F1 at Khirbet al-Batrawy (modified from Nigro 2008, plan 2); h, Bâtiment Blanc at Yarmut (modified
from de Miroschedji 1988, pl. 8).

The new evidence from the Great Temple suggests
that slabs within broad-room table temples are not
for roof support. Most of the parallel structures list-
ed above are similar in size to the level J-3 temple at
Megiddo. Their interiors measure 3–5 m wide—easily
spanned with the available timber in the Levant (see
fig. 9).102 The authors propose that these slabs, as in the
Great Temple, are fundamental to the cultic activity—
that is, that they are ritual tables.
Local and Regional Evidence for Complex Organization
in the Late EB I
In late EB I, Megiddo witnessed an astonishing tran-
sition in the landscape of settlement and in the monu-

102
S. Lev-Yadun, pers. comm. 2008; Adams 2013a, 59–60.

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
300 Matthew J. Adams et al.
mentality associated with cult. The level J-3 temple was
replaced with the massive level J-4 Great Temple, built
(in the view of Adams and Finkelstein) on an artificial
platform. This new structure was more than six times
the size of its earlier counterpart (see fig. 9). How can
we explain this leap in monumental building activity?
Van der Steen suggested that the evolution of the
temples of EB I Megiddo (levels J-2, J-3, J-4) was the
result of a commercially savvy confederation of local
tribal entities. Drawing on Ottoman-era ethnographic
evidence, she argued that the original temple was an
isolated sanctuary built and used by regional tribal
groups for regular ceremonies that served to cement
relationships between the tribes.103 She attributed
Megiddo’s ongoing development through the period
to the local tribes taking advantage of the interna-
tional trade through the region; the locals catered to
the travelers by supplying agricultural produce and
lodging space to passing caravans.104 This interpreta-
tion, as well as Halpern’s, who argued for a city-state
organization for EB I Megiddo, 105 is based on an
absence-of-evidence argument. EB I Megiddo occupies
an area larger than the space that has been exposed
by excavation. Speculating about whether the unexca-
vated area contains a palace (Halpern) or an open-air
tribal campground (Van der Steen) does not further
the pursuit of an answer to the question posed above.
The evidence that we do have from the site itself and
the Jezreel Valley describes the high level of social and
political development of Megiddo in EB IB.
The Megiddo Hinterland Project identified a sprawl-
ing 50 ha of EB IB sherd scatter to the north and east
of the tell (Tel Megiddo East).106 The sherd scatter was
originally taken as representing the subsurface remains
of a massive settlement contemporary with the Great
Temple and interpreted as an urban site by virtue of
its size, but current excavation work by the Jezreel Val-
ley Regional Project ( JVRP) indicates that the extent
of the scatter does not accurately represent the size of
the settlement, which apparently was much smaller.107
In the region of the Jezreel Valley, settlement pat-
terns as elucidated by modern surface survey suggest
103
Van der Steen 2001, 2005; see also Greenberg 2003b, 19.
104
Van der Steen 2005, 13–14. See also the opposing views
in Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2006.
105
Halpern 2000.
106
Eppelbaum and Itkis 2000; Finkelstein et al. 2006b (fol-
lowing an earlier survey by Raban 1999).
107
Adams et al. (forthcoming). The ongoing excavations
by the JVRP at Tel Megiddo East are now beginning to pro-
vide new data for our understanding of the settlement con-
temporary with the monumental construction activity on the
acropolis. See online reports at www.jezreelvalleyregionalpro-
ject.com.
