Metalworking in Cultic Spaces: The Emergence of New Offering Practices in the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant

Abstract

This article addresses the relationship between metalworking and cultic space in the Bronze Age Southern Levant, tracing the earliest evidence of metallurgical activities within Southern Levantine temples to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. This coincides with the appearance of a series of new cultic traditions in the region, including the large-scale dedication of votive offerings in temple settings. It is demonstrated that the local production within cultic venues was not intended primarily for the production of objects to be circulated outside the temple but mainly for the manufacture of goods to be used and offered during ritual activities conducted in the cultic spaces themselves.

Keywords:

• Temples
• Metalworking
• Bronze Age
• Southern Levant
• Temple economy

Introduction

The Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant displays qualities of both continuity and discontinuity with the preceding Early and Intermediate Bronze Ages (Gerstenblith 1983; Cohen 2002; 2009; 2016; Greenberg 2019: 180–206). The practice of Middle Bronze Age cult in the Southern Levant can similarly be characterised as exhibiting a number of traits that are already evident in the Intermediate Bronze Age (i.e., continuity), while at the same time, new traditions unattested in the preceding period (i.e., discontinuity) also appear (Susnow 2021: 65–66). This emergence of new cultic traditions includes, among other practices, extensive evidence of the large-scale presentation of votive offerings (until now unattested prior to the Middle Bronze Age).¹

This study focuses on the appearance of production activities—specifically metalworking—on site within cultic space in the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant (Fig. 1). While it has long been observed that metalworking was often part of temple economy, especially during the Late Bronze Age in the eastern Mediterranean—both in the Southern Levant and on Cyprus—the root of this connection has never been systematically studied. Previous studies by Negbi (1976), Seeden (1980) and Moorey and Fleming (1984), among others, have focused in particular on metal figurines, in some cases suggesting that they were locally manufactured, such as at Middle Bronze Age Byblos (Negbi 1976: 21; Seeden 1980: 82, 95–96) and Nahariya (Dothan 1981: 77). In Seeden’s study, temple economy is briefly addressed, but only from the perspective of metal-figurine production (Seeden 1980: 96; and see, similarly, Philip 1988: 193). With the exception of Dothan’s study of Nahariya, which suggested that the site’s local metal industry facilitated the production of objects for worshippers to present as offerings (Dothan 1981: 77), none of these surveys of figurines attempts to reconstruct metal production on site in any detail, nor do they address the relationship between temples and metal industry.

Fig. 1: Map of the eastern Mediterranean with the Levantine and Cypriot sites discussed in this study (map by Ruhama Bonfil)

By detailing the Southern Levantine cultic spaces with on-site metalworking, this study will demonstrate that on-site metal production was established in cultic spaces from the MB I onward, sometimes alongside other types of production. Directly related to this chronological issue is the question what function these on-site workshops served, and fundamentally, what the nature of sacred economy was in the second-millennium BCE Southern Levant. Did Southern Levantine temples function as redistributive centres that facilitated on-site production, in part to acquire economic gains through exchange and the circulation of locally manufactured products beyond the temple sphere? Or were they small-scale production sites established primarily for the purpose of producing objects to be used and offered during ritual activities conducted in the cultic spaces themselves? In order to contextualise the phenomena witnessed during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in the Southern Levant, this study will begin with a survey of metalworking and temples in the Southern Levant prior to the Middle Bronze Age. Following the presentation of the Middle and Late Bronze Age Southern Levantine data, the discussion will utilise data from Ancient Near Eastern textual sources and anthropological literature to explore different models of temple economies.

Prologue: Metalworking and temples before the Middle Bronze Age

Early metalworking in the Levant

During the Late Chalcolithic period (ca. 4500–3900 BCE), when metalworking first appeared in the Southern Levant, production involved both local and imported raw materials, using open casting and the lost wax technique. While a ceremonial function has been suggested for these early metal objects—and more broadly, a deep connection between metallurgy and cult (Gošic and Gilead 2015)—apart from the questionable instance of the original production site of the Naḥal Mishmar hoard,² metalworking remains have other regions such as the Jordan Valley (see Rosenberg et al. 2020 and references therein).

During the Early Bronze Age too, there is no evidence that metalworking was directly associated with cultic spaces. It was conducted in various contexts on the village level and was particularly visible in the southwestern region of the Southern Levant during the EB I (Genz 2000; Milevski 2009: 132–135). The absence of metallurgical remains from EB II–III settlement sites was related to the establishment of secondary processing at Khirbet Hamrat Ifdan in the Faynan mining and smelting region (Levy et al. 2002). In the subsequent Intermediate Bronze Age, despite evidence of increasing use of metals, no metalworking remains have been discovered—neither in private dwellings nor in the few open-air cult sites of the period.