108
Finkelstein et al. 2006b, 763, fig. 40.18.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 118
a dramatic population and settlement growth in EB
IB.108 As many as 47 sites were occupied in a pattern
that may indicate the emergence of a size hierarchy
among these settlements. The valley was occupied by
predominantly medium-sized sites and a smattering
of smaller settlements. Three large sites dominate the
northwestern half of the valley: Megiddo, Tel Zariq,
and Tel Shimron. Megiddo appears to have been the
largest of these. It is becoming increasingly clear that
different sites and different regions in the Levant had
their own histories and social and political trajecto-
ries, and there remains some difficulty still in making
adequate comparisons between these regional devel-
opments.109 Farther abroad, there is not yet sufficient
chronological resolution to tie the Great Temple to
the broader retraction of the Uruk expansion or to
the presence of Egypt in the south during the reign of
Narmer.110 Therefore, it appears that with the present
evidence, the phenomenon of the Great Temple can
be judged only on the basis of its own data and in its
regional context.
The Great Temple and the other evidence from the
tell furnish us with eight essential points from which
we can begin to consider the social and political or-
der of the community responsible for its construction:
1. The community controlled significant quantities
of resources: limestone, mudbrick, basalt.
2. Skilled manual specialists were involved: quarry-
men, stonecutters, wall builders specializing in
limestone and mudbrick, basalt sculptors.
3. Well-trained and experienced architects and en-
gineers designed the terrace structures and the
temple (with unprecedented accuracy).
4. A considerable quantity of unskilled labor was
required to manufacture brick, move building
materials,111 and cut foundations.
5. Sophisticated cult practitioners established the
rules for the physical space and the activity that
was to take place in it, and these rules were incor-
porated into the grand design: the physical layout
of the wings, locations of basalt tables and brick
altar, favissae.
109
Greenberg 2003a, 2003b.
110
See the discussion in the section “The Fall of The Great
Temple” on the Egyptianizing pottery cache, which has been
dated by Joffe (2000) to level J-4. Adams (forthcoming) sug-
gests a redating to level J-7.
111
For the Great Temple edifice, the building materials
included 1,100 m3 worth of stone in the temple socle alone
and at least that much more brick. Significantly more of
both was needed for the terrace walls. Cf. the labor estimates
from the contemporary and similarly sized White Temple
from Uruk: 1,500 people working 10 hours per day for
five years (Falkenstein 1966, 24 n. 2; Collins 2000, 39). The
whole Anu complex is not much larger (in footprint) than the
2014] The Great Temple of early Bronze I Megiddo
6. Knowledgeable cult practitioners determined and
implemented the correct rituals for the decom-
missioning of the earlier temple and the activation
of the Great Temple.
7. Some administrative entity must have negotiated
between these various participants in the con-
struction to coordinate materials and processes,
calculate the amount of material needed, and
organize appropriate compensation to suppliers
and workers.
8. A sizable hinterland supporting agriculture
and pastoral activity fed the participants here
enumerated.
In considering the sophistication of the Great Tem-
ple and these aspects of its construction, it is useful
also to reflect on the size of the building (1,100 m2)
in comparison with that of contemporary and slightly
later cultic structures (see fig. 9). The Great Temple is
roughly six times the size of the average broad-room
table temple and similar in size to average temples
in contemporary Mesopotamian cities.112 Ultimately,
the Great Temple was one of the most sophisticated
buildings of its day and required significant expen-
ditures of ideological capital to rally the specialized
and unspecialized labor necessary for its construction.
Most scholars agree that the transition to urban life
in the southern Levant occurred within EB II.113 How-
ever, the understanding of the EB IB period in the
continuum of sociopolitical developments from the
agricultural villages of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic
to the complex societies of EB II–III remains in flux,
and there are varying arguments for urbanization, state
formation, heterarchy, and corporate villages.114 De-
spite the varying hypotheses, it is generally agreed that
the southern Levant went through processes different
from those occurring at the same time in Mesopota-
mia and Egypt.115 The evidence from Megiddo and the
Jezreel Valley suggests that the sociopolitical complex-
ity and the institutions associated with it in EB II–III
were already being experimented with in late EB I. A
single building of the Great Temple, and the entire Megiddo
complex would have required more labor (see fig. 7). See
Homsher (2012) for the social and political implications of
monumental mudbrick construction.
112
A few examples from Uruk (Late Uruk period) serve
to establish the Great Temple’s place among its peers in the
broader ancient Near East (see discussion and references in
Charvát 2002, 98–106). The White Temple level B is ca. 390
m2; the Stone Temple, ca. 850 m2. “Temples” A, B, C, F, G, and
H (including “Palace” E) in the Eanna precinct all average
two-thirds the size of the Great Temple—only “Temple” D, ca.
4,000 m2, casts a shadow on the Megiddo edifice. The Great
Temple, then, stands in class with the largest buildings in the
ancient Near East; nothing else in the Levant (or Egypt) ap-
proaches it until the succeeding periods. The Late Uruk Anu
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
301
growing body of evidence for fortified sites in adjacent
regions within the southern Levant also suggests that a
new level of social and political organization emerged
late in EB I that augured the complex societies of EB
II–III.116 Because the trajectory and scale of these new
developments appear to vary from region to region,
it is likely that different interpretations of social-
political complexity will be needed to explain them. At
present, Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley provide the
most compelling evidence for the emergence by EB
IB of a territorial entity with significant command of
resources. Ultimately, additional data from Megiddo/
Tel Megiddo East and the broader region will be re-
quired to define this entity more precisely.
conclusions
The material reviewed above may be brought to-
gether to form the following hypothesis of the devel-
opment of Megiddo. Late in the fourth millennium
B.C.E., the Jezreel Valley witnessed a regional settle-
ment explosion and the development of an advanced
settlement-size hierarchy indicative of fairly complex
political and administrative entities. As the largest
site in this system, Megiddo appears to have been the
primary settlement.
Cultic activity was a significant focal point of com-
munity activity. The level J-2 and J-3 temples occupied
a prominent position in the landscape and were rela-
tively sizable projects: sanctuaries, perimeter walls,
open paved areas, and other open spaces for sacrifices
and/or feasting activities. Other elaborate structures
detected in soundings beneath the Great Temple
suggest that this cult-oriented space continued at
least 75 m farther to the northwest of these temples.
The cult precinct at Megiddo was a large complex of
buildings—not simply a temple on a hill. The incised
pavement leading up the east slope of the level J-2
acropolis not only suggests an elaborate cultic ideol-
ogy (and ritual) but might also hint at broader inter-
national connections with Egypt.
complex provides a comparative model for understanding
the monumentality of the Great Temple in a social and politi-
cal context. It consists of a 13 m high brick terrace supporting
an 1,800 m2 platform. The platform, which held the 390 m2
White Temple, was accessed by a monumental staircase. To
be sure, the number of monumental construction projects
active at any one time in Mesopotamia far outclasses that
in the southern Levant, but the comparison here is useful
for painting a picture from a better-understood frame of
reference.
113
Greenberg 2003b; Paz 2010.
114
Chesson 2003; Harrison and Savage 2003; Philip 2008,
162–66.
115
E.g., Joffe 1993.
116
See list, citations, and summary in Paz 2002; Mazar 2012.
302 Matthew J. Adams et al.
In time, a new vision for the cultic acropolis
emerged. The level J-3 complex was ritually disman-
tled, and a labor-intensive terraforming program was
initiated.117 The new design consisted of a massive but-
tressed terrace wall on the east side of the complex
(and probably also on the west), an elevated open
space at the high point of the acropolis, and the Great
Temple. That there was a great and unprecedented
expenditure of resources—natural, ideological, and
human—is evident in the scale of the project, which
matched the scale of individual works in the distant
urban centers of Mesopotamia. Without the excava-
tion of the settlement associated with this monumental
project,118 it is currently not possible to establish with
certainty the social and political structure responsible
for its construction or to characterize it according to
traditional typologies. However, whatever the structure
of this territorial entity, it is clear that it had the ability
to control a wide range of resources.