Temples in the Early and Intermediate Bronze Ages

Hardly any evidence can be found from the Early and Intermediate Bronze Ages to suggest that on-site workshops were included as elements in temple architecture or were central aspects of temple activities (Greenberg 2019: 107–110, 154). Early Bronze Age temples are generally identified as such based on their size and layout (usually a single cell with a rectangular broadroom plan), the presence of a podium or benches within the structure,³ often the presence of a temenos wall, and at times, an association with objects that appear to be cultic in nature, such as standing stones (Garstang, Ben-Dor and FitzGerald 1936: 73–74; Mazar, de Miroschedji and Porat 1996: 7–9, Figs. 7–12; cf. Greenberg 2019: 109). These temples do not appear to have associated spaces that could have facilitated production activities. When material remains are recovered, Early Bronze Age temples are most typically found with some pottery, flint tools and, in a few cases, other utilitarian objects. Evidence of dedication of prestige goods and votive offerings, however, is generally minimal; luxury goods have rarely been retrieved from these spaces,⁴ and similarly, there is little evidence for food offerings (e.g., in the form of offering bowls or basins).⁵

Most recently, Greenberg (2019: 109–110) has argued that the fact that these temples overwhelmingly lack objects indicates that they themselves were not powerful institutions—that they lacked equity and large numbers of clergy and personnel and certainly were not central economic forces within the urban scene. Furthermore, Early Bronze Age temples do not appear to be associated with large-scale production endeavours. There is no archaeological or local textual evidence to indicate that temples included on-site ceramic, textile, flint, ground-stone, or metal production, the only exception being flint knapping at the monumental EB IB Great Temple at Megiddo (Shimelmitz and Adams 2014). In terms of cultic practice, Early Bronze Age temples seem to have been focal points for occasional public ceremonies, perhaps involving some form of food consumption (Greenberg 2019: 107, 110). It is unlikely, however, that these temples served as instruments of a religious elite.

During the Intermediate Bronze Age, cult was mainly conducted in non-urban, open-air spaces or within buildings that were not primarily cultic in nature (e.g., Eisenberg 1993: 86–87; Gophna and Ayalon 2004), often in association with aniconic standing stones. While Intermediate Bronze Age cult emphasised communal group gatherings with ritual primarily focused around large-scale consumption (Susnow 2021: 46–48), very few votive offerings have been found at these sites and there is no evidence of on-site production.

Thus, although there appears to have been a deep connection between metallurgy and cult prior to the Middle Bronze Age (Gošic and Gilead 2015), metalworking was not integrated into temple economy.

Metalworking in Southern Levantine temples

The Middle Bronze Age

Beginning in the Middle Bronze Age, drastic changes occurred to the Southern Levantine settlement landscape and material culture. With regard to metallurgy, a major change in raw materials took place already in the Intermediate Bronze Age, with tin-bronze gradually replacing arsenical copper (Kaufman 2013). Within Middle Bronze Age temples, while cultic activities continued the Intermediate Bronze Age traditions of emphasising communal gathering and large-scale consumption, votive offerings and the dedication of prestige and cultic goods became fundamental aspects of Southern Levantine cult (Susnow 2022a: 403–405). Concurrently with the rise of these new cultic practices, several cultic spaces display evidence of metalworking:

Nahariya: Early in the MB I, the extramural, coastal, open-air cult centre at Nahariya already had indications of on-site metal production (Dothan 1956; 1981: 77). The site displayed a large inventory of over a hundred metal (mainly bronze and silver) objects in the form of tools, weapons, jewellery, vessels and figurines (on the figurines, see Negbi 1976: 130–131), as well as a number of silver hoards (to be published elsewhere). The first two strata (V and IV) of the site also yielded two crucibles with remains of bronze, two moulds (one for casting a figurine depicting a goddess and the other for weapons), a number of copper and silver prills, a spill, metal sheets, scrap metal and large quantities of ash, which may have resulted from metallurgical activities (Dothan 1981: 77). Thus, a smith, or multiple smiths, were likely employed at the site. The production of metal appears to have been conducted alongside at least one other industry: production of miniature ceramic vessels (Naeh 2012).

Tell el-Hayyat: At the small rural Middle Bronze Age temple of Tell el-Hayyat and in its immediate vicinity (Fig. 2a), metallurgical debris and equipment for producing metal objects were found (Falconer and Fall 2006: 109). The temple itself was constructed according to a temple in antis plan (in later phases developing into a small migdal temple), and in multiple phases, its courtyard was furnished with several standing-stone installations. Metallurgical activity is evident in a number of finds in various phases of the temple. Two limestone moulds were recovered: one, for casting tanged tools, was found in the Phase 4 East Alley (MB I), just beyond the temple’s temenos wall, and another, for casting anthropomorphic figurines, was uncovered in the Phase 3 (MB II) temple courtyard (Falconer and Fall 2006: Fig. 6.27). Fragments of a fractured ceramic ladle with solidified copper in its cracks—found near the above-mentioned Phase 4 mould—may have been used as a crucible (ibid.: 93, Fig. 6.28). The site also yielded two copper alloy plaques, one from the interior of the Phase 5 (MB I) temple and the other deposited in a jar from the altar of the Phase 4 temple (ibid.: Fig. 6.7). Also recovered were a copper- alloy anthropomorphic figurine depicting a female goddess from inside the Phase 5 temple and zoomorphic figurines from Phase 4 and another found out of context (ibid.: Figs. 6.18–6.20).⁶ Outside the temenos, a potter’s kiln was in use nearby in Phase 4 (ibid.: 39–40), providing evidence that potters’ activities were conducted in close proximity to metal production at the site.