The abandonment of the Great Temple and Megid-
do coincides with broader regional changes that sug-
gest a widespread crisis (which was accelerated by a
severe earthquake in the view of Finkelstein and Us-
sishkin). The Megiddo Hinterland Project demonstrat-
ed the severe settlement changes that accompanied
the transition from EB I to EB II.119 More than half
of the sites in the valley were abandoned, and most
of those that did survive were significantly reduced
in size. The new settlement arrangement in the val-
ley was defined by the emergence of fortified settle-
ments (Giv’at Mish’ol/Har Haruvim, Mizpe Zevulun,
and Ta’anach). Greenberg suggested that the rise of
a new regional entity in the northern Jordan Valley
redrew territorial boundaries that severely affected the
Jezreel Valley,120 but some scholars remain skeptical of
this explanation.121 Similar changes in the landscape
of settlement in the EB I–II transition have been iden-
tified all over the southern Levant; the topic remains
one of the main challenges facing the archaeology of
the period.
Despite the problems that remain in our under-
standing of the social and political circumstances that
led to the Great Temple’s rise and fall, the structure
represents a new chapter in the study of the Early
Bronze Age Levant. While the magnitude of the struc-
ture’s architecture is certainly a surprising discovery,
what makes the Great Temple great is the tremen-
dous effort, advanced technical skill, and complex
117
Note that, per the above arguments, Ussishkin does not
follow Adams and Finkelstein’s interpretation of Wall 4045.
118
The JVRP is conducting ongoing survey and excavation
to examine the EB I settlement activity at Tel Megiddo East
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 118
organization required to construct it, all of which
exceed what we know of contemporaneous efforts in
the broader region.
matthew j. adams
department of classics
bucknell university
667 franklin street
state college, pennsylvania 16803
mja198@gmail.com
israel finkelstein
the sonia and marco nadler institute of
archaeology
tel aviv university
69978 tel aviv
israel
fink2@post.tau.ac.il
david ussishkin
ussishki@post.tau.ac.il
Works Cited
Adams, M.J. 2011. “A Brief Note on the Architectural Setting
of the Great Temple of Megiddo.” Jezreel Valley Regional
Project Online Publication Series 1. www.jezreelvalleyregion-
alproject.com/a-brief-note-on-the-architectural-setting-
of-the-great-temple-of-megiddo.html.
———. 2013a. “Area J (the 2004–2008 Seasons): Part III.
The Early Bronze Age, Stratigraphy and Architecture.”
In Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons, edited by I. Finkel-
stein, D. Ussishkin, and E. Cline, 47–118. Monograph
Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv Uni-
versity 31. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.
———. 2013b. “The Early Bronze Pottery from Area J.” In
Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons, edited by I. Finkel-
stein, D. Ussishkin, and E. Cline, 295–334. Monograph
Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv Uni-
versity 31. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.
———. 2013c. “Appendix: Area J, The 2010 Season.” In
Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons, edited by I. Finkel-
stein, D. Ussishkin, and E. Cline, 101–18. Monograph
Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv Uni-
versity 31. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.
———. Forthcoming. “The Egyptianizing Pottery from
Megiddo Area J, Revisited: Stratigraphy, Form, Func-
tion and Implications for the Three Temples in Antis.”
Adams, M.J., J. David, R. Homsher, M. Cohen, and D. Ful-
ton. Forthcoming. “Survey and Excavations at the Early
(Finkelstein et al. 2006b, 763; Adams et al. [forthcoming]).
119
Finkelstein et al. 2006b, 763–66.
120
Greenberg 2003b.
121
E.g., Mazar 2012, 24.
2014] The Great Temple of early Bronze I Megiddo
Bronze Age Settlement of Tel Megiddo East: A Prelimi-
nary Report on the Jezreel Valley Regional Project.”
Akkermans, P.M.M.G., and G.M. Schwartz. 2003. The Ar-
chaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early
Urban Societies (ca. 16,000–300 BC). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Ambos, C. 2010. “Building Rituals from the First Millen-
nium BC: The Evidence from the Ritual Texts.” In From
the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Build-
ing in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, edited by
M.J. Boda and J. Novotny, 221–38. AOAT 366. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag.
Andrae, W. 1922. Die archaischen Ischtar-Temple in Assur. Aus-
grabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Assur:
Baudenkmäler aus Assyrischer Zeit 4, Wissenschaftliche
Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 39.
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
Averbeck, R.E. 2000. “The Cylinders of Gudea.” In The Con-
text of Scripture. Vol. 2, Monumental Inscriptions from the
Biblical World, edited by W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger,
Jr., 417–33. Leiden: Brill.
———. 2010. “Temple Building Among the Sumerians
and Akkadians (Third Millennium).” In From the Foun-
dations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the
Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, edited by M.J. Boda
and J. Novotny, 3–34. AOAT 366. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Avner, U. 1984. “Ancient Cult Sites in the Negev and Sinai
Deserts.” TelAviv 11(2):115–31.
Ben-Tor, A. 1973. “Plans of Dwellings and Temples in Ear-
ly Bronze Age Palestine” (in Hebrew). ErIsr 11:92–8.
Boaretto, E. 2006. “Radiocarbon Dates.” In Megiddo IV: The
1998–2002 Seasons, edited by I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin,
and B. Halpern, 550–57. Monograph Series of the Insti-
tute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24. Tel Aviv:
Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, In-
stitute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Bourke, S. 2012. “The Six Canaanite Temples of T·abaq6t
Fah·il: Excavating Pella’s ‘Fortress’ Temple (1994–2009).”
In Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic
Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. mill. B.C.E.).
Proceedings of a Conference on the Occasion of the 50th Anni-
versary of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the University
of Tübingen (28–30 May 2010), edited by J. Kamlah and
H. Michelau, 159–201. Abhandlungen des Deutschen
Palästina-Verins 41. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz.
Burkert, W. 1983. Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient
Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Translated by P. Bing.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Callaway, J.A., W.J.A. Power, R.J. Bull, and K. Schoonover.
1965. “The 1964 ‘ai (Et-Tell) Excavations.” BASOR 178:
13–40.
Charvát, P. 2002. Mesopotamia Before History. London:
Routledge.
Chesson, M.S. 2003. “Households, Houses, Neighborhoods
and Corporate Villages: Modeling the Early Bronze Age
as a House Society.” JMA 16(1):79–102.
Collins, P. 2000. The Uruk Phenomenon: The Role of Social Ide-
ology in the Expansion of the Uruk Culture During the Fourth
Millennium BC. BAR-IS 900. Oxford: Archaeopress.
de Miroschedji, P. 1988. Rapport sur les trios premières cam-
pagnes de fouilles à Tel Yarmouth, Israël: 1980–1982. Yar-
mouth 1. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
———. 1993. “Cult and Religion in the Chalcolithic and
Early Bronze Age.” In Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990:
Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Ar-
chaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990, edited by A. Biran and
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
303
J. Aviram, 208–20. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
———. 2001. “Notes on Early Bronze Age Metrology and
the Birth of Architecture in Ancient Palestine.” In Studies
in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory
of Douglas L. Esse, edited by S.R. Wolff, 465–92. Studies
in Ancient Oriental Civilization 59. Chicago: Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago.
———. 2011. “At the Origin of Canaanite Cult and Reli-
gion: The Early Bronze Age Fertility Ritual in Palestine.”
ErIsr 30:74–103.
del Olmo Lete, G. 2004. Canaanite Religion According to the
Liturgical Texts of Ugarit. Translated by W.G.E. Watson.
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Ellis, R. 1968. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia.
Yale Near Eastern Researches 2. New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press.
Eppelbaum, L., and S. Itkis. 2000. “Magnetic Investigations
in the Proto-historic Site to the East of Tel Megiddo.”
In Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. Vol. 2, edited by
I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, 504–14.
Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of
Tel Aviv University 18. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass
Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology,
Tel Aviv University.
Esse, D. 1991. Subsistence, Trade and Social Change in Early
Bronze Age Palestine. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civili-
zation 50. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago.
Falkenstein, A. 1966. Die Inschriften Gudeas von Lagaš. AnalOr
30. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicium.