Fig. 2: Sample of Southern Levantine temples mentioned in this study (a–h) and temples from other regions (i–j); note that the spatial complexity of a Mesopotamian (i) and Hittite (j) temple could facilitate many different on-site activities, including production

Tel Hazor: In Stratum XVI (MB III) at Tel Hazor, the Complex of Standing Stones was established as an open-air cultic site near the entrance to the monumental Middle Bronze Age palace in Area A (Ben-Tor et al. 2017: 45–54). This complex included 37 standing stones, offering tables, a large circular stone basin, thousands of animal bones, an ash layer, three metal female figurines and many beads (ibid.: 45–54). Bronze and copper- based waste products were retrieved from the complex’s floor, within the ash layer, in the basin and within a number of chambers that surrounded the complex (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014: 24–30, Table 1). Not far away, opposite the Southern Temple (a monumental migdal temple), a copper ingot and pot bellows were found (ibid.: 34, Table 1).⁷ Therefore, it is evident that metallurgical work, conducted by on-site specialists, was associated with cultic activities at the Complex of Standing Stones (ibid.: 37).

Table 1: Levantine sites mentioned in this study

Byblos: In addition to these Southern Levantine sites, it appears that substantial metalworking was conducted at Middle Bronze Age Byblos. In this period, several cultic precincts—including the Temple of the Obelisks, the Champs des Offrandes and the Enceinte Sacrée—were established, all found with many deposits composed of inventories of cult objects and prestige goods (Dunand 1958; Sala 2015). Within these deposits, hundreds of metal figurines, weapons and tools were uncovered, many identical in form (Negbi 1976: 122–130). Dunand (1958: 651, 948–954) believed that the vast majority of metal objects had been produced by local craftsmen. A number of metallurgical objects were recovered from the site, including tuyères (Dunand 1958: 959–960, Fig. 1067, Nos. 17812 and 17813), stone moulds for casting tools (e.g., ibid.: 659, Fig. 779, No. 14040; cf. No. 17637), and a crucible (ibid.: 846, Fig. 962, No. 16653). Within the Temple of the Obelisks, a series of 140 identical figurines cast from the same mould were recovered within a deposit; the mould was found broken nearby (Nebgi 1976: 21), hinting at on-site manufacturing. At least one potential workshop, in which an unfinished metal figurine was discovered (Seeden 1980: 82), was identified as being associated with the Temple of the Obelisks (Jidejian 1968: 38), and it is possible that additional workshops were located within the multi-room complex attached to the Temple of the Obelisks.

The Late Bronze Age

In this period too, several Southern Levantine temples display evidence of metallurgical activities:

Lachish: From the Fosse Temple—a non-monumental extramural temple constructed in the fosse surrounding the mound (Fig. 2b)—a tuyère was found in Pit 144, to the north of the temple (in the area of House 100; Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. XXIX:16).

Tel Mevorakh: A small extramural roadside temple (Fig. 2c) was established early in the Late Bronze Age at this site (Stern 1984). The temple courtyard was found with crucibles and copper slag, leading the excavator to suggest that temple services included the ability to produce metal figurines, jewellery and weapons (Stern 1984: 12).

Tel Nami: A small seaside shrine with an adjacent courtyard (Fig. 2d) was constructed at the summit of the mound in the Late Bronze Age. Metal production and recycling associated with the shrine were identified by Artzy (1999: 27), on the basis of the presence of crucibles and parts of furnaces—both with remains of bronze residue—found together with tools such as chisels, tweezers, drills, punches and an awl.⁸

Kamid el-Loz: In the site’s centrally located temple area, a sequence of multi-roomed temples was established at least as early as the Middle Bronze Age. Crucibles were found on the floor of the LB II temple complex (Metzger 1993: Pl. 13:3,4).