Finkelstein, I., and D. Ussishkin. 2000a. “Area J.” In Megiddo
III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. Vol. 1, edited by I. Finkelstein,
D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, 25–74. Monograph Series
of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University
18. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Ar-
chaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
———. 2000b. “Archaeological and Historical Conclu-
sions.” In Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. Vol. 2,
edited by I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern,
576–605. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeol-
ogy of Tel Aviv University 18. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire
Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeol-
ogy, Tel Aviv University.
———. 2003. “The Cache of Egyptianized Vessels from
Megiddo: A Stratigraphical Update.” TelAviv 30:27–41.
———. 2006. “Two Notes on Early Bronze Age Megiddo.”
In I Will Speak the Riddle of Ancient Times: Archaeological
and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Oc-
casion of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by A.M. Maeir and P.
de Miroschedji, 7–24. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Finkelstein, I., D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern. 2006a. “Ar-
chaeological and Historical Conclusions.” In Megiddo IV:
The 1998–2002 Seasons. Vol. 2, edited by I. Finkelstein,
D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, 843–59. Monograph Se-
ries of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University
24. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Ar-
chaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Finkelstein, I., B. Halpern, G. Lehmann, and H.M. Nie-
mann. 2006b. “The Megiddo Hinterland Project.” In
Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons. Vol. 2, edited by
I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, 705–76.
Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of
Tel Aviv University 24. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass
Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology,
Tel Aviv University.
Finkelstein, I., D. Ussishkin, and J. Peersmann. 2006c.
304 Matthew J. Adams et al.
“Area J (the 1998–2000 Seasons).” In Megiddo IV: The
1998–2002 Seasons. Vol. 1, edited by I. Finkelstein, D.
Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, 29–53. Monograph Series
of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University
24. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Ar-
chaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Flemming, D.E. 2000. Time at Emar: The Cultic Calendar and
the Rituals from the Diviner’s House. Mesopotamian Civili-
zations 11. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Friesem, D., and R. Shahack-Gross. 2013. “Area J: Part V.
Analyses of Sediment from the Level J-4 Temple Floor.”
In Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons, edited by I. Finkel-
stein, D. Ussishkin, and E. Cline, 142–47. Monograph
Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv Uni-
versity 31. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.
Genz, H. 2002. Die frübronzezeitliche Keramik von _irbet ez-
Zeraqōn. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
27(2). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Goren, Y. 2000. “Technology, Provenience and Interpre-
tation of the Early Bronze Age Egyptian Ceramics.” In
Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. Vol. 2, edited by I.
Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, 496–501.
Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of
Tel Aviv University 18. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass
Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology,
Tel Aviv University.
Greenberg, R. 2003a. “What Happened to Megiddo in
the Early Bronze Age II?” (in Hebrew). ErIsr 27:66–72.
———. 2003b. “Early Bronze Age Megiddo and Bet Shean:
Discontinuous Settlement in Sociopolitical Context.”
JMA 16:17–32.
———. 2006. “Notes on the Early Bronze Age Pottery (the
1998–2000 Seasons).” In Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Sea-
sons. Vol. 1, edited by I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B.
Halpern, 149–65. Monograph Series of the Institute of
Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24. Tel Aviv: Emery
and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute
of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Halpern, B. 2000. “Centre and Sentry: Megiddo’s Role in
Transit, Administration and Trade.” In Megiddo III: The
1992–1996 Seasons. Vol. 2, edited by I. Finkelstein, D.
Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, 535–75. Monograph Series
of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University
18. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Ar-
chaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Harmanşah, Ö. 2007. “Upright Stones and Building Nar-
ratives: Formation of a Shared Architectural Practice
in the Ancient Near East.” In Ancient Near Eastern Art in
Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students,
edited by J. Cheng and M.H. Feldman, 69–100. Culture
and History of the Ancient Near East 26. Leiden: Brill.
Harrison, T.P., and S.H. Savage. 2003. “Settlement Het-
erogeneity and Multivariate Craft Production in the
Early Bronze Age Southern Levant.” JMA 16(1):33–57.