Tel Hazor: In Late Bronze Age Tel Hazor, several loci exhibit metal production alongside cultic activities. In Strata XIV and XIII (LB II) in Area A, the monumental Building 7050 (Fig. 2h) and especially its surrounding courtyards yielded crucibles, one with traces of silver, and a copper ingot, as well as copper and bronze waste products (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014: 30, Table 1). Thus, within this large ceremonial complex, metalworking was an integral activity. In addition, in Area A, just beyond the temenos wall of the Northern Temple (a migdal temple), a mould for casting jewellery was recovered alongside another mould that was likely used for pressing clay figurines—possibly evidence of a small workshop for producing metal and other objects (Yadin et al. 1961: Pl. CLVIII:30,31) (Figs. 2f, 3). While the lower tell produced limited evidence of metallurgical activities (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014: 23), metalworking was in fact conducted in close proximity to cultic activities in Area F during the LB II. Area F comprised a residential neighbourhood defined by an open-air cultic space with multiple loci containing miniature vessels and cup-and-saucers (Yadin et al. 1960: 130–145). Nearby, two crucibles were found (Yadin et al. 1960: 138, Pl. CXLVII:10,11), one in a drainage pipe to the west of open Courtyard 8136 and the other from a paved room to the south of the courtyard.

Fig. 3: The Northern Temple of Hazor with the find spots of two moulds: one for casting jewelry and the other for a figurine (adapted from Yadin et al. 1961: Pl. CLVIII:30–31; Bonfil 1997: Plan II.7)

Timna: During the Ramesside period (Nineteenth–Twentieth Dynasties) in Stratum III of the Egyptian mining temple at Timna (the Hathor Temple, Site 200; Fig. 2e), metallurgical remains were identified in Locus 109, including two casting installations, tuyère and crucible fragments, and slag. Most of the artefacts were shown to contain tin (mostly in low concentrations), suggesting that the metallurgical activities involved refining, alloying and casting (Craddock 1988; Rothenberg 1988: 60–66, 277). While the temple itself served the miners and smelters of the Timna Valley, the smith within the temple was employed specifically for the purpose of casting cultic objects and votive offerings (Rothenberg 1988: 193).

Synopsis

To summarise, from the MB I, cultic spaces in the Levant began to show evidence of on-site production, including metalworking (Table 1). At times, metallurgical activities appear together with other production activities as well. From the data presented above, on-site metalworking may be identified by the presence of metallurgical debris (such as prills and slag) and paraphernalia (such as crucibles, tuyères, moulds and pot bellows). In many cases, pieces of bronze scrap and metal sheets were also found at temples. One might further be able to determine the relative scale of production by investigating the quantity of production waste and metalworking paraphernalia and the nature and size of the workspace.

Most of the temples identified as having metallurgical activity were not associated with elites.⁹ Hazor appears to be an exception; here metalworking was identified in a number of elite-controlled cultic loci throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (in Area A), while it also seems to have been conducted in a non-elite context near the open-air cultic space in Area F. For the most part, the scale of production in Southern Levantine cultic venues seems small, as generally speaking, very limited amounts of metallurgical debris have been uncovered at these sites, and dedicated workshop spaces are lacking.

It is noteworthy that elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean, this connection between metalworking and cultic space is also observable during the Late Bronze Age; this is the case on Cyprus (Kassianidou 2005), for example at Kition,¹⁰ Athienou¹¹ and Kalopsidha- Koufos.¹² However, while votive offerings were likely produced in the workshops of Cypriot temples, those workshops seem to operate on a larger scale and are not solely restricted to fulfilling cultic needs (see further below). In other words, in contrast to the small scale of production indicated by most of the Southern Levantine examples, these types of workshops not only could have served as a means for producing items to be used within the cultic venue, but could have produced goods for circulation beyond the temple precinct.

As noted, this study focuses on the specific phenomenon of metalworking within temples, rather than on the general association and sometimes close proximity between metalworking and cultic structures. The latter may have been erected for the use of smelters or bronzesmiths, as in the case of Timna.¹³

Regarding the instances of metalworking within temples, two distinct patterns of production emerge. The Middle and Late Bronze Age data from the Southern Levant suggest that workshops were mainly created to provide services for a temple, but not for the manufacture of goods to be circulated beyond the cultic venue. The continuity of this practice into the Iron Age can be seen at Iron IIA Tel Reḥov, where the courtyard of an open-air shrine included the remains of metalworking and recycling, perhaps to be used for manufacturing votive offerings (Yahalom-Mack 2020: 196).

A second pattern reflects metalworking practices such as at Kition, Cyprus, in which temple workshops were at times much larger in scale and orientation and were not solely established for the purpose of producing objects for on-site use. This tradition is evident slightly later at Iron IIA Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath as well, where metalworking was conducted in close proximity to textile and olive-oil production, in direct association with Area D’s Building 149807, a complex that was likely cultic in nature (Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018; Workman et al. 2020: 210–222). Whether it was the city elite or the cult administration that controlled the metal economy, evidence suggests that both utilitarian objects and items of higher status were produced for broader circulation outside the complex (i.e., to be used in all sectors of the settlement); in other words, the production was not solely of votive offerings for use within the cultic complex (Workman et al. 2020: 229).