Homsher, R. 2012. “Mud Bricks and the Process of Con-
struction in the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant.”
BASOR 368:1–27.
Joffe, A. 1993. Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I
and II, Southern Levant: Complementarity and Contradiction
in a Small-Scale Complex Society. Monographs in Mediterra-
nean Archaeology 4. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press.
———. 2000. “The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Area
J.” In Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. Vol. 1, edited
by I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, 161–85.
Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 118
Tel Aviv University 18. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass
Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology,
Tel Aviv University.
Keinan, A. 2007. “The Megiddo Picture Pavement: Evi-
dence for Egyptian Presence in Northern Israel Dur-
ing Early Bronze Age I” (in Hebrew). M.A. thesis, Tel
Aviv University.
———. 2013. “Area J: Part II. Sub-Area Lower J.” In Megiddo
V: The 2004–2008 Seasons, edited by I. Finkelstein, D. Us-
sishkin, and E. Cline, 28–46. Monograph Series of the
Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 31. Tel
Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.
Kempinski, A. 1992. “Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age
Temples.” In The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Pre-
historic to the Persian Periods, edited by A. Kempinski and
R. Reich, 53–9. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Klein, J. 1997. “The Sumerian me as a Concrete Object.”
Altorientalische Forschungen 24:211–18.
Kornienko, T.V. 2009. “Notes on the Cult Buildings of
Northern Mesopotamia in the Aceramic Neolithic Pe-
riod.” JNES 68:81–102.
Lauer, J.P. 1931. Étude sur quelques monuments de la IIIe dynas-
tie (pyramide à degrés de Saqqarah). ASAE 31. Cairo: IFAO.
Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39. 2 vols. OIP 62.
Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Marco, S., A. Agnon, I. Finkelstein, and D. Ussishkin. 2006.
“Megiddo Earthquakes.” In Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002
Seasons, edited by I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B.
Halpern, 568–75. Monograph Series of the Institute of
Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24. Tel Aviv: Emery
and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of
Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Marquet-Krause, J. 1935. “La deuxième campagne de
fouilles a Ay (1934).” Syria 16:325–45.
———. 1949. Les fouilles de ‘Ay (Et-Tell), 1933–1935. Paris:
Paul Geuthner.
Matthews, R. 1996. “Excavations at Tell Brak, 1996.” Iraq  58:
65–77.
Mazar, A. 2012. “Introduction and Synthesis.” In Excava-
tions at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996. Vol. 4, The 4th and 3rd
Millennia BCE, edited by A. Mazar, 1–33. Jerusalem: Is-
rael Exploration Society.
Mazar, A., and P. de Miroschedji. 1996. “Hartuv, an As-
pect of the Early Bronze I Culture of Southern Israel.”
BASOR 302:1–40.
Nigro, L. 2008. Khirbet al-Batrawy II: The EB II City-Gate, the
EB II–III Fortifications, the EB II–III Temple. Preliminary Re-
port of the Second (2006) and Third (2007) Seasons of Excava-
tions. Rome “La Sapienza” Studies on the Archaeology
of Palestine and Transjordan 6. Rome: Università degli
studi di Roma “La Sapienza.”
Nissen, H.J. 1988. The Early History of the Ancient Near East,
9000–2000 B.C. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Noth, M. 1966. Das System der Zwölf Stämme Israels. Darm-
stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Novotny, J. 2010. “Temple Building in Assyria: Evidence
from Royal Inscriptions.” In From the Foundations to the
Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near
East and Hebrew Bible, edited by M.J. Boda and J. Novotny,
109–39. AOAT 366. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Ottosson, M. 1980. Temples and Cult Places in Palestine. Boreas
12. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Parrot, A. 1956. Le Temple d’Ishtar. Mission Archéologique
de Mari 1, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 65.
Paris: Paul Geuthner.
2014] The Great Temple of early Bronze I Megiddo
Paz, S. 2010. “Life in the City: The Birth of an Urban Hab-
itus in the Early Bronze Age of Israel.” Ph.D. diss., Tel
Aviv University.