Discussion: The intersecting relationship between metalworking, temples and sacred economy

Two models of sacred economies are presented below, representing two very different economic configurations (Fig. 4).¹⁴ Model 1 portrays temples as redistributive centres, while Model 2 depicts them as producing goods to be used on site only. While the models are at opposite ends of a spectrum, a temple’s economy may, in fact, include aspects of both.¹⁵ It will be demonstrated that although Model 1 is the prevalent model attested in most regions of the Ancient Near East, Model 2 most closely resembles the situation in the Southern Levant.

Fig. 4: Relationships between metalworking and cultic space: two models of sacred economies

Model 1: Smiths in temples and temples as redistributive centres, reflected by traditions of the Ancient Near East

Generally speaking, a predominant model of early temple economies in the ancient world characterises temples as centres for ceremonial redistribution, involved in profit-oriented trade (Wengrow 2013).¹⁶ This type of sacred economy integrates material profit into the dynamics of the temple institution, witnessed in the redistribution and the intake and output of material goods. Within this context, metalworking could be understood as part of the Ancient Near Eastern temple economy. This model pertains mainly to Mesopotamia, Egypt and Anatolia,¹⁷ where there is ample textual evidence, spanning the third–first millennia BCE, showing clear associations between temples (and palaces) and metalworking (e.g., in Mesopotamia). More specifically, these texts attest to metalsmiths (SIMUG), who were regularly employed or commissioned by temple institutions,¹⁸ working metals that were kept in temple storerooms into tools, jewellery and cultic goods (Archi 1982: 211; Stein and Blackman 1993: 52),¹⁹ among other activities.

This model is further supported by architectural evidence: these temples, especially those from Mesopotamia and in Anatolia,²⁰ were large, elaborate, multi-roomed complexes that could offer a plethora of activities beyond ritual, such as storage, food preparation, administrative activities and chambers for production (Fig. 2i–j). In other words, they had the space built into their interior plan to facilitate large amounts of on-site production, including metalworking, and had the capacity to produce large quantities of material goods for redistribution and profit-oriented trade. Strikingly, the patterns within the Middle and Late Bronze Age Southern Levantine temples significantly differ from this prevalent model of Ancient Near Eastern temple economies.

Model 2: Temples as loci for the production of goods for on-site use

Another model of sacred economies that seems much more relevant to the Southern Levant can be referred to as the ritual mode of production, in which the primary goal of production is not to make profit but rather to fulfill ritual obligations for ritual participants (Spielmann 2002: 197). In this model, specialists are attached to or embedded within cultic venues in order to provide a service for ritual participants (ibid.: 202). While these objects may at times end up circulating beyond the production venue, their primary purpose is for immediate ‘consumption’—i.e., on-site use within the production location. Renfrew (2001: 17) discusses this type of sacred economy in slightly different terms—as an exchange system in which on-site production (intake) produces little material output for circulation outside the venue; rather, output is something that is primarily sacred and non-material in nature, whether spiritual or related to the successful performance of ritual (ibid.: 23). The following discussion argues that this model is the more useful one for conceptualising the role of metalworking within Southern Levantine temple economy.

Scale of production and the nature of Southern Levantine sacred economy

An initial question to be asked is whether the scale of production within Southern Levantine cultic spaces could have facilitated the external circulation of objects. As a starting point, metal objects such as weapons, toggle pins, jewellery and even figurines are not only found in temples but were broadly circulated in many Southern Levantine contexts, especially burials (e.g., Philip 1995). It is, therefore, theoretically possible that temples could have produced these objects. However, the scale of production within temples is small, especially in comparison to metalworking at sites such as Late Bronze Age Athienou— which yielded nearly half a ton of refuse, in addition to paraphernalia and scrap, and had space designated for metalworking (Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983: 140)—and Iron IIA Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath—where 46 kg of production debris were found alongside a large assemblage of metalworking paraphernalia within a large space demarcated for production (Workman et al. 2020: 213). In terms of scale, these latter sites seem industrial in nature, capable of producing goods for exterior circulation beyond the cultic space.

The comparatively small scale of production within Middle and Late Bronze Age temples suggests that they were not primarily concerned with producing objects for exterior circulation. Thus, given the metal objects found in non-temple contexts, there must have been other (non-temple) locations of production. In fact, examples of metalworking in contexts such as palaces (Tel Lachish, see Ussishkin 2004: 161) and other public spaces (Tell Beit Mirsim, see Albright 1938: Fig. 31:7) certainly could account for their production and circulation. Therefore, of the two models of sacred economies presented above, Southern Levantine temples most closely align with Model 2. Nevertheless, since many similar objects can be found both in temple and non-temple contexts, the possibility that some of the objects produced within temples could have circulated beyond the temple precinct should not be ruled out.