Paz, Y. 2002. “Fortified Settlements of the EB IB and the
Emergence of the First Urban System.” TelAviv 29:238–61.
Philip, G. 2008. “The Early Bronze Age I–III.” In Jordan:
An Archaeological Reader, edited by R.B. Adams, 161–226.
London: Equinox.
Raban, A. 1999. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of
Mishmar Ha-’Emeq 32. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities
Authority.
Rast, W.E., and R.T. Schaub. 2003. Bâb edh-Dhrâ’: Excava-
tions at the Town Site (1975–1981). Pt. 1, Text. Reports of
the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 2. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Regev, J., P. de Miroschedji, R. Greenberg, E. Braun, Z.
Greenhut, and E. Boaretto. 2012. “Chronology of the
Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis
for a High Chronology.” Radiocarbon 54(3–4):525–66.
Regev, J., I. Finkelstein, M.J. Adams, and E. Boaretto. Forth-
coming. “Wiggle-Matched 14C Chronology of Early
Bronze Megiddo and the Synchronization of Egyptian
and Levantine Chronologies.”
Richard, S. 2003. “The Early Bronze Age in the Southern
Levant.” In Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader, edited by
S. Richard, 286–302. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Schmidt, K. 2006. Sie Bauten die Ersten Tempel: Das rätselhafte
Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger. Die archäologische Entdeckung
am Göbekli Tepe. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Shimelmitz, R., and M.J. Adams. Forthcoming. “Flint Knap-
ping in the Early Bronze Age Temple of Megiddo and
Its Reflection on the Organization of Cult and Society
in the 4th Millennium B.C. Levant.” JMA 27(1).
Sneh, A., Y. Bartov, T. Weissbrod, and M. Rosensaft. 1998. Geo-
logical Map of Israel, 1:200,000. Jerusalem: Israel Geological
Survey. ftp://ftp.gsi.gov.il/250k_maps/250k_index.htm.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:01:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
305
Stordeur, D., M. Brenet, G. Der Aprahamian, and J.C. Roux.
2000. “Les bâtiments communautaires de Jerf el Ahmar et
Mureybet horizon PPNA (Syrie).” Paléorient 26(1):29–44.
Thureau-Dangin, F. 1921. Rituels Accadiens. Paris: Leroux.
Ussishkin, D. 1980. “The Ghassulian Shrine at En-Gedi.”
Tel Aviv 7:1–44.
———. 2013. “Summary and Conclusions: Comments
Regarding the Early Bronze Cultic Compound, 1992–
2010.” In Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons, edited by I.
Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and E. Cline, 1317–28. Mono-
graph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv
University 31. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.
Van der Steen, E.J. 2001. “Megiddo in the Early Bronze
Age.” BibO 58:202–11.
———. 2005. “The Sanctuaries of Early Bronze IB Megiddo:
Evidence of a Tribal Polity?” AJA 109(1):1–20.
Wapnish, P., and B. Hesse. 2000. “Mammal Remains from
the Early Bronze Sacred Compound.” In Megiddo III: The
1992–1996 Seasons, edited by I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin,
and B. Halpern, 429–62. Monograph Series of the Insti-
tute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 18. Tel Aviv:
Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, In-
stitute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Weinstein, J. 1973. “Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt.”
Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Wright, G.R.H. 1985. Ancient Building in South Syria and
Palestine. Handbuch der Orientalistik 7. Leiden: Brill.
Yekutieli, Y. 2008. “Symbols in Action—the Megiddo Graf-
fiti Reassessed.” In Egypt at Its Origins 2: Proceedings of the
International Conference “Origin of the State, Predynastic and
Early Dynastic Egypt,” Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September
2005, edited by B. Midant-Reynes and Y. Tristant, 807–37.
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 172. Leuven: Peeters.
Zuckerman, S. 2007. “Anatomy of a Destruction: Crisis Ar-
chitecture, Termination Rituals and the Fall of Canaan-
ite Hazor.” JMA 20:3–32.