Unique attributes of on-site metalworking in the Southern Levant

Temples in the Southern Levant, in contrast to those of other regions of Southwest Asia and Egypt, were not large institutions and did not have different activity areas for different activities (cf. temples in Fig. 2). During the Early Bronze Age, temples were quite simple buildings, with little evidence of the dedication of votive offerings. With the exception of the Great Temple at Megiddo, there is no extant evidence of on-site production. This is not surprising: one would not expect specialised production on site, since temples in this period were not large economic centres or focal points for the dedication of votive offerings. The same appears to hold true for the Intermediate Bronze Age too.

In the Middle Bronze Age, the cultic scene shifted; along with a religious ethos that continued to revolve around communal gatherings and large-scale consumption, new practices—including the dedication of votive offerings of various materials—emerged. The earliest Middle Bronze Age cultic spaces are found at rural or extramural sites (e.g., Nahariya and Tell el-Hayyat), rather than at elite centres. Like Early and Intermediate Bronze Age temples, these Middle Bronze Age cultic spaces did not bear significant economic prominence beyond providing the local needs of the cult. In fact, even when migdal temples were introduced into the cultic landscape later in the Middle Bronze Age, these cultic spaces, despite their monumentality, were still exceptionally simple, comprising a single or sometimes two or three axially-aligned rooms. These temples, like their non-monumental counterparts, did not have the space to accommodate a broad repertoire of activities. Even when one takes into consideration their surrounding courtyards, the scale and complexity of activities was in no way comparable to the large temple complexes in neighbouring regions. Thus, similar to non-monumental cultic spaces, the more monumental Levantine temples essentially maintained a focus on large amounts of consumption and rituals involving the dedication of votive offerings (Susnow 2021: 23).

In this sense, Southern Levantine temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages were apparatuses that demonstrate a constant intake of consumable goods (for immediate consumption, rather than storage), manufactured luxury objects and votive offerings for the purposes of sustaining the cultic personnel and the overall inner workings of the cultic venue, but with seemingly little material output for exterior circulation. As temples generally display little evidence of long-term storage and food-preparation capabilities (Susnow 2021: 171–173), any surplus of food and drink must have been prepared and stored elsewhere and then allocated for, or appropriated by, temples for their use (Susnow 2022a: 406, n. 90). Luxury goods and votive offerings, however, were either brought to the site from elsewhere or were produced on site at the temple for their intended use by ritual participants.²¹

As such, when new ritualised forms of presenting votive offerings within Southern Levantine cultic spaces became fundamental aspects of the cult, there arose a need to produce those objects at the temples themselves. As indicated above, the archaeological record strongly suggests that the main purpose of these workshops was to produce objects for immediate use within the cultic setting. At Nahariya, both metalworking and pottery production appear to have been conducted for the purpose of manufacturing objects to be used within the context of the Nahariya cult. The thousands of fragments of miniature vessels that were found at the site together with the small potter’s cone for ceramic production, coupled with the fact that the miniatures were made of local fabric, indicate that these vessels were made locally for their intended on-site use and deposition. Furthermore, not only was metallurgical activity identified by prills and crucibles with bronze remains, but fragments of figurines (silver horns) that were cast using the mould of a female deity were also recovered at the site, evidence that the mould was indeed used to produce figurines for use at Nahariya. Similarly, at Tel Hazor, a kiln was uncovered within the LB I (Stratum 2) temenos of the Area H Orthostat Temple (Fig. 2g), along with nearly 20 miniature vessels (Ben-Tor 1989). Such vessels were also found distributed throughout the temple in this and other phases, indicating that they were produced on site for their use at the temple itself. These examples indicate that these workshops were intended for on-site use of the goods they produced.

Furthermore, there is a visible pattern in which metalworking was conducted in non-elite cultic spaces that were either open-air or irregular in layout, but was rarely carried out in monumental urban temples. The Southern Levantine cultic spaces that displayed evidence of on-site production were spaces where people gathered communally for the purpose of conducting ritual; as stated above, they were not centres that engaged in long- term storage or redistribution of the produced prestige goods.

Tel Hazor is the only site that presents a different pattern: there it was mainly the elite- controlled cultic spaces that engaged in metallurgical activities. Importantly, however, of the two Area A cultic spaces that were established and functioned contemporaneously in the Middle Bronze Age (the Complex of Standing Stones [open-air]) and the Southern Temple [monumental, elite]), it was the open-air standing-stone precinct that witnessed metallurgical activity, not the constructed temple. This accords with the other examples of open-air and non-monumental cultic spaces facilitating metalworking. There is a fundamental change in the Late Bronze Age, however, when metalworking was conducted within the elite Building 7050 and in association with the Northern Temple.²² If this is indeed the case, these are the only extant examples of metalworking in relation to monumental urban temples. While counter-intuitive, this parallels a series of other elite- motivated alterations to the cultic landscape in Late Bronze Age Hazor in which the practice of cult within and around Building 7050 diverges from other constructed Southern Levantine temples of the period (Susnow, Bechar and Yasur-Landau 2020: 137–141) and encompasses several practices and trends that are otherwise evident in non-monumental open-air precincts.²³ At the same time that the elites/rulers associated with Building 7050 presented themselves as agents usurping an otherwise non-elite cultic tradition, metalworking was also conducted in Area F in association with a non-elite, controlled, open-air cultic precinct. Apparently, then, in non-elite sectors within the urban scene at Hazor, the Southern Levantine tradition that had been established in the MB I continued.

Thus, throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Southern Levant, metalworking emerged as a localised response to a localised need within cultic settings. As the presentation of votive offerings became an essential practice within the Southern Levantine cultic landscape, the need to produce objects for these practices became the impetus for the establishment of small workshops on site. Therefore, as argued here, the overarching pattern of Middle and Late Bronze cultic sites with metal (and other) industry was for the purposes of manufacturing objects for immediate local use. At the same time, the evidence from one site to the next is quite diverse, indicating that there was no standardised or institutionalised method for implementing such industries. This is in keeping with the observation that the cultic sites themselves were not elite-controlled spaces and thus, were more flexible and diverse in the types of practices that were conducted.

Conclusions

This study investigated the relationship between cultic space and metalworking in the Southern Levant, tracing its roots to the MB I in the region. The appearance of metalworking at cultic sites emerged precisely at the time when the cultic spaces in the region first began to function as focal points for the presentation of votive offerings. While it is uncertain why these new cultic traditions arose, they signal a new need for materially expressing one’s dedication and devotion to deities within cultic settings. Whatever the cause, an associated need to make those material goods readily available for use also emerged.

As argued above, the purpose of metalworking within Southern Levantine temples was primarily to manufacture goods for the immediate use and deposition by ritual personnel and participants within the cultic venue, in contrast to models of temple economies from elsewhere in Southwest Asia and Egypt. Importantly, this study identifies the dynamic relationship between practice and production, as well as the unique form of sacred economy, within Southern Levantine cultic space.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers, as well as the Editorial Board of Tel Aviv, for the constructive feedback and critical comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, unquestionably improving the arguments, clarity and overall quality of the study in its final form. The research was supported by the Philip and Muriel Berman Center for Biblical Archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Disclosure statement

The authors report that there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Matthew Susnow

Matthew Susnow: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Naama Yahalom-Mack

Naama Yahalom-Mack: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; email: [email protected]

Notes

1 On the development of new religious architectural traditions, see Mazar 1992 and, more recently, Kamlah 2012.

2 On the basis of the proximity of the Naḥal Mishmar hoard to the En-Gedi shrine, it was suggested that the hoard was produced within the temple precinct (Ussishkin 2014). However, no production remains were found at the temple and petrographic analysis of the cores indicates that the casting was carried out elsewhere (for a range of opinions on this, see Goren 2008 and references therein).

3 Raised podiums, while possibly serving as platforms for statues (none of which have been found), may also suggest that offerings of some sort were presented within these structures.

4 Although questionable, it has been suggested that the rare examples of precious Egyptian artefacts—such as, for example, the ones found at Tel Megiddo, Tel Arad, ꜤAi and Tel Yarmouth— may represent votive offerings (Sala 2007: 69).

5 Post-depositional processes may have contributed to the limited scope of Early Bronze Age temple finds, including the absence of perishable goods.

6 The zoomorphic figurine found out of context (in ‘Phase 0’) was attributed by the excavators to the Middle Bronze Age temple sequence (Falconer and Fall 2006: 43, 93).

7 A mould for casting a weapon was found near the Southern Temple, apparently from Stratum XVII (Yadin et al. 1961: Pl. CLVI:30).

8 Artzy (1999: 27) also suggests a relationship between cult practices and the recycling of metals at LB Tel ꜤAkko.

9 For a discussion of the concept of elites in the Southern Levant, see Susnow 2022b.

10 Beginning in the Late Cypriot IIIA stratum (Floor IIIA, 12th century BCE), remains of metalworking were found in a workshop located within the sacred precinct with direct access to Temple 1 at Kition. This workshop, which consisted of multiple rooms with furnaces, benches, pits, crucible fragments, slag, pieces of bronze scrap, a fragmentary shovel, droplets of blister copper and—a little later—a bellows (Karageorghis and Demas 1985; Karageorghis and Kassianidou 1999: 174–178), was involved in copper refining, bronze casting, and the recycling of bronze. Another workshop—related to textiles—was established nearby.

11 At Late Bronze Age Athienou, cultic activities were conducted alongside metalworking (Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983). Cult is evident in Strata III and II (16th–13th centuries BCE), where thousands of miniature vessels were retrieved from deposits mainly in open-air spaces. Nearby, smelting was conducted in a central courtyard of a building of unclear nature, where a large amount of copper nodules, large chunks, slag and scrap metal were found, as well as pits, ash, bone and other objects that may have been connected to metallurgical work. No crucibles or tuyères were recovered (ibid.: 132–140).

12 Like at Athienou, the cult site at Kalopsidha-Koufos, which was disassociated from other structures and is contemporary with Athienou Stratum III, demonstrates an association between miniature vessels and metalworking (Åström 1966: 39, 48–115; Webb 2012). Metalworking objects include small bronzes, lumps of ore and slag, unfinished metal fragments, a stone mould and crucibles (Åström 1966: 113–115).

13 See also the Stratum V cult room at Iron I Tel Dan that was established within a quarter of the site that was used by bronzesmiths for metalworking and other crafts (Ben-Dov 2018). There was a long tradition of metalworking from the LB I–Iron I sequence in Areas AB and B1 at Tel Dan. Metallurgical remains include crucibles, tuyères, pot bellows, slag, charcoal, ash pits, metal scraps and remnants of crumbled moulds (ibid.: 456–468).

14 Regarding the concept of sacred economy, we follow Renfrew (2001: 22), who defines sacred economy as ‘the production, consumption and exchange of goods within a religious context’. Sacred economy relates to both the temple’s resident population (ritual personnel) as well as to temple visitors (worshippers, ritual participants). While exchange or transaction within a religious context has a material aspect, what ritual participants might gain in return is not necessarily material per se, but could be experiential or spiritual.

15 Production activities such as metalworking, even when conducted outside temple contexts, may have contained religious aspects (see Levy et al. 2008: 96–106; Gosselain 2011: 246–251; Insoll 2011: 431–432; Gošic and Gilead 2015: 170–171). Similarly, production within temples could have been profit-oriented, with a focus on external circulation, not solely for serving the immediate religious needs of the temple. For metalworking, cult and economy in general, see Knapp (1986) and Kassianidou (2005).

16 Oppenheim suggested that the surplus of consumable (and non-consumable) goods in Mesopotamian temples could be stored for future use or traded and exchanged for raw materials needed by the temple (Oppenheim 1977: 187). In New Kingdom Egypt, portions of temple offerings were stored and then redistributed, thus profiting the temple economy (Kemp, Samuel and Luuf 1994: 136, 142–145).

17 Levantine textual sources shed little light on smiths at temples. At Ugarit, metalworkers (nskm) are mentioned, though in association with service to the palace and kingdom at large, but not cult (Heltzer 1999: 427).

18 In Mesopotamia, temples also served as social and economic institutions (Robertson 1995), regularly engaging in a wide range of activities and housing numerous workshops for the manufacture of various products (Postgate 1992: 114, 115, 127). Metalsmiths are often listed as members of temple staff, even receiving prebends, as early as the third millennium BCE (ibid.; Potts 1997: 237; cf. Sigrist 1984: 160) and continuing into the first millennium BCE (Zawadzki 1991; Bongenaar 1997: 362; Zawadzki and Jursa 2001; cf. Lambert 1957: 3, 10–11; 1991: 184).

19 At EB IV Ebla (ca. 2400 BCE), the king provided metals (silver, bronze) to smiths of the temple of Hadda at Ḫalab (in one case, to replace an adze; see Archi 2015: 582). In fact, smiths sometimes received metal objects from temple administrators in order to repair them or fashion them into new objects for which there was demand—in other words, they were commissioned for specific projects (Zettler 1990; and see Naʾaman 1981). In Mesopotamia, scrap metal (Akkadian: ḫušû) was valued for its potential to produce goods (CAD H 262). On the recycling of temple metals in the Mycenaean world, see Chadwick 1976: 141–142; Muhly 1992: 18; Smith 1992–1993; Karageorghis and Kassianidou 1999: 184.

20 In Late Bronze Age Anatolia, metalworking was associated with Hittite temples, as suggested for Temple 1 (the Great Temple) in the lower city at Hattuša (Gordin 2010) and recently confirmed at Ortaköy-Šapinuwa (Süel 2017; 2020; cf. Siegelová and Tsumoto 2011: 286).

21 There is an overlap between certain object types (especially jewellery and weapons) that are found in temples and other contexts. Temple inventories and rituals texts from Hatti and Mesopotamia offer detailed insight into how these objects functioned within the temple cult, although further exploration of this point is beyond the scope of this study.

22 It is possible that some of the metalworking remains from within Building 7050 belong to the very last phase of the LB Tel Hazor, immediately prior to the building’s destruction—when it has been argued that activities were no longer monitored by elites (Zuckerman 2007; Yahalom- Mack et al. 2014).

23 Among the divergent cultic trends in Building 7050, the presence of a high percentage of cultic vessels found within the building’s interior is unique. In the Southern Levant, miniature vessels generally appear in open-air and non-monumental cultic spaces, or in exterior spaces associated with monumental temples, but not within monumental architecture itself (contra Building 7050). Further, the presence of large numbers of cooking and storage vessels diverges from other monumental temples, a trend much more common in smaller rural or extramural cultic sites (Susnow, Bechar and Yasur-Landau 2020; Susnow 2021: 166–167; 2022a: 406